[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontac-forum] Re: The world may fundamentally be inexplicable

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 15:33:52 +0200
Message-id: <002b01c612c5$d5e88300$f802960a@az00evbfog6nhh>
Barry,    (01)

I know about your long term commitments to the great cause of ontology and 
highly respect you contribution to the most challenging human enterprise. 
Moreover, to my opinion, you and John Sowa are among main contributers in 
the theoretical field of formal ontology since 1995. But seemingly you both 
had never read ontological researchers made in the USSR Academy of Sciences. 
For example, in 1989 and 1991 years, the Academy issued my two books, where 
there being fornulated the principles of general formal ontology and its 
applications for information technology development, one of them was named 
as ''Introduction into the Information World''. The main thrust of the book 
was that the information society intellectual and knowledge technologies 
can't be constructed without ontological models of the world. It looks we 
need to return to the same issues tried and solved many years ago. So there 
is nothing personal, only  the big wish to advance the Grand Ontology 
business, to which we all here dedicated our best effort, most time and all 
attention.    (02)

Regarding your objections. They are all-well understood and have rational 
grounds. The clear answer to most of them you can found in the USECS PDF 
Document in four easy steps: go to the website (http://www.eis.com.cy), 
download the file, open (it opens with the lattice of entities diagram), and 
choose a type of entity of your interest, Substance or objects; State or 
properties; Process of Change or changes and hapenings; and Relationship or 
specific relations. You don't need to browse all the material, it is too 
much. Just see the introductions, where you may find the explanation and 
description of the nature of entities, their definitions, axioms, and basic 
types, and all existing subtypes and instances. And please note, despite 
like it or not, I try to read all your works and papers, considering them as 
a highly professional approach to the matter.    (03)

Returning to the issue. Let me emphasize some points of UFO missing because 
of misunderstanding or because of not being clear).    (04)

First of all, there is the world, reality, the universe, Entity, Thing, 
Being, the sum and totality of things or entities or beings, aggregated as 
subworlds, groups, collections, and systems of ontological kinds and 
individuals. Next, there are four fundamental classes of Entity (or Thing) 
in which the mind (or intelligent machine) comprehends (or represents and 
reasons over) reality, its basic aspects, features and dynamic entity 
relationships: Substance, State, Change, and Relationship.    (05)

The notions of substance and relationship look mostly controversial 
subjects.    (06)

Substance taken in the most general sense is supposed to mean the whole 
class of substantial thing expressed as a mass noun (please don't miss it 
with the class of thing as a whole expressed by a countable class name of 
concrete objects or living beings). Here are its features.
a) Substance is a mass entity. By its definition,Substance refers to the 
stuff (entity) of which all the objects are composed. The substance mass 
nouns include the names of all material substances: solid substances and 
materials, liquids, gases, and what not. So there are Substances denominated 
by mass nouns (as water, earth, air, fire, etc.), and there are kinds of 
substances or portions of them denominated by count nouns (most may be found 
in the USECS)
b) Examples of the class of substance are indicated by the individual parts 
of a mass as a part, a piece, a portion, a bit, an article, an item, an 
element, an atom, or a drop of some substance. This implies that there is 
the substances and materials in general such as earth, land, wood, glass, 
metal, paper, cloth, water, oil, butter, bread, and there are particular 
meanings of them like as a piece of glass, a paper, a cloth, a part of land, 
etc. Additionally such examples may be expressed by reference to a container 
(a basket, bucket), to a piece of a certain shape of some substance ( a 
stick, strip, slice, sheet, roll, lump, heap, block, blade, etc.), or to a 
measure (a ton, kilo, meter). Thus, a substance (or material) taken in 
general is denoted by a mass name, while one separate unit made of that 
substance denoted by a count noun referring to an object, which is a 
particular substance having mass and occupying space.
Crucially, the notion of concrete object combines the concept of bare 
substance and form ( intrinsic substantial properties, qualities and 
quantities, i.e., substantial states). As soon as you constructed the notion 
of concrete objects, often misplaced with things, other specific things come 
out: conditions, states, cases, qualities of State; occurences, events or 
happenings of Change; and particular ties, associations, bounds, 
constraints, couples, links, and bindings of Relationship (Order). Then may 
follow the ontological statements like as: There are concrete objects in the 
material world; Objects have intrisic properties, parts, occupy some state, 
subject to changes, and stand in various relationships to other objects, 
etc.    (07)

Analogically, the Class of State refering to the special states and 
conditions and qualities and quantities taken in the most general 
ontological sense is expressed by a mass name. It includes two generic 
types: Quality and Quantity. There are many types, examples, and cases of 
State, as well as there is one Change in general, its few types 
(substantial, qualitative, quantitative, dynamic, and relational or 
causality)  and many occurrences (most may be found in the USECS).    (08)

Thus the same logic of things holds with the entity universals, each of 
which is viewed as the whole class of Thing, State, (Process of Change), and 
Relationship. This allow you formally express Reality  as a whole by world 
variable W (the set of all possible world states), its dynamics or change 
via the transformation function F, as in a circular self-mapping equation W 
= F(W). Having the world equation, move to the world's constituents:
1. Substance space (the set of all possible substances) indicated by a 
substantial class variable (O);
2. State space (the set of all possible states represented by a state 
variable (S);
3. Change space (the set of all possible changes) symbolized by variable 
4.Relation space (R), the set of all possible contraints and laws, 
constructed in the simplest binary case as the Cartesion product of the 
entity spaces (O, S, C, R)x(O, S, C, R).
That's it. You thus produce  the formalism for UFO capable to cover the high 
level notions of theoretical sciences and upper ontologies.    (09)

To check. Introduce a system as a collection of matter bounded by other 
objects (note a boundary comes from outside, like in a hole, never from 
inside), its state, change or dynamics in time with {many, one}-{many, one) 
transformation modes, and causal relations or restraints (laws of changes). 
For discrete quantities enter probabily distributions of states P(S), then a 
stochastic process of change can be written by a matrix of change 
probabilities. A system's state space is constructed like this: all the 
values (results) of all possible measurements (or observations) of all the 
system's properties (attributes or dimensions) given at a certain time make 
up its state, while the collection of all possible states of the system make 
up its state space. The number of distinct states constitutes the size of 
the state space, which is its change (or variety in Cybernetics). The state 
of the system (or the values of the properties or attributes) is (are) 
subject to the process of changes spontaneously or under actions of other 
systems. But in the couse of the changes of states, the values are liable to 
restrictions imposed by causal, spatial, temporal relationsips (the laws, 
constraints, of reality). This is the ontological basics of any science, 
theoretical physics or second-order cybernetics or mathematics of dynamic 
systems.    (010)

About RELATIONSHIP, 'the Adhesive of the World', its definition and axioms 
may be formulated as follows:    (011)

Def. Relationship is a basic kind of thing relating entity classes [each 
having a relationship property (as its role)].
Axioms:    (012)

the existence axiom: relationship exists really by (in or of) itself, over 
and above the things connected;    (013)

the order axiom, relationship is the principle of order which determines the 
ways all things are arranged or associated;    (014)

the order reversal axiom: every relationship has its inverse counterpart 
(opposite or complement);    (015)

the instantiation axiom: a particular relation is a generic relationship 
holding among particulars;    (016)

the comparison axiom: everything is comparable as identical, like or unlike.    (017)

The definition and axioms define the major species of relation as its 
subordinate types, which are:    (018)

1. the relationships in space and in time,    (019)

2. the relationships of cause and effect;    (020)

3. the relations of parts and the whole;    (021)

4. the opposite relations of entities;    (022)

5. the comparative relations of similarities and differences, qualitative 
and quantitative, direct or rhetorical.    (023)

As for the preposition to be 'in' and its various senses.    (024)

To see the meaning of any prepositions, it is necessary to refer to the 
relation types mentioned above. For example, the preposition to be 'in' can 
be used in many various senses: 1) the part (species) 'in' the whole 
(genus); 2) the whole (genus) 'in' the parts (species); 3) the form 'in' the 
matter; 4) the action 'in' the agent; 5) by reason, as a result of, 'in' 
fear; 6) for a purpose of, something is 'in' a thing's end; 7) a thing is 
contained, included, or bounded in something else as 'in' a receptacle, 'in' 
time, 'in' space; 8) by means of, 'in' a language; 9) with respect to, 'in' 
skill; 10) according to, 'in' my thinking; 11) possession, to have 'in' him. 
Still this is not all possible meanings, here is also the further senses: to 
be occupied, 'in' search of something, to be made out of, 'in' wood, to be 
wearing, 'in' red, to be surrounded by, 'in' the snow, etc. The same happens 
with its synonyms into, and with a set of antonyms such as beyond, by, from, 
out, past, through, with and with other English prepositions such as after, 
at, before, for, of, to.    (025)

Let me conclude the relational topic with respect to the grammar and 
semantics of natural language.    (026)

There is something essentially defective in the present linguistic verbal 
typologies, like WordNet or RDF schema encoding meaning as a collection of 
sentence triples of subject-verb-object    (027)

They all are missing a set of relative verbs as a separate semantic 
category. It involves the whole gamut of possible relationships among 
different entity forms as signs, constructs, and extra-linguistic things, 
including:    (028)

the part-whole relation verbs ('divide', 'compose', 'categorize', 
'classify');    (029)

the comparison predicates ('compare', 'identify', 'resemble', 'differ');    (030)

the verbs of opposition ('oppose', 'contrast', 'contradict');    (031)

the verbs indicating causality ('do', 'make', 'determine', 'initiate, 
'effect', 'induce', 'stimulate');    (032)

the verbs of spatial relations ('displace', 'transfer', 'place', 'position', 
'locate', 'site', 'direct');    (033)

the verbs of temporal relations ('time', 'endure', 'elapse', 'pass', 'expire', 
'precede', 'follow');    (034)

the verbs of logical connections ('imply', 'entail', 'infer', 'deduce', 
'follow', 'reason', 'prove', 'think');    (035)

the verbs of semantic relationships ('apply', 'denote', 'connote', 'refer 
to', 'designate', 'signify', 'represent', 'stand by', 'symbolize', 'mean', 
'express', ' communicate', indicate', 'depict', 'record').    (036)

Barry, this all and more can be found in the work, ''Standard Ontology For 
Machines and People'', intended to be published as a book. Just ask for more 
information.    (037)

Regards,    (038)

Azamat Abdoullaev    (039)

http://www.eis.com.cy    (040)

> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 5:22 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Re: The world may fundamentally be inexplicable    (041)

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    (042)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>