First, we need to establish the meaning of “illuminated”. Here is what the Oxford English Dictionary states (see: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/illuminated):
Illuminated: (def) Lit with bright lights
If you accept this definition, then there is a distinction between being “lit” and being “illuminated”, as the latter requires “bright lights”. Given “bright” is qualitative, then one first needs to interpret this term quantitatively. For example, one may decide to express “brightness” in terms of “lumens”, or, perhaps, there is a documented standard for “brightness” or a collection of such documents that vary for different countries’ standards of “brightness”.
I would not say that a room (or any material object for that matter) is disposed to be illuminated. Rather a material object is disposed to reflect and absorb various frequencies within the visible light spectrum. Given your example, a lamp has a function to illuminate, which realizes an illumination process. The room is disposed to reflect/absorb visible light in varying amounts and at varying frequencies.
In my opinion, this is an example of where dictionary definitions and Ontology (Realist Ontology) do not mix. To say that something is illuminated easily can be “understood” linguistically, as it paints a particular mental picture where something is brightly lit. However, there is no ontological precision in such a definition. In needs to be reformulated in accordance with ontological realism, and BFO offers a good mechanism for doing so.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BFO Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bfo-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/1cb87a2d-abd0-4282-a3a9-117d595f247en%40googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/3e1001d6dfac%24431e0c60%24c95a2520%24%40gmail.com.
To be clear the disposition is not for a room to be “illuminated”; the disposition is for the room (let’s view it as a material entity at this level of ontological zooming) to reflect/absorb visible light. More specifically, a room’s surfaces are disposed collectively to reflect/absorb visible light. From an ontological perspective there is no meaning in saying a “room is illuminated” without expanding the material entities and processes that engage in some illumination process.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/CAAkf34yLPdCYojx8gfuc0kNksVCfmx-4Ksr0bEABUfM8af8epg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/3ec801d6dfbd%244fab7ce0%24ef0276a0%24%40gmail.com.
Greetings and Happy New Year.
> I don't see that there is a need for illuminated things to have any reflective property, disposition
> or other, nor even be visible in whole or parts as result of illumination (as they may not be reflective)
Agree, which is why I was careful to state that a material object must be disposed to reflect and/or absorb visible light in varying parts of the visible light spectrum. That, for instance, is how we perceive an object’s color. I also agree ontologically that an object is “illuminated” in so much as its brightest is perceived in its trans-ontological 3D/4D (i.e., BFO Continuant/BFO Occurrent) relation to some illumination process.
Here, again, the distinction is that a material object is not disposed to be illuminated; it is disposed to reflect/absorb varying frequencies in the visible light spectrum with some degree of intensity (luminosity?) during the course of its participation in some illumination process.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/CAAkf34x7bt_OWMPMQ4T%3DppYFwF3TsinQuFzd7_TZrrUGZzj9xg%40mail.gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/3f8101d6dfe6%24c0638cb0%24412aa610%24%40gmail.com.
That’s an interesting point, although it may not necessarily impact this discussion for the simple reason that the ontological representation depends upon ontological zooming. Perhaps if you provide more detail regarding the “interaction between a field and a material entity”, there may be a way to represent this finer-grained level of reality using BFO. A similar argument applies, I suppose, for representing reality at the quantum level.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/BF69371B-79B5-43BC-87E7-C329BE02045A%40CUAnschutz.edu.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/40e801d6e069%24ba5e2bd0%242f1a8370%24%40gmail.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/CF2C41D6-EF8F-4A8A-ACA5-74C80B928D4E%40CUAnschutz.edu.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/CAN_82SSa%3DJ%2BcwrYPnLFPYkX70EOgLiK3q-kZY7M8CcuhC02p2w%40mail.gmail.com.
> The problem is that the magnetic field is neither a continuent nor an occurrent.
A magnetic field is a BFO Continuant. Here is how BFO presents Continuant.
Continuant: (elucidation) A continuant is an entity that persists, endures or continues to exist through time while maintaining its identity.
Examples: A human being, a tennis ball, a cave, a region of space, someone’s temperature.
This means you can extend a field from Continuant in a material domain for physics. Granted, Continuant is extremely broad in scope.
Building on Dr. Smith’s comment, you may wish to include BFO Relational Quality in your search for a solution to describing a magnetic fields (or physics domain fields in general). A “field” would extend from Continuant. The Relational Quality would specifically depend upon the two Material Objects participating in the manifestation/enacting of the field (e.g., the gravitational field’s influence on the “attraction” that exists between the apple and earth in your example). Note, with respect to gravity, you may wish to formulate such ontological relations within the context of both Newtonian Physics and General Relativity.
Relational Quality: (def) b is a relational quality = (def.) b is a quality and there exists c and d such that b and c are not identical, & b s-depends on c & b s-depends on d [057-BFO]
EXAMPLES: A marriage bond, an instance of love, an obligation between one person and another.
Notionally, an ontological representation for “gravitational field” within a BFO context would involve the following:
I am not sure how you would tie in the Continuant “physics field type” material domain extension.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/CAN_82SSa%3DJ%2BcwrYPnLFPYkX70EOgLiK3q-kZY7M8CcuhC02p2w%40mail.gmail.com.
Notionally, an ontological representation for “gravitational field” within a BFO context would involve the following:
- Continuant and its material domain “physics field type” extensions
- Material Objects and their material domain extensions of the things with spatial extent involved in the “physics field type”
- Process and its material domain extension(s) that represents the trans-ontological relationship(s) of the Material Objects that specifically depend upon the Material Objects extensions
Barry,
I very much appreciate the effort to “translate” physics into BFO. I have a question about the quality approach: In what continuent does the quality inhere? It seems to me that, e.g. in the case of gravity, it has to be a quality of multiple masses together, not a quality of either one individually.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/C3616FDA-7FBA-4B7D-95CA-2B9139430AF7%40CUAnschutz.edu.
> So, in answer to the OP, it sounds like you think illumination is going to be one of those “physics field
> type” extensions that relationally depends on the light source and the room.
Only if you plan to represent “illumination” in terms of a physical field type. Again, “illumination” is a highly qualitative term, and I am sure you can arrive at better terms in the scientific literature that relate to this qualitative term. Personally, I would not use “illumination” or “illuminated” unless, as described in this thread, you quantify it through something measurable like “lumens”.
> Is there a list somewhere of the “physics field types” that BFO is contemplating?
To be clear I did not suggest that BFO defines any “physics field type”, nor should it. BFO is a formal ontology, which means its universals are agnostic to any material domain. This is why I suggest you extend the BFO Continuant formal ontology universal into a “field” Physics material (a.k.a., ‘domain’) ontology universal and further extend “field” into “magnetic field”, “gravitational field”, etc.
From: bfo-d...@googlegroups.com <bfo-d...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Hunter, Larry
Sent: Friday, January 1, 2021 4:21 PM
To: bfo-d...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bfo-discuss] Illuminated
Notionally, an ontological representation for “gravitational field” within a BFO context would involve the following:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BFO Discuss" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bfo-discuss...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bfo-discuss/36985931-2F40-40FB-A439-7585ADB04A89%40CUAnschutz.edu.