RE: SUO: a silly question about the new modular architecture
I'd like to explore the ripple effects of having both a 3d and a 4d module a little bit more.
John Sowa replied (in part):
-------------------
The modular approach would minimize the amount of overlap, so there
would actually be very little recoding that would need to be done.
For example, all the axioms about geometry, space, time, etc.,
could be used unchanged. Axioms for mathematical structures,
physics, engineering, etc., would be unchanged if they used the
4D coordinate system.
-------------------
This seems to be saying that we'd need only one version of the theories for geometry, space, time, mathematical structures, physics, and engineering, and that they would work equally well with either a 3d or 4d module. What is it about these theories that makes them immune to a change between 3d and 4d? What other theories would not be immune and would need two versions? My intuition is that most of the ontology modules would need two versions, as they would be based on either on the 3d or 4d module as a parent theory.
What exactly would be in the 3d and the 4d base modules? Can someone sketch out those two theories for us?
I assume that the lattice of theories would include many other basic choices in addition to the 3d vs. 4d choice. Can we list some of other basic choices that we'll encounter? Won't the combination of all these choices require many versions of each lower theory that is based on them?
I like the idea of the modular theories, but I'm concerned (like Adam) about the ripple effects of multiple choices for base theories.
Thanks,
John Thompson
Boeing