ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] Digital Ontology and digital ontology

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: s.wolfram@xxxxxxxxxxx, sw-staff@xxxxxxxxxxx
From: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:12:22 +0300
Message-id: <004301c9c518$fbd2e840$a104810a@homepc>

Paola wrote:
"wolfram's lecture,  is a worth a watch (I did not read the book) Series: "Frontiers of Knowledge" last year
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eC14GonZnU&feature=related
Complex, apparently random, patterns and dynamics (as observed in the natural world, and human behaviours) can be better explained and understood when broken down to the appropirate level of 'primitiveness', and wonder what kind of ontology would represent reality as presented
I like the idea of a simple underlying approach to complexity".
 
Paola, thanks for your intellectual vigilance.

It was an hour-long lecture promising to open any new avenues to all followers of a "new kind of science" (NKS). 

Many people look mystified what sort of beast this NKS might be. I think the OntologForum could shed more light on this "sensation" issue.

Here are some initial remarks. 

The NKS is mostly about digital ontology, going also as digital philosophy, digital physics, or digital metaphysics. Its main assumption is as follows:

1. Everything in the world consists of discrete indivisible elements;

2. Reality is digital, the universe is a computational system (a universal Turing machine, a cellular automaton, or a quantum computer).

3. All basic laws of the universe are deteministically algorithmic, finite recursive programs. 

So the universe is a gigantic digital computer, a sort of Turing's discrete state machines, where entities are digital beings, and real processes are computational state transitions. 
But nothing is new under the sun (or moon). And this hypothetical proposal also comes from an old legacy controversy: Discrete or Continuous (as discrete particles and continuous waves), now Digital or Analogue.

From one side you may state: the nature of the universe, its substances and processes, time and space, is ultimately discrete, and reality is ultimately resolved into discrete indivisibles (monads, computable digits, bits).

From other side, you may assert: the nature of the universe, its substances and processes, time and space, is continuous, and reality is infinitely divisible, and never ultimately resolved into discrete indivisibles (monads, computable digits, bits).

Taking the first antinomy, and thus basing on the K. Zuse thesis: "the universe is a cellular automaton" (since the Big Bang 10exp(120) operations on 10exp(90) bits) S. Wolfram has been trying to build his vision of NKS.

Now, how the simple rules, or programs, generate complex behavior. There is a sort of formal ontological relationship: recurrence relations (recurrence equations, difference equations, from Factorial n! to Ackermann function A(m, n), involving a recursively defined function, F: X arrow X), affording most complex, chaotic, and nonlinear behavior. Such relations accordingly involve self-similarity, when the whole is repeated in its infinite parts in some respects, forms, structures, etc., like fractals, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal. Here come the new slogan, ontology is fractal, i.e., its fundamental structures are infinitely repeated in the parts of the universe.

So there is digital ontology and Digital Ontology. The former is what the Forum is aimed to: building formal computable ontological models of meanings by the agency of computing languages and systems. The latter one is all about studying the hypothetical digital computational nature of the world, where the NKS is aimed to.

 
Azamat Abdoullaev
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 8:44 PM
Subject: [ontolog-forum] meta ontological frameowork [again]

An earlier thread  started attemping to discuss the metaontological framework degenerated a bit, so here we go again

 wolfram's lecture,  is a worth a watch (I did not read the book)
Series: "Frontiers of Knowledge" last year
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eC14GonZnU&feature=related

Complex, apparently random, patterns and dynamics (as observed in the natural world, and human behaviours) can be better explained and understood when broken down to
the appropirate level of 'primitiveness', and wonder what kind of ontology would represent reality as presented

I like the idea of a simple underlying approach to complexity


--
Paola Di Maio,
****************************************





_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>