First-order logic is a universal format that has been used to define every digital device of any kind and anything that can be implemented on any digital computer. Furthermore, every logician in the world and everybody who has studied logic knows FOL.

Alex: Let me propose to keep it in a knowledge hub form of framework. Like for ugraph theory here. Today when we have GenAI as an alternative knowledge concentrator we at least know that it is possible to put ALL our theoretical knowledge in one "computer".

No, no, no absolutely NOT! Only a tiny fraction of logicians have ever seen ugraph.

Only until there is a formal translation to and from FOL, we have ZERO evidence that ugraph is precise and reliable. And if anybody can demonstrate that such a translation is possible, then that is a proof that we don't need ugraph. We can continue to use FOL.

But there is also a standard for the superset of FOL called DOL, which is an official standard of the Object Management Group. For a summary of the DOL standard, see slides 8 to 12 of https://jfsowa.com/talks/eswc.pdf . That talk (with a subset of the slides) won the best presentation award at the 2020 European Semantic Web Conference.

For the complete specification of the Distributed Ontology, Modeling, and Specification

Language, see https://www.omg.org/spec/DOL/1.0

And GenAI is notorious for its errors and hallucinations. It is not a good recommendation for anything that requires absolute precision and reliability.

John

From: "Nadin, Mihai" <nadin@utdallas.edu>
Sent: 8/24/24 4:32 PM

Why not?

Just wondering.

Mihai Nadin

Get Outlook for iOSFrom: ontolog-forum@googlegroups.com <ontolog-forum@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Alex Shkotin <alex.shkotin@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2024 3:22:23 AM

Heinrich,

Following "We developed a new theory of time and space" is it possible to read it?

What is the form your theory exists in?

Let me propose to keep it in a knowledge hub form of framework. Like for ugraph theory here.

Today when we have GenAI as an alternative knowledge concentrator we at least know that it is possible to put ALL our theoretical knowledge in one "computer". But this must be done through the formalization of accumulated verified theoretical and technological knowledge, and not through training✈️

Alex

пт, 23 авг. 2024 г. в 16:58, Hei nrich Herre <heinrich.herre@uni-leipzig.de>:

Hallo together,
I know, of course, that my proposal is a bit provocative. I wanted to hint that the onto-axiomatic method allows an access to the understanding of this problem. This problem can be reduced to another problem: Quantum mechanics needs time quants (and space quants), on the other hand, general relativity assumes the continuity of time and space. How these completely different structures can be unified? We developed a new theory of time and space, based the ideas of Franz Brentano, and hopefully these new models allows constructions of new type. I had some years ago contacts to top physicists, they never heard something about Brentano's approach. Sometimes scientists are living an a bubble of conventional standard notions. The onto-axiomatic method provides methods to break such bubbles. We are working on this problem, let us see what we get.
With best wishes
Heirich
Am 22.08.2024 um 22:14 schrieb John F Sowa:
Heinrich and Alex,

The goal Heinrich summarized is the ultimate goal of mathematical physics. But I realize that it is a goal that some of the greatest scientists in the world have been working on for the past century. And I would also like to quote two scientists from the past century:

Einstein: God does not play dice with the universe.

Niels Bohr: Stop telling God what to do.

If Einstein, Bohr, and their colleagues and students couldn't solve the problems. I doubt that Ontolog Forum and the other sites listed on this note will do so

I agree with Alex that a smaller, but still vast project would be somewhat more manageable.

Alex: So let's formalize one or another existing theory. We have this effort in Math like Isabelle, Coq etc. libraries, but not so much in other sciences. Even Mechanics, just Statics, is not fully formalized...

However, Ontolog forum has over a thousand subscribers, and most of them are not mathematical physicists. Even those who do have a good background in math & physics have other work to do, and they won't be able to contribute on a daily basis to any such project.

Therefore, I recommend that somebody who does have the time, funding, and interest in this project should set up a mailing list dedicated to it. Then send a monthly summary of the status to Ontolog Forum and/or other email lists.

John