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>.
