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>.
