SUO: Re: RE: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions -- "monolithic"?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Cassidy" <pcassidy@bellatlantic.net>
Cc: <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 11:45 AM
Subject: SUO: RE: SUO Ballot with 2 Questions -- "monolithic"?
[snip]
> The term "monolithic" may be interpreted by some to mean
> "having no contradictory assertions", but inasmuch as
> (almost) every commentator seems to agree that any
> Standard Upper Ontology will have to have a provision
> for representing alternative possible worlds (e.g.
> fictional contexts, alternative theories of physics,
> alternative theories of history, etc.), (are there
> dissenters? Perhaps Pierre doesn't agree?) the continued
> use of "monolithic" suggests that the term includes
> ontologies with provisions for possible worlds.
> Rather than get hung up on debates over term definitions,
> I would use the term "polycosmic" to refer to an ontology
> that has a provision for alternative possible worlds,
> and includes some alternative logically contradictory
> theories as applying to alternative possible worlds.
> Whether a polycosmic ontology is *one* ontology or many is
> perhaps merely an issue of terminology, but there are,
> I think, useful distinctions to be made depending on how
> high up in the class hierarchy the contradictory alternatives
> are, and whether they are truly contradictory or merely
> alternative but not inconsistent representations of the same
> world.
[snip]
> Of course, a specialized domain ontology will usually
> be not only "monolithic" but "monocosmic" -- it will have no
> alternative possible worlds.
[snip]
> I think that motion #2 contemplates the kind of polycosmic
> merged ontology, with mappings to other ontologies, that I think
> is needed at the present time. So I hope the motion passes.
______________________________
From Merriam-Webster Online:
cosmos
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek kosmos
Date: 1650
- an orderly harmonious systematic universe;
- a complex orderly self-inclusive system
universe
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole
Date: 1589
- the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated
- a distinct field or province of thought or reality that forms a closed
system or self-inclusive and independent organization
- a set that contains all elements relevant to a particular discussion or
problem
______________________________
The library of modules (theories) envisioned by motion #2 is situated within
the context of a lattice of theories (generalization/specialization
hierarchy) and its correlated structure known as the truth concept lattice.
A library of modules in the IFF is represented by an indexed collection or
diagram of theories (and theory morphisms).
In the IFF the notions of a lattice of theories and a truth concept lattice
are very polycosmic in nature. A model theory is defined as the theory
associated with a model(-theoretic structure); it consists of all
expressions satisfied by that model. Clearly any diagram of theories more
generic than a particular model theory is monocosmic.
However, in the IFF representation for a lattice of theories, there are
possible diagrams of theories where any two theories are either equivalent
or mutually inconsistent. Each of these theories lies at the lowest level in
the lattice of theories strictly above the bottom inconsistent theory
containing all expressions. Such diagrams of theories are very polycosmic.
So it seems that from the metatheoretic standpoint the notion of a
polycosmos is very natural.
Robert E. Kent
rekent@ontologos.org