Re: Major revision to my Top-Level Ontology
Addendum: Some further revisions since yesterday... I was almost there yesterday but not quite. The last of my confusions have cleared. The final revision for my top-level onotlogy is completely 'locked in'. Added brief descriptions of top-level classes: http://marc.geddes.googlepages.com/MCRT_ClassDiagram.html The important point is that there appear to be 27 fundamental ontological primatives for reality which cannot be simplified or merged any further. These 27 primatives generate 27 irreducible classes for any completely general model of reality. And the classes appear to be related to each other in a very precise way. Below I give the brief descriptions of what I believe these classes to be and the domain model (see link below) hints at the precise nature of the relationship I think I may have discovered. I now believe I understand literally 'everything' (in the general conceptual sense at least). Of course the devils is in the details and decades may pass before a precise new scientific theory emerges. Be patient whilst I write up more information about my theory, since I've revealed very little so far. But I'm very very very confident but I've hit the metaphorical bullseye at the center of literally everything. The 27 fundamental irreducible classes are as follows: Field Physics: Laws of space and time Thermodynamics: Laws of energy exchange Mechanics: Laws of the action of forces Computational Physics: Physical systems Chemistry: Physical transformations Robotics: Directed physical actions Solid State Physics: Properties of static concrete objects Engineering: Properties of static complex structures Data Communications: Properties of communication hardware and information theory Virtue: Ideals for personal goals or the study or Eudaimonia (Self Fulfillment) Morality: Ideals for social interaction or the study of Liberty Aesthetics: Ideals for communication or the study of Beauty Social Psychology: Roles and Personas of agents Decision Theory: The process of agent decision making Communication: Agent interaction for the exchange of meaningful inforamtion Economics: Goods and Services Memetics: Cultural Beliefs Linguistics: Social Languages Symbolic Logic: Formal systems and Mathematical foundations Category Theory: Numbers and Algebra Calculus: Analysis: Limits and Rates of Change Theory Of Computation: Formal Proof Theory and Deductive Reasoning Bayesian Induction: Probability Theory and Inductive Reasoning Reflective Possibility Theory: Reflective Reasoning Software: Computer Programs and Applications Software Engineering: Design, Analysis and Implementation of software Modelling Languages: Scientific/Programming languages for data modelling --- Annotation in my Log-Book reads: Date: 06 August, 2007 Time: 4.45pm Place: 'Gloria Jean's Coffee', Borders, Queen Street, Auckland,New Zealand Note: At this time I completed the top-level MCRT Ontology. At the conceptual level this is the day I finally understood everything! About 5 years have passed since I first started trying for the top- level ontology of reality. (Date Started: Mid 2002. Date Finished: Aug, 2007). --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Message to swedish language members.
This is a message to the swedish language members of the Everything List: Efersom jag har svårt att uttrycka det jag vill säga på engelska, så har jag nu startat en svenskspråkig sublista till Everything List, som jag har kallat Allting List. Du hittar den nya listan på: http://groups.google.com/group/allting-list?hl=sv . Gå gärna med i den listan, och hjälp mej förklara universum. Jag har redan lagt in 11 (korta) inlägg i denna lista, som en startpunkt för diskussionerna. Resultaten som vi kommer fram till i sublistan ska sedan överföras till den övergripande Everything List. -- Torgny Tholerus --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7
Colin and all: it was a shock to receive your post (below). First I have to copy it out and restore the text to some readability from all those haphazardous lines. Then I have to restore my thinking into those lines of the topic - right recently 'destroyed' by a list inuindating me with 100+ posts daily mostly with political hogwash, but many of them with interesting multitopical content. I hope to return to sanity. Then I will try to respond - if I feel I can - which will require an other aberration from the ubiquitous 'sanity' into the ideas of this list. This is something like being 'normal' as we discussed it with George Levy a year or so ago. Sane (normal) is average and usual. If the majority is insane, that is the normal sanity (oops I fell back into politics). So let me renormalize (not in theor. physical ways) and please, accept my reply kindly - after some time. Happy birthday John Mikes - Original Message - From: Colin Geoffrey Hales To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:59 PM Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7 sorry about all the posts. something weird going on. see below.. See below, please John - Original Message - From: Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7 Addition to my lost and found 1st post in this topic to Marc: I wonder how would you define besides 'universe' and 'computer' the IS ? * I agree that 'existence' is more than a definitional question. Any suggestion yet of an (insufficient?) definition? (Not Descartes' s I think therefore I think I am and so on) John There's only 1 thing which is intrinsic to the idea of 'being' that I can think of: Regardless of the scale (choices = quark, atom, human, planet, galaxy), if you are to 'be' whatever it is that comprises that which you are 'being', you automatically define a perspective on the rest of the universe. It does not mean that perspective is visible, only that the perspective is innate to the situation. SoI am made of one little chunk of the universe, you another and so on. My chunk is not your chunk and vice versa. If I am an atom then I get a view of the rest of the universe (that is expressing an un-atom). The rest of the universe has a perspective view of the atom. This division of 'thing' and 'un-thing' within the universe is implicit to the situation. The division is notional from an epistemological stand point, where we 'objectify' to describe. That does not alter the 'reality' of the innate perspective 'view' involved with 'being' the described. make sense? Colin JM: maybe, not to my understanding; I separated the 'existence' from the 'IS, in which of course an 'identity' - at least similarity is involved originally. May I paraphrase your explanation: I am - 'made of a chunk of something called universe, - whatever I call so - and the 'rest of the world' is made of chunks of something different. Not too explanatory. Of course it disregards my question and starts with an implied if I exist... what the question really was. Not only I, but 'ANYTHING'. I was driving towards the difference between 'be' amd 'become' - the first a snapshot stationalized, the 2nd in an ever changing process. So: what is existence'? John To exist is to be a chunk of our universe. Why is there a universe? I can manufacture a universe out of randomness of any sort. The randomness is a sea of monkeys typing...one day, accidentally, they write a masterpiece. Why is there randomness? It takes an infinite amount of energy to maintain a perfect Nothing. The logical impossibility of a perfect Nothing means not-Nothing must be true. not-Nothing is Something. So universes existence because of a failure not to exist, simply because it's impossibly hard. This may not feel very satisfactory, but, it is quite logically sound. It doesn't actually matter what the true nature of the randomness is...the same sorts of structures can be made with it. Us. At the deep structural levels of the randomness the details don't matter. So there you go life the universe and eveything. It's all completely meaningless noise and it'll all go back to other random versions of 'Not-Nothing' (not so eloquent monkey scribble) in due course, and all our efforts will amount to nothing. Literally. So enjoy your qualia while you have them! Is the universe a computer? No. It the universe computation? Yes. :-) Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because
