SUO: RE: RE: RE: On the relevance of EXPRESS, EPISTLE, etc. to SUO -- RE: RE: RE: Some Procedural Suggestions
Dear Phil,
> > > > MW: In EPISTLE we modestly claim that the EPISTLE Core Model can
> > > > represent "life the universe and everything" (well almost).
> > >
> > > PJ: OK, how about the phrase "life, the universe and everything"
> > > as another
> > > "challenge concept"? How would you represent this in EPISTLE?
> >
> > MW: Well I guess the simple answer is "thing" our supreme
> > supertype. That of
> > course is the set of all things, which includes classes and
> > relations and so
> > on.
>
> PJ: OK, I'll accept this answer for "everything" :-)
>
> > MW: If you want "life the universe and everything" from the dawn
> > of time to
> > the end of the universe, then we are talking about that
> spatio-temporal
> > extent that is the whole of space for all time, and that is
> also easy
> > enough.
>
> PJ: It could be interesting and worthwhile in terms of understanding
> limitations and potentials for future development, to explore
> the question
> in terms of the component concepts "life" and "the universe":
>
> How would you represent the concept "Life" in EPISTLE? More
> specifically,
> how would EPISTLE represent the various senses of the word
> "life" that are
> defined, e.g., in WordNet?
MW: Sorry I'm not familiar with WordNet. However, anything that is living is
a spatio-temporal extent (a piece of space time). "Living" is a class that
some pieces of space time are members of, and any of the other senses of
"life" that WordNet has would be treated similarly. In essence it is the
population that defines the meaning, though there is no problem about
backing that up with axioms that apply to members of the class.
>
> Regarding the concept "Universe", for sake of discussion let
> "U" refer to
> "spatio-temporal extent that is the whole of space for all time":
>
> For "whole of space" does EPISTLE consider space to be closed
> or unbounded,
> finite or infinite, discrete or continuous?
MW: The EPISTLE model is agnostic on these matters. Personally I think the
evidence is that it is closed, finite and (ultimately) discrete.
> Same question for
> "all time" --
> E.g. how would EPISTLE represent the concept of a universe
> which did not
> exist before a Big Bang?
MW: That is just one end of the temporal extent.
>
> Does U include the laws of physics, and the "operative
> principles" of events
> in higher level domains like chemistry, biology, etc., or are
> such laws
> considered as separate from U? How are such laws represented
> in EPISTLE?
MW: These are represented separately, but only in a very limited way. Our
primary concern historically has been to provide a sound basis for structure
for data, not the rules that govern things. What we have are classes of
relation. These are relations between classes that indicate how members of
one class relate to members of another.
MW: One of the reasons for being here is to start to move into that area.
>
> If EPISTLE is constrained to 4D, then it seems likely that it cannot
> represent concepts of the universe described by theories that
> require more
> than 4 dimensions, e.g. superstring theories?
MW: Sounds reasonable, but that isn't really what 4D means. In superstring
theory, all the additional dimensions are spatial ones. The key to a 4D
approach is in treating it the same as a spatial dimension.
>
> How would EPISTLE represent the concept of an "alternate
> universe" in which,
> e.g., JFK decided not to go to Dallas in November, 1963?
MW: We have built in the idea that spatio-temporal extents are "possible".
Some of the possible ones are actual, i.e. in the universe we inhabit. Each
possible universe is some spatio-temporal extent. Alternative Universes can
share temporal parts, so JFK's life up to his going or not going to Dallas
cold be shared by two 4D universes (this is much more problematic with a 3D
ontology).
> More
> broadly, how
> would EPISTLE represent the concept of a "multiverse" as
> postulated in the
> "many worlds interpretation" of quantum mechanics?
MW: I am not familiar with this, so either you can deduce how to do it from
what I have already said, or you need to give me a more detailed
description.
>
> How would EPISTLE represent the concept of a universe (or
> multiverse) which
> had different laws of physics than our known universe and the laws of
> physics that we currently accept as well-established?
MW: Universes in which say different laws of physics apply is relatively
easy. This is just some spatio-temporal extent (Universe) and its parts
(spatial and temporal) that are memebrs of appropriate classes whose
memberships are defined by axioms that describe the rules that apply to that
universe.
MW: You can also deal with pure fiction, like the Star Ship Enterprise,
historical novels, detective work, and a range of other issues taking
essentially similar approaches.
>
> [...]
> > > PJ: Can you give us a summary of the limits you currently know
> > > of? (That will save us time finding them :-)
> >
> > MW: I think I have.
>
> PJ: Yes -- thanks very much for your answers!
>
>
Regards
Matthew
============================================
Matthew West
Operations & Asset Management
Shell Services International
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929
Mobile: +44 7796 336538
E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
http://www.shellservices.com/
============================================