Re: [PEIRCE-L] Bruce's 'Twisted, Closed Loop'

Mon, 08 Mar 2021 20:16:14 -0800 

Hi Edwina,
Your consistency of viewpoint is a really important contribution to this list and to me. Thanks. 


Because you raised so many good points below, I will weave my commentary 
into the text where relevant:


On 3/8/2021 8:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:


Mike, list


A few further comments on your chapter - which I liked very much - and 
your table.



I was about to comment on 'my' terms for time [present, perfect, 
progressive] vs your terms [present, past, future] but see that you've 
already done that in your notes. My terms come rom the exceptional 
analysis of time by Koichiro Matsuno. The point is, that 3ns is not 
simply functioning in 'the future' but, as laden  with habits, is also 
bringing with it information from the past. But, as its information is 
always general, then, the distinction between past and future is 
irrelevant, and time becomes adaptive or progressive.



I agree about not making specific concepts equivalent with 1ns, 2ns or 
3ns absent a context. In the context of time, 3ns is the future both 
because of its prescissive logic, and it represents the continuous whole 
to which the cosmos is equilibrating. In contrast, for local 
circumstances and objects, the generalizing continuity is towards habit 
acquisition, not necessarily a time construct such as the future. The 
context of the universal categories is absolutely relevant and 
essential. With only three degrees of freedom for any context, arriving 
at an assertion is often not straightforward. I really have come to 
appreciate the discipline and mindset that a triadic viewpoint brings to 
my own thinking. It is kind of addictive. But it is also not always easy 
to noodle. I will again look at Matsuno's information.



My quibble about the spatial definition of 3ns as a 'triangle' is that 
I reject the whole image - such a very common image - of the Peircean 
triad [O-R-I] as a triangle. Such a form nullifies the actual nature 
of the triad as one where the Interpretant is not a mimetic copy of 
the Object but is an action of growth of information.



Yeah, I know, and I acknowledge your view inChap 1 
<https://www.mkbergman.com/publications/akrp/chapter-1.pdf> of my book, 
also available for free PDF download 
<https://www.mkbergman.com/publications/akrp/chapter-1.pdf>. I 
specifically note your views on page 11. Static representations are 
hard; I have come to prefer dynamic presentations. I like a centroid 
when capturing transitions, but I have also seen it misused as an ersatz 
fourth category (Hermann-Pillith and Salthe are two such). I have come 
to think there is no true icon for the universal categories. I like both 
equilateral and 'umbrella spoke-triad' options, but again it is contextual.



I also have a problem with defining 1st as a 'form'. Since it has no 
existentiality 'in itself', then I don't see how it can have a form, 
which to me, at least, involves a 'cell wall' so to speak, a specific 
image.  And of course, I reject the notion that 1ns involves ideas 
since an idea involves Mind.  I prefer to consider Ideas as an 
abductive property and define abduction as functioning within the 
categorical mode of 3-2... Thirdness operating within physical 
connections; that is, Mind connectinn to multiple local informational 
data - and - coming up thereby, with a hypothesis to explain/organize 
this data.



I agree with your questions about 'form'. I too am not comfortable with 
its current placement. Three others, close to the root of the root, that 
also give me a great deal of difficulty are 'space', 'time', and 'light' 
(photons). I tend to view 'light' at the actual transition between 1ns 
and 2ns, with both 'time' and 'space' following in 2ns thereafter. This 
current working view is based on my applying prescissive logic to these 
concepts, still fraught with deep and cosmic (metaphysical?) 
assumptions. I would truly love to hear your detailed thoughts on these 
three concepts. Actually, I would truly love to hear anyone's thoughts 
on these concepts.


Thanks, Mike


All in all - a great chapter. Thanks for letting us read it.

Edwina



On Mon 08/03/21 4:35 PM , Edwina Taborsky [email protected] sent:

    Mike, list

    Yes - I'm a strong supporter of the open dynamism of Peirce - cf
    also Philip Rose's 'emergent evolution' and the notion of the
    growth of information within the triadic process, where the
    interpretant is in an asymmetrical relationship to the object.
    This process can account for the growth of complexity and
    diversity within the universe - a growth which is never random but
    adaptive and thus, a process of Mind.

    Edwina



    On Mon 08/03/21 3:39 PM , Mike Bergman [email protected] sent:

        Hi Bruce, Mauro,

        As promised, I have split some of the earlier hierarchy paper
        commentary with this one focusing on your ideas to date.

        First, Mauro, Bruce was the author of the comment that
        prompted your response, so thanks, Bruce, for responding. And,
        Bruce, thanks for spending considerable time putting forth
        your ideas around a mandela-strip twisted into a closed loop.
        I am interested in learning more and I will try to keep some
        of these concepts in mind. I see the regularity and continuity
        in your thinking. However, I think there are some Peircean
        viewpoints (and my own!) where, if I understand your ideas
        correctly, I may see or interpret things a bit differently.

        First, I very much like the dynamism of Peirce's semeiosis.
        Basically, he postulates a continuous process of sign-making
        and -representing: signs building upon signs and leading to
        more signs and more representation. In this dynamic process,
        subsequent iterations approach a bit more closely the 'truth'
        of the dynamic object of the sign, with the modes and
        acceptances of the evolving representations ultimately a
        social process of sign and terminology consensus. In this
        manner, then, rather than seeing the integral, closed mandela
        circle, I see something as evolving dynamically over time. I
        also believe knowledge needs to be treated in an open-world
        manner
        
<https://www.mkbergman.com/wp-content/themes/ai3v2/files/2009Posts/the-open-world-assumption-elephant-in-the-room.pdf>.
        In line with Peirce's strong beliefs in phenomenology, I would
        envision something more akin to this representation of an
        electromagnetic wave:

        Electromagnetic wave

        It kind of approaches the look of the mandela if one looks
        down the trajectory (propagation) of the wave, like looking
        down the barrel of a gun. 😉 This is probably way off from
        what you where thinking, but does capture my sense for the
        need of dynamism.

        Second, Peirce's acceptance and then advocacy for 'absolute
        chance' prevents absolute regularity or complete reductionism.
        Variablity is the bogey in this scenario, and is the driver
        for evolution, one source of the dynamism noted above. At the
        miniscule scale, we encounter quanta, but not apparently at
        larger scales of space or time. It is not clear to me how
        chance fits in to your 'strip' concept.

        Third, from a visualization standpoint, I have seen these
        figures of spinning triangles around a centroid (the classic
        three-body problem), as the triangle sides are varied in
        length. It is mesmerizing, and there are patterns (such as
        reflected in fractals or cellular automata) where one can see
        self-organization emerge or perhaps new structures that
        represent new hierarchical levels. I know it is pretty
        abstract, but this figure is something I refer to on occasion
        when I want a more dynamic feel of how a Peircean basis to
        'seeing' the world may work out:

        Three-body illustration

        As I suggest in the hierarchy paper
        <https://www.isko.org/cyclo/hierarchy>, new levels in natural
        hierarchies may arise because new organizations of growing
        numbers of current structures may better dissipate available
        free energy than continuing to do "more of the same". Chance
        in 1ns is what supplies this variation.

        Mauro's thoughts on 'line and continuum' I think might also be
        productively related to Peirce's writing on infinitesimals.
        Peirce thought deeply about Zeno and the basis for lines and
        continuity. I've dabbled a bit, but am by no means a
        mathematician. An OK starting place is Google Scholar:

        https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=peirce+infinitesimals

        and then look for the listings with PDFs that you may read.


        Hope this is helpful, Bruce. I'm glad you have found some
        stimulation to share your work.

        Best, Mike


        On 3/7/2021 8:02 PM, [email protected] wrote:


        Mauro – I like this model you suggest, and the links you
        point to.

        I want to find a single closed algebraic form from which I
        can derive all semantic structure – and my guess is, that
        process will probably look like the kind of graph you drew.
        Or include those kinds of elements.

        I want to derive all the basic kinds of mathematical and
        semantic analysis from a common “code base” – a common
        underlying/fundamental partition from which/though which all
        coded distinctions and compositional structures can be
        derived, or from which they can be constructed – and on the
        basis of which, all mathematical computation can flow.

        Speaking of lexicographical order, an important theme is that
        it is about ”total order” – not “partial order”.

        So – an instinctive guiding principles is

        Create a generalized extremely simple master form that is in
        “absolute order” – everything “100% linear in every
        dimension” – and show how this form contains everything in
        general terms  – and then show how it also contains along the
        way all conceivable “partially ordered” structures.

        I’m not sure if something like this is what Mike is talking
        about when he says

        Hierarchies in knowledge systems express subsumption
        relations that have many flexible variants, which we can
        represent algorithmically, and thus computationally.

        “Subsumption relations with many flexible variants”

        So this seems exciting: nest all partial orders within
        absolute order.

        We need to understand “the whole” in a 100% ordered way – an
        example of “the whole” perhaps being something like “the
        human body” (Leonardo’s “Vitruvian Man”) or maybe the global
        ecology/economy.

        Define “absolute order” over something that complex, maybe
        around the concept of “homeostasis” – the governing principle
        that keeps the interdependent moving parts in balance.

        So, in this case “absolute order” does not mean “top-down
        fascist authoritarianism” or ramrod do-it-my-way
        dictatorship. It means “Governance OF the Whole BY the
        Whole.”  Idealized global democracy in balance, replicated at
        all levels of scale.

        Mauro, I need to give your interesting idea more thought.

        - Bruce

        Hierarchical Cantor set in absolute linear order

        Bruce Schuman

        Santa Barbara CA USA

        [email protected] <javascript:top.opencompose(> / 805-705-9174

        www.origin.org <http://www.origin.org/> /
        www.integralontology.net <http://www.integralontology.net>

        From: [email protected] On Behalf Of Mauro Bertani
        Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2021 6:38 AM
        To: [email protected]
        Cc: [email protected]
        Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Hierarchy, a la Peirce - reply
        to Mike

        Hi Mike,

        about what you wrote

        On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 at 00:30, <[email protected]
        <javascript:top.opencompose('[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

        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]
            
<javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','')>
            <[email protected]
            
<javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','')>>
            On Behalf Of Mike Bergman
            Sent: Thursday, March 4, 2021 8:23 PM
            To: [email protected]
            
<javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','')>;
            [email protected]
            <javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','')>;
            [email protected]
            <javascript:top.opencompose('[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]
            <javascript:top.opencompose('[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]
                <javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','')>
                / 805-705-9174

                www.origin.org <http://www.origin.org> /
                www.integralontology.net
                <http://www.integralontology.net>

                -----Original Message-----
                From: [email protected]
                
<javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','')>
                
<javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','')>
                On Behalf Of Mike Bergman
                Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:57 PM
                To: [email protected]
                
<javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','')>;
                [email protected]
                
<javascript:top.opencompose('[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]
            
<javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','')>.
            To view this discussion on the web visit
            
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/[email protected]
            
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/[email protected]?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]
            
<javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','')>.
            To view this discussion on the web visit
            
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/007701d71217%2472829ff0%[email protected]
            
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/007701d71217%2472829ff0%[email protected]?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]
        <javascript:top.opencompose(>.
        To view this discussion on the web visit
        
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/caahn2n4ri4hdoexz1s782b851_vj34ybbxsc8tpc5iqdmb9...@mail.gmail.com
        
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/caahn2n4ri4hdoexz1s782b851_vj34ybbxsc8tpc5iqdmb9...@mail.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]
        <javascript:top.opencompose(>.
        To view this discussion on the web visit
        
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/00d501d713bf%240d0a7770%[email protected]
        
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/00d501d713bf%240d0a7770%[email protected]?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.



        -- 
        __________________________________________


        Michael K. Bergman
        Cognonto Corporation
        319.621.5225
        skype:michaelkbergman
        http://cognonto.com
        http://mkbergman.com
        http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
        __________________________________________




--
__________________________________________

Michael K. Bergman
Cognonto Corporation
319.621.5225
skype:michaelkbergman
http://cognonto.com
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________


_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] 
with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of 
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP;  moderated by Gary Richmond;  and 
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.






















					Reply via email to