Posts Tagged ‘data commons’

From Logic to Ontology: The limit of “The Semantic Web”



(Some post are written in English and Spanish language) 


From Logic to Ontology: The limit of “The Semantic Web” 


If you read the next posts on this blog: 

Semantic Web

The Semantic Web

What is the Semantic Web, Actually?

The Metaweb: Beyond Weblogs. From the Metaweb to the Semantic Web: A Roadmap

Semantics to the people! ontoworld

What’s next for the Internet

Web 3.0: Update

How the Wikipedia 3.0: The End of Google? article reached 2 million people in 4 days!

Google vs Web 3.0

Google dont like Web 3.0 [sic] Why am I not surprised?

Designing a better Web 3.0 search engine

From semantic Web (3.0) to the WebOS (4.0)

Search By Meaning

A Web That Thinks Like You


The long-promised “semantic” web is starting to take shape

Start-Up Aims for Database to Automate Web Searching

Metaweb: a semantic wiki startup


The Semantic Web, Collective Intelligence and Hyperdata.

Informal logic 

Logical argument

Consistency proof 

Consistency proof and completeness: Gödel’s incompleteness theorems

Computability theory (computer science): The halting problem

Gödel’s incompleteness theorems: Relationship with computability

Non-formal or Inconsistency Logic: LACAN’s LOGIC. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems,

You will realize the internal relationship between them linked from Logic to Ontology.  

I am writing from now on an article about the existence of the semantic web.  

I will prove that it does not exist at all, and that it is impossible to build from machines like computers.  

It does not depend on the software and hardware you use to build it: You cannot do that at all! 

You will notice the internal relations among them, and the connecting thread is the title of this post: “Logic to ontology.”   

I will prove that there is no such construction, which can not be done from the machines, and that does not depend on the hardware or software used.  

More precisely, the limits of the semantic web are not set by the use of machines themselves and biological systems could be used to reach this goal, but as the logic that is being used to construct it does not contemplate the concept of time, since it is purely formal logic and metonymic lacks the metaphor, and that is what Gödel’s theorems remark, the final tautology of each construction or metonymic language (mathematical), which leads to inconsistencies. 

This consistent logic is completely opposite to the logic that makes inconsistent use of time, inherent of human unconscious, but the use of time is built on the lack, not on positive things, it is based on denials and absences, and that is impossible to reflect on a machine because of the perceived lack of the required self-awareness is acquired with the absence.  

The problem is we are trying to build an intelligent system to replace our way of thinking, at least in the information search, but the special nature of human mind is the use of time which lets human beings reach a conclusion, therefore does not exist in the human mind the halting problem or stop of calculation.  

So all efforts faced toward semantic web are doomed to failure a priori if the aim is to extend our human way of thinking into machines, they lack the metaphorical speech, because only a mathematical construction, which will always be tautological and metonymic, and lacks the use of the time that is what leads to the conclusion or “stop”.  

As a demonstration of that, if you suppose it is possible to construct the semantic web, as a language with capabilities similar to human language, which has the use of time, should we face it as a theorem, we can prove it to be false with a counter example, and it is given in the particular case of the Turing machine and “the halting problem”.  

Then as the necessary and sufficient condition for the theorem is not fulfilled, we still have the necessary condition that if a language uses time, it lacks formal logic, the logic used is inconsistent and therefore has no stop problem.

This is a necessary condition for the semantic web, but it is not enough and therefore no machine, whether it is a Turing Machine, a computer or a device as random as a black body related to physics field, can deal with any language other than mathematics language hence it is implied that this language is forced to meet the halting problem, a result of Gödel theorem.   

De la lógica a la ontología: El límite de la “web semántica”  

Si lee los siguientes artículos de este blog: 


Wikipedia 3.0: El fin de Google (traducción Spanish)


Lógica Consistente y completitud: Teoremas de la incompletitud de Gödel (Spanish)

Consistencia lógica (Spanish)

Teoría de la computabilidad. Ciencia de la computación.

Teoremas de la incompletitud de Gödel y teoría de la computación: Problema de la parada 

Lógica inconsistente e incompletitud: LOGICAS LACANIANAS y Teoremas de la incompletitud de Gödel (Spanish)  

Jacques Lacan (Encyclopædia Britannica Online)

Usted puede darse cuenta de las relaciones internas entre ellos, y el hilo conductor es el título de este mismo post: “de la lógica a la ontología”.  

Probaré que no existe en absoluto tal construcción, que no se puede hacer desde las máquinas, y que no depende ni del hardware ni del software utilizado.   

Matizando la cuestión, el límite de la web semántica está dado no por las máquinas y/o sistemas biológicos que se pudieran usar, sino porque la lógica con que se intenta construir carece del uso del tiempo, ya que la lógica formal es puramente metonímica y carece de la metáfora, y eso es lo que marcan los teoremas de Gödel, la tautología final de toda construcción y /o lenguaje metonímico (matemático), que lleva a contradicciones.  

Esta lógica consistente es opuesta a la lógica inconsistente que hace uso del tiempo, propia del insconciente humano, pero el uso del tiempo está construido en base a la falta, no en torno a lo positivo sino en base a negaciones y ausencias, y eso es imposible de reflejar en una máquina porque la percepción de la falta necesita de la conciencia de sí mismo que se adquiere con la ausencia.   

El problema está en que pretendemos construir un sistema inteligente que sustituya nuestro pensamiento, al menos en las búsquedas de información, pero la particularidad de nuestro pensamiento humano es el uso del tiempo el que permite concluir, por eso no existe en la mente humana el problema de la parada o detención del cálculo, o lo que es lo mismo ausencia del momento de concluir.  

Así que todos los esfuerzos encaminados a la web semántica están destinados al fracaso a priori si lo que se pretende es prolongar nuestro pensamiento humano en las máquinas, ellas carecen de discurso metafórico, pues sólo son una construcción matemática, que siempre será tautológica y metonímica, ya que además carece del uso del tiempo que es lo que lleva al corte, la conclusión o la “parada”.  

Como demostración vale la del contraejemplo, o sea que si suponemos que es posible construir la web semántica, como un lenguaje con capacidades similares al lenguaje humano, que tiene el uso del tiempo, entonces si ese es un teorema general, con un solo contraejemplo se viene abajo, y el contraejemplo está dado en el caso particular de la máquina de Turing y el “problema de la parada”.  

Luego no se cumple la condición necesaria y suficiente del teorema, nos queda la condición necesaria que es que si un lenguaje tiene el uso del tiempo, carece de lógica formal, usa la lógica inconsistente y por lo tanto no tiene el problema de la parada”, esa es condición necesaria para la web semántica, pero no suficiente y por ello ninguna máquina, sea de Turing, computador o dispositivo aleatorio como un cuerpo negro en física, puede alcanzar el uso de un lenguaje que no sea el matemático con la paradoja de la parada, consecuencia del teorema de Gödel.

Jacques Lacan (Encyclopædia Britannica Online)

Read Full Post »


Sharing what matters

Jun 7th 2007
From The Economist print edition

Software: A computing maverick hopes to upgrade the web, transforming it from a document collection into a data commons

Belle Mellor

MOST people find it difficult to keep up with Danny Hillis’s imaginative leaps. In the 1980s he dreamt of building intelligent computers and co-founded Thinking Machines, a firm with a mission to make machines “that will be proud of us”, as he used to put it—with tongue only half in cheek. That did not quite happen, but Mr Hillis did, in the process, pioneer the field of massively parallel supercomputing. After a stint at Disney, where he proposed building a theme-park full of free-roaming robot dinosaurs, he turned his attention to building a mechanical clock that will run for 10,000 years, a task that arguably requires genius in its justification as well as its execution. Now this maverick of the technology industry has a new idea that could have a big impact rather sooner than that.

It concerns the web, a creation that, though impressive, is pedestrian compared with what Mr Hillis has in mind. Today’s web allows easy and universal sharing of documents. Before the web, internet users could share documents only by making bilateral arrangements—requesting a document from someone else by e-mail, for example—which incurred transactional “friction”, so that relatively few people did so. The web eliminated that friction. Today it is obvious that this was world-changing, but Mr Hillis still remembers “how hard it was to explain” before it happened.

Déjà vu. The next step, he says, is to let the web do for data what it has already done for documents. Just as there used to be lots of people with interesting but unshared documents, today there are innumerable people and organisations with useful but locked-up databases. These range from topics of life-and-death importance—the World Health Organisation’s data on bird-flu outbreaks, say—to things that are deceptively banal but potentially useful—a foodie’s private spreadsheet listing the best wines at his local restaurants, say. For data to change the world as documents have changed it, the web must again eliminate all friction involved in sharing.

Metaweb Technologies, a firm set up by Mr Hillis and his co-founders, Robert Cook and John Giannandrea, aims to do exactly that with Freebase, a website that sits on top of a new kind of database. The name is not a pun on cocaine but a contraction of “free” and “database”, since the database shares the spirit of Wikipedia, the free and collaborative encyclopedia. (Mr Hillis is on the advisory board of Wikipedia’s parent organisation.) Just as Wikipedia lets people contribute information to its articles, Freebase, which is in a test phase, will let anybody contribute, correct or recombine data. The difference is that information on Wikipedia tends to be “unstructured”—ie, buried in text—whereas on Freebase it will be structured, so that each item can be re-used in any context.

It is an open question whether enough people will contribute their data to generate the momentum of Wikipedia, but Mr Hillis is optimistic. “Most people with data want others to have and use it,” he reckons. A boffin who collects data on butterflies, say, might want to upload it so that others with the same fascination can add their own information. Another researcher might then add data on lizards, and yet others might then combine the data on butterflies and lizards with existing geographical data to create maps or analyse patterns. The fact that users will not know in advance how their data might be used is precisely the point.

This requires a new level of flexibility in the database. When building most databases today, programmers decide in advance what sort of questions users might wish to ask of the data, by defining what are known as the “schema”—the types of records in the database and the relationships between them. Metaweb’s 35 programmers, by contrast, have built a new sort of database, based on a more flexible structure known to programmers as a “graph”, which allows users to contribute and use not just data, but schemas as well. They can, in short, ask any sort of question of the database.

Metaweb is thus very different from commercial database software, such as that made by Oracle, and from Google Base, which might superficially appear similar because it too allows anybody to upload data. Google Base, says Mr Cook, consists of many independent data sets that are stored in a coherent way. This means that many records are duplicates—if several people upload the details of the same digital camera, say—and may even contradict one another. Metaweb, by contrast, reconciles conflicting data and ensures that each object exists only once in the database. But each object can be tied to every other object, so that the resulting web of associations looks rather like the neural networks in a brain.

There is one similarity to Google, however. The search giant’s founders, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, initially concentrated on perfecting a technology (search) that could change the world, without worrying about a business model, which came much later (in the form of advertising). Mr Hillis plans to do the same. For now, he is much too excited about the technology to worry about the money. “Everything else I’ve worked on, if it succeeds, only helps one thing,” he says. “This has the potential to make everything better.”

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: