Physical Grounding [was Foundation Ontology]

[user2 <jason3@ifn.net>]

Of the three methods of grounding symbols mentioned below, 

the one most fitting for a Foundation Ontology (FO) is the first.

The first method implies that the physical universe is perceivable 

by humans as functioning organisms. The first method does not 

assume transcendent reality, whatever that might be.

Is there firmer grounding for a Foundation Ontology than in 

the material universe?

What forms of physical substance need be considered 

in a FO other than solid objects, liquids, or gases?

What attributes of objects need be considered other than 

physical attributes such as shape and size?

What attributes of liquids need be considered other than 

physical attributes such as volume?

What attributes of gases need be considered other than 

physical attributes such as density?

What changes in material substance need to be considered 

other than changes in internal constitution or changes in location?

What other than 

    (a) physical substance and 

    (b) change in physical substance 

          needs to be considered in a FO?

James Nerney

On Aug 23, 2008, at 6:08 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:

That is an accurate description, since it may be desirable that the

terms of an ontology would be grounded in actual entities in the real

world, but there is no way to ensure that any particular version is

truly grounded. 

On Aug 24, 2008, at 6:38 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:

there are three methods of grounding the symbols we use:

 1. Direct experience with the referents by perception and action.

 2. Indirect connections to experience by associations created by

    patterns of words that are more directly grounded.

 3. Communication by means of natural languages with other people

    whose grounding for the symbols is more direct than ours.