SUO: RE: A proposed SUO content outline
Matthew,
In your latest message to me you say that that you take offence at
my claim that we should regard our enterprise as an engineering one rather
than a philosophical one; you also say that we need to bear in mind the
lessons that emerge from 2000 years of philosophy. I now see that rhetoric
may have gotten the better of me at points. I don't mean to denigrate
philosophy. I think it's a great tool for teaching people to think deeply
and clearly, and I'm a big fan of the first-order predicate calculus.
However, I don't see that anything in the core of traditional western
philosophy (the various metaphysical and epistemological theories that have
been offered by Plato, Aristotle, the rationalists, the empiricists, and
even the logical positivists) are relevant to our work here. This isn't
actually very remarkable, since the concerns of philosophers are radically
different from our own. They've been interested in figuring out the true
nature of reality and what we can know about it, while our aim, as I
understand it, is to develop a conceptual schema that will promote
information-sharing and automated reasoning and searching.
If you disagree with me and believe, contrary to what I've argued,
that epistemology and metaphysics are relevant to the SUO, could you please
let us know specifically which conceptual distinctions and/or theoretical
claims from these branches of philosophy we should hold dear in our hearts.
-Ian
> -----Original Message-----
> From: West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK
> [mailto:Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 8:43 AM
> To: 'Ian Niles'; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> Subject: SUO: RE: RE: A proposed SUO content outline
>
>
>
> Dear Ian,
>
> See comments below.
>
> 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/
> http://homepages.rya-online.net/matthew-west
> =============================================
> Also:
> Shell Visiting Professor
> The Keyworth Institute
> The University of Leeds
> http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
> =============================================
>
> > Matthew,
> >
> > Thanks for the clay/vase example - this is very helpful. See my
> > comment below.
> >
> > -Ian
> >
> > > MW: You miss the point. Both a 4D ontology and a 3D ontology
> > > aim to give a
> > > complete conceptualisation of the world (I could argue that a
> > > 4D ontology is
> > > more capable, but that is unimportant for this discussion).
> > > In each ontology
> > > a description can be built up of the world that involves
> > > different objects.
> > > Overall each (say) is able to describe the same world. So it
> > > is not a matter
> > > of the scope being different, it is a matter of how you
> > > describe the world
> > > being different.
> > >
> > > MW: Let me try to explain by how a famous example is
> > > described by the two
> > > approaches.
> > >
> > > MW: There are two lumps of clay that are fashioned into two
> > > parts of a vase.
> > > The two parts of the vase/piece of clay are put together
> to make one
> > > vase/piece of clay (this is the object(s) of interest). The
> > > vase is fired
> > > and then smashed into small pieces.
> > >
> > > Continuant/Occurrant Description
> > >
> > > There is a Continuant Vase Object, a Continuant Piece of Clay
> > > Object, an
> > > Occurrent Vase Life History object, and an Occurrent Piece of
> > > Clay Life
> > > History Object (i.e. 4 different objects and 4
> > > classifications). There are
> > > relations between the life history objects and the continuant
> > > objects to
> > > indicate that one is the life history of the other. There
> > > could also be a
> > > relation that showed that the piece of clay and the vase were
> > > coincident for
> > > both the life history and the continuant.
> > >
> > > The rules of the ontology are that continuants and occurrants
> > > are disjoint,
> > > so you need one of each. The rules are also such that at each
> > > organisational
> > > level (vase, piece of clay) there are separate objects, even
> > > if they are
> > > coincident.
> > >
> > > 4D description
> > >
> > > There is a single 4D object that is the spatio-temporal
> > extent of the
> > > vase/piece of clay. It is a member of the class 4D vase, and
> > > it is a member
> > > of the class 4D piece of clay.
> > >
> > > The rules of the ontology are that if two objects are
> > > coincident, then they
> > > are the same object, because spatio-temporal extent is
> the basis for
> > > identity of individuals.
> > >
> > > MW: What you will see from this is that your ontology
> > > (although in this case
> > > both convey the same information) actually determines what
> > > objects exist,
> > > and also therefore what classes you are interested in. All
> > > four objects in
> > > the continuant/occurrent ontology get merged into one
> object in a 4D
> > > ontology (there are cases where there can be more 4D
> objects than 3D
> > > objects).
> > >
> > > MW: Now I can write down the rules for converting from one
> > > ontology to the
> > > other, but if I try to combine the two I just get nonsense,
> > > because there is
> > > a basic conflict between the ontologies about what objects exist.
> >
> > I guess part of what you are arguing here is that the 4D
> > orientation brings
> > about an overall decrease of theoretical complexity as
> > compared with the
> > conventional 3D way of looking at things.
>
> MW: The main thing I am pointing out is that they are different.
>
> MW: I do think that 4D is a more precise and accurate
> description. I have
> worked with 3D for some 7 or 8 years, so I know what the
> difference is.
>
> > I guess too that I
> > just don't
> > agree.
>
> MW: Shock horror, and your evidence is?
>
> > Although, as you say, the 4D scheme says that there
> > is just one
> > object, viz. the space-time worm, while the 3D scheme says
> > that there are
> > four things and a host of relations among these things, it
> > seems to me that
> > complexity soon creeps into the 4D orientation. For, on this
> > scheme, we are
> > required to have rules for individuating the vase/clay
> > space-time worm from
> > the whole space-time worm that surrounds it
>
> MW: Only if you are interested in it.
>
> > and rules for
> > slicing space-time
> > worms into what are conventionally regarded as stuffs and
> > objects.
>
> MW: But these are space-time worms. They are the ones that
> are members of
> stuff and object classes.
>
> > Without
> > these individuating and slicing rules, we won't be able to
> > talk about these
> > stuffs and objects, and then, well, we won't have much to
> talk about.
>
> MW: It is much simpler than that. You are only interested in
> space-time
> worms that are members of the classes you are interested
> inYou don't need to
> differentiate from the rest, you just ignore it.
>
> > Furthermore, as I've mentioned before, I think as much as
> > possible we should
> > steer clear of questions about what *really* exists.
>
> MW: This is precisely what 4D does. It makes the minimum
> statement necessary
> about existance. It is much less restrictive than 3D.
>
> > As I've
> > repeated (ad
> > nauseum at this point), we're not doing philosophy here;
> > we're constructing
> > an engineering artifact.
>
> MW: I'm beginning to take offence at your repetition of this.
> I have been a
> practicing professional engineer for some 20 years (what is your track
> record on this?), and I can tell you that engineering is not
> about ignoring
> reality when it isn't convenient or your sums don't add up.
> It is about
> applying knowledge, not ignoring it. You seem hell bent on
> ignoring the work
> of the last 2000 years, rather than building on it. I find
> this arrogant
> rather than pragmatic. "Those who ignore history are doomed
> to repeat it".
> In this case if you don't take account of what has been
> learnt over the last
> 2k years, you will fall into many of the traps of those who
> have preceeded
> you, and it will have been unnecessary.
>
> > As long as the ontology permits us
> > to say what we
> > want to say in a formally specified manner and as long as it
> > permits us to
> > substantially ease information-sharing among different
> > automated systems, we
> > will have done our job.
>
> MW: And never mind that it will be nonsense, but well
> specified nonsense.
> >
>
>