Re: Ontology and Physics
Learning is one angle to the problem, Rich, but the emergence I'm trying to
describe goes beyond just learning.
Try thinking of it in terms of a kaleidoscope. You might think of learning as
adding pieces to a kaleidoscope, that is one level of emergence, sure, but
then you twist the tube and... ah-ha. Not only does the pattern in the
kaleidoscope change over time, but it shunts back and forth from
moment-to-moment.
You don't only need to let your system collect different pieces, you need to
let the pieces fall together in constantly changing ways.
From this point of view the mysterious "necessary incompleteness" of
description (or proof) can be seen as nothing more than the impossibility of
having the pieces of the kaleidoscope fall together all ways at once. Nothing
too mysterious really, but a choke on complete ordering, nevertheless, even
of any one person's learned experiences.
-Rob
On Wednesday 21 June 2006 08:14, Rich Cooper wrote:
> Rob Freeman wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > The emergent approaches to physics which are turning up in
> > these discussions -- Robert Laughlin, and now it seems
> > "Process Physics" -- embody that new kind of approach in
> > response to incompleteness,... for physics. We can do
> > the same thing for ontology by treating ontology as a
> > "process", a search for structure, notably over language.
> >
> > -Rob
>
> I like it! My image of an ontology is the linguistic knowledge
> in a person's head, which of course changes as the person ages.
>
> Presently, I'm about 25% through "The First Idea", by Stanley
> I. Greenspan, M.D. and Stuart G. Shanker, D.Phil. who studied
> how emotion in a newborn is strengthened
> and focused by interchanges with its caregivers. They make
> a very strong case about how linguistic interactions may have
> evolved based on studies of the interactions between various
> primate newborns and their own caregivers. It describes
> the increasing accumulation of knowledge as the newborn ages.
>
> I've just finished "On Intelligence", by Jeff Hawkins, who is the
> original architect of the Palm Pilot. He has a view of how the
> neocortex accumulates knowledge which is a bit more esoteric.
> He used his money to create a foundation that studies that kind
> of thing. Much of the discussion is on the end product of an
> evolving intelligence, rather than on the evolution itself, but I would
> still recommend his book.
>
> JMHO,
> Rich