RE: SUO: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
>Dear John,
>
>If we get as far as a 4D ontology within the SUO I
>don't see why this perspective should not be supported.
>
>I would like to comment on this.
>
> > 5. I agree with Pat that the per- descriptions are often more prolix
> > than the en- descriptions for many common ways of talking about
> > the world. That is partly because people have developed a large
> > vocabulary of common expressions that would require very extended
> > translations if mapped into the primitives of the per-
> > perspective.
>
>En- descriptions are strongly influenced by language, and the primary
>use of language is to communicate, rather than to store, knowledge.
>Evolution has meant that language has developed to be very efficient
>at communication, i.e. the minimum size of exchange to convey what is
>required. However, this is based on assuming the maximum amount of
>context knowledge on each side. This context knowledge is an essential,
>but usually implicit, part of any communication.
>
>My conjecture is that whilst en- is more efficient for communication,
>per- will turn out to be more appropriate for storage of the whole (what
>is communicated plus the context). This arises from the high level of
>reuse that is achieved from the more context neutral nature of per-
>descriptions.
I largely agree with the conclusion, and wholeheartedly agree with
the point about communication versus storage.
Pat
>Matthew West
>Principal Consultant
>Shell Information Technology International Limited
>Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom
>
>Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
>Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
>Internet: http://www.shell.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> > Sent: 03 September 2001 16:33
> > To: Horn, Graham
> > Cc: 'pat hayes'; West, Matthew R SITI-GREA-UK;
> > standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> > Subject: Re: SUO: Ballot Comment - 3D versus 4D.
> >
> >
> > Pat, Graham, and Matthew,
> >
> > I agree with Pat on the general issues, but I have a somewhat
> > different way of expressing them. As I have said in some previous
> > notes (and my KR book), I prefer Whitehead's 4D representation,
> > which accommodates many different ways of describing physical
> > entities:
> >
> > 1. W's basic physical entities are processes (which he calls
> > actual occasions or actualities). Each such entity has a
> > very short duration (not a zero-lenth instant, but a short
> > interval that depends on granularity).
> >
> > 2. Enduring physical objects are extended processes that are
> > characterized by various "forms of definiteness", such as the
> > geometrical shape of a crystal or the DNA of a plant or animal.
> >
> > 3. You can talk about variations over time or over space by looking
> > at the first derivatives with respect to time coordinates or space
> > coordinates. A slow change has a small continuous derivative,
> > and a so-called discrete change has a very large derivative,
> > which may be considered a discontinuity.
> >
> > 4. For both the en- and per- methods of description, the processes
> > characterized by "forms of definiteness" are important. They are
> > called "physical objects", and they can be described as "changing"
> > through time, if one wants to use that way of talking. But the
> > underlying actual occasions are identical from every viewpoint,
> > and they form the basis for relating one description to another.
> >
> > 5. I agree with Pat that the per- descriptions are often more prolix
> > than the en- descriptions for many common ways of talking about
> > the world. That is partly because people have developed a large
> > vocabulary of common expressions that would require very extended
> > translations if mapped into the primitives of the per-
> > perspective.
> >
> > 6. Whitehead is often criticized for inventing his own
> > highly technical
> > vocabulary, but to a large extent, that criticism misses
> > the point.
> > W. was trying to develop a way of talking that could express
> > the concepts that were significant for both the en- and per-
> > vocabularies. Therefore, he had to coin many new words to express
> > the highly general concepts that were missing from both.
> >
> > For an introduction to Whitehead's point of view, you can start with
> > his 1920 book, _Concept of Nature_, which is available on the web:
> >
> > http://paradigm.soci.brocku.ca/~lward/Whitehead/White1_pref.html
> >
> > His vocabulary in this book isn't as technical, since he was just
> > getting started in developing this point of view. (He had already
> > written his book _Principles of Relativity_, in which he presented
> > his own formalism as an alternative to Einstein's. For all results
> > that were observable at that time, Whitehead's method and Einstein's
> > gave equivalent results, but there are some newer results which
> > agree better with Einstein's version than with Whitehead's. But
> > in any case, W. certainly knew how to represent 4D.)
> >
> > For his later work, see the following books (all available in
> > paperback):
> >
> > Science and the modern world (1925)
> >
> > Process and Reality (1929)
> >
> > Adventueres of Ideas (1933)
> >
> > Modes of Thought (1938)
> >
> > Process and Reality is the most technical, but also the most complete
> > presentation of his ontology. If you find it hard to read,
> > don't worry.
> > That is what happens to most people, including professional
> > philosophers.
> > But the other books are more accessible, and after going back to PR
> > from time to time, you begin to see the need for a level of concepts
> > that can relate the en- and per- terminologies to each other.
> >
> > Whitehead is noted for making statements that are widely quoted out
> > of context -- not incorrectly, but without the underlying
> > philosophical
> > issues he was trying to make. But they still make good
> > reading anyway.
> > Following is a list of some of them:
> >
> >
> > http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Whi
>tehead.html
>
>John Sowa
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes