tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38012950494644910292024-03-20T03:11:32.913-07:00Mathesis UniversalisHeuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-30401362365368064372022-05-07T11:45:00.005-07:002022-05-13T06:45:19.710-07:00OUR LIBRARY - MATHESIS UNIVERSALIS!<p style="background-color: rgba(36, 34, 34, 0.5); box-sizing: border-box; color: cyan; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;">This collection of books is a small, but growing example of the millions of books, journals, periodicals, and academic papers we are currently tracking and indexing. We are updating this library constantly. Please return often and review this library as it evolves.</p><p style="background-color: rgba(36, 34, 34, 0.5); box-sizing: border-box; color: cyan; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;">This library is the first step on our way to making <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathesis_universalis" rel="noopener" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #337ab7; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;" target="_blank"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #ff99cc; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Mathesis</span> <span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #ff99cc; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Universalis</span></a> (the long-sought search for a unifying principle in all that we know and experience) a reality. Soon our knowledge representations, in their many forms, will be accessible from the pop-up dialogues which appear when you click/tap on a book's entry in the overview you see. Other types of knowledge sources; such as social media activity, websites, E-Mails, audio, video,... are also going to be included in our tracking and indexing system.</p><p style="background-color: rgba(36, 34, 34, 0.5); box-sizing: border-box; color: cyan; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;">I, Carey G. Butler, have been working on this idea since 1989 during my study of Foundational Mathematics and Complex Analysis. I then moved to Germany in 1990 to continue my study (this time in the original German language) of many German mathematicians and philosophers such as Carl Friedrich Gauss, Bernhard Riemann, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz,... During that first year I began to formalise the idea as I began to learn the German language more intensively.</p><p style="background-color: rgba(36, 34, 34, 0.5); box-sizing: border-box; color: cyan; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;">The journey has been a long one and was finally conceptually refined in March of 2009. The journey has taken many, many turns in the years since. I have made several key discoveries in mathematics, philosophy, and linguistics along the way which I, due to my concerns about priority, have not yet published. A few of these discoveries are documented elsewhere though, but I have been very careful to withhold many aspects of their details until I was able to find and/or adapt current technologies to bring them to a useful expression and application in their fullness. I was confronted with many obstacles and challenges, but I never gave up. For more information about my plans, please visit our website at <a href="https://mathesis-universalis.com/" rel="noopener" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #337ab7; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;" target="_blank" title="Mathesis Universalis in English"><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #ff99cc; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Mathesis Universalis in English</span></a> or <span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #ff99cc; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://mathesis-universalis.de/" rel="noopener" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #ff99cc; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;" target="_blank">Mathesis Universalis auf Deutsch</a></span>.</p><p style="background-color: rgba(36, 34, 34, 0.5); box-sizing: border-box; color: cyan; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;">As it stands, we could have created this library application a year ago. It is, in itself, nothing very special for programmers who know how to build applications like it. However, as we developed and tested the predecessor to this application, it soon became very clear that the sheer volume of data being manipulated was creating increasing demands on the conventional technology we were using at the time. Our concerns about processing time, network speed, and infrastructural demands forced us to step back and create a better foundation which could be scaled to any degree. We have spent the last 8 months (August 2021 - April 2022) building a 'symphony' of cloud applications and an infrastructure which is now fast, reliable, and scalable.</p><p style="background-color: rgba(36, 34, 34, 0.5); box-sizing: border-box; color: cyan; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;">Towards that aim, this library represents the 'orchestration' of a collection of cloud apps we created or have forked and modified for our purposes that is distributed over several servers. Its backend is primarily driven by a distributed <span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #ff99cc; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="https://www.couchbase.com/" rel="noopener" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #ff99cc; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;" target="_blank">Couchbase</a> </span>database to store and to manipulate the massive amount of data. Also other kinds of databases are implemented for temporary storage or for the frontend's presentation and housekeeping.</p><p style="background-color: rgba(36, 34, 34, 0.5); box-sizing: border-box; color: cyan; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;">We are currently developing a Progressive Web App which will use this library as one of its sources to present our knowledge representation.</p><p style="background-color: rgba(36, 34, 34, 0.5); box-sizing: border-box; color: cyan; font-family: Roboto; font-size: 15px; margin: 0px 0px 20px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px;">Finally, after 13 years of investment of all kinds and, on the 8th birthday of one of my most important discoveries (<span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #ff99cc; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">'<a href="https://youtu.be/8qNHeBfNbIU" rel="noopener" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #ff99cc; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration-line: none; transition: all 0.3s ease 0s;" target="_blank">We Have a Heartbeat</a>'</span>),...</p><h3 style="background-color: rgba(36, 34, 34, 0.5); box-sizing: border-box; color: yellow; font-family: "inherit"; font-size: 24px; font-weight: 500; line-height: 1.6em; margin: 20px 0px 10px; overflow-wrap: break-word; padding: 0px; text-align: center;">The stage is set... let the play begin!</h3><h3>The stage is set... let the play begin!</h3><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://heurist.org/books-and-journals/library/" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;" target="_blank"><img border="0" data-original-height="925" data-original-width="1302" height="284" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIO0H1XE9bvK6NYBQgdFAVw60FHc_vBdBvr8mdXN4nwZvvdgRtXA4Wzvqz_4eOggPs9esmO8tmOLEdGL1avOScsE_iP-_GQMnFsvNwzjH_GDIyY2wrMEyj4KkQ9F0ChfJb7_z46AiWot-RI9Lqahw9o7cS1bsFAi9wLrg6oPZ11ydVriRYxfBxWzku/w400-h284/unity3d.heurist.com-library.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><div><br /></div>Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-56389683248063845602018-04-08T19:34:00.001-07:002018-04-08T19:34:48.404-07:00Is the P=NP Problem an NP Problem?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ8Rtc8kCo3D6XmPRg_pSCt2P_BrhxQgdOOBY-7Z2WsnhrJWmv4yj5sYzFv1Ua1yblQ5uOhXG9nrSlvwciD17VUHbK_rF7IXMbgpd_QQ2M5L_ecWuw6mU-tHAx5Cg-i5eqIY1s5_NvtNs/s1600/PSpace+NPspace.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="777" height="296" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhQ8Rtc8kCo3D6XmPRg_pSCt2P_BrhxQgdOOBY-7Z2WsnhrJWmv4yj5sYzFv1Ua1yblQ5uOhXG9nrSlvwciD17VUHbK_rF7IXMbgpd_QQ2M5L_ecWuw6mU-tHAx5Cg-i5eqIY1s5_NvtNs/s320/PSpace+NPspace.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
What I’m going to say is going to be unpopular, but I cannot reconcile my own well-being without giving you an answer to this problem from my perspective.<br /><br />My only reason for reluctantly writing this, knowing what kind of reaction I could receive is, because <b>I abhor that some of the best minds on our planet are occupying themselves with this problem.</b> It pains me to no end to see humanity squandering its power for a problem that, as it is currently framed, is unanswerable. It goes further than this though. There will come a time when questions such as this one will be cast upon the junk heap of humanity’s growth throughout history. It will take its rightful place along such ideas as phrenology.<br /><br />Here’s why I say this:<br /><br /><b>The problem is firmly and completely embedded in <i>Functional Reductionism</i>.</b> I say this, because the problem’s framing requires us to peel away the contextual embedding of the problems which it is supposed to clarify.<br /><br />This is just one of its problems. Here’s another:<br /><br />Since the data for this problem (and those like it) are themselves algorithms, <b>they are compelled to be functionally reduced versions of mind problem solving (varying types of heuristics and decision problems) which reduces the problem’s causal domain and its universe of discourse even further.</b> How can a specification based upon functionally reduced data be again used as data for the problem’s solution in the first place?<br /><br /><b>That means that this problem has no <i>independent existence</i> nor <i>causal efficacy</i>.</b> Everywhere I have looked at this problem, the definitions of NP-Hard and NP-Complete do not lead to proving anything useful. We cannot ‘generalise’ the mind by reducing it to some metric of complexity. Complexity is also not how the universe works as Occam’s Razor[1] shows.<br /><br />I am prepared to defend my position should someone have the metal to test me on this. Another thing: I wish I could have left this alone, but we all need to wake up to this nonsense.<br /><br />[1] <a href="http://bit.ly/2GHbRkW" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/2GHbRkW</a> How Occam's Razor Works<br /><br />[Quora]<br /><a href="http://bit.ly/2EuRdP3" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/2EuRdP3</a>Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-66170641982701603632018-03-29T18:02:00.000-07:002018-03-29T18:04:20.656-07:00Getting Hypertension About Hyperreals<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDS4za15rhISjFt0oiO_BVh1IaY7SG523raCY3Kgk2dzso6xhNYo_tlmJsk6mg-73D8GSSKpYi2_6eSC1c2YtuLzjqaijxZZM2oQwV5lSytRQHxskEwxiB-wx74r7No0XuifzFsQqthHg/s1600/hyperreals.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="405" data-original-width="950" height="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjDS4za15rhISjFt0oiO_BVh1IaY7SG523raCY3Kgk2dzso6xhNYo_tlmJsk6mg-73D8GSSKpYi2_6eSC1c2YtuLzjqaijxZZM2oQwV5lSytRQHxskEwxiB-wx74r7No0XuifzFsQqthHg/s640/hyperreals.gif" width="640" /></a></div>
(Links below)<br />
<br />
This system is quite interesting if we allow ourselves to talk about the qualities of infinite sets as if we can know their character completely. The problem is, any discussion of an infinite set includes their definition which MAY NOT be the same as any characterisation which they may actually have.<br />
<br />
Also, and more importantly, interiority as well as exteriority are accessible without the use of this system. These 'Hyperreals' are an ontological approach to epistemology via characteristics/properties we cannot really know. There can be no both true and verifiable validity claim in this system.<br />
<br />
<span style="color: yellow;"><span style="color: yellow;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJWe1BunlXI" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJWe1BunlXI</a></span> (Part1)</span><br />
<span style="color: yellow;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBmJWEQTl1w" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBmJWEQTl1w</a> (Part2)</span>Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-47436252573058734302018-03-10T22:19:00.000-08:002018-03-10T22:19:31.988-08:00Knowledge Representation - Holographic Heart Torus<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9um6JS-m42BzeZcaOe3mss6ZqU9M8Vf4js_YbT8aWWt-Su9m1WO8olmoamQ82JzswCoEwFWe40uX0OI_X522LMSkm1ukQmCb9OOKlg8olTZxWLEDzgP40g1r8SJEaoRDXNligq0Tv_eA/s1600/Holographic+Heart+Torus.png" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9um6JS-m42BzeZcaOe3mss6ZqU9M8Vf4js_YbT8aWWt-Su9m1WO8olmoamQ82JzswCoEwFWe40uX0OI_X522LMSkm1ukQmCb9OOKlg8olTZxWLEDzgP40g1r8SJEaoRDXNligq0Tv_eA/s1600/Holographic+Heart+Torus.png" data-original-width="640" data-original-height="360" /></a>
<h3><a href="http://bit.ly/2GdU7Kg" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="color: #ccffff;">Holographic Heart Torus by Ryan Cameron on YouTube</span></a></h3>Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-44956064473093376792018-03-10T22:15:00.000-08:002018-03-10T22:24:51.496-08:00Knowledge Representation - Fractal Torus 1<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiboPyxJaESvOw19TDc4DRL33cJrW3Mq9sGKQuyZtjAxc219vQHvq_I849vEu722Egq3aoD1NYAQo6FgrWUuNyzooIt8RRPOuhZ__EaG1hPPKnVCXF5yW6tBIVTJRniY00XVFohPrTbM24/s1600/Fractal+Torus+1.png" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiboPyxJaESvOw19TDc4DRL33cJrW3Mq9sGKQuyZtjAxc219vQHvq_I849vEu722Egq3aoD1NYAQo6FgrWUuNyzooIt8RRPOuhZ__EaG1hPPKnVCXF5yW6tBIVTJRniY00XVFohPrTbM24/s1600/Fractal+Torus+1.png" /></a>
<h3><a href="http://bit.ly/2HkB9RF" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><span style="color: #ccffff;">Fractal Torus 1 by Ryan Cameron on YouTube</span></a></h3>Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-38450963587986302232017-12-30T15:01:00.000-08:002018-03-10T22:00:32.529-08:00“How much knowledge does the understanding in words contain?"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXedZFFg8V6TLhYjxiqJ4noovtZPBdTuvSqd2LyGjgr8H9A0PLBiIhikoQdSNOS2Mq0oh9bmYDETSlNIOkquosKx70JcErv94PF-pF_ANU_h4GP7TOmvDO4qHy7PxSQ14S6Gq-q3cHqOA/s1600/hermandadblanca_universo-mente-fractal-geometria-sagrada.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="542" data-original-width="800" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXedZFFg8V6TLhYjxiqJ4noovtZPBdTuvSqd2LyGjgr8H9A0PLBiIhikoQdSNOS2Mq0oh9bmYDETSlNIOkquosKx70JcErv94PF-pF_ANU_h4GP7TOmvDO4qHy7PxSQ14S6Gq-q3cHqOA/s320/hermandadblanca_universo-mente-fractal-geometria-sagrada.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b>Words are<i> symbolic indications and/or conveyors of meaning</i> and are not that meaning in themselves.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Meaning is found, stored, and manipulated in our minds.</b> This is why different languages are capable, in varying degrees of usefulness, to convey meaning which is very similar to that found via the symbols of any other.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjop-YEPNXkPhmSkxajAaE37tFc4DLgkhDJFWn7sZT-uKfkmA3ggiKq-01OMdbJUbcUKnFPkAxq_Df4f2AeiM0pbD6QXKC61ChKmeE8n1mTMOu1Zl5oJMPqSQ9Vo5BLfQrZoRLz0Zgkv0U/s1600/d%25C3%25A9j%25C3%25A0+vu+01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="427" data-original-width="666" height="205" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjop-YEPNXkPhmSkxajAaE37tFc4DLgkhDJFWn7sZT-uKfkmA3ggiKq-01OMdbJUbcUKnFPkAxq_Df4f2AeiM0pbD6QXKC61ChKmeE8n1mTMOu1Zl5oJMPqSQ9Vo5BLfQrZoRLz0Zgkv0U/s320/d%25C3%25A9j%25C3%25A0+vu+01.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
It is also the reason why there are words indicating meaning that are not found in other languages; or, if found in a different language, <b>the other language requires more of its own <i>structure, dynamics, and resonance</i> to convey the same meaning.</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7nOYrTJzX_CFB0NnZyB7ySAHXn6oD-zxuFHAVXmnZaQzlvbkUBajLRQnpvxM2ZR7AfpdPL2ntngVacn4aIuvMlLRnQXOlvsXAwTszIR7v0ELkma-WrSEcRD0WHUy3bemuPSStlDXbRkA/s1600/d%25C3%25A8ja+vu+02.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="334" data-original-width="638" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg7nOYrTJzX_CFB0NnZyB7ySAHXn6oD-zxuFHAVXmnZaQzlvbkUBajLRQnpvxM2ZR7AfpdPL2ntngVacn4aIuvMlLRnQXOlvsXAwTszIR7v0ELkma-WrSEcRD0WHUy3bemuPSStlDXbRkA/s320/d%25C3%25A8ja+vu+02.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
For example: the words <b>‘déjà vu’</b> in French are found in German <b>‘schon gesehen’</b> and in English <b>‘already seen’</b>, but these phrases do not convey the full meaning found in the French version. To counter this deficit, <b>their meaning in other languages must be ‘constructed’ out of or ‘fortified’ by the careful use of longer strings of symbols.</b> This additional construction and/or fortification may even fail at times. This is often where the word phrase from a different language is simply added to the language in which the concept is missing.<br />
<br />
<b>This same situation is found in the literature of many languages.</b> The words used to convey meaning are condensed and may contain more meaning than is usually the case. In this regard, <i>even the person reading/hearing the words may not possess the competence necessary to catch this condensed meaning in its fullness.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Mathematical expressions</b>, albeit more precise, are also indications of meaning. They are more robust in their formulation, but at ever-increasing depth and scope, <i><b>even they may fail to reliably or conveniently convey meaning.</b></i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirvWDmiNZZJWePWF2koVhQHRURr7I12kH2tGfbqhusXSbaaYGypwSDR0r2TXKujO4KZnUEbZhbxO0CeI9g7HFDu_w396eCJa5ECzs6ggBJdNSZX2L9Wt81erA4MYgAXBzSIyTaQ0y7x60/s1600/d%25C3%25A8ja+vu+03.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1000" data-original-width="1600" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirvWDmiNZZJWePWF2koVhQHRURr7I12kH2tGfbqhusXSbaaYGypwSDR0r2TXKujO4KZnUEbZhbxO0CeI9g7HFDu_w396eCJa5ECzs6ggBJdNSZX2L9Wt81erA4MYgAXBzSIyTaQ0y7x60/s320/d%25C3%25A8ja+vu+03.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>Our <i>understanding </i>of what words mean is not always accurate, but where our <i>mutual understanding </i>of the meaning of words <i>overlaps</i>, and the degree to which they overlap, is where their meaning can be shared.</b><br />
<br />
<i><b>Our own personal understanding of words is measured by our ability to apply their meaning in our lives.</b></i><br />
There is also a false meme, which I would like to clarify.<br />
<br />
<i><b>“Knowledge is Power!”</b></i><br />
<br />
It is wrongly said that ‘Knowledge is power’. The truth is another: <b><i>Knowledge </i>is the measure of <i>usefulness </i>of what we understand and is the only true expression of its ‘power’.</b><br />
<br />
<b>The <i>value </i>of Knowledge is found in its <i>usefulness </i>and not in its <i>possession</i>.</b><br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://bit.ly/2BXTIZC" target="_blank">My Quora Answer</a></b>Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-65335597116588664492017-12-13T14:13:00.001-08:002021-05-29T09:11:49.246-07:00Is using an heuristic to make a decision logically sound?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdcQS5FandOcARY7WMpR04bsfXUQqiABLvPF-u-Pn4LzdwQ_WlUBfsfYbaQQ7hpBzd9FaHhBrfTKHkeDWVInNns2Qi8vACDvvaDhKwq3-tFgeG3M4NnEz5SGyduV61JranemVrMBvVYlU/s1600/Heuristic+01.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="258" data-original-width="333" height="247" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdcQS5FandOcARY7WMpR04bsfXUQqiABLvPF-u-Pn4LzdwQ_WlUBfsfYbaQQ7hpBzd9FaHhBrfTKHkeDWVInNns2Qi8vACDvvaDhKwq3-tFgeG3M4NnEz5SGyduV61JranemVrMBvVYlU/s320/Heuristic+01.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
By its very definition it is logical - even if that logic may be abstract or incomplete.<br />
<br />
Whether it is sound (logically) or not, is determined by what is called a <i>validity test</i>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPb6RxLErjwHWiNYLbjh8Dz79T-QeHxA1Dkru-GYS8FL-T_UityKoBXfCHlUAYypLToy-4iFF8-aISZ0qgjawl3ywg1QNJXm-UHqNChrBQaaUMMOeyGZxu2U_I_motEhioyLUWawhBuhI/s1600/Heuristic+03.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="360" data-original-width="614" height="187" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPb6RxLErjwHWiNYLbjh8Dz79T-QeHxA1Dkru-GYS8FL-T_UityKoBXfCHlUAYypLToy-4iFF8-aISZ0qgjawl3ywg1QNJXm-UHqNChrBQaaUMMOeyGZxu2U_I_motEhioyLUWawhBuhI/s320/Heuristic+03.png" width="320" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Here is a diagram based upon traditional logic. Looking these in a more detailed way: </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdi_UL8w11Y9dCzz5o1t9N8sX41ohBond43UWyTOIHUjiqIeVdyCqtYlsBSluWNWwkGGF9rmPmCv6VLEfGpN97v5-1mVDIQkmG89BQMvrtVozzoATnjgNEnO3uXfUxvUYzv3VPfAGgUzs/s1600/Heuristic+04.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="363" data-original-width="648" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdi_UL8w11Y9dCzz5o1t9N8sX41ohBond43UWyTOIHUjiqIeVdyCqtYlsBSluWNWwkGGF9rmPmCv6VLEfGpN97v5-1mVDIQkmG89BQMvrtVozzoATnjgNEnO3uXfUxvUYzv3VPfAGgUzs/s320/Heuristic+04.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>With an heuristic, its ‘validity’ is solely determined by its <i>usefulness</i> to a purpose. The measure or nature of that usefulness is how <i>effective</i> it is.</b><br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://bit.ly/2AVB3xY" target="_blank">Answer on Quora</a></b>Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-80906873664069774472017-11-15T06:31:00.003-08:002021-05-29T09:23:36.570-07:00Lateral Numbers - How 'Imaginary Numbers' May Be Understood<script type="text/javascript" src="http://cdn.mathjax.org/mathjax/latest/MathJax.js">
MathJax.Hub.Config({
extensions: ["tex2jax.js","TeX/AMSmath.js","TeX/AMSsymbols.js"],
jax: ["input/TeX", "output/HTML-CSS"],
tex2jax: {
inlineMath: [ ['$','$'], ["\\(","\\)"] ],
displayMath: [ ['$$','$$'], ["\\[","\\]"] ],
},
"HTML-CSS": { availableFonts: ["TeX"] }
});
</script>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA-VFu-56a5fHd9N3PnjAwa5WB-AQJ2iFNKDuET21h1kQM6XDur_m5O5nUVKNnUuPRX6YWl4ORle5qMTTe7_0LBIhiFX2ANfcfc7g0S8UU4Zo7yHbDCVhIEBHk1UoE26O33bYJt2v5WAo/s1600/Rbi0Y.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="712" data-original-width="974" height="291" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjA-VFu-56a5fHd9N3PnjAwa5WB-AQJ2iFNKDuET21h1kQM6XDur_m5O5nUVKNnUuPRX6YWl4ORle5qMTTe7_0LBIhiFX2ANfcfc7g0S8UU4Zo7yHbDCVhIEBHk1UoE26O33bYJt2v5WAo/s400/Rbi0Y.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
First, allow me to rename theses numbers during the remainder of this post to <b><i>lateral numbers</i></b>, in accordance to the naming convention as was <b>recommended by Gauss</b>. I have a special reason for using this naming convention. It will later become apparent why I’ve done this.</div>
<br />
<div class="qtext_para">
If we examine lateral numbers <i>algebraically</i>, a pattern emerges:</div><br />
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
$i^0 = 1$</h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
$i^1 = i$</h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
$i^2 = -1$</h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
$i^3 = -i$</h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
$i^4 = (i^2)^2 = (-1)^2 = 1$</h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
$i^5 = i \cdot i^4 = i$</h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
$i^6 = i^2 \cdot i^4 = (-1)(1) = -1$</h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
$i^7 = i^2 \cdot i^5 = (-1)i = -i$</h3>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
$i^8 = i^4 \cdot i^4 = (1)(1) = 1$</h3>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br />
<div class="qtext_para" style="text-align: left;">
When we raise lateral numbers to higher powers, the answers do not get higher and higher in value like other numbers do. Instead, <b>a pattern emerges after every 4th multiplication.</b> This pattern never ceases.</div>
<br />
<div class="qtext_para">
<b>All other numbers, besides laterals, have a place on what currently is called the ‘Real number line’.</b><br />
I qualify the naming of the Real Numbers, because even their conceptualisation has come into question by some very incisive modern mathematicians. That is a very ‘volatile’ subject for conventional mathematicians and would take us off on a different tangent, so I’ll leave that idea for a different post.</div>
<br />
<div class="qtext_para">
If we look for laterals on any conventional Real number line, we will never ‘locate’ them.<b> </b><b><i>They are found there,</i></b><i> but we need to look at numbers differently in order to ‘see’ them.</i></div>
<div class="qtext_para"><br />
<b>Lateral numbers solve one problem in particular: </b><b><i>to find a number, which when multiplied by itself, yields another negative number.</i></b><br />
<br />
Lateral numbers<b><i> </i></b>‘<b><i>unify</i></b>’<b><i> the number line with the algebraic pattern shown above.</i></b></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfb8RXg4Nci-OeGdR9fbXnSrgf6wTkA_KzNhBBwIZY7K6VFEb0KoYBkF0ZNWkvhXhwER_ByCNjm9uRKVKMw63wO9qaH_uEvuJnzxXBgx66qDUp9vecWLIm3vZrqSe47KSY1C-t3qoMTDY/s1600/ComplexNumbers+Example+001.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="174" data-original-width="495" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfb8RXg4Nci-OeGdR9fbXnSrgf6wTkA_KzNhBBwIZY7K6VFEb0KoYBkF0ZNWkvhXhwER_ByCNjm9uRKVKMw63wO9qaH_uEvuJnzxXBgx66qDUp9vecWLIm3vZrqSe47KSY1C-t3qoMTDY/s320/ComplexNumbers+Example+001.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<span class="inline_editor_value"><span class="rendered_qtext">2 is positive and, when multiplied by itself, yields a positive number. It maintains direction on the number line.</span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCCjQpPGYPTqikh6s79Ln3KucVE5bSOyBRJLKTcZEgCXfnUCKaH-qX94tFirKi4yT_lYr4eJ2giRYUZDWVT1VmuwtWOVn4lS3pSR3ZWUbgFBFkDHO7DtGmOotB0JXNEL9A_olKfImfAcc/s1600/ComplexNumbers+Example+002+-+Negative.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="174" data-original-width="480" height="116" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCCjQpPGYPTqikh6s79Ln3KucVE5bSOyBRJLKTcZEgCXfnUCKaH-qX94tFirKi4yT_lYr4eJ2giRYUZDWVT1VmuwtWOVn4lS3pSR3ZWUbgFBFkDHO7DtGmOotB0JXNEL9A_olKfImfAcc/s320/ComplexNumbers+Example+002+-+Negative.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<span class="inline_editor_value"><span class="rendered_qtext">When one of the numbers (leaving squaring briefly) being multiplied is negative, the multiplication yields a negative number. The direction ‘flips’ 180° into the opposite direction.</span></span></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg1W5fBy6mQqSMNDHDEI7IvCsX8gUr_PZ9m8uj0E7putr4DfWU0Hs7TlL3RfJB-_Ai-V0LxbPRX9RCR-7qV_Jo2cIUVOtQrgnVT5kovBeLavKqgtNUEa5oPSOJ276aU-4qxtBqY86bVCs/s1600/ComplexNumbers+Example+003+-+Negative+Squaring.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="202" data-original-width="480" height="134" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhg1W5fBy6mQqSMNDHDEI7IvCsX8gUr_PZ9m8uj0E7putr4DfWU0Hs7TlL3RfJB-_Ai-V0LxbPRX9RCR-7qV_Jo2cIUVOtQrgnVT5kovBeLavKqgtNUEa5oPSOJ276aU-4qxtBqY86bVCs/s320/ComplexNumbers+Example+003+-+Negative+Squaring.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
Multiplying -2 by -2 brings us back to the positive direction, because of the change resulting in multiplying by a negative number, which always flips our direction on the number line.<br />
<br />
<span class="inline_editor_value"></span><br />
<span class="inline_editor_value"></span><br />
<span class="inline_editor_value"><span class="rendered_qtext"></span></span><br />
<div class="qtext_para">
So, it appears as if there’s no way of landing on a negative number, right? We need a number that only rotates 90°, instead of the 180° when using negative numbers. <b>This is where lateral numbers come into play.</b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKxqbw4qN7C5MX2mLTu8Ub3wXoDoXhrbTgScywjUdo3EVrD8uZOZ0lhaigrw5zNYa3eIvhlznXjO1iOJT-HFDBPtJ9L3-t4ypJcVKWlQ4BgjjkBdFV2ZvRyjn5EvaOM6At24Dg8iGyMss/s1600/ComplexNumbers+Example+004+-+Negative+Squaring+using+lateral+numbers01.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="150" data-original-width="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKxqbw4qN7C5MX2mLTu8Ub3wXoDoXhrbTgScywjUdo3EVrD8uZOZ0lhaigrw5zNYa3eIvhlznXjO1iOJT-HFDBPtJ9L3-t4ypJcVKWlQ4BgjjkBdFV2ZvRyjn5EvaOM6At24Dg8iGyMss/s1600/ComplexNumbers+Example+004+-+Negative+Squaring+using+lateral+numbers01.png" /></a></div>
If we place another lateral axis perpendicular to our ‘Real’ number line, we obtain the desired fit of geometry with our algebra.<br />
<br />
<div class="qtext_para">
When we multiply our ‘Real’ number 1 by <i>i</i>, we get <i>i</i> <i>algebraically</i>, which <i>geometrically</i> corresponds to a 90° rotation from 1 to <i>i</i>.</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
Now, multiplying by i again results in i squared, which is -1. This additional 90° rotation equals the customary 180° rotation when multiplying by -1 (above).</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiaBAP33J2BJFNFcsCDg0R_t6RtghAP6J_lx1dCMclWkzGNCDXr40YIc-Vh36x8NedZKl-SDGtbsaeiBgumVTBaZDoyypaZuZGwM5vHTUedRfnRnX6_d6yhWakT9ra-Oa6UNoJf3Cm1N4/s1600/ComplexNumbers+Example+004+-+Negative+Squaring+using+lateral+numbers.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="150" data-original-width="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhiaBAP33J2BJFNFcsCDg0R_t6RtghAP6J_lx1dCMclWkzGNCDXr40YIc-Vh36x8NedZKl-SDGtbsaeiBgumVTBaZDoyypaZuZGwM5vHTUedRfnRnX6_d6yhWakT9ra-Oa6UNoJf3Cm1N4/s1600/ComplexNumbers+Example+004+-+Negative+Squaring+using+lateral+numbers.png" /></a></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
We may even look at this point as if we were viewing it down a perpendicular axis of the origin itself (moving in towards the origin from our vantage point, through the origin, and then out the back of our screen).</div>
<h6 class="qtext_para">
[If we allow this interpretation, we can identify the 'spin' of a point around the axis of its own origin! The amount of spin is determined by how much the point moves laterally in terms of <i>i</i>.<br /> We may even determine in which direction the rotation is made. I'll add how this is done to this post soon.]</h6>
<div class="qtext_para">
Each time we increase our rotation by multiplying by a factor of<i> i</i>, we increase our rotation another 90°, as seen here:</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiasSjKIFvk1JUwGnA_-fAiD_0XRQWUBmwDJmrp2qbgoIkUF_amfVZOlhomMcm_N0vpowgXz_1kEa-zVjRm7DbdZ8V_M4AlnWMX5Nk6n5-o5GbMolhLYUt8yVDNu45mTUwS7wX8W5g4B6I/s1600/ComplexNumbers+Example+004+-+Negative+Squaring+using+lateral+numbers03.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="150" data-original-width="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiasSjKIFvk1JUwGnA_-fAiD_0XRQWUBmwDJmrp2qbgoIkUF_amfVZOlhomMcm_N0vpowgXz_1kEa-zVjRm7DbdZ8V_M4AlnWMX5Nk6n5-o5GbMolhLYUt8yVDNu45mTUwS7wX8W5g4B6I/s1600/ComplexNumbers+Example+004+-+Negative+Squaring+using+lateral+numbers03.png" /></a></div>
and,<br />
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8l0daDY1gkSZjVIZy35uVGumDeNY6YAm1slF1okR7wrF7GQxTCs6QcDQYHqEhoi4LU8LJw5EJr24K8uA3sbtocEp-BnG5zPqo_n9ChZPXNSuipTg6-SE6PD1XIRMgP8uhu_M7vtQL2W8/s1600/ComplexNumbers+Example+004+-+Negative+Squaring+using+lateral+numbers04.png" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="150" data-original-width="276" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8l0daDY1gkSZjVIZy35uVGumDeNY6YAm1slF1okR7wrF7GQxTCs6QcDQYHqEhoi4LU8LJw5EJr24K8uA3sbtocEp-BnG5zPqo_n9ChZPXNSuipTg6-SE6PD1XIRMgP8uhu_M7vtQL2W8/s1600/ComplexNumbers+Example+004+-+Negative+Squaring+using+lateral+numbers04.png" /></a></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
The cycle repeats itself on every 4th power of <i>i</i>.</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<b>We could even add additional lateral numbers to any arbitrary point. This is what I do in my knowledge representations of holons. </b>For example a point at say 5 may be expressed as any number of laterals <i>i, j, k,… </i>simply by adding or subtracting some amount of<i> i, j, k,...:</i></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="text-align: center;">
<i>5 + i + j +k +…</i></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
Or better as:</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="text-align: center;">
[<i>5, i, j, k,…</i>]</div>
<div class="qtext_para" style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<b>Seeing numbers in this fashion makes a point</b><b><i> n</i></b><b>-dimensional.</b></div>
</div>
Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-20144267312799948412017-09-22T19:12:00.000-07:002017-09-22T19:12:36.136-07:00Strictly Speaking Can't! Natural Language Won't?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTTrm7_CwK4jU1jVUjizAs1EakZVyq_-3fioi3XtA1BJvDscsqC60yORGlQNnv9R6vRghjd9nuq9-BhPDL9Gr3M1_gujtjvLtP7MpU7GIjakGfsWhHr5-6yx0iKMukRxE_pxdXAP3Di2A/s1600/Werner+Heisenberg+-+on+Language+of+Mathematics.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="333" data-original-width="530" height="201" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTTrm7_CwK4jU1jVUjizAs1EakZVyq_-3fioi3XtA1BJvDscsqC60yORGlQNnv9R6vRghjd9nuq9-BhPDL9Gr3M1_gujtjvLtP7MpU7GIjakGfsWhHr5-6yx0iKMukRxE_pxdXAP3Di2A/s320/Werner+Heisenberg+-+on+Language+of+Mathematics.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<i>Physics is only complex, because it's in someone's interest to have it that way.</i> <b>The way to understanding, even if you don't understand science, was paved with words. Even if those words led only to a symbolic form of understanding.</b><br /><br />Common ordinary language is quite capable of explaining physics. Mathematics is simply more precise than common language. <b><i>Modern</i></b><b> Mathematics pays the price for that precision by being </b><b><i>overly complex</i></b><b> and subservient to </b><b><i>causal and compositional relations.</i></b><b> These are limitations that metaphysics and philosophy do not have.</b><br /><br />Words in language have a structure that mathematics alone will never see as it looks for their structure and dynamics in the wrong places and in the wrong ways. <b><i>Modern</i></b><b> pure mathematics lacks an underlying expression of </b><b><i>inherent purpose</i></b><b> in its 'tool set'.</b><br /><br />With natural language we are even able to cross the 'event horizon' into interiority (where unity makes its journey through the non-dual into the causal realm). It is a place where mathematics may also 'visit' and investigate, but only with some metaphysical foundation to navigate with. The 'landscape' is very different there... where even time and space 'behave' (manifest) differently. <b>Yet common language can take us there! Why? It's made of the 'right stuff'!</b><br /><br />The mono-logical gaze with its incipient <i>ontological foundation,</i> as found in (modern) pure mathematics, is too <i>myopic.</i> That's why languages such as Category Theory, although subtle and general in nature, even lose their way. <b>They can tell us how we got there, but none can tell us </b><b><i>why</i></b><b> we wanted to get there in the first place!</b><br /><br />It's easy to expose modern corporate science's (mainstream) limitations with this limited tool set - you need simply ask questions like: <i>"What in my methodology inherently expresses why am I looking in here?"</i> (what purpose) or <i>"What assumptions am I making that I'm not even aware of?"</i> or <i>"Why does it choose to do that?</i> and you're already there where ontology falls flat on its face.<br /><br /><b>Even questions like these are met with disdain, intolerance and ridicule (the shadow knows it can't see them and wills to banish what it cannot)! And that's where science begins to resemble religion (psyence).</b><br /><br />Those are also some of the reasons why philosophers and philosophy have almost disappeared from the mainstream. I'll give you a few philosophical hints to pique your interest.<br /><br /><b>Why do they call it Chaos Theory and not Cosmos Theory?</b><br /><b>Why coincidence and not synchronicity?</b><br /><b>Why entropy and not centropy?</b><br />...<br /><b>Why particle and not field?</b><br />(many more examples...)<br />Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-64454038544095142032017-09-17T03:20:00.000-07:002017-09-17T03:20:28.248-07:00Does Division By Zero Have Meaning?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwxgZOLkZ1bof4w0eqFrZUxmrEzTiuKHc3OYLXeMJv6b4iPYSGnUZX1t4p7l0nDJDbcMVcm2wNwuxxllc4VVjSF2JIoyxjU_fAptGWq8Pc4KQzDTPHtiFxmjuMfhjN7ol3Lib_11GrAa0/s1600/Inversive+07.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="720" data-original-width="1280" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwxgZOLkZ1bof4w0eqFrZUxmrEzTiuKHc3OYLXeMJv6b4iPYSGnUZX1t4p7l0nDJDbcMVcm2wNwuxxllc4VVjSF2JIoyxjU_fAptGWq8Pc4KQzDTPHtiFxmjuMfhjN7ol3Lib_11GrAa0/s640/Inversive+07.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz1DshvBrsdU0NItttcSQKysw0vGA5bf0vBMXMbg2Hz2zTiS9-ptC6vRUXSpnJc11L0JyDUMqxcm4MtjzogX8r8QtdMy_JzuR5D25XwAIm-qaoKHiWsrv1kydGT4DCWjTO4-p-zpOk05c/s1600/Inversive+03.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="223" data-original-width="226" height="315" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz1DshvBrsdU0NItttcSQKysw0vGA5bf0vBMXMbg2Hz2zTiS9-ptC6vRUXSpnJc11L0JyDUMqxcm4MtjzogX8r8QtdMy_JzuR5D25XwAIm-qaoKHiWsrv1kydGT4DCWjTO4-p-zpOk05c/s320/Inversive+03.jpg" width="320" /> </a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Yes, in knowledge representation, the answer is <i>the interior of a holon.</i><br /><br />Ontologies go ‘out of scope’ when entering interiority. The common ontological representation via mathematical expression is 1/0.<br /><br />When we ‘leave’ the exterior ontology of current mathematics by replacing number with relation, we enter the realm of interiority.<br /><br />In the interior of relation, we access the epistemological aspects of any relation.<br /><br />As an aide to understanding - Ontology answers questions like: ‘What?’, ‘Who?’, ‘Where?’, and ‘When?’. Epistemology answers questions like: ‘Why?’ and ‘How do we know?’<br /><br />In vortex mathematics 1/0 is known as ‘entering the vortex’.<br /><br />There are other connections to some new developments in mathematics involving what is called ‘inversive geometry’.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<br />Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-9148608039671718472017-09-09T10:21:00.000-07:002017-09-09T10:21:17.016-07:00Are sets, in an abstract sense, one of the most fundamental objects in contemporary mathematics?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAIkYS9BSnTu-9uV64kNWzKIKXl2Tx8tiTSjkQLnJxjPteH7KblEoNrk3K3_gJ96TIX40x_rxXJSgEksgbrlLL0m1khb33ms-G8-0t-Y87o50cF0X_3MzoszO7Pe_4b_Y5OmAFNMTrG70/s1600/Equivalence+Relation.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="210" data-original-width="350" height="192" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAIkYS9BSnTu-9uV64kNWzKIKXl2Tx8tiTSjkQLnJxjPteH7KblEoNrk3K3_gJ96TIX40x_rxXJSgEksgbrlLL0m1khb33ms-G8-0t-Y87o50cF0X_3MzoszO7Pe_4b_Y5OmAFNMTrG70/s320/Equivalence+Relation.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Actually, yes and no.<br /><br /><b>The </b><b><i>equivalence relation</i></b><b> lies deeper within the knowledge representation and it’s foundation.</b><br /><br />There are other knowledge prerequisites which lie even deeper within the knowledge substrate than the equivalence relation.<br /><br /><b>The concepts of a </b><b><i>boundary, of quantity, membership, reflexivity, symmetry, transitivity, and relation</i></b><b> are some examples.</b><br />
<br />
<b><a class="ot-anchor aaTEdf" href="http://bit.ly/2wPV7RN" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/2wPV7RN</a> </b>Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-63503608605641877372017-08-29T16:15:00.000-07:002017-08-30T05:28:48.962-07:00 Limits of Category Theory and Semiotics<img alt="Category Theory 01" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-1268" data-attachment-id="1268" data-comments-opened="1" data-image-description="" data-image-meta="{"aperture":"0","credit":"","camera":"","caption":"","created_timestamp":"0","copyright":"","focal_length":"0","iso":"0","shutter_speed":"0","title":"","orientation":"0"}" data-image-title="Category Theory 01" data-large-file="https://heurist.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/category-theory-01.png?w=950?w=408" data-medium-file="https://heurist.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/category-theory-01.png?w=950?w=300" data-orig-file="https://heurist.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/category-theory-01.png?w=950" data-orig-size="408,373" data-permalink="https://heurist.wordpress.com/2017/08/29/limits-of-category-theory-and-semiotics/category-theory-01/" src="https://heurist.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/category-theory-01.png?w=950" /><br />
They are wonderful tools to explain <i>much</i> of our world, but
lack 'The Right Stuff' to handle the metaphysical underpinnings of
anything near a Philosophy of Mind, Philosophy of Language , or a
Philosophy of Learning.<br />
<br />
This is, because Category Theory specialises on roughly half of the
Noosphere. It does a wonderful job on exteriority, but cannot
sufficiently describe nor comprehensively access interiority.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp1tcnLjgHeQ_iT44gQrjx3HAFcWOJTxOVTOCrnv1vubGcLrttl18XoF6zXY2VYOibx0AjYqMr7Z5bdkT8mCw8trtYLWLU-3dqKCY5pEBwoqYmhXj4JwuzKgz-PDGnF-u4sJ5k-X0cWfY/s1600/Interiority+Exteriority.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="332" data-original-width="791" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjp1tcnLjgHeQ_iT44gQrjx3HAFcWOJTxOVTOCrnv1vubGcLrttl18XoF6zXY2VYOibx0AjYqMr7Z5bdkT8mCw8trtYLWLU-3dqKCY5pEBwoqYmhXj4JwuzKgz-PDGnF-u4sJ5k-X0cWfY/s400/Interiority+Exteriority.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
Therefore, as is the case with Semiotics, <b>has </b><b><i>limited </i></b><b>metaphysical value with respect to philosophy in general.</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkX8O2gWYV9xOWM6rCIDlvv9p9IaWiViIdXhhBzIzV0OHi_B-5dNaEm7e822sCt1HZTYKgTAfaGfYwWoZxKMsnYK8S7gRfgdKPgOGjYrBr6s0L8CSo3Ab8qenirHs90Tb1f9fI4LiNeKM/s1600/Semiotics.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="372" data-original-width="530" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkX8O2gWYV9xOWM6rCIDlvv9p9IaWiViIdXhhBzIzV0OHi_B-5dNaEm7e822sCt1HZTYKgTAfaGfYwWoZxKMsnYK8S7gRfgdKPgOGjYrBr6s0L8CSo3Ab8qenirHs90Tb1f9fI4LiNeKM/s400/Semiotics.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="qtext_para">
<i>For example:</i> <b>philosophies of mind, language, or learning are not possible using only category theoretical tools and/or semiotics.</b></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
Here is an example of one attempt which fails in this regard: </div>
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://nickrossiter.org.uk/process/VisualizationFoundationsIEEE.pdf">http://nickrossiter.org.uk/process/VisualizationFoundationsIEEE.pdf</a><br />
<br />
and here: <a href="https://heurist.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/visualizationfoundationsieee.pdf" target="_blank">Visualization Foundations IEEE</a><br />
<br />
<div class="qtext_para">
Here are two problems (of many) in the paper:</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<b>4.4.2 </b><b><i>Knowledge is the Terminal Object of Visualisation</i></b> states:</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<i>"The ultimate purpose of the visualisation
process is to gain Knowledge of the original System. When this succeeds
(when the diagram commutes) then the result is a ‘truth’ relationship
between the Knowledge and the System. When this process breaks down and
we fail to deduce correct conclusions then the diagram does not
commute."</i></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<i> </i> </div>
<div class="qtext_para">
I want to also comment on Figure 3 (which also
exposes missing or false premises in the paper), but I will wait until I
have discussed the assertions in the quote above which the authors of
this paper reference, accept, and wish to justify/confirm.</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
1) The purpose of a representation is NOT to <i>gain</i> knowledge; rather, to <i>express</i> knowledge. Also, <i>truth</i> has nothing to do with knowledge except when that value is <i>imposed</i> upon it for some purpose. <b>Truth value is a value that knowledge may or not 'attend' (participate in).</b></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
1a) The 'truth value' of the System ('system' is a
false paradigm [later, perhaps] and a term that I also vehemently
disagree with) does not always enter into the 'dialogue' between any
knowledge that is represented and the observer interpreting that
knowledge.</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
2) The interpretation of a representation is not to <i>"deduce correct conclusions";</i> rather, to <i>understand</i> the <i>meaning</i>
(semantics and epistemology) of what is represented. 'Correct'
understanding is not exclusive to understanding nor is it necessary or
sufficient for understanding a representation, because that
understanding finds expression in the observer.</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
2a) 'Correct', as used in this paragraph, is
coming from the outside (via the choice of which data [see Fig. 3] is
represented to the observer) and may have no correspondence (hence may
never ever commute) whatever to what that term means for the observer.</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
The authors are only talking about <i>ontologies.</i> That is a contrived and provincial look at the subject they are supposing to examine.</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
There may (and usually are) artefacts inherent in
any collection and collation of data. The observer is forced to make 'right' ('correct') conclusions from that data which those who collected
it have 'seeded' (tainted) with their own volition.</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
'System' (systematising) anything is Reductionism. This disqualifies the procedure at its outset.</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<b>They are proving essentially that </b><b><i>manipulation</i></b><b> leads to a 'correct' (their chosen version) representation of a ‘truth’ value.</b></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
I could tie my shoelaces into some kind of knot
and think it were a correct way to do so if the arrows indicate this.
This is why paying too much attention to a navigation system can have one finding
themselves at the bottom of a river!</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
The paper contains assumptions that are overlooked
and terms that are never adequately defined! How can you name variables
without defining their meaning? They then serve no purpose and must be
removed from domain of discourse.<br />
<br />
Categorical structures are highly portable, but they can describe/express only <i>part</i> of what is there. There are structure, dynamics, and resonance that ontology and functionalism completely turns a blind eye to.<br /><br />The <i>qualities</i> of Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Clarity,... (even Falsehood, Badness, Ugliness, Obscurity,...) can be defined and identified within a knowledge representation if the representation is not restricted to ontology alone.<br /><br />In order to express these qualities in semiotics and category theory, they must first be ontologised funtionally (reduced). Trying to grasp them with tools restricted to semiotics and category theory is like grasping into thin air.<br /><br />That is actually the point I'm trying to make. Category Theory, and even Semiotics, each have their utility, but they are no match for the challenge of a complete representation of knowledge. Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-31808810437463995622017-05-10T16:30:00.000-07:002017-05-10T16:31:09.811-07:00Is Real World Knowledge More Valuable Than Fictional Knowledge?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5sQo-sY7IG1x9cKNu34fhyphenhyphenRqGSUSeGgRjpmJeTG39cVz3j37OZiL5S8FD36cs_pEywbFRPHUk6UPMMQYrGbOa9ZqGbJQUWAJKTIANEMjIYA14j3bVpXPgeQdlu56cB3hIkkpUsKS1t10/s1600/hermandadblanca_universo-mente-fractal-geometria-sagrada.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5sQo-sY7IG1x9cKNu34fhyphenhyphenRqGSUSeGgRjpmJeTG39cVz3j37OZiL5S8FD36cs_pEywbFRPHUk6UPMMQYrGbOa9ZqGbJQUWAJKTIANEMjIYA14j3bVpXPgeQdlu56cB3hIkkpUsKS1t10/s320/hermandadblanca_universo-mente-fractal-geometria-sagrada.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b>No.</b><br />
<br />
Here an excerpt from a short summary of a paper I am writing that provides some context to answer this question:<br />
<br />
<b>What Knowledge is not:</b><br />
<br />
Knowledge
is not very well understood so I'll briefly point out some of the
reasons why we've been unable to precisely define what knowledge is thus
far. Humanity has made numerous attempts at defining knowledge. <b>Plato taught</b> <i>that justified truth and belief are required for something to be considered knowledge.</i><br />
<br />
Throughout
the history of the theory of knowledge (epistemology), others have done
their best to add to Plato's work or create new or more comprehensive
definitions in their attempts to 'contain' the meaning of meaning
(knowledge). All of these efforts have failed for one reason or another.<br />
<br />
Using
truth value and 'justification’ as a basis for knowledge or introducing
broader definitions or finer classifications can only fail.<br />
<br />
I will now provide a small set of examples of why this is so.<br />
<br />
<b>Truth value is only a value that knowledge may attend.</b><br />
<br />
Knowledge can be true or false, justified or unjustified, because<br />
<br />
<b><i>knowledge is the meaning of meaning</i></b><br />
<br />
<b>What about false or fictitious knowledge?</b> [Here’s the reason why I say no.]<br />
<br />
Their
perfectly valid structure and dynamics are ignored by classifying them
as something else than what they are. Differences in culture or language
even make no difference, because the objects being referred to have
meaning that transcends language barriers.<br />
<br />
Another problem is
that knowledge is often thought to be primarily semantics or even
ontology based. Both of these cannot be true for many reasons. In the
first case (semantics):<br />
<br />
<b><i>There already exists knowledge structure and dynamics for objects we cannot or will not yet know.</i></b><br />
<br />
The
same is true for objects to which meaning has not yet been assigned,
such as ideas, connections and perspectives that we're not yet aware of
or have forgotten. Their meaning is never clear until we've become aware
of or remember them.<br />
<br />
In the second case (ontology): collations
that are fed ontological framing are necessarily bound to memory,
initial conditions of some kind and/or association in terms of space,
time, order, context, relation,... We build whole catalogues,
dictionaries and theories about them: Triads, diads, quints, ontology
charts, neural networks, semiotics and even the current research in
linguistics are examples.<br />
<br />
Even if an ontology or set of them attempts to represent intrinsic meaning, it can only do so in a descriptive ‘extrinsic’ way. <b>An
ontology, no matter how sophisticated, is incapable of generating the
purpose of even its own inception, not to mention the purpose of the
objects to which it corresponds.</b><br />
<br />
The knowledge is not coming
from the data itself, it is always coming from the observer of the data,
even if that observer is an algorithm.<br />
<br />
Therefore ontology-based
semantic analysis can only produce the artefacts of knowledge, such as
search results, association to other objects, 'knowledge graphs' like
Cayley,…<br />
<br />
<i>Real knowledge</i> precedes, transcends and includes
our conceptions, cognitive processes, perception, communication,
reasoning and is more than simply related to our capacity of
acknowledgement.<br />
<br />
In fact knowledge cannot even be completely systematised; it can only be interacted with using ever increasing precision.<br />
<br />
[For
those interested, my summary is found at: A Precise Definition of
Knowledge - Knowledge Representation as a Means to Define the Meaning of
Meaning Precisely: <a class="ot-anchor aaTEdf" data-mce-href="http://bit.ly/2pA8Y8Y" dir="ltr" href="http://bit.ly/2pA8Y8Y" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">http://bit.ly/2pA8Y8Y</a>Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-20192193287233434642017-05-10T10:01:00.000-07:002017-05-10T11:04:06.700-07:00Does Knowledge Become More Accurate Over Time?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmKV06TE3WeaBajVknPanEPGey-a6_7GPPKQcJPEQf7bvYKoNl8gx67ITtOHXIpzAt43hxDCbO7KLAyaXqwBR_PR1WzNlcY8y7sdkamIWrzNHBzcJkus6dYNgTfnMSHDQfIDbGit-OyCc/s1600/Constants+and+Variances+2.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmKV06TE3WeaBajVknPanEPGey-a6_7GPPKQcJPEQf7bvYKoNl8gx67ITtOHXIpzAt43hxDCbO7KLAyaXqwBR_PR1WzNlcY8y7sdkamIWrzNHBzcJkus6dYNgTfnMSHDQfIDbGit-OyCc/s320/Constants+and+Variances+2.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzPYEb0g1k4UDB1njWqArJUfzd0Oi-tOphonPvx1JwBRbjuLn4K6fuA4lK8DB4op4Ibs49O6ogeg0TLVvvSRfOpTzxBNJBYyjOV_Lzik4RxneUxlBWE01lRtn1arMTtEU3aQ8U4zMso7k/s1600/clock.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="319" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjzPYEb0g1k4UDB1njWqArJUfzd0Oi-tOphonPvx1JwBRbjuLn4K6fuA4lK8DB4op4Ibs49O6ogeg0TLVvvSRfOpTzxBNJBYyjOV_Lzik4RxneUxlBWE01lRtn1arMTtEU3aQ8U4zMso7k/s320/clock.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<b><i>Change lies deeper in the knowledge substrate than time.</i></b><br />
<br />
Knowledge
is not necessarily coupled with time, but it can be influenced by it.
It can be influenced by change of any kind: not only time.<br />
<br />
Knowledge
may exist in a moment and vanish. The incipient perspective(s) it
contains may change. Or the perspective(s) that it comprises may resist
change.<br />
<br />
<b>Also, knowledge changes with reality and vice versa.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Time requires events to influence this relationship between knowledge and reality.</b><br />
<br />
<span class="inline_editor_value"><span class="rendered_qtext">Knowledge cannot be relied upon to be a more accurate expression of reality, whether time is involved or not, because<b> the relationship between knowledge and reality is not necessarily dependent upon time</b>,
nor is there necessarily a coupling of the relationship between
knowledge and reality. The relationships of 'more’ and ‘accurate' are
also not necessarily coupled with time.</span></span><br />
<br />
<b>Example:</b> Eratosthenes calculated the
circumference of the Earth long before Copernicus published. The ‘common
knowledge’ of the time (Copernicus knew about Eratosthenes, but the
culture did not) was that the Earth was flat.<br />
<br />Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-83626781151368611492017-05-07T13:32:00.000-07:002017-05-07T13:32:43.003-07:00Is Mathematics Or Philosophy More Fundamental?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://mathematica-universalis/" target="_blank"><img alt="http://mathematica-universalis" border="0" height="223" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvhjZPQBETC6OvRMN7v4DBq0PjOZRuCBslkPZiVgVpLjbrBZx9MqhTywEnqZddHQpR4SNVPtur4G8OPCVupYSKMHiEQO_lQsScuE18oPSSb1Sc2s70kfdiPTyHcotwgbfdxkweB-7xcNs/s400/fly-by.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<b>Is Mathematics Or Philosophy More Fundamental?</b><br />
<br />
Answer: <b>Philosophy is more fundamental than mathematics.</b><br />
<br />
This is changing, but mathematics is incapable at this time of <i>comprehensively</i> describing <i>epistemology,</i> whereas, philosophy can.<br />
<br />
Hence; mathematics is restrained to pure <i>ontology.</i> It does not reach far enough into the universe to distinguish anything other than <i>ontologies.</i> This will change soon. I am working on exactly this problem. See <a class="ot-anchor aaTEdf" href="http://mathematica-universalis.com/" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">http://mathematica-universalis.com</a> for more information on my work. (I’m not selling anything on this site.)<br />
<br />
Also, mathematics cannot be done without expressing some kind of philosophy to underlie any axioms which it needs to function.<br />
<br />
<b>PROOF:</b><br />
<br />
Implication is a ‘given’ in mathematics. <b>It assumes a </b><b><i>relation</i></b><b> which we call </b><b><i>implication.</i></b> Mathematics certainly ‘consumes’ them as a means to create inferences, <i>but the inference form, the antecedent, and the consequent are implicit axioms based upon an underlying metaphysics.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Ergo: </b><b><i>philosophy</i></b><b> is more </b><b><i>general</i></b><b> and </b><b><i>universal</i></b><b> than mathematics.</b><br />
<br />
Often epistemology is considered separate from metaphysics, but that
is incorrect, because you cannot answer questions as to ‘How do we
know?” without an underlying metaphysical framework within which such a
question and answer can be considered.Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-79585829457393459932017-05-07T12:33:00.000-07:002017-05-07T12:33:35.229-07:00What About Tacit Knowledge?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIkEg-w-jXYwljwHOE7E0biHYV1_XTmETx4TSm7pvWu8_BlVkNslh3RHergn9mUmPCKbV5tTOIrucmBwpQW1D5PQ9FxP1CXJ0GsKLUYfBs15KtfyWxYjlCtD0x6Ti1nV5-O1tI5sAMua8/s1600/90168464.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="253" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjIkEg-w-jXYwljwHOE7E0biHYV1_XTmETx4TSm7pvWu8_BlVkNslh3RHergn9mUmPCKbV5tTOIrucmBwpQW1D5PQ9FxP1CXJ0GsKLUYfBs15KtfyWxYjlCtD0x6Ti1nV5-O1tI5sAMua8/s320/90168464.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<b>A </b><b><i>knowledge representation system </i>is required</b><b>.</b> I’m building one right now.<span class="qlink_container"><a class="external_link" href="http://mathesis-universalis.com/" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank"> Mathesis Universalis</a></span>.</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
There are other tools which are useful, such as TheBrain <span class="qlink_container"><a class="external_link" href="http://thebrain.com/" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Mind Mapping Software, Brainstorming, GTD and Knowledgebase Software</a></span></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
Products and technologies like TheBrain, knowledge
graphs, taxonomies, and thesauri can only manage references to and
types of knowledge (ontologies).</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
A true knowledge representation would contain
vector components which describe the answers to “Why?” and “How does one
know?” or “When is ‘enough’, enough?” (epistemology).</div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<br /></div>
<div class="qtext_para">
<b>It is only through additional </b><b><i>epistemological representation</i></b><b> that tacit knowledge can be stored and referenced.</b></div>
Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-68958093988895659972015-08-30T23:01:00.001-07:002015-08-30T23:07:05.007-07:00A Holon's Topology, Morphology, and Dynamics (2a)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSv_3ohrE4knn7Ibsx5E2mcpsrgtjNTRM7tAiqwZpTCbD4UyobC0vRGPVLPUYAtShRDLfXRyh_NoJF8f7tJoRfI0rUAWE1glCSrm7c5WUbOv5rG6GxUxRqiDita_hcgLjuMxJXWHWxhTc/s1600/IntroVideo2a+-3131.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSv_3ohrE4knn7Ibsx5E2mcpsrgtjNTRM7tAiqwZpTCbD4UyobC0vRGPVLPUYAtShRDLfXRyh_NoJF8f7tJoRfI0rUAWE1glCSrm7c5WUbOv5rG6GxUxRqiDita_hcgLjuMxJXWHWxhTc/s320/IntroVideo2a+-3131.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<a href="https://vimeo.com/137800263" target="_blank"><b>A Holon's Topology, Morphology, and Dynamics (2a)</b></a><br />
<br />
This is the
second video of a large series and the very first video in a
mini-series about holons. In this series I will be building the
vocabulary of holons which in turn will be used in my knowledge
representations.<br />
The video following this one will go into greater detail describing what you see here and will be adding more to the vocabulary.<br />
<br />
This
is the second video of a large series and the very first video in a
mini-series about holons. In this series I will be building the
vocabulary of holons which in turn will be used in my knowledge
representations.<br />
<br />
<a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Knowledge" rel="nofollow">#Knowledge</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Wisdom" rel="nofollow">#Wisdom</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Understanding" rel="nofollow">#Understanding</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Insight" rel="nofollow">#Insight</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Learning" rel="nofollow">#Learning</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23MathesisUniversalis" rel="nofollow">#MathesisUniversalis</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23ScientiaUniversalis" rel="nofollow">#ScientiaUniversalis</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Holons" rel="nofollow">#Holons</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23BigData" rel="nofollow">#BigData</a> Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-33577403992533836902015-02-03T04:18:00.000-08:002015-02-03T04:19:36.982-08:00Science As a New Tower of 'Babble'<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems" target="_blank" title="Complex systems quilt"><img alt="1024px-Complex_systems_organizational_map" class="alignnone wp-image-665" height="198" src="https://heurist.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/1024px-complex_systems_organizational_map.jpg?w=300" width="198" /></a><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems" target="_blank" title="Complex systems history"><img alt="1280px-Complexity_Map.svg" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-666" height="197" src="https://heurist.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/1280px-complexity_map-svg.png?w=300" width="300" /></a> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><b>Science As a New Tower of 'Babble'</b><br />Complexity - a patchwork quilt of misunderstanding and confusion tied together 'by hook or by crook'.<br /><a class="ot-anchor aaTEdf" dir="ltr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_hook_or_by_crook" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By_hook_or_by_crook</a><br /><br /><b>Complex systems are the result of our collective blindness to the simple interconnectedness of our universe.</b><br /><br />Why
is the emerging view of our universe - no longer a Cosmological and
Cosmogonic garden of the good, true and beautiful - now turning into
this phantasm of complexity?<br /><br />Where did we go wrong?<br />Was it the
creation and maintaining of the expectation that we could comprehend
and grasp the whole of our Cosmos within one perspective?<br /><br />Were the applications of the science we created so profit bearing that we began to take more than our fare share?<br /><br />Was
it the tempo at which our scientists - not even slowed down by the
ethical and moral considerations which constitute our navigation systems
down the roads of evolution - that have brought us to this place much
too soon and with so much needless suffering (for animals and humans)?<br /><br />Are we to continue abandoning our organic (and real) ascendancy for artificial (and synthetic) correlates?<br /><br /><b>The ends are NOT justified by their means! They are determined by them.</b><br /><br /><a class="ot-anchor aaTEdf" dir="ltr" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_systems</a><br /><br /> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Knowledge" rel="nofollow">#Knowledge</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Wisdom" rel="nofollow">#Wisdom</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Understanding" rel="nofollow">#Understanding</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Learning" rel="nofollow">#Learning</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Insight" rel="nofollow">#Insight</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Awaken" rel="nofollow">#Awaken</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23AwakenNow" rel="nofollow">#AwakenNow</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Trendy" rel="nofollow">#Trendy</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23AI" rel="nofollow">#AI</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23OI" rel="nofollow">#OI</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23ArtificialIntelligence" rel="nofollow">#ArtificialIntelligence</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23OrganicIntelligence" rel="nofollow">#OrganicIntelligence</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23ScienceRunAmok" rel="nofollow">#ScienceRunAmok</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23TechnologyRunAmok" rel="nofollow">#TechnologyRunAmok</a> </span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Image1:<br /> Hiroki Sayama, D.Sc. - Created by Hiroki Sayama, D.Sc.,
Collective Dynamics of Complex Systems (CoCo) Research Group at
Binghamton University, State University of New York</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Image2:<br /> By Brian Castellani (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons</span></span>Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-71273627664216000112014-12-13T04:39:00.001-08:002014-12-13T04:39:24.145-08:00Universal Constants and Variances<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjr9KAhcTU6pukSiWE3iaLVU35457NEnnDLjXp2Fk7BYxnbdiBOB6ZlkVPj3v5DCKIqSqAebJL0aE3R-eSFf7TJk6EV5B4iO55u1oKHbUptdiuWkzluqqplHBX6EYmExdnBWJj6Tf7OhTo/s1600/Constants+and+Variances+1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjr9KAhcTU6pukSiWE3iaLVU35457NEnnDLjXp2Fk7BYxnbdiBOB6ZlkVPj3v5DCKIqSqAebJL0aE3R-eSFf7TJk6EV5B4iO55u1oKHbUptdiuWkzluqqplHBX6EYmExdnBWJj6Tf7OhTo/s1600/Constants+and+Variances+1.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKlmYSRbwIbsFn2s8veJLzTSJ0fcU6FgmpvRkqr1vLhVALt6NbfWzhcOo-jsVPg686cz7VBmxKZ_-13bV5Hv4wvtjFs_U9FD6eO35QaAqqX3lsgaMIrs-QQR_wJ6dcrLWg_hE90tv-6VE/s1600/Constants+and+Variances+2.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKlmYSRbwIbsFn2s8veJLzTSJ0fcU6FgmpvRkqr1vLhVALt6NbfWzhcOo-jsVPg686cz7VBmxKZ_-13bV5Hv4wvtjFs_U9FD6eO35QaAqqX3lsgaMIrs-QQR_wJ6dcrLWg_hE90tv-6VE/s1600/Constants+and+Variances+2.gif" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1dVM0BVdxfcUScqXZYtPRHzanAbwd_6xeg3qEY9nGAAkUQ3c7HwEI46DWRrOO3iMw8BQEzyo7x54lWDBLNr3qfDk76YIygOYZTxxNAEpRICH1CbN6FML6TDyHRihrdOEjJ27xoLjonjM/s1600/Constants+and+Variances+3+-+muKnow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1dVM0BVdxfcUScqXZYtPRHzanAbwd_6xeg3qEY9nGAAkUQ3c7HwEI46DWRrOO3iMw8BQEzyo7x54lWDBLNr3qfDk76YIygOYZTxxNAEpRICH1CbN6FML6TDyHRihrdOEjJ27xoLjonjM/s1600/Constants+and+Variances+3+-+muKnow.jpg" height="209" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYYF5n05eOq9C4aoYEkUJTF0cR_88FRiiy8yc8Soqq5INR-8oBJc4IHYi5mJOcC6YKsO-eJAkKzKsvLvanUrDm9Z4-n2dhc4KQpzASwA4pQc83tqJL3g6sAPO62tHYlqJTiRTC6tLx8Bs/s1600/Constants+and+Variances+4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYYF5n05eOq9C4aoYEkUJTF0cR_88FRiiy8yc8Soqq5INR-8oBJc4IHYi5mJOcC6YKsO-eJAkKzKsvLvanUrDm9Z4-n2dhc4KQpzASwA4pQc83tqJL3g6sAPO62tHYlqJTiRTC6tLx8Bs/s1600/Constants+and+Variances+4.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFibfoxJ0Xsn24zse2ZduOarhZxR5dnkB7GsgYKz2Z9uuElVaHrWzPkxkAXqCdPT_XYK1HbXg47DhawwjmkcrpVf-1YxPgeNeMib7QHPJbT_tQyZsFqsjkQhUkLmwi8lW3INeHt7p_8Fg/s1600/Constants+and+Variances+5+-+We+are+the+ones+we+have+been+waiting+for!.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFibfoxJ0Xsn24zse2ZduOarhZxR5dnkB7GsgYKz2Z9uuElVaHrWzPkxkAXqCdPT_XYK1HbXg47DhawwjmkcrpVf-1YxPgeNeMib7QHPJbT_tQyZsFqsjkQhUkLmwi8lW3INeHt7p_8Fg/s1600/Constants+and+Variances+5+-+We+are+the+ones+we+have+been+waiting+for!.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTR8bmaMhlkS5fHiuhP_PYrNv3bA81DEGYDKlvWEsfNgX3Kq4gxzSScOlBcdhsXjrjKt2N27ZK1SHj7TaIfCTA312ATaGjqSGKhM-eCw44sLDYGxhus_ekXa5WokczDdY6G7sv71vqpNY/s1600/Constants+and+Variances+7+-+Example.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTR8bmaMhlkS5fHiuhP_PYrNv3bA81DEGYDKlvWEsfNgX3Kq4gxzSScOlBcdhsXjrjKt2N27ZK1SHj7TaIfCTA312ATaGjqSGKhM-eCw44sLDYGxhus_ekXa5WokczDdY6G7sv71vqpNY/s1600/Constants+and+Variances+7+-+Example.png" height="175" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><b>Universal Constants and Variances</b></span></span> <span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i> </i></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>#1 </i><b><i>Awareness is primary and fundamental.</i></b> (Substrate)</span></span> <span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>#2 </i><b><i>All awareness is non-dual unless it is dual.</i></b> (Duality)</span></span> <span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>#3 </i><b><i>There is no inside without an outside nor outside without an inside.</i></b> (Interiority/Exteriority)</span></span> <span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>#4 </i><b><i>Duality is bounded, non-duality is boundless.</i></b> (Boundary)</span></span> <span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>#5 </i><b><i>Boundaries arise in a spectrum from diffuse to concise.</i></b> (Crossing)</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">[More are coming soon in a new post...]</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A
few of those who follow my posts have been asking for more information
about my work. Towards that end, I'm going to start publishing my
growing list of universal constants and variances. <b>It is these constants and variances that form the foundation of my work.</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">There
are about as many of them as there are stars in our universe (if you
count the primary and derived together), so I don't think I'll run out
of them! Most of them are self-explanatory, but if you have any
questions, please don't hesitate to ask in the appropriate thread. The
numerical ordering is not yet important, as I'm still collecting and
collating them as I discover them.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">I have no tolerance for
trolling or people who abuse others in my threads; especially on these
threads about the constants and variances! So if you plan to wreak havoc
here, you'll get bumped real fast. I don't mind criticism or skeptical
opinions at all, but please <i>be civil</i> with everyone (including me).</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "Helvetica Neue",Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">See <a class="ot-anchor aaTEdf" data-mce-href="http://mathesis-universalis.com" href="http://mathesis-universalis.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://mathesis-universalis.com</a> for more information.</span></span>Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3801295049464491029.post-56554285950719217552014-08-24T15:28:00.006-07:002014-08-24T15:28:45.820-07:00A Precise Definition of Knowledge - Knowledge Representation as a Means to Define the Meaning of Meaning Precisely<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWb9Ye68QyV9HGo_koQUrgNZOALe0JHMOqtl3Jxenh2tOy4AXWMvqCITCQiHqK47s6o0AVZxfHrIB2L5uzLSeIsUHCSoIlKGfgUAjEipRM_kLaDYqYO9qm63VB4WyWkYpEPsnWy3EAH6w/s1600/IntroVideo.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWb9Ye68QyV9HGo_koQUrgNZOALe0JHMOqtl3Jxenh2tOy4AXWMvqCITCQiHqK47s6o0AVZxfHrIB2L5uzLSeIsUHCSoIlKGfgUAjEipRM_kLaDYqYO9qm63VB4WyWkYpEPsnWy3EAH6w/s1600/IntroVideo.png" height="180" width="320" /></a></div>
<b>A Precise Definition of Knowledge</b><br />Knowledge Representation as a Means to Define the Meaning of Meaning Precisely<br />Copyright © Carey G. Butler<br />August 24, 2014<br /><br /><b><i>What is this video about?</i></b><br />In
this introductory video I would like to explain what knowledge
representation is, how to build and apply them. There are basically
three phases involved in the process of building a knowledge
representation. Acquisition of data (which includes staging), collation
and the representation itself. The collation and the representation
phases of the process are mentioned here, but I will explain them
further in future videos.<br /><br />You are now watching a simulation of
the acquisition phase as it collects and stores preliminary structure
from the data it encounters in terms of the vocabulary contained within
that data. Acquisition is a necessary prerequisite for the collation
phase following it, because the information it creates from the data are
used by the collation algorithms which then transform that information
into knowledge.<br /><br />The statistics you are seeing tabulated are only a
small subset of those collected in a typical acquisition phase. Each of
these counters are being updated in correspondence to the recognition
coming from underlying parsers running in the background. Depending upon
the computer resources involved in the<br />acquisition, these parsers may even even run concurrently as is shown in this simulation.<br /><br />The objects you see moving around in the video are of two different kinds: <b><i>knowledge fields</i></b> or <b><i>knowledge molecules.</i></b> Those nearest to you are the field representations of the actual data being collected called <b><i>knowledge fields.</i></b> <i>They
could represent an individual symbol, punctuation, morpheme, lexeme,
word, emotion, perspective, or some other unit of information in the
data.</i> Each of them contain their own signature – even if their
value, state or other intrinsic properties are unknown or indeterminate
during the acquisition.<br /><br />Those farther away from the view are
clusters of fields which have already coalesced into groups according to
shared dynamically adaptive factors such as similarity, relation,
cardinality, ordinality,... These 'molecules' also contain their own set
of signatures and may be composed of a mixture of <i>fields, meta-fields and hyper-fields</i> that are unique to all others.The collation phase has the job of assigning these molecules to their preliminary <b><i>holarchical domains</i></b>
which are then made visible in the resulting knowledge representation.
Uniqueness is preserved even if they contain common elements with others
in the domain they occupy. <b><i>Clusters of knowledge molecules and/or
fields grouped together are known as 'knowledge domains', 'structural
domains','dynamical domains' or 'resonance domains', depending upon
which of their aspects is being emphasized.</i></b><br /><br /><b>We now need a short introduction to what knowledge representation is in order to explain why you're seeing these objects here.</b><br /><br /><i>What is Knowledge Representation?</i><br /><b>Knowledge representation provides all of the ways and means necessary to reliably and consistently conceptualize our world.</b>
It helps us navigate landscapes of meaning without losing our way;
however, navigational bearing isn't the only advantage. Knowledge
representation aids our recognition of what changes when we change our
world or something about ourselves. It does so, because even our own
perspective is included in the representation. It can even reveal to us
when elements are missing or hidden from our view!<br /><br />It's important to remember that <b>knowledge representation is not an end, rather a means or process</b>
that makes explicit to us everything we already do with what we come to
be aware of. A knowledge representation must be capable of representing
knowledge such that it, like a book or other artifact, brings awareness
of that knowledge to us. When we do it right, it actually perpetuates
our understanding by providing a means for us to recognize, interpret
(understand) and utilize the how and what we know as it relates to
itself and to us. In fact – <i>knowledge representation even makes it possible to define knowledge precisely!</i><br /><br /><i>What Knowledge is not!</i><br />Knowledge
is not very well understood so I'll briefly point out some of the
reasons why we've been unable to precisely define what knowledge is
thus far. Humanity has made numerous attempts at defining knowledge.
Plato taught that justified truth and belief are required for something
to be considered knowledge. Throughout the history of the theory of
knowledge (epistemology), others have done their best to add to Plato's
work or create new or more comprehensive definitions in their attempts
to 'contain' the meaning of meaning (knowledge). All of these efforts
have failed for one reason or another. <b>Using truth value and
justification as a basis for knowledge or introducing broader
definitions or finer classifications can only fail.</b> I will now provide a small set of examples of why this<br />is so.<br /><br /><b><i>Truth value is only a value that knowledge may attend.</i></b> Knowledge can be true or false, justified or unjustified, because <b>knowledge is the meaning of meaning.</b>
What about false or fictitious knowledge? Their perfectly valid
structure and dynamics are ignored by classifying them as something else
than what they are. Differences in culture or language make even make
no difference, because the objects being referred to have meaning that
transcends language barriers.<br /><br />Another problem is that knowledge
is often thought to be primarily semantics or even ontology based! Both
of these cannot be true for many reasons. In the first case (semantics):
<i>There already exists knowledge structure and dynamics for objects we cannot or will not yet know.</i>
The same is true for objects to which meaning has not yet been
assigned,such as ideas, connections and perspectives that we're not yet
aware of or have forgotten. Their meaning is never clear until we've
become aware of or remember them.<br /><br />In the second case (ontology):
collations that are fed ontological framing are necessarily bound to
memory, initial conditions of some kind and/or association in terms of
space, time, order, context, relation,... We build whole catalogs,
dictionaries and theories about them! Triads, diads, quints, ontology
charts, neural networks, semiotics and even the current research in
linguistics are examples.<br /><i>Even if an ontology or set of them attempts to represent intrinsic meaning, it can only do so in a descriptive (extrinsic) way.</i><br /><br /><b>An
ontology, no matter how sophisticated, is incapable of generating the
purpose of even its own inception, not to mention the purpose of objects
to which it corresponds!</b><br /><br /><b><i>The knowledge is not coming
from the data itself, it's always coming from the observer of the data –
even if that observer is an algorithm!</i></b><br /><br />Therefore
ontology-based semantic analysis can only produce the artifacts of
knowledge, such as search results, association to other objects,
'knowledge graphs' like Cayley,.. Real knowledge precedes, transcends
and includes our conceptions, cognitive processes, perception,
communication, reasoning and is more than simply related to our capacity
of acknowledgment. <i>In fact knowledge cannot even be completely systematized, it can only be interacted with using ever increasing precision!</i><br /><br /><i>What is knowledge then?</i><br /><b>• Knowledge is what awareness does.</b><br />•
Awareness of some kind and at some level is the only prerequisite for
knowledge and is the substrate upon which knowledge is generated.<br />• Awareness coalesces, interacts with and perpetuates itself in all of its form and function.<br />•
Awareness which resonates (shares dynamics) at, near, or in some kind
of harmony (even disharmony) with another tends to associate
(disassociate) with that other in some way.<br />• These requisites of awareness hold true even for objects that are infinite or indeterminate.<br />• This is why knowledge, the meaning of meaning, can be precisely defined and even provides its own means for doing so.<br /><b>•
Knowledge is, pure and simply: the resonance, structure and dynamics of
awareness as it creates and discovers for and of itself.</b><br />•
Awareness precedes meaning and provides the only fundamentally necessary
and sufficient basis for meaning of meaning expressing itself as
knowledge.<br /><b>• Knowledge is the dialog between participants in awareness</b> – even if that dialog appears to be only one-way, incoherent or incomplete.<br />•
Even language, mathematics, philosophy, symbolism, analogy, metaphor
and sign systems can all be resolved to this common denominator found at
the foundation of each and every one of them.<br /><br /><i>More information about the objects seen:</i><br />The
objects on the surface of the pyramid correspond to basic structures
denoting some of the basic paradigms that are being used to mine data
into information and then collate that information into knowledge. You
may notice that their basic structures do not change, only their content
does. <b>These paradigms are comprised of </b><b><i>contra-positional fields</i></b><b> that harmonize with each other so closely that they build complete harmonic structures.</b> Their function is similar to what proteins and enzymes do in our cells.<br /><br /> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Knowledge" rel="nofollow">#Knowledge</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Wisdom" rel="nofollow">#Wisdom</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Understanding" rel="nofollow">#Understanding</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Learning" rel="nofollow">#Learning</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Insight" rel="nofollow">#Insight</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Semantics" rel="nofollow">#Semantics</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Ontology" rel="nofollow">#Ontology</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Epistemology" rel="nofollow">#Epistemology</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Philosophy" rel="nofollow">#Philosophy</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23PhilosophyOfLanguage" rel="nofollow">#PhilosophyOfLanguage</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23PhilosophyOfMind" rel="nofollow">#PhilosophyOfMind</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Cognition" rel="nofollow">#Cognition</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23OrganicIntelligence" rel="nofollow">#OrganicIntelligence</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23ArtificialIntelligence" rel="nofollow">#ArtificialIntelligence</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23OI" rel="nofollow">#OI</a> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23AI" rel="nofollow">#AI</a> <br /> <a class="ot-hashtag aaTEdf" href="https://plus.google.com/s/%23Awareness" rel="nofollow">#Awareness</a> <br /><a class="ot-anchor aaTEdf" href="https://www.academia.edu/8066040/A_Precise_Definition_of_Knowledge_-_Knowledge_Representation_as_a_Means_to_Define_the_Meaning_of_Meaning_Precisely" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.academia.edu/8066040/A_Precise_Definition_of_Knowledge_-_Knowledge_Representation_as_a_Means_to_Define_the_Meaning_of_Meaning_Precisely</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Heuristhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09140280996700699617noreply@blogger.com0