SUO: Re: Ontology, Epistemology, and Semiotics (was Lifecycle Integration)
John, what do you think gives theoretical physics a special "nonsocial"
ontological status? And would you distinguish, theoretical physics from,
say, theoretical astronomy or cosmology/cosmogony?
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
To: "Pierre Grenon" <pierre.grenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de>
Cc: "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@att.net>; "SUO"
<standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>; <cg@cs.uah.edu>; "Nicola Guarino"
<guarino@loa-cnr.it>
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 09:35
Subject: SUO: Ontology, Epistemology, and Semiotics (was Lifecycle
Integration)
>
> Pierre,
>
> Every means of communication, including every language,
> every notation, and every means of recording, processing,
> or transmitting information, is a semiotic system.
>
> JS> But I do want to point out that computer systems are
> > nothing more nor less than giant semiotic tools for
> > processing signs that relate to things in the real world.
> >
> PG> These are implementation issues.
>
> Of course they're implementation issues. The difference
> between mathematics and computer science is implementation.
> And so is the difference between formal linguistics and
> the grammars for particular languages. So what? That
> does not in any way diminish their importance or their
> relevance to the SUO project.
>
> JS> And as semiotic systems, there are strong similarities between
> > playing basketball and running a business or between erotic
> > theater and the legal system of laws, legislatures, and courts.
> >
> PG> Sure, nice point for a social ontology.
>
> The only conceivable "nonsocial" ontology is theoretical
> physics. As soon as you get to any kind of application
> (including applied physics and engineering), questions
> of purpose and intention are the primary considerations.
> They are the deciding factors in determining what to
> represent and how to represent it.
>
> One sign of Aristotle's genius is that he did not divorce
> ontology from epistemology. More recent attempts to
> distinguish them have been dismal failures. Such attempts
> are not only worthless for any possible application, but
> they are profoundly misguided as philosophy.
>
> John Sowa
>
>