[Top] [All Lists]

[ontac-forum] FW: quantum logic and the sufficiency of predicate logic

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@xxxxxx>, Tom Bush <tom.l.bush@xxxxxxx>, Robert O'Harrow <oharrowr@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Paul S Prueitt" <psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 20:39:39 -0700
Message-id: <CBEELNOPAHIKDGBGICBGIEIOGOAA.psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

ONTAC community and others,    (01)

communications to me are never private.  This recent discussion in the ONTAC
forum and on the side-lines is a discussion the nature of which the American
people need to see and understand.  There are many who are trying to figure
out how to make this discussion visible.    (02)

Why?  Because these Semantic Interoperability Community of Practice (SICoP)
working groups influence how many millions of dollars, if not Billions, are
spent.  It is worst than that, over the past decade real progress is not
made.    (03)

This absence of progress effects how our science and society advances issues
critical to enhancing human interaction and communication during crisis.  So
obstacles do matter.  This obstacles need to be exposed and understood.  Of
course there is lots of well intending workers.  But something is wrong.
Yes?    (04)

John may say that there is not enough funding for this work to be done
properly, and I agree... that is why we have developed a proposal for a (1.2
B over five years) National Plan to create a science of knowledge systems.    (05)

http://www.bcngroup.org/area2/KSF/nationalProject.htm    (06)

The members of the ONTAC forum can make their own judgment.    (07)

I have developed the awareness, in some of your minds, that there is a
knowledgeable and scholarly community that is held back by this type of
behavior (see below).    (08)

Others have become fishermen or gas station attendants because in spite of
having earned PhDs their work runs up against narrow peer review - of the
type that John is demonstrating. Many were never able to complete the
advanced degrees because their innovations would run contrary to this
fundamentalism.    (09)

see: http://www.ontologystream.com/area2/KSF/KnowledgeScience.htm    (010)

If John wants to debate issues, then let us develop the issues clearly.  But
he is unwilling to do this, even in a separate forum where the attack on me
cannot be made that the people in THIS forum are just too important and too
busy to be bothered by this tyep of analysis of foundational issues.    (011)

I have NOT said that people should NOT use Databases, for example.  What I
have said is that there is an extensive literature that suggests that
computer science has foundational issues that will not let it move beyond
the values that were achieved with the relational database.  The core
practical problem is that a data schema fixes an specific organization to
the data. etc...    (012)

The work that others have done involves data encoding that leaves the schema
to a last minute organization.  But this is not just my work, it is the work
of many others - all of which set on the sidelines as the "intellectual
authorities" play these games.    (013)

I will continue to post into the web log I have developed....    (014)

http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/242.htm    (015)

I thank you all for some excellent conversation, I learned a lot.    (016)

 Paul Prueitt    (017)

-----Original Message-----
From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 7:05 PM
To: Paul S Prueitt
Subject: Re: quantum logic and the sufficiency of predicate logic    (018)

Paul,    (019)

I deleted the cc list from this note.    (020)

> It becomes a religion, John.    (021)

Anything can become a religious argument.
Let's just stick to the facts.    (022)

> ... if one gets side tracked on other issues,
> like the legacy use of the relational database.    (023)

As I said before, there are some points you have
made that I agree with.  But statements like the
above make people think you know nothing about
business data processing.    (024)

People use relational DBs for one simple reason:
they work very well for the applications they have.
Trying to tell people that they shouldn't use an
RDB for the purposes for which they have proved
to be extremely successful just makes you sound
ignorant.    (025)

> "Paul you just do not understand, perhaps you should
> read more of our literature."    (026)

Yes, indeed.  Your statements have not shown any
understanding of logic.  You can make claims to the
contrary, but you have squandered any credibility
you might have had.    (027)

> ... And it should not be so hard to move the discussion
> to explore these issues.  Right?    (028)

Wrong!  The ONTAC forum is addressing other issues, and
your arguments are simply off the wall.  Just look at
Matthew West's remarks.  He had no idea what you were
talking about -- not because he's stupid, but because
your remarks were not relevant to the topic.    (029)

> Paul (Werbos) and I have had many discussions about the
> works of Robert Rosen and the "claimed" adequacy of
> common notions of set theory, and common notions of inference.    (030)

Those are very important issues.  And I have discussed issues
along those lines in forums where they are appropriate.  In my
KR book, for example, I have made the point that for handling
plurals in natural language, mereology is more appropriate than
set theory.    (031)

And the issues in quantum mechanics can be handled in many
different ways, but quantum logic is *not* going to replace
FOL for the purpose of running the world economy in the
foreseeable future.  Nor is mereology going to replace set
theory in running an RDB.  Those are ongoing research topics,
while the people in the ONTAC forum are talking about practical
problems of improving interoperability of their current systems.    (032)

You're not making people want to give you any money.  You
are making yourself sound like a crank and giving them more
ammunition for cutting you off from the list.    (033)

The ONTAC people have important problems to solve.  Instead of
helping them solve their problems, you are trying to distract
them with your agenda.  That won't get you any money, and
they'll just dismiss you.    (034)

John    (035)

Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki: 
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG    (036)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [ontac-forum] FW: quantum logic and the sufficiency of predicate logic, Paul S Prueitt <=