RE: [xtm-wg] The Nature of Things...

["West, Matthew MR SSI-GREA-UK" <matthew.r.west@is.shell.com>]

Dear Jack,

I do not mean the "framework" I present (mostly other peoples ideas
collected into one place) to be reductionist. I agree fully with you that
the way things are built up is of critical importance. Hence the section
which is about "organisational levels". However, you need to identify the
parts before you can try to explain how they fit together.

I am also aware of other viewpoints, Armstrong's in particular. However, in
general I have found that the approach I have gravitated to is able to
explain other viewponts, rather as general relativity can explain the
Newtonian view of gravity.

I am always open to challenge on specific points. I might learn something.

Regards  
      Matthew
============================================
Matthew West
Operations & Asset Management
Shell Services International
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929 
Mobile: +44 7796 336538
E-mail: Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com
http://www.shellservices.com/
============================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jack Park [mailto:jackpark@verticalnet.com]
> Sent: 23 October 2000 17:44
> To: xtm-wg@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [xtm-wg] The Nature of Things...
> 
> 
> 
> From: Wrightson, Ann <Ann.Wrightson@sweetandmaxwell.co.uk>
> 
> > May I strongly recommend...
> >
> > http://www.pdtsolutions.co.uk/standard/wg10/n307/wg10n307.pdf
> >
> > - as a succinct exposition of some of the basic 
> nature-of-things issues we
> > keep coming back to.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Ann W.
> 
> I have read with great interest the pdf mentioned above.  I 
> would like to
> respond with a suggestion that there exist other points of view on the
> matter of metaphysics, some of which do not, IMHO, get 
> sufficient press
> coverage to keep them out in the collective *minds eye*. I 
> must point out,
> however, that this post, in no sense of the idea, tries to 
> detract from the
> importance of the Matthew West's paper. Indeed, the paper 
> covers a number of
> important issues that were also covered by C.S. Peirce and 
> others.  In fact,
> there has been a class of reasoning systems based on 
> qualitative physics
> that cover, with exception of modal logics, much of the space 
> of issues
> discussed in West's paper. We do have the capability to do 
> this kind of
> modeling.
> 
> In 1954, N. Raschevsky (U. Chicago), one of the inventors of 
> mathematical
> biology, began to wonder *what it's all about*.  He pointed 
> out that we can
> take a living cell apart but we do not know enough about it 
> to put it back
> together.  He began to wonder *what is life?*.  He wrote a 
> paper at that
> time in which he began to invent a new science, *relational 
> biology*.  He
> first posited that graph theory should be enough; he was 
> looking for a way
> to model a canonical living thing.  He was reacting to 
> reductionist thinking
> ;   He never really completed that work, though he later 
> wrote a book about
> extensions to set theory (_Organismic Sets_) that he thought 
> would provide
> the tools.  Raschevsky's student Robert Rosen later 
> discovered category
> theory and posited that to be a sufficient mathematical 
> structure on which
> to build relational biology.  His book _Life Itself_ detailed 
> his thoughts
> on this topic, covering what he called the *modeling relation* -- the
> relationship between the world of actual events and the world 
> of inferences.
> A web site:
> http://views.vcu.edu/complex/
> is devoted to his work.
> 
> Ann W. earlier mentioned the notion of Information Flow, due 
> to Jon Barwise.
> I consider that an insightful idea; information flow is based 
> upon category
> theory.  Recently, Robert Kent has taken that work to an XML 
> dialect he
> calls IFF <Information Flow Framework> (http://www.ontologos.org).
> 
> The thrust of this post is to point out that some scholars 
> are concerned
> that reductionist frameworks may not offer the tools we need 
> to represent
> and discuss the metaphysics of the universe as it really 
> exists.  Is there a
> connection between this notion and the needs of XTM?  I think 
> there is, but
> I also *know* it will not -- perhaps,indeed, should not -- be 
> addressed
> until quite possibly XTM v 3.0 or beyond; I'd like to think 
> we could agree
> to explore such a path in the mean time. Bernard Vatant, 
> others, and I have
> been conducting a kindof discussion along these lines over on 
> the other
> topic maps mailing list and now at Bernard's new 
> quicktopic.com web site.
> Jack
> 
> 
> 
> ==============================================================
> ==============
> This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) and may
> contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If 
> you are not
> the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication 
> is prohibited.
> If you have received this communication in error, please 
> erase all copies
> of the message and its attachments and notify 
> postmaster@verticalnet.com
> immediately.
> ==============================================================
> ==============
> 
> 
> To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com
> 
> To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: 
> xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com
> 

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/4/_/337252/_/972924163/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com