Re: SUO: Re: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions
Hi Jay,
> Hello, Pierre.
>
> I don't see what 'absolutism' or 'relativism' have to do with a SUO, as in
> your remarks below, although I suppose they might have. Unless you were
> thinking of the Temporal Logic disputes - 3D vs. 4D.
What is the motivation for having a multiplicity of ontologies in your opinion
and what motivates your agnosticism?
> But very well, let us say that a SUO is not, after all, a Standard Upper
> Ontology, but something less comprehensive, as you indicate -- a Standard
> Upper Scientific Ontology. (Or is it to be a Standard Upper Engineering
> Ontology?)
Sorry if I've been sloppy, I didn't mean that. I meant that SUO can be built
based on reliable knowledge and that we don't have to call totalitarian an
attempt at deriving a SUO based on conventional views. This which seems trivial
to me has seemingly scandalized certain.
> What sort of science shall we include? Mathematical physics, common-sense
> physics? Biology? Chemistry? Quantum physics? Economics -- is it a science?
> Psychology -- is it a science?
Yes, those are challenging issues but they are not relevant. I meant for
science to be used in our determination of what there is. I didn't mean that we
should build ontologies of these sciences. (There's a distinction in my
understanding here.) An SUO is domain independent in my view, so it can't
bother doing chemistry for instance. Now if chemistry, classical mechanics and
other speak about endurants, this suggests that endurant is potentially a legit
ULevel category sitting on top of the putative ontologies for these sciences.
I can't address the questions in the 2 paragraph below. They are not relevant
to the SUO (let's say not immediately relevant). I do not relaly understand the
thrid paragraph below, but i assume the objection is removed if the above
clarifies my earlier claim.
> What are the essential common vocabularies of these sciences? What are the
> boundaries of science? Do you know a formal means of indicating them? I
> don't, and I don't believe it exists, but I see great difficulties in trying
> to settle such a question, and I would have to defer to specialists in every
> branch. While it's well known that experts often disagree -- and experts in
> logic disagree about the nature of logic.
>
> One might attempt to formalize some sciences in set theory (a la Suppes,
> e.g.) but I don't know what special vocabulary one could use for all of the
> candidate sciences beyond that particularly specialized language. Using set
> theory only, though, would leave us with a 'simple' ontology of sets (or
> classes?), so that the SUO work, in one sense, might be quickly done. But
> even if such a limited SUO were done in this way, what would be done about
> discovering and resolving disagreements among competing axiomatizations?
> What would have been accomplished, lacking that?
>
> On the other hand, to introduce vocabulary 'directly' is to invite endless
> possibilities of inconsistency (or irresolution), as Cyc, for instance, does
> with CycL. Logically speaking, how is the introduction of specialized
> vocabulary to remain 'neutral' on ontological questions? By a very carefully
> crafted hierarchy of universal hypotheticals? Is that possible or practical,
> or particularly useful? In any event, at some point not far off,
> axiomatizations competing in actual use will have to face existential
> counterclaims.
>
> I think that the way forward is (in part) to create a mechanism for
> registering and recording the ontological possibilities, and for resolving
> differences as they might be discoverable. That, to me, seems to me to be
> the best course toward 'accepting our limitations', which you also
> recommend, and of acknowledging the very practical and actual realities of
> context, viewpoint, and of process and change in our states of knowledge.
I don't see the point of putting in place such heavy machinery, unless the
objective of the participants in this group have changed. Mine haven't.
> I don't object to anyone trying to create a SUO, which is why I voted for
> the SUMO proposal, but I don't expect it to be interestingly useful very
> soon to anyone in the 'real world'.
>
> I am sure that there are many varieties of interesting but incompatible
> SUOs, which is why I voted for the second proposal.
But this is the whole point Jay. How many of them are there, which are the
distinction which generate splits? Are these real distinction or is it mere
obsession with compartimenting? (really, I fear that most of the module as
envisioned by John Sowa and other are just topic oriented Cyc microtheories,
not many will account for genuine alternative) After 2 years, there is no
agenda and no analysis has been carried on with respect to the content of one
or many SUOs, but now comes the time of glory where we will resolve all issues
by creating a registry on the basis of two ontologies... I can hardly contain
my excitement.
Best,
Pierre
> Best,
> Jay
>
> -----
--
Pierre Grenon
IFOMIS Uni Leipzig
Haertelstr. 16-18
04107 Leipzig
http://people.ifomis.uni-leipzig.de/pierre.grenon/
pgrenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de
phone: 49(0)351971672
fax: 49(0)3519716179