RE: SUO: Re: Ballot Comment
Let me collect the critical bits and dump the rest.
> >MW: Where did I say it is impossible? I am saying something
> >about our current knowledge, not about what is possible.
> Pat has been quite forceful in asserting that we can't come up with a
> single consistent ontology. Some other folks have also
> asserted that we
> shouldn't be working on creating a single ontology. Maybe I
> responded too
> strongly as to your position. One message in which you appear to say
> this(aggreeing with Pat, my emphasis in '*') is
> >From: "West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
> >MW: However, I don't think I would want to argue for a 4D
> view INSTEAD OF a
> >continuant/occurrent view, or a Piercean view (which I take
> to be different
> >again - subject to correction by John). Rather I think we
> should develop
> >each and relate them to each other, rather than the current
> process of
> >trying to merge them into one.
> >MW: Pat said some time ago that it is probably ***not
> possible*** to merge
> >and most of the discussion since has been convincing me he
> is right. Equally
> >people clearly do use different metaphysical paradigms in
> developing various
> >ontologies, and I doubt if that is about to stop, what ever
> we do here, so
> >relating these different paradigms would be a general
> service (and we might
> >learn something).
MW: OK fundamental principles/beliefs first.
1. We live in a world/universe that is what it is. In theory
it is possible to create a model/ontology that mirrors it.
Therefore a single ontology is possible (theoretically).
2. Our knowledge of the world is incomplete. In practice we
have a number of different views of the world that are limited
and each is probably useful for particular purposes.
3. Some of these views are compatible, some are not. E.g. 3D/4D
as above, or wave and particle theories of light.
> > > Let's say that we do fail to
> > > come up with a
> > > single consistent ontology, then we'll wind up with a set,
> > > plus a clear
> > > understanding of what the real incompatibilities are.
> >MW: Yes, but the current merging process transforms as well
> >as incorporates the source material. This can both miss and
> >mask incompatilibities.
> The position I would take however is that the merging process
> is evaluating
> and then correcting any incompatibilities. If there is a specific
> incompatibility in the SUMO proposal (i.e. axioms that allow
> us to deduce
> both P and (not P)) we'd love to have that pointed out.
MW: But you have not incorporated valid alternative views. For example
you have no 4D view of the world in the SUMO. You have selected 3D
and that's it. I don't think you can merge a 4D and 3D view. You can
only have them as alternatives, with perhaps a (partial) mapping in between.
MW: The issue is not so much one of consistency (both P and (not P)) as
- does the ontology reflect how the world/universe is, and over what range
is it a good reflection. 3D and 4D ontologies operate over different,
MW: You could argue that doing this would make them part of one ontology,
and I would agree to some degree. However, I think it is more useful to
see them as different ontologies with mappings, largely for the reasons that
John puts forward.
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538