Actions

Ontolog Forum

Revision as of 16:39, 19 February 2025 by Forum (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Session Track 1
Duration 1 hour
Date/Time 12 Feb 2025 17:00 GMT
9:00am PST/12:00pm EST
5:00pm GMT/6:00pm CET
Convener Gary Berg-Cross

Ontology Summit 2025 Track 1

Agenda

Barry Smith

  • Title: Models, theories and ontologies
  • In the paper https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.01560 Jobst Landgrebe and I outline the beginnings of on ontology of physics and mathematics from a BFO (= commonsensical) perspective. I will sketch how the ontologies of classical and modern physics relate to the ontology of common sense and of mathematics. In brief, classical physics inherits the common-sense view of nature, and uses mathematics to formalise our natural understanding of the causes and effects we observe in time and space when we select subsystems of nature for modelling. But in modern physics, we do not extend the realm of common sense by augmenting our knowledge of what is going on in nature. Rather, we have measurements that we do not understand, so we know nothing about the ontology of what we measure. We help ourselves by using entities from mathematics, which we do understand ontologically.
  • Slides
  • Video Recording
  • YouTube Video

Conference Call Information

Discussion

12:13:00 Ravi Sharma: where does Standard Model of Pareticles fit - descriptive as well as explanatory. It is not Predictive

12:14:38 Ravi Sharma: Systems Engineered are often complex Static as power plants but also like Apollo Program is a system example?

12:19:57 Ravi Sharma: How do you handle most useful aand many non classical areas where these touch quantum aspects?

12:28:43 Ravi Sharma: Higgs was probabilistic prediction and so are BSM particles?

12:32:12 Ravi Sharma: Matter and energy and mix are made of or include each other

12:35:10 Ravi Sharma: often you are describing Positrons and not necessarily always the antiparticles due to assumed symmetries!

12:38:50 Ravi Sharma: the whole math and models conglomerate defies our true understanding of multidimensional space.

12:41:32 Ítalo Oliveira: Very interesting talk! 👏🏻👏🏻

12:42:24 Stephen Powley: Fascinating, thanks. I didn't quite understand about spirals. Could you expand on that please?

12:46:06 ToddSchneider: Barry, do you see any ‘correspondence’ among ‘quasi-particles’ and other entities that may not have a physical manifestation (e.g., in the IOF ‘future artifacts’)?

12:46:21 Greg Sharp: Ontological void: what ontologies do we have about voids? Boundary logic? https://wbricken.com/htmls/01bm/0102bl/0102-logic.html

12:47:13 Alican Tüzün: Great Talk! Do Jobst mean that mathematical entities are not "real"? Or does not have an exact individual, hence not understandable?

12:48:34 ToddSchneider: Where does the notion of ‘scale’ come in? Or ‘emergence’?

12:59:37 Nicola Guarino: What’s the meaning of Barry’s last slide? Is there a message there?

12:59:42 Greg Sharp: Is an ontological model any more "real" than a mathematical entity such as the statistical observations of experiments? Why? If only due to correspondence, then we have to question the "reality" of that correspondence itself, which seems to be only a theoretical abstraction. Just pointing out the potential risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater here.

12:59:56 Mike Bennett: I have questions about hole conduction and frequency

13:00:47 BW: Reacted to Is an ontological mo... with "👍"

13:02:28 George Hurlburt: Graph theory permits tracing paths that relate cause to effect, where state change drives the resolution of decoupled cause and effect in complex systems. Hence, one could argue that there is a mathematics relating to objective measurement in Complex Adaptive System behavior in dynamic organic systems (or any CAS). This values the Network Science and Knowledge graph as a means to describe complex behavior. Indeed, however, this does not extend to quantum mechanics, where elements are observable via limited predictive observation, but not yet physically tangible entities.

13:07:49 Ravi Sharma: Michael Grunninger made a great observation and as Barry also showed, it is hard to do ontology of Quantum phenomena but We are interested in the Products such as mri lASER AND nuclear power etc

13:08:10 Ravi Sharma: these are subject to ontological analysis.

13:11:22 Ravi Sharma: mike bennett yours is a great Q and it is similar to what Michael Grunninger asked.

13:11:49 Mike Bennett: Reacted to "mike bennett yours i..." with 👍

13:13:20 ToddSchneider: So, should BFO have ‘Abstract’ as DOLCE does?

13:13:22 Alican Tüzün: Thank you for the clarification!

13:14:58 BW: But isn't a desk made of molecules which are made of atoms which are subject to quantum description?

13:17:46 janet singer: Reacted to "mike bennett yours i…" with 👍

13:17:48 Stephen Powley: In Systems Engineering, we understand complex systems as being those that have uncertain relationships between cause and effect. I think this lines up quite well with Jobst's explanation.

13:18:06 Mike Bennett: Surely the nature of complex dynamic systems is not that the mathematical don't apply, but that the mathematics of complexity theory demonstrate that the results can be seemingly non-deterministic / sensitive to tiny fluctuations in input conditions.

13:18:21 Alican Tüzün: Replying to "In Systems Engineeri..." Mostly like cybernetic approach

13:18:32 Stephen Powley: Reacted to "Mostly like cybernet..." with 👍

13:19:54 Stephen Powley: Replying to "In Systems Engineeri..." I guess that might be where it originated. Sometimes, Systems Engineers describe their job as being to move system understanding from the complex to the merely complicated domain (in the Cynefin Framework sense).

13:21:11 janet singer: Reacted to "Surely the nature of…" with 👍

13:21:27 janet singer: Reacted to "But isn't a desk mad…" with 👍

13:22:05 dilek yargan: Reacted to "Surely the nature of..." with 👍

13:23:15 Mike Bennett: I should note that hole conduction is nothing to do with quantum. It is a conceptualization of the world that an engineer has to interact with, even if it fails the BNFO test of being real enough.

13:25:42 janet singer: Replying to "In Systems Engineeri…" The ‘uncertainty’ between cause and effect in that definition of complexity can be interpreted as objective and intrinsic or as reflecting a specific state of knowledge

13:25:59 Alican Tüzün: Actually isn't what john is saying correlates with theory updates through the empirical data actively? Would like to know about more of this aspect, however he should answer it of course!

13:26:11 Mike Bennett: Will BFO eventually be able to do all the things that other ontologies could do all along, that were resisted because of realism / not having "concept"?

13:26:32 Stephen Powley: Replying to "In Systems Engineeri..." Yes, I agree. I think it's intended to include both senses, but it's useful to make the distinction, I agree.

13:27:48 Ravi Sharma: Alican - yes

13:28:10 John Sowa: No finite ontology can ever be adequate to represent and reason precisely about everything.

13:28:26 janet singer: Replying to "In Systems Engineeri…" The question is being addressed in the INCOSE complex Systems Working Group subproject examining foundations

13:28:59 John Sowa: Therefore, it's necessary to have an infinitely expandable ontology system.

13:29:00 Stephen Powley: Replying to "In Systems Engineeri..." Oh, I wasn't aware of that. Will have to check it out. Thanks for the tip.

13:29:29 Alican Tüzün: Reacted to "Alican - yes" with 👍

13:29:43 John Sowa: That is the topic of the talk by Arun Majumdar and John Sowa on February 26.

13:29:49 janet singer: Replying to "In Systems Engineeri…" Join the CSWG if you’re interested in contributing

13:29:59 Stephen Powley: Reacted to "Join the CSWG if you..." with 👍

13:30:03 Alican Tüzün: Replying to "That is the topic of..." looking forward to it.

13:30:07 Alican Tüzün: Bye thanks for the talk!

13:30:13 Stephen Powley: Thanks, great session

Resources

Previous Meetings

 Session
ConferenceCall 2025 02 05Track 1
ConferenceCall 2025 01 29Track 1
ConferenceCall 2025 01 22Keynote
... further results

Next Meetings

 Session
ConferenceCall 2025 02 19Track 1
ConferenceCall 2025 02 26Track 2
ConferenceCall 2025 03 05Track 2
... further results
Retrieved from "https://ontologforum.com/index.php?title=ConferenceCall_2025_02_12&oldid=5216"