[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "ONTAC-WG General Discussion" <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 23:41:00 +0200
Message-id: <002f01c61309$e4cafee0$e00a8c0a@homepc>

Please see my comments to your comments. Possibly, the reason of your
 remarks is a lack of proper perusal and not a lack of insight
 into the matter.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 3:57 PM
> Subject: Re: [ontac-forum] Re: The world may fundamentally be inexplicable
>>>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.
>> I looked at this:
>>>SUBSTANCE, substrate, stuff: the class of substances (objects, material 
>>>nonmaterial, spatial or non-spatial, physical or mental, concrete or
>>>Substance, genus, class, kind, a class with a qualification, that which 
>>>the quality, the differentia with respect to a substance, an aggregate of 
>>>the substrate underlying properties
>>>Meanings: essence, substratum, universal, genus, kind, or class, unity, 
>>>matter or
>>>form and shape, object, whole, species, formula, definition
>>>Thing, or entity, that which exists or conceived to exist as a separate 
>>>being, that
>>>which exists in itself, a whole composed of matter and form
>>>Meanings: unit, individual substance, essence, existent, individual, 
>>>subject, actuality, individual; e.g., simple bodies, elementary 
>>>particles, compound
>>>bodies, air, fire, water, and earth, and the concrete wholes, e.g., man, 
>>>the man,
>>>animal, moon, sun, stars, and the physical universe
>>>Matter, the primary substratum of quantities, qualities, properties, and 
>>>of particular things, the whole substance of bodies, the part of 
>>>substance subject
>>>to quantity, a body's potentiality for change
>>>Meanings: substratum, material, individuality, numerical diversity, 
>>>substance, form, body, extension, quantity, mass, aggregate, bulk, heap, 
>>>total, totality, total
>>>Whole: that which holds the parts
>>>Meanings: complete; continuity, limit, unity, union; all, oneness, 
>>>agglomeration, assemblage, amount, body, collection, bulk, entirety, 
>>>integrity, matter, mass, number, quantity, sum, substance, system, thing, 
>>>totality; e.g., a whole class, an individual, quanta
>>>Complete: integrity; excellence; achievement, or attainment.
>>>Definition: that outside which there is no parts of its own nature
>>>Genus, that which signifies quality or relationship with reference to the 
>>>things or
>>>persons related
>>>Meanings: race, generation, mover, matter, or substratum, class, 
>>>Other in genus: in substratum, form or matter, body or soul, essence, 
>>>quantity, relation, action, time, space, state and position, e.g. men, 
>>>plane, solid,
>>>definition, form and matter
>>>Individual: a class of things never predicable of a subject, a thing 
>>>first in
>>>definition, in order of knowledge or in time, a subject of everything 
>>>Meanings: this, the primary substance, the subject, the simple, the 
>>>indivisible, the
>>>individual thing, the point, the atom, the part, the member, the 
>>>particular, the
>>>sensible, the singular, the unit
>> but unfortunately it is much too informally expressed; if we are going to 
>> make headway here we need to use words very carefully; thus you say:
>> an individual [is] a class
Very funny, you missed the whole point, this is Aristotle's ontological
 lexicon, included as part of the whole systems of definitions. Don't push
 me to believe that you never read of him.    (01)

>> For dealing with notions like species, universals vs. instances, etc., 
>> you need to aim for something like the rigor you find here:
>> http://ontology.buffalo.edu/bio/logic_of_classes.pdf
 I also looked at this. The article is irrelevant to the general matter
 discussed. It is narrowed to biological phenomena, which you logically 
 as hierarchies of cellular components, molecular functions and biological
 processes. Natural phenomena, physical, chemical, biological, as well as
 mental and social phenomena, shouldn't be treated as logical classes
 organized by the subsumption relation or the set membership relations.
 They are real (naturally occuring) phenomena and must be ordered at least 
 the part-whole relations and causal relationships; for here lies the core
 knowledge of biological phenomena.
The formal logic of biology, this may be beyond comprehension of biologists, 
 believe. Hardly it will find any demand on the knowledge market.    (02)

>> I have respect for the work you have done -- indeed it was I who 
>> introduced your work to the ONTAC-WG, but now I think you need to make it 
>> more scientific, and more rigorous.
> Thanks, but you are again missing, the USECS is the catalogue of world 
> things, a universal classification. Its mathematical and scientific 
> foundations you will find in the forthcoming book.
>>>Returning to the issue. Let me emphasize some points of UFO missing 
>>>because of misunderstanding or because of not being clear).
>>>First of all, there is the world, reality, the universe, Entity, Thing, 
>>>Being, the sum and totality of things or entities or beings
>> at a time?
Asha: Time surfaces latter, it is not the high level category.
>> or is it four-dimensional?
>>>, aggregated
>> by whom?
Asha: by God or self-aggregated. You may choose.
>>>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.
>>>The notions of substance and relationship look mostly controversial 
>>>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)
>> Regarding your use of 'substance', it still seems to me that you nowhere 
>> clarify whether you mean it in the mass or in the count sense (John is a 
>> substance, water is a substance ...)
>> Thus in the passage above you identify substance and object.
>>>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.
>> Here again you mix mass and count.
 Substance is a mass uncountable entity, while an object is an example of
 substance, a quantified, countable part of substance, as parts, pieces,
 items, units, etc.    (03)

>>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.
> Portions
> Please do not use 'meaning' in this way; bread does not have a meaning; 
> 'bread' has a meaning (this is the confusion of use and mention, as in 
> 'Swimming is healthy and has 8 letters')    (04)

 This is a trivial comment, you had to state like this:
 there are names signifying things (first imposition of words) and there are
 names signifying names (second imposition of words), as in 'Barry is a
 philosopher' and 'Barry is a proper name'.    (05)

>>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.
> So this
>>SUBSTANCE, substrate, stuff: the kinds of substances (objects, material or
>>nonmaterial, spatial or non-spatial, physical or mental, concrete or
> should be corrected.    (06)

 Is the kinds of substance okey?    (07)

>>Crucially, the notion of concrete object combines the concept of bare 
>>substance and form ( intrinsic substantial properties, qualities and 
>>quantities, i.e., substantial states).
> These are very difficult matters.
> Do you mean a concrete object is a sum of bare substance and form?
>>As soon as you constructed the notion of concrete objects,    (08)

 For you i can refer to the standard philosophical definition:
 ''a concrete object consists of bare individual (formless matter, primary
 substance) and form (the collection of properties)'', which i doubt.    (09)

 I am not much interested in notions, concepts; more in the objects
 themselves.    (010)

 Just words. As far as your biological things ordered with respect of the
 subsumption relations, they are all notions and concepts.    (011)

>>often misplaced with things, other specific things come out:
> Since 'thing' is most commonly used to mean object (in the count noun 
> sense of 'object') I think you should be careful to use 'entity' in 
> contexts like this
>    (012)

>conditions, states, cases, qualities of State
> are states and States the same thing?    (013)

 No. States are individual instances of State types.
>>; occurences, events or happenings of Change; and particular ties, 
>>associations, bounds, constraints, couples, links, and bindings of 
>>Relationship (Order).
> Such lists are easy to construct. It is much harder to define the 
> corresponding entities. See
> http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/R46
>>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.
>>Analogically, the Class of State [referring to the special states and 
>>conditions and qualities and quantities] taken in the most general 
>>ontological sense is expressed by a mass name.
> This is too clumsily expressed.
> Do you mean the Class (= class?) is referred to by a mass noun? or the 
> State (= state?)?    (014)

 I wrote thus intentionally, for you to understand that State is viewed as a
 mass entity, the whole class of thing.    (015)

>>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 
> You are not telling me anything new here.
>>Thus the same logic of things
 Trust me, there are other more interesting meanings of logic, except the
 formal one. Namely, as the ontological principles (laws) guiding reasoning
 within a certain real world domain.Then we say 'the logic of events',
 'political logic', 'the logic of actions', etc. This kind of logic you have
 to use in constructing you biomedical ontology.    (016)

> I did not see any logic yet    (017)

 See above why you lost real logic    (018)

>>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).
> not good enough, I'm afraid    (019)

 This is a short digest for a short communication. I 'd like to see your
 formulation of the world in several short sentences better than this. Try.    (020)

>>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.
> Is it not so easy ...    (021)

 For whom?    (022)

>>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.
>>About RELATIONSHIP, 'the Adhesive of the World', its definition and axioms 
>>may be formulated as follows:
>>Def. Relationship is a basic kind of thing relating entity classes [each 
>>having a relationship property (as its role)].
> The definition is circular    (023)

 Give me the better one. Hardly.    (024)

> Also there are, surely, non-basic relationships.
> Also what about relations between entities (instances) rather than between 
> entity classes?    (025)

 They all are here, R = (O, S, C, R)x(O, S, C, R). Replace the entity
 variables in the ordered set of variables with their specific values to get
 all sorts of specific connections: <object 1, object 2>; <property1,
 property2>; <event1, event 2>,...    (026)

>>the existence axiom: relationship exists really by (in or of) itself, over 
>>and above the things connected;
> even when the relata do not exist?
 The wrong question. There are no entities without relationships; so as 
 are no relata without the relationships, and vice versa.
>>>the order axiom, relationship is the principle of order which determines 
>>>the ways all things are arranged or associated;
>> did you ever look at a real logic of order relations?
 Too clumsy. Oily oil. A real logic of relations is an essential part of 
 ontology, as we know now, your meaning of logic is only formal.    (027)

>>the order reversal axiom: every relationship has its inverse counterpart 
>>(opposite or complement);
> 'opposite or complement' is too sloppy for these purposes    (028)

 They are just adjoined.    (029)

>>the instantiation axiom: a particular relation is a generic relationship
>>>holding among particulars;
>> sounds like: a green thing is a blue thingship holding among greens
 Another missing. Try and read again. I help you to get the sense in other
 ''A particular relation is a relationship among instances''.    (030)

>>the comparison axiom: everything is comparable as identical, like or 
>>The definition and axioms define the major species of relation as its 
>>subordinate types, which are:
>>>1. the relationships in space and in time,
>>>2. the relationships of cause and effect;
>> are these not in space and time?
 Causality is a relationship of different change types. It is not under
 temporal and spatial relationships.    (031)

 Moreover, causality determines temporal relations.    (032)

>>3. the relations of parts and the whole;
> and these?    (033)

 The same. See above    (034)

>>>4. the opposite relations of entities;
>> but won't you then be double-counting?
>>>5. the comparative relations of similarities and differences, qualitative 
>>>and quantitative, direct or rhetorical.
> See the formula: R = (O, S, C, R)x(O, S, C, R).
>> what about being_father_of, and similar relations?
 See above and find the substantial relations, relationships among (living)
 substances, parenthood, motherhood, etc, fall under this mode of
>>>As for the preposition to be 'in' and its various senses.
>>>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.
>>>Let me conclude the relational topic with respect to the grammar and 
>>>semantics of natural language.
>>>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
>>>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, 
>>>the part-whole relation verbs ('divide', 'compose', 'categorize', 
>>>the comparison predicates ('compare', 'identify', 'resemble', 'differ');
>>>the verbs of opposition ('oppose', 'contrast', 'contradict');
>>>the verbs indicating causality ('do', 'make', 'determine', 'initiate, 
>>>'effect', 'induce', 'stimulate');
>>>the verbs of spatial relations ('displace', 'transfer', 'place', 
>>>'position', 'locate', 'site', 'direct');
>>>the verbs of temporal relations ('time', 'endure', 'elapse', 'pass', 
>>>'expire', 'precede', 'follow');
>>>the verbs of logical connections ('imply', 'entail', 'infer', 'deduce', 
>>>'follow', 'reason', 'prove', 'think');
>>>the verbs of semantic relationships ('apply', 'denote', 'connote', 'refer 
>>>to', 'designate', 'signify', 'represent', 'stand by', 'symbolize', 
>>>'mean', 'express', ' communicate', indicate', 'depict', 'record').
> Asha:
> I don't here see any comments. Something you liked?
>>>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.
>> See above.
>> I hope the book will not be more than 1000 pages long. This would be bad 
>> marketing.
 In the question/answering system where this content is to be used you will
 not see the pages. Again, don't forget, it is not a biomedical vocabulary,
 but the ordered listing of all basic things in the world. It is just 1000
 pages. As to the book, I think, you seriously need to read it to get the
 real ontological perspective of the world and to organize all your good
 ideas within a single framework ontology.    (035)

 Best wishes
>> With greetings
>> BS
>>>Azamat Abdoullaev
>>>>----- 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 
>     (036)

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    (037)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>