Mike and Bruce
While coming from eastern (indian) philosophy and metaphysics based
preliminary background, I would like to understand one of the three
items above:
(I have to fully read Mike's ISKO paper which is modern, and also
understand in this context Aristotle, Pierce and Sowa, category theory!)
* Monads
* Particulars
* Generals
and for example
I. Firstness [1ns] — these are possibilities or potentials, the basic
forces or qualities that combine together or interact in various ways
to enable the real things we perceive in the world, such as matter,
life and ideas. These are the unrealized building blocks, or elements,
the essences or attributes or possible juxtapositions. They are not
divisible, what Peirce called indecomposables, since they are integral
qualities or ideas in themselves
Regarding - 1ns - matter, life and ideas.
These appear to me to be complex multi level hierarchies. While matter
without life can not have ideas, life and ideas are somewhat
acceptable as cognitive life (most of it is at the life's level to
carry-on life's cycle.), but there are precursors to matter and life,
namely some seed of becoming (desire) or consciousness before matter
and life originate!
II. Also what is the role of Monad, is it like origin in a
multidimensional space, is it affine, Euclidean, Hilbert space, or a
space later defined in terms of sets and groups?
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
MagicJack US 3133935264
India mobile 011 91 96366 58888
On Sun, Mar 7, 2021 at 6:38 AM Mauro Bertani <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Mike,
about what you wrote
On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 at 00:30, <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Then this strip – now defined as containing in general form
everything we know about epistemology and semantics and
hierarchy and abstraction and taxonomy and conceptual
structure – goes through this mysterious “twist” which “closes
the space” and forms this amazing “closed loop” which seems to
contain all of cognitive science within its single boundary.
All elements within that boundary are defined as “intervals” –
bounded ranges with lowest and highest values in some
dimension. By virtue of “the twist”, the entire loop becomes
a single boundary – a single “edge” -- which contains nested
it (bounded within it) within all possible taxonomic
distinctions in their general form. As a single boundary, the
entire structure takes the same form as “the real number line”
– it IS “the continuum” in a closed loop form. When seen in
the flat plane, the “upper ontology” is the unbounded infinite
and the ultimate meaning of “unit”, and the lowest level
approaching infinitesimal differentiation, and the taxonomic
categories we want to position at the bottom of our taxonomic
hierarchy. When we close the loop, the infinite and the
infinitesimal are mapped straight into each other as one
continuous edge – where their differences are only apparent
when viewed in the flat two dimensional perspective. Rotated
through the twist, all the differences disappear and all that
remains is unity. I think this is analogous to the Buddhist
cosmology of “the beginningless universe” – maybe it’s the
same idea. There are books out there on the subject “A
universe from nothing”. I think these are all related.
I made a theory that partly reflects your vision. Very briefly it
is represented by this diagram
structure.png
there is the concept of line and continuum. Let's assume we have a
hierarchical tree with simple concepts and a hierarchical tree
with propositions. We combine these two trees according to the
phrases Subject - Predicate - Object. We get a number. This number
can be related in new subject-predicted-object phrases.. We thus
obtain increasingly complex concepts, represented by increasingly
large numbers, which are arranged on the line according to their
complexity. similar a https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_set
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_set> aand
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeb_graph
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeb_graph> .
I hope this can help you.
Mauro
*From:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> *On Behalf Of *Mike
Bergman
*Sent:* Thursday, March 4, 2021 8:23 PM
*To:* [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [ontolog-forum] Hierarchy, a la Peirce
Hi Bruce,
I am glad this is a line of discourse you want to pursue (and
have pursued since at least 1994 as your link indicates). I'm
happy to engage on any questions or topics; there are many
other Peirce afficiandos on these lists that also have helpful
insights. For now, I only comment on one of your points below:
On 3/4/2021 9:31 AM, [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Wow. I love this. I've been writing on this subject
forever -- saying more or less the same things and citing
the same authors -- e.g., Herbert Simon. I'm going to
print your article, Mike, and take a close look at it.
Back in the early days, I bought every book there was on
Hierarchy. You make basic points in your opening that I’d
say pave the way towards a very powerful general theory of
epistemology.
The basic themes you outline in this article are at the
essence of my notion of “Closed Loop Interval Ontology” –
which is hierarchical exactly as you describe, with the
addition that the framework is defined as a closed loop
interconnecting these “levels” into a single closed
mathematical structure.
My early stuff on this subject is here:
http://originresearch.com <http://originresearch.com>
The trick here seems to be – that this thesis is so
powerful, it becomes combinatorically explosive – heading
towards the fabled “theory of everything” – maybe in
explicit epistemological detail.
Interesting that you say that “natural hierarchies are
real” – which opens the way to some additional complexity
or levels of inclusion. Maybe there is a “hierarchical
relationship” across levels of reality, such that the kind
of practical-real-world “reality” defined by Barry Smith
can be mapped directly into an absolutely abstract model
which I would say is a “science of the artificial”, as
Herbert Simon might have described it. “Does absolute
abstraction exist in nature”?
My own view is that Peirce's universal categories of
Firstness, Secondness, and Thirdness provide this level of
"absolute abstraction [that] exists in nature". I don't know
if you realize that some of your earlier references to Ogden
and Richards <http://originresearch.com/sd/sd4.cfm> were
actually a paraphrase of Peirce's insights. My own research
focus has been on trying to understand the 'mindset' of
Peirce's universal categories, expressed in perhaps a 100
different ways in his writings, that sets a frame of reference
for tackling knowledge representation (epistemological)
questions at virtually any level. Ogden and Richards picked up
on one with respect to meaning, but there are other examples
galore across Peirce's writings.
What Peirce really offers, IMO, is a way to break away from
either-or Cartesian mindsets that always pit issues as
win-lose propositions, and ignore the "fact" that one can both
be a realist and an idealist. By accepting the reality of
absolute chance we are also removing false dichotomies between
determinism and evolution. As with wave-particle duality or
quantum v classic physics, Cartesian thinking is a cultural
and intellectual posture that leaves us stymied and
frustrated. I much prefer the trichotomous view of actuality
bracketed by chance and continuity, the essence of Peirce's
universal categories.
BTW, there is no reason why this viewpoint can not inform the
structure and basis of a top-level (upper) ontology. (One that
I humbly feels offers an integrative framework for ANY
knowledge graph or ontology.) That is exactly the approach we
have taken with our KBpedia <https://kbpedia.org/> knowledge
structure, and its top-level KBpedia Knowledge Ontology
<https://kbpedia.org/docs/kko-upper-structure/> (KKO).
Best, Mike
Fascinating article and project, Mike. A lot to talk about.
Thanks!
- Bruce
Hierarchies — real or artificial — abound to help us
organize our world. A hierarchy places items into a
general order, where more ‘general’ is also more
‘abstract’. The etymology of the word hierarchy is
grounded in notions of religious and social rank. This
article, after a broad historical review, focuses on
knowledge systems, an interloper of the term hierarchy
since at least the 1800s. Hierarchies in knowledge systems
include taxonomies, classification systems, or thesauri in
library and information science, and systems for
representing information and knowledge to computers,
notably ontologies, knowledge graphs, and knowledge
representation languages. Hierarchies are the logical
underpinning of inference and reasoning in these systems,
as well as the scaffolding for classification and
inheritance. Hierarchies in knowledge systems express
subsumption relations that have many flexible variants,
which we can represent algorithmically, and thus
computationally. This article dissects the dimensions of
that variability, leading to a proposed typology of
hierarchies useful to knowledge systems. The article
argues through a perspective informed by Charles Sanders
Peirce that natural hierarchies are real, can be logically
determined, and are the appropriate basis for knowledge
systems. Description logics and semantic language
standards such as RDF or OWL reflect this perspective,
importantly through their open-world logic and
vocabularies for generalized subsumption hierarchies.
Recent research suggests possible mechanisms for the
emergence of natural hierarchies involving the nexus of
chance, evolution, entropy, free energy, and information
theory.
Bruce Schuman
Santa Barbara CA USA
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> /
805-705-9174
www.origin.org <http://www.origin.org> /
www.integralontology.net <http://www.integralontology.net>
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<mailto:[email protected]> On Behalf Of Mike
Bergman
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:57 PM
To: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>;
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Hierarchy, a la Peirce
Hi All,
I am pleased my open-access paper on hierarchy in
knowledge systems, as informed by my understanding of CS
Peirce, has been published by IEKO:
https://www.isko.org/cyclo/hierarchy
<https://www.isko.org/cyclo/hierarchy>. I hope you enjoy!
Thanks, Mike
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source
license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to
subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
<http://ontologforum.org/info/>
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/71e3a755-a102-6c0b-50a8-6fbcc6de2821%40mkbergman.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/71e3a755-a102-6c0b-50a8-6fbcc6de2821%40mkbergman.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source
license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to
subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
<http://ontologforum.org/info/>
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/007701d71217%2472829ff0%245787dfd0%24%40cox.net
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/007701d71217%2472829ff0%245787dfd0%24%40cox.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
"[..] events are primarily linguistic or cognitive in nature. That
is, the world does not really contain events. Rather, events are
the way by which agents classify certain useful and relevant
patterns of change."
Allen and Fergusson
"No, no. /History of Eternity/. At first I wanted to find every
single one of the buyers to apologize because of the book and also
to thank them for what they had done. There is an explanation for
that. If you think of thirty-seven people—those people are real, I
mean every one of them has a face of his own, a family, he lives
on his own particular street. Why, if you sell, say two thousand
copies, it is the same thing as if you had sold nothing at all
because two thousand is too vast—I mean, for the imagination to
grasp. While thirty-seven people—perhaps thirty-seven are too
many, perhaps seventeen would have been better or even seven—but
still thirty-seven are still within the scope of one's imagination."
http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4331/the-art-of-fiction-no-39-jorge-luis-borges
<http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/4331/the-art-of-fiction-no-39-jorge-luis-borges>
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
<http://ontologforum.org/info/>
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAhN2n4ri4HDOeXz1s782B851_vj34ybbxsC8tpC5iqdmb97iA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAhN2n4ri4HDOeXz1s782B851_vj34ybbxsC8tpC5iqdmb97iA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
<http://ontologforum.org/info/>
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5em2xpNwW_Q45_nS2AwSoUMLGBdsa%2BN0gi07J7n1uk5kA%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/CAAN3-5em2xpNwW_Q45_nS2AwSoUMLGBdsa%2BN0gi07J7n1uk5kA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
