Re: Physical Grounding [was Foundation Ontology]

[user2 <jason3@ifn.net>]

Azamat, 

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..." 

 

James

On Aug 30, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Azamat wrote:

Foundation Ontology, as the science of entities (substances, states, changes) and their interrelationships, covers physics, the science of material substances (matter), states (forms, shapes, sizes) and changes (energy) and their interrelationships (interactions).

On Aug 29, 2008, at 10:41 PM, James wrote:

Of the three methods of grounding symbols mentioned below, 

the one most fitting for a Foundation Ontology (FO) is the first.

The first method implies that the physical universe is perceivable 

by humans as functioning organisms. The first method does not 

assume transcendent reality, whatever that might be.

Is there firmer grounding for a Foundation Ontology than in 

the material universe?

What forms of physical substance need be considered 

in a FO other than solid objects, liquids, or gases?

What attributes of objects need be considered other than 

physical attributes such as shape and size?

What attributes of liquids need be considered other than 

physical attributes such as volume?

What attributes of gases need be considered other than 

physical attributes such as density?

What changes in material substance need to be considered 

other than changes in internal constitution or changes in location?

What other than 

    (a) physical substance and 

    (b) change in physical substance 

          needs to be considered in a FO?

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

truly grounded. 

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.