Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

principles of collective organization



Thanks for these references Fred.

I had heard of Robert Laughlin, but didn't know he had written a book.

Can you elaborate a little on the connection you see with category theory?

I think it is good that we are growing a consensus that knowledge 
representation must be subjective (e.g. to purpose) even if not everybody 
shares that consensus yet.

I think it is even better that you have drawn the link between that 
subjectivity of knowledge representation and "principles of collective 
organization", to use Laughlin's expression.

Within a consensus on subjective knowledge representation would it be fair to 
say we have at least three suggested solutions:

1) I understand John to be suggesting that we reduce the abstraction and try 
to keep standards close to observables. The idea being the less abstraction 
there is, the less disagreement there is.

2) With your presentation of the Information Flow papers you seem to be 
suggesting that we concentrate on reconciliation of different standards, 
through certain means (information flow in category theory?) which are 
related to Laughlin's "principles of collective organization".

3) I'm suggesting that we think about knowledge representation directly in 
terms of "principles of collective organization". In particular I'm 
suggesting we should think about it in terms of "principles of collective 
organization" which also underly language; that they are the same, and that 
we can model knowledge this way through language, that this indeed is what 
language does.

-Rob

On Saturday 07 January 2006 22:18, Frederick B. Kintanar wrote:
> John F. Sowa wrote:
> > Azamat et al.,
> >
> > I received an offline note with a pointer to a web site
> > of "dangerous questions" -- one of which is a point by
> > the physicist Lawrence Krauss that perhaps a "Theory of
> > Everything" is impossible, and the only thing that is
> > possible is an open-ended collection of "phenomenological"
> > theories about the various ways of perceiving the universe.
> > (Copy below).
>
> Another voice speaking out against a "Theory of Everything,"
> and advocating the replacement of "reductionist" approaches to
> natural science (based on deduction from first principles) with
> empirically-based approaches of discovering "principles of
> collective organization" is Nobel-prize winning physicist
> Robert Laughlin. He has a recent popular book:
> **A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down*
> <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/046503828X/qid=1136624719/sr
>=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5412062-1110301?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>*
>
> that develops a thesis he presented (with David Pines) in a
> PNAS essay:
> p01apr99 <http://large.stanford.edu/rbl/articles/p01apr99.htm> - R. B.
> Laughlin and D. Pines, "The Theory of Everything", /Proc. Nat'l. Acad.
> Sci./, *97*, 28 (2000).
> For a quick overview, see his slides on "*Self-Organization of Matter"*
> http://large.stanford.edu/rbl/lectures/index.htm
>
> He makes a comment in a footnote of his book about at technical
> sense of "protection" that he uses, which is a popular stand-in for
> some idea involving of fixed points or renormalization groups.  I
> suspect this may connect to the uses of category theory being
> advocated in Robert Kent's Information Flow Framework, which
> SUO has accepted as a starter document, and applied in the
> work of Kalfoglou and Schorlemmer to coming up with practical
> operations for mapping and merging ontologies:
>
> */"Using Formal Concept Analysis and Information Flow for modelling and
> sharing common semantics: lessons learnt and emergent issues"/*
> */Y.Kalfoglou/*, Marco Schorlemmer
> Abstract <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Eyk1/iccs05-abs.txt> - draft copy
> (PDF) <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Eyk1/iccs2005-final-kalfoglou.pdf> -
> BiBTex entry <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Eyk1/iccs05-bib.txt>
>
> */"A Channel-Theoretic foundation for ontology coordination"/*
> M.Schorlemmer, */Y.Kalfoglou/*
> /This EUMAS'04 paper is similar to that of MCN'04, but we were invited
> to present it to a different audience: agents' community. /
> In Proceedings of the 2nd European Workshop on Multi-Agent Systems
> (EUMAS'04) <http://www.eumas.org/2004/>, Barcelona, Spain, December 2004
> Abstract <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Eyk1/eumas04-abs.txt> - draft
> copy (PDF) <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Eyk1/eumas04-schorlemmer.pdf> -
> BiBTex entry <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Eyk1/eumas04-bib.txt>
>
> */"IF-Map: an ontology mapping method based on Information Flow theory"/*
> /*Y.Kalfoglou*/, M.Schorlemmer,
> /In this JDS article we extend the work presented in the ODBASE'02
> paper. We present IF-Map, an ontology mapping method based on
> Information Flow theory. This the definitive IF-Map resource and we
> present the theoretical background with the channel theory preliminaries
> and their interpretations in ontology mapping, the methodological
> approach to ontology mapping, an operational architecture for executing
> the IF-Map engine, and an exemplar case from the academic departments
> organisational ontologies domain./
> /Journal on Data Semantics 1/
> <http://www.springer.de/cgi/svcat/search_book.pl?isbn=3-540-20407-5>,
> LNCS 2800, pp.:98-127, Springer, ISBN: 3-540-20407-5, October 2003
> Abstract <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Eyk1/ifmap-jds03-abs.txt> - draft
> copy (PDF) <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Eyk1/ifmap-jds03.pdf> - BiBTex
> entry <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/%7Eyk1/jds03.txt>
> Cheers,
>
> Fred
>
> --------------
> Frederick B. Kintanar
> NEC Telecom Software Philippines
> Cebu City