|
William,
The universe or reality is the greatest unboundeded
but single entity; the sum, totality and aggregation of things diversified
into a multitude of collections of subworlds with their specific
constraints and boundaries; and all governed by the same fundamental laws.
Accordingly, the logic of reality is ultimately one, there can not be many
logics of the things. Although you can allow many personal perspectives, and
particular truths, special things and meanings, the global logic of
reality (what i call UFO) is single universal consistent system relied
on few ontological classes [as an example, see USECS, the lattice of entity
classes].
The crucial fact that the universe (as a whole
and unity) consists of many worlds is the backbone of modern cosmology.
This truth is as old as the following ontological statements:
The
universe consists of many worlds. There is
an infinite number of worlds of different sizes, spaced at different distances
from each other, inhabited or noninhabited. In some worlds there is no Sun and
Moon, in others they are larger than in our world, and in others more numerous.
In some parts there are more worlds, in others fewer; in some parts they are
arising (growing), in others failing (decreasing or destroying by collision with
one another). There are some
worlds devoid of living creatures or plants or
any moisture.
This told with the same great mind who predicted that
all matter is made up of various indivisible elements, atoms, distinguished by
size, shape, and mass.
All good wishes,
Azamat Abdoullaev
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 4:06
PM
Subject: RE: The world may fundamentally
be inexplicable
Azamat,
I think John’s
earlier point in this thread may have gotten obscured in the subsequent
discussion – namely that our best current physical theories cannot rule out
the possibility that the universe as a whole – including all its laws,
implicit hierarchies of being, what have you – may be a fundamentally
arbitrary phenomenon. One of the primary embarrassments of string theory is
its inability to constrain the number of alternative universes that can be
generated from its core premises, and string theory is hardly alone in this
(see Lisa Randal’s recent Warped
Passages)..
Given a plethora of
universes each with its own physical laws, is it so much of a stretch to posit
a plethora of logics? (Think of that moment in Hofstadter’s Goedel, Escher, Bach, where the
“Subjunc-TV” is tuned to a universe in which 13 is not a prime number.) Roger
Brown may have been right after all when he characterized all higher-level
ontologies as “achievements of the imagination”
(“How Shall a Thing be Called?” Psychological Review, 1958, 65,
14-21).
Wit best wishes to
all for a Happy New Year,
Bill
Bill
DeSmedt
Principal Knowledge
Engineer
Concurrent
Technologies Corporation
desmedtw@ctc.com
(814)
269-2761
From:
standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.ORG [mailto:standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.ORG]
On Behalf Of Azamat
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 8:31
AM
To:
brandon@COMP.LEEDS.AC.UK; standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.ORG;
cg@CS.UAH.EDU
Subject: Re:
The world may fundamentally be inexplicable
This is another case of the
peculiarity of the human mind, so gladenning John: if you don't see/follow
something, then it doesn't exist, or 'fundamentally inexplicable', while
this is just accidentally unaccountable, and most depends on the quality
of our theories.
The universe is a deep dark
secret, mysterious and mystifying to human minds. And the fundamental
challenge to the human mind is to provide a universal language that explains
in noncryprical terms how this unbounded environment is made of, what
populates it, how it changes, how its basic constituents related, etc. And
this is all the legal responsibility of real
ontology.
The main reason why Mother-Nature
endowed us, human species, with intelligence is
to Know Ourselves through Knowing
Reality and to Know Reality through Knowing
Ourselves.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006
2:24 PM
Subject: Re: The world may
fundamentally be inexplicable
> On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 13:38
-0500, John F. Sowa wrote:
>
>> Summary: Forget the
elusive search for an ultimate unified
>> ontology because (a) it
might not exist, (b) even if it
>> did exist, it's not likely to be
found for at least another
>> century or so,
>
> Well
it certainly won't be found if nobody even wants to look
> for
it.
> Just because something is very difficult doesn't mean it is
not
> worth trying.
>
> Happy New Year
> Brandon
>
>
> --
>
===============================================================
> Dr
Brandon Bennett
> Division of Artificial Intelligence Tel.:
+44 (0)113 343 1070
> School of Computing (room
9.16) (home) +44 (0)113 274 6920
> University of
Leeds
Fax.: +44 (0)113 343 5468
> Leeds LS2
9JT
E-mail: brandon@comp.leeds.ac.uk
>
United
Kingdom
WWW: http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/brandon/
>
===============================================================
|