Re: SUO: RE: Discussion Period on Motion by Matthew West
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 09:06:27PM +0100, West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE wrote:
> > > > Morever, data can vary widely with changes among different bases
> > > > or frames of reference, whereas real objects are associated with
> > > > functions that remain invariant through transformations from one
> > > > frame to another, so it is a non-trivial step to relate the data
> > > > to the object.
> > >
> > > MW: You seem to have some idea that there are some "real" objects.
> > > What do you consider these to be?
> >
> > I have no idea what critters lurk in Awbrey's convoluted universe, but
> > for my part: cars, people, universities, symphonies, bicycle
> > races, etc. You disagree? Then too much learning hath made thee mad.
>
> MW: Yes, of course there are such things,
Ah, good news -- sanity prevails!
> > Maybe you are confusing the question of what is real with the question
> > of what the ultimate ontological building blocks of reality
> > are.
>
> MW: I hope not.
>
> > I have no idea what the answer to that question is. And as a
> > knowledge engineer, I couldn't care less.
>
> MW: I just like to know which things are solid, and which bits likely
> to move beneath me.
Ah -- well. Cars/people: solid but likely to move. Universities:
not entirely solid; risk of movement beneath you slim (unless located on
the west coast of California). Symphonies: no movement, no solidity.
Bicycle races: lots of both solidity and movement there, though hard to
see how the race *itself* could move beneath you, it being an object
extended in time and space and all.
Hope that clears things up! ;-)
-chris