|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
I think we agree.
Foundation Ontology, as a branch of philosophy based on logical reasoning rather than on empirical methods, covers some of the same ground that the science of physics does.
I do not know that Foundation Ontology subsumes Physics, and I do not know that Physics subsumes Foundation Ontology.
The point of my prior posting was to anchor Foundation Ontology in the perceivable world, that is, in the reality that we become aware of directly through our senses. Physics can use hypothetical constructs and intervening variables in its calculations. Foundation Ontology is not in that business.
In terms of the prior discussion centering on symbol "grounding" and "foundation," I hope the following quote is helpful:
"Synonyms: base, basis, foundation, ground...
These nouns all pertain to what underlies and supports... Base is applied chiefly to material objects... Basis is used in a nonphysical sense... Foundation often stresses firmness of support for something of relative magnitude... Ground is used figuratively in the plural to mean a justifiable reason..."
On Aug 30, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Azamat wrote:
On Aug 29, 2008, at 10:41 PM, James wrote:
Of the three methods of grounding symbols mentioned below,
On Aug 23, 2008, at 6:08 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
That is an accurate description, since it may be desirable that the
terms of an ontology would be grounded in actual entities in the real
world, but there is no way to ensure that any particular version is
On Aug 24, 2008, at 6:38 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
there are three methods of grounding the symbols we use:
1. Direct experience with the referents by perception and action.
2. Indirect connections to experience by associations created by
patterns of words that are more directly grounded.
3. Communication by means of natural languages with other people
whose grounding for the symbols is more direct than ours.