SUO: Re: Monoclonal Antebodies
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Robert,
I enjoy a good parallel worlds story as much as any of my altered egoes,
but I think that a more central and applicable way of thinking about this
is to regard it as a question of diverse descriptions of the same universe,
and this will bring us back to the theory of manifolds, which is what made
it possible for math and physics folks to think about the appropriate maps
between different coordinate charts for different reference frames, and to
start looking out for the proper sorts of invariants that tell of objective
realities.
See my besotted comment:
http://suo.ieee.org/ontology/msg04782.html
Jon
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Robert E. Kent wrote:
>
> ----- 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
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o