Dialogue in the crisis of representation : realism and antirealism in the context of the conversation between theologians and quantum physicists in Göttingen 1949-1961

The aim of this study is to analyse the content of the interdisciplinary conversations in Göttingen between 1949 and 1961. The task is to compare models for describing reality presented by quantum physicists and theologians. Descriptions of reality indifferent disciplines are conditioned by the development of the concept of reality in philosophy, physics and theology. Our basic problem is stated in the question: How is it possible for the intramental image to match the external object?Cartesian knowledge presupposes clear and distinct ideas in the mind prior to observation resulting in a true correspondence between the observed object and the cogitative observing subject. The Kantian synthesis between rationalism and empiricism emphasises an extended character of representation. The human mind is not a passive receiver of external information, but is actively construing intramental representations of external reality in the epistemological process. Heidegger's aim was to reach a more primordial mode of understanding reality than what is possible in the Cartesian Subject-Object distinction. In Heidegger's philosophy, ontology as being-in-the-world is prior to knowledge concerning being. Ontology can be grasped only in the totality of being (Dasein), not only as an object of reflection and perception. According to Bohr, quantum mechanics introduces an irreducible loss in representation, which classically understood is a deficiency in knowledge. The conflicting aspects (particle and wave pictures) in our comprehension of physical reality, cannot be completely accommodated into an entire and coherent model of reality. What Bohr rejects is not realism, but the classical Einsteinian version of it. By the use of complementary descriptions, Bohr tries to save a fundamentally realistic position. The fundamental question in Barthian theology is the problem of God as an object of theological discourse. Dialectics is Barth¿s way to express knowledge of God avoiding a speculative theology and a human-centred religious self-consciousness. In Barthian theology, the human capacity for knowledge, independently of revelation, is insufficient to comprehend the being of God. Our knowledge of God is real knowledge in revelation and our words are made to correspond with the divine reality in an analogy of faith. The point of the Bultmannian demythologising programme was to claim the real existence of God beyond our faculties. We cannot simply define God as a human ideal of existence or a focus of values. The theological programme of Bultmann emphasised the notion that we can talk meaningfully of God only insofar as we have existential experience of his intervention. Common to all these twentieth century philosophical, physical and theological positions, is a form of anti-Cartesianism. Consequently, in regard to their epistemology, they can be labelled antirealist. This common insight also made it possible to find a common meeting point between the different disciplines. In this study, the different standpoints from all three areas and the conversations in Göttingen are analysed in the frameworkof realism/antirealism. One of the first tasks in the Göttingen conversations was to analyse the nature of the likeness between the complementary structures inquantum physics introduced by Niels Bohr and the dialectical forms in the Barthian doctrine of God. The reaction against epistemological Cartesianism, metaphysics of substance and deterministic description of reality was the common point of departure for theologians and physicists in the Göttingen discussions. In his complementarity, Bohr anticipated the crossing of traditional epistemic boundaries and the generalisation of epistemological strategies by introducing interpretative procedures across various disciplines.

Ontology-based representation and generation of workflows for micro-task human-machine computation

Doctoral Program in Computer Science

An ontology-based representation of an agent-based controlled robotic cell

Dissertação apresentada na Faculdade de Ciência e Tecnologia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa para a obtenção do grau de Mestre em Engenharia Electrotécnica e de Computadores

Conceptual modelling and ontology: Possibilities and pitfalls

Conceptual modelling is an activity undertaken during information systems development work to build a representation of selected semantics about some real-world domain. Ontological theories have been developed to account for the structure and behavior of the real world in general. In this paper, I discuss why ontological theories can be used to inform conceptual modelling research, practice, and pedagogy. I provide examples from my research to illustrate how a particular ontological theory has enabled me to improve my understanding of certain conceptual modelling practices and grammars. I describe, also, how some colleagues and I have used this theory to generate several counter-intuitive, sometimes surprising predictions about widely advocated conceptual modelling practices - predictions that subsequently were supported in empirical research we undertook. Finally, I discuss several possibilities and pitfalls I perceived to be associated with our using ontological theories to underpin research on conceptual modelling.

The construction of a juridical ontology

The need for the representation of both semantics and common sense and its organization in a lexical database or knowledge base has motivated the development of large projects, such as Wordnets, CYC and Mikrokosmos. Besides the generic bases, another approach is the construction of ontologies for specific domains. Among the advantages of such approach there is the possibility of a greater and more detailed coverage of a specific domain and its terminology. Domain ontologies are important resources in several tasks related to the language processing, especially in those related to information retrieval and extraction in textual bases. Information retrieval or even question and answer systems can benefit from the domain knowledge represented in an ontology. Besides embracing the terminology of the field, the ontology makes the relationships among the terms explicit. Copyright 2007 ACM.

Representation via Probabilities: Models of Probabilistic Modeling

How do probabilistic models represent their targets and how do they allow us to learn about them? The answer to this question depends on a number of details, in particular on the meaning of the probabilities involved. To classify the options, a minimalist conception of representation (Su\'arez 2004) is adopted: Modelers devise substitutes (``sources'') of their targets and investigate them to infer something about the target. Probabilistic models allow us to infer probabilities about the target from probabilities about the source. This leads to a framework in which we can systematically distinguish between different models of probabilistic modeling. I develop a fully Bayesian view of probabilistic modeling, but I argue that, as an alternative, Bayesian degrees of belief about the target may be derived from ontic probabilities about the source. Remarkably, some accounts of ontic probabilities can avoid problems if they are supposed to apply to sources only.

Forms, Foundations, and the Ethos of Foremost: Zen Practice, Epistemology, and Ontology in Reflective Knowledge Organization

In reflecting on the practice of knowledge organization, we tacitly or explicitly root our conceptions of work and its value in some epistemic and ontological foundation. Zen Buddhist philosophy offers a unique set of conceptions vis-à-vis organizing, indexing, and describing documents.When we engage in knowledge organization, we are setting our mind to work with an intention. We intend to make some sort of intervention. We then create a form a realization of an abstraction (like classes or terms) [1], we do this from a foundation of some set of beliefs (epistemology, ontology, and ethics), and because we have to make decisions about what to privilege, we need to decide what is foremost in our minds. We must ask what is the most important thing?Form, foundation, and the ethos of foremost require evoke in our reflection on work number of ethical, epistemic, and ontological concerns that ripple throughout our conceptions of space, “good work”, aesthetics, and moral mandate [2,3]. We reflect on this.

Let's talk: public evaluation of large projects: variational inequialities, bilevel programming and complementarity. a survey

Large projects evaluation rises well known difficulties because -by definition- they modify the current price system; their public evaluation presents additional difficulties because they modify too existing shadow prices without the project. This paper analyzes -first- the basic methodologies applied until late 80s., based on the integration of projects in optimization models or, alternatively, based on iterative procedures with information exchange between two organizational levels. New methodologies applied afterwards are based on variational inequalities, bilevel programming and linear or nonlinear complementarity. Their foundations and different applications related with project evaluation are explored. As a matter of fact, these new tools are closely related among them and can treat more complex cases involving -for example- the reaction of agents to policies or the existence of multiple agents in an environment characterized by common functions representing demands or constraints on polluting emissions.