SUO: RE: Re: Proposed SUO Content Outline
Dear John,
Well my view on this is easily stated. You should allow all the viewpoints
below, and develop what is necessary to map between them.
As I said in a previous note, this principle also applies to other elements
of how we view the world, such as continuent/occurent and 4D. Putting them
all in one pot and stirring, however, is not the answer.
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/
============================================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: 25 February 2001 05:38
> To: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: SUO: Re: Proposed SUO Content Outline
>
>
>
> I agree with Jon's point:
>
> >The problem is not writing the axioms --
> >the problem is drawing the consequences.
>
> But I would add the more difficult problem of trying to decide
> which axioms have consequences that can peacefully coexist with
> the consequences of all the other axioms in the very big SUO
> pot. By the phrase "peacefully coexist", I would include an
> enormous number of related problems:
>
> 1. Do they make the same or somehow reconcilable assumptions?
>
> 2. Among those assumptions are the basic coordinate systems,
> such as spherical for the earth as a whole, but rectangular
> for any reasonably small piece of the earth. (And who
> decides what is reasonable?)
>
> 3. And while we are talking about coordinate systems, should
> we choose the center of the earth as the origin? Or should
> we use the average sea level as the zero point?
>
> 4. But anything relative to the earth is definitely not an
> "inertial coordinate system" in Einstein's terms. Why not
> do everything relative to the sun? Or to the center of
> the Milky Way galaxy? Or to the center of gravity of the
> universe as a whole (as Ernst Mach suggested)?
>
> 5. Or should we state our axioms in a way that is independent
> of any coordinate system whatever?
>
> 6. Or perhaps we should make them easily tailorable to any
> particular coordinate system that is relative to the object
> of interest?
>
> 7. Or maybe all of the above?
>
> John Sowa
>