On May 5, 6:21 am, Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that "coarse graining" is of supreme importance to cognition,
> and this was bourne out in a conversation I had with a cognitive
> science researcher from the Centre for the Mind the other day.
That's good news. Glad we agree.
> However, I'm not entirely sure we're on the same page. For me, "coarse
> graining" is basically the L1/L2 mechanism used for emergence, and in
> the definition of complexity (see my paper "On complexity and
> emergence", or the relevant sections in my book). However, only two
> levels of description are needed - others may be present, but are not
> used, so I'm somewhat bemused at you saying there are three levels.
Will look into it later. But yes, I'm sure there's definitely three
State Level (class level), Operational Level (functional level) and
State-Change Level (computational physics level)
> UML, as I understand it, is a means of represent heirachies, object
> heirarchies specifically. Whilst possible that heirarchies are
> essential to cognition, nothing I can see at present mandates it.
UML is a general language used for data and process modelling. When I
first learned it I was quite interested, because it seemed relevent to
my interests (ontology and knowledge representation). But only after
a grest deal of exposure to UML did it dawn on me that it *is* the
secret to the entire universe :D Seriously, many of the concepts I
have been intuitively groping towards had actually already been
developed for me via UML and I was highly bemused that I could simply
quickly fit all my ideas to UML concepts!
You may be skeptical, but I think that OOP (Object Oriented
Programming) and UML is definitely the correct paradigm over all other
approaches. Indeed they had their roots in the attempts to model
reality (via simulations). I think UML is far more profound than
everyone realizes and could form the basis for a TOE (Theory Of
Everything). *If* we regard everything as 'Knowledge' (*not* mere
'information' but 'knowledge') *then* from *this perspective* general
DP modelling tools can be used a language for understanding
The three levels of reality (and hence three levels of time or
cauaslity) implied by UML are so blindingly glaringly screamingly
obvious that it's amazing that no-one but me appears to have noticed
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at