Glen -

Thanks for the complementary concept of "labelled transition systems" (generalization of "state diagram"?) to juxtapose with Graph and Network.
The trouble with reduction to a unified ontology is also critical, because I 
think the majority of the problem we're struggling with (writ large) is 
reductionism, or more generally, monism/non-duality.  I think Aaronson makes 
the point nicely here:

   Higher-level causation exists (but I wish it didn’t)
   http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3294
I'm wading... it is a rich soup.

In microcosm, Nick's _latch_ onto the onion as metaphor for unorderable 
complexes is a symptom of the underlying problem that we use language (or 
conceptual structures) according to our temporally- and proximally-bound 
_purpose_.
A long-winded phrase for "context"?
  Anyone who claims to work only with some sort of universal, Platonic truth is 
delusional or disingenuous.  A unification of that language is not only 
impossible, but if it were possible, it would be a kind of order-death 
(opposite of heat death).  Perfect and universal normalization to a single norm 
would paralyze us all.
I intuitively resonate with this but can't quite render it all down to something fully rational.

But, obviously given my crybaby tantrum about "level" vs. "layer", I believe _some_ 
resolution/alignment of language is necessary for any sort of progress/produce.  To me, a collaboratively 
produced document about complexity that comes from a small subset of this community that intuitively agrees 
already, with no friction in the process, would be a useless "yet another jargonal paper about 
complexity".

So far, the useful friction I see is:

   Russ: information is required
   Stephen: nearly any physical system squeezed in the right way
   Nick: gen-phen map
   Eric: cumulative hierarchy
Wow! I wish I could pull that out of the discussion so easily. I'd have a hard enough time validating (or refuting) this synopsis... but it is helpful that you offer it.

I don't think pressurizing this plurality into a unified "system of thought" 
will produce anything interesting.  But I _do_ think allowing them to flower/flesh out 
from a bare, common skeleton would be interesting _IF_ the fleshing out didn't lose the 
skeleton amongst the flowers or lose the flowers by over-emphasizing the skeleton.
Metaphors abound... maybe a rough allegorical analogy to Russ's original question might be "do all useful/interesting metaphors ultimately ground out in biology?" I think Lakoff and Nunez might suggest so via their "Embodiment of Mind" arguments?!

buh!
 - Steve


On June 9, 2017 1:49:45 PM PDT, Steven A Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote:
... how to explicitely *superpose* multiple
graphs/networks, and in particular ontologies, rather than try to
*compose* and then resolve the contradictions among them.   It is
ancient enough work that I don't remember exactly what I was thinking,
but it was revisited in the Faceted Ontology work in 2010ish...  but
that was MUCH more speculative since we didn't actually HAVE a specific

ontology to work with.   "If we had some rope, we could make a log
raft.... if we had some logs!"

I sense that both you (Glen) and Marcus have your own work (or
avocational) experience with ontologies and I'm sure there are others
here.  For me it is both about knowledge representation/manipulation
AND
collaborative knowledge building which is what I *think* Nick is going
on about, and what is implied in our bandying about of "concept/mind
mapping".
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Reply via email to