SUO: RE: Physical and Abstract
John,
Thanks -- I agree of course that "information" is at the center of this
distinction -- the way I'd state the second criterion would be:
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?
This makes clear that the concept of abstraction is inherently related to
semiotics and theory of representations, etc. However, this statement could
be further tweaked, of course.
Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 7:15 AM
> To: Philip Jackson
> Cc: SUO; cg@cs.uah.edu; Nicola Guarino
> Subject: Re: Physical and Abstract
>
>
> Phil,
>
> Yes. Photons are physical, according to the
> first criterion: you can see them directly
> if they are in the visible range, feel them
> if they are in the infrared range, or detect
> them indirectly by various instruments.
>
> But as I said, the criteria for being abstract
> include not being physical. Therefore, photons
> are eliminated. Then I added some positive
> criteria, such as being able to be transmitted
> at the speed of light.
>
> Negroponte had a good "sound bite" for making
> the distinction: atoms vx. bits. If it's made
> up of atoms, it's physical; if it's made up of
> bits, it's abstract. However, he should have
> generalized the term "atom" to include photons
> and other subatomic particles.
>
> But as I said before, I am not claiming that
> my definition (or Negroponte's) exactly covers
> all the cases that people commonly use in
> ordinary language. That is why I put the caveat
> in my KR book that the labels Physical and Abstract
> are just mnemonic aids for my technical categories
> P and A.
>
> John
> __________________________________________________________________
> __________
>
> > John,
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> >> Besides not being physical (i.e., having negative
> >> answers to the above questions), abstract entities
> >> have affirmative answers to the following questions:
> >>
> >> 1. Can it have physical replicas, embodiments,
> >> instances, encodings, or whatever similar
> >> term you would prefer to use?
> >>
> >> 2. If you are given a physical replica of an abstraction
> >> at one place and time, can you transmit it (the
> >> abstraction, not the replica) 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?
> >
> >
> > The second criteria seems incorrectly worded, since only physical things
> > (i.e. photons) can be transmitted at the speed of light from
> one place to
> > another.
> >
> > Phil Jackson
> >
>
>