SUO: Re: Physical and Abstract
Phil,
I agree that your criterion is more specific:
> 2. If you are given a physical replica of an abstraction
> at one place and time, can you transmit a signal representing
> the abstraction at the speed of light to another place and
> time where another physical replica, sufficiently similar
> to the original by whatever criteria you choose, can be
> reconstructed?
However, it already uses the word "signal", which already
presupposes all the basic issues.
I completely agree with the following statement:
> This makes clear that the concept of abstraction is inherently
> related to semiotics and theory of representations, etc.
I believe that any proposed upper ontology that does not
take semiotics into account at the uppermost levels is
doomed to failure -- and that includes Cyc, Sumo, and Dolce.
But I think that it is possible to adopt the P vs. A
distinction as one step leading up to semiotics.
You need it, for example, in the type/token distinction.
I like Negroponte's "atoms vs. bits" slogan. However,
the notion of "bit" already presupposes information
theory (at least at Shannon's level, which is a very
watered down notion of one important, but tiny aspect
of semiotics).
John