SUO: RE: Re: Abstraction, Analogy, Example, Icon, Metaphor, Model, Morphism, Paradigm, Prototype, Simulation

["Philip Jackson" <phil.jackson@computer.org>]

Jon Awbrey wrote:
>
> Philip Jackson wrote:
> >
> > My defense for using "the world is all that is the case"
> > is only that it seemed an interesting way of constructing
> > an analogy between the case-fact-rule triptych and Sowa's
> > diagram, with potential to be more than just a play on words.
>
> As a Crypto-Pythagorean Numinalist, I take some offence at your defence,
> for it is my "form of intuition" (FOI) that generals are merely numbers,
> and thus that all the worlds' great truths are but a play on surds, and
> we but the actors, numb and getting number, that are getotalled up & out
> in the score of this grand play.  Seriesly, Folks.

I take both sides of the fence. The development of human knowledge has been
a long and profound language game, and yes, in that sense a play on words.
Yet, the play's the thing, and words must help, not get in the way of acting
and understanding the play.

[...]
> > > Let me re-capitulate the triune heads of this dogma:
> > >
> > > 1.  The naive meaning or the natural sense of the term "model".
> >
> > If I understand correctly, you are pondering what would be
> > a "semiotic model theory".
>
> Now, does that sound naive to you!?

Perhaps in the sense that "naive physics" relates to "theoretical physics".
However, "natural" seems better than "naive", in the sense that "natural
language" relates to "formal language"... Yet, any name should wait until
the content is more apparent...

[...]
> > Well, "rules" as logical sentences seems in close enough
> > agreement for an analogy to hold, at least at this point.
> > The logical sentences shown for "theory" in Sowa's diagram
> > could be seen as "rules".
>
> I am trying to be careful.  There are many sorts of specialized argots
> in the air -- or the sandstorm -- hereabouts, and I still have no idea
> yet which of the many might be your favorite, if any.

I have no single favorite. I try to learn as much as I can from everyone,
past and present. Paradoxically, I find the thinkers who have most to say,
are the first to admit they see only a fraction, while those who have the
least to say may claim to know everything.

By the way, I also grew up in a place (Arizona) where there are
sandstorms... As a child, I thought they were a great adventure...

> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > "Imagination is more important than knowledge.
> >  Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." - Einstein
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Funny, that's the same quote that they have as their motto
> at one of the "Weird Science" websites that I surf through:
>
> <http://www.stardrive.org/>
>

I like this quote because it suggests that to imagine we must know what we
do not know, and then consider ways to learn what we do not know.
Imagination in the form of thought experiments, and metaphorical
explanations, is vital to the extension of human knowledge.

SUO has a choice whether to develop a conventional, formal, logical ontology
that captures knowledge, yet which may be brittle, and/or to develop a
"natural, semiotic, linguistic, ..." ontology that is extensible,
metaphorical, able to represent what is not known, etc. The latter approach
is much more difficult and involves much more research, yet may be stronger
in the long run. There is of course no reason why both tracks cannot be
pursued in parallel, with some benefit from cross-pollination of ideas, nor
is there any reason why either approach cannot produce a worthwhile standard
upper ontology.

Cheers,

Phil Jackson
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Words without thoughts never to heaven go." - Shakespeare
----------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Disclaimers. www.philjackson.prohosting.com