List, Mike, Bruce
Thanks to Mike and Bruce for these comments on hierarchies - and -
the triadic infrastructure that enables hierarchies - and - as Mike
points out, the three Peircean categories that are the foundation of
the triad. I think that not enough attention is paid to this
infrastructure of triad-and-categories. They are not just
descriptions; they are the 'how' of reality, i.e., how matter is
formed. [chance, actuality, continuity are the 'how' forces']
Bruce writes: " Recent research suggests possible
mechanisms for the emergence of natural hierarchies
involving the nexus of chance, evolution, entropy, free
energy, and information theory."
Exactly - the reality of free energy and entropy within the
formation of matter [whether physical unit or conceptual unit] is
vital. There is no way that adaptation and evolution can take place
except within a triadic categorical infrastructure. This results in
what is known as a 'complex adaptive system' - which is both
hierarchical and networked.
And I note that Peirce did not refer to his work as 'idealism' but
as 'objective idealism' - and that's very, very different from
'idealism'; it acknowledges both Secondness and Thirdness.
Edwina
On Thu 04/03/21 11:23 PM , Mike Bergman [email protected] sent:
Hi Bruce,
I am glad this is a line of discourse you want to pursue (and
have pursued since at least 1994 as your link indicates). I'm
happy to engage on any questions or topics; there are many other
Peirce afficiandos on these lists that also have helpful insights.
For now, I only comment on one of your points below:
On 3/4/2021 9:31 AM, [email protected] wrote:
@font-face {font-family:"Cambria
Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face {font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal,
div.MsoNormal {margin:0in; font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99; color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText,
div.MsoPlainText {mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Plain Text
Char"; margin:0in; font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char"; mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
Wow. I love this. I've been writing on this subject
forever -- saying more or less the same things and citing
the same authors -- e.g., Herbert Simon. I'm going to
print your article, Mike, and take a close look at it.
Back in the early days, I bought every book there was on
Hierarchy. You make basic points in your opening that I’d say
pave the way towards a very powerful general theory of
epistemology.
The basic themes you outline in this article are at the
essence of my notion of “Closed Loop Interval Ontology”
– which is hierarchical exactly as you describe, with the
addition that the framework is defined as a closed loop
interconnecting these “levels” into a single closed
mathematical structure.
My early stuff on this subject is here:
http://originresearch.com [1]
The trick here seems to be – that this thesis is so
powerful, it becomes combinatorically explosive – heading
towards the fabled “theory of everything” – maybe in
explicit epistemological detail.
Interesting that you say that “natural hierarchies are
real” – which opens the way to some additional
complexity or levels of inclusion. Maybe there is a
“hierarchical relationship” across levels of reality, such
that the kind of practical-real-world “reality” defined by
Barry Smith can be mapped directly into an absolutely abstract
model which I would say is a “science of the artificial”,
as Herbert Simon might have described it. “Does absolute
abstraction exist in nature”?
My own view is that Peirce's universal categories of Firstness,
Secondness, and Thirdness provide this level of "absolute
abstraction [that] exists in nature". I don't know if you realize
that some of your earlier references to Ogden and Richards
[2] were actually a paraphrase of Peirce's insights. My own
research focus has been on trying to understand the 'mindset'
of Peirce's universal categories, expressed in perhaps a 100
different ways in his writings, that sets a frame of reference
for tackling knowledge representation (epistemological)
questions at virtually any level. Ogden and Richards picked up on
one with respect to meaning, but there are other examples galore
across Peirce's writings.
What Peirce really offers, IMO, is a way to break away from
either-or Cartesian mindsets that always pit issues as win-lose
propositions, and ignore the "fact" that one can both be a realist
and an idealist. By accepting the reality of absolute chance we
are also removing false dichotomies between determinism and
evolution. As with wave-particle duality or quantum v classic
physics, Cartesian thinking is a cultural and intellectual posture
that leaves us stymied and frustrated. I much prefer the
trichotomous view of actuality bracketed by chance and continuity,
the essence of Peirce's universal categories.
BTW, there is no reason why this viewpoint can not inform the
structure and basis of a top-level (upper) ontology. (One that I
humbly feels offers an integrative framework for ANY knowledge
graph or ontology.) That is exactly the approach we have taken
with our KBpedia [3] knowledge structure, and its top-level
KBpedia Knowledge Ontology [4] (KKO).
Best, Mike
Fascinating article and project, Mike. A lot to talk
about.
Thanks!
- Bruce
Hierarchies — real or artificial — abound to help us
organize our world. A hierarchy places items into a
general order, where more ‘general’ is also more
‘abstract’. The etymology of the word hierarchy is
grounded in notions of religious and social rank. This
article, after a broad historical review, focuses on
knowledge systems, an interloper of the term hierarchy since
at least the 1800s. Hierarchies in knowledge systems
include taxonomies, classification systems, or thesauri
in library and information science, and systems for
representing information and knowledge to computers,
notably ontologies, knowledge graphs, and knowledge
representation languages. Hierarchies are the logical
underpinning of inference and reasoning in these systems,
as well as the scaffolding for classification and
inheritance. Hierarchies in knowledge systems express
subsumption relations that have many flexible variants, which
we can represent algorithmically, and thus computationally.
This article dissects the dimensions of that variability,
leading to a proposed typology of hierarchies useful to
knowledge systems. The article argues through a perspective
informed by Charles Sanders Peirce that natural hierarchies
are real, can be logically determined, and are the appropriate
basis for knowledge systems. Description logics and semantic
language standards such as RDF or OWL reflect this
perspective, importantly through their open-world logic and
vocabularies for generalized subsumption hierarchies. Recent
research suggests possible mechanisms for the emergence of
natural hierarchies involving the nexus of chance, evolution,
entropy, free energy, and information theory.
Bruce Schuman
Santa Barbara CA USA
[email protected] / 805-705-9174
www.origin.org / www.integralontology.net
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] On Behalf
Of Mike Bergman
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:57 PM
To: [email protected];
[email protected]
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Hierarchy, a la Peirce
Hi All,
I am pleased my open-access paper on hierarchy in
knowledge systems, as informed by my understanding of CS
Peirce, has been published by IEKO:
https://www.isko.org/cyclo/hierarchy [5]. I hope you
enjoy!
Thanks, Mike
Links:
------
[1] http://originresearch.com
[2] http://originresearch.com/sd/sd4.cfm
[3] https://kbpedia.org/
[4] https://kbpedia.org/docs/kko-upper-structure/
[5] https://www.isko.org/cyclo/hierarchy
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected]
with no subject, and with the sole line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and
co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
