Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
True reality is in kinds, natural kinds and species,
not in individual
events but their change kinds.
No, species have constituent genes, culturally determined and
individual instance behaviors, and all the appurtenances thereunto. There
is no reality in kind classifications; merely the convenience of a compressed
representation and resulting communication channel conservation. Shakespeare
erred; the play is not the whole thing, just a decomposition of constituents thereof.
A plurality of other plays awaits the patient.
Animality and humanity and rationality are
always with us, individual substances, marked by
temporality, but aimed at forming timeless global
kinds, as the future Internet of things and human
Or something. What have you been smoking
Without the kinds it is not possible to have
You chunk category errors uncontrollably. Possibilities are independent
of the bound facts. Look at the intensional specs gathered so far. Then
construct theories of possible explanations; bake and test. Only some
theories work with some data; the rest is prolog to integrate with the former.
realism, when Ideas and Forms supposed to exist in
their own way,
Where did they suppose this, or who supposed it?
archaic today as much as the opposite mindset that
universality is a
property of words (general names) alone, forming their
Botswannans don't all speak Botswannan.
Universality is a myth. SUO's results - no universal standard ontology CAN
exist - established needs for both extensional data and intensional functions
(or dynamic management of sames) to establish subjective contexts in any
ontology, at least IMHO.
What makes Plato real? He's no
longer around to teach, so he can't work on the new data that have become available
in the last few thousand years.
Science opens new forms and levels of existence,
individual, specific and
generic, interrelated with each other by the
whole-part relationships (by
upward and backward causation).
I prefer 'forward' and 'backward' if
you're referring to Markovian or Bayesian sequential models, or nonlinear rule
sets, or collections of data from an initial point in time. But causation
is strictly unknowable since time keeps iterating; so far, each tick has had,
or I believe will have, a tock. Could be wrong about that; it's still not
complete. Stay tuned.
The realization of ontological entities as the
Or something. What about plastic, elastic or spastic universals?
Concrete is so ... dense and inertial. There's always new recursive Universes
to fall back into.
singular mark and tendency of emerging meta-sciences
Actually, our present meta are just partitions,
aggregations and analyses of prior data gathered and analyzed from the previous
metae. Each iteration steps anew to new metae. Literally. I
explained that in detail in my patent specification (7,209,923)to ensure it
enabled readers awake and aware of the state of the subject art.
Try and see a principal distinction of Class
(determined by single
? what about mutually exclusive practice property pair sets like conservation
and profligacy, honesty and generality, many of which are orthogonal pairs?
How about predicates based on a plurality (N,M,L...) of orthogonal pairs?
How about a recursively distributed plurality, possibly time, or a contagious
habit or reaction (sneezing)?
), Kind (by set of properties), and Natural Kind (by
set of lawfully
Whose lawfully? We each construct our own plurality of laws, at
least for ourselves, based on our experiences. It's much easier to
construct laws for others, but they often don't cooperate. Regrettable,
but not repairable within free will constraints.
A natural kind is the set of all things sharing a
law, while a natural species, a particular law. The
reality of natural laws
implies the existence of natural kinds, and vice
If that is true, we can only see things
for which there are predefined laws. So what makes predefined laws
natural? Who or what defined them? What if the laws change? What
if there is an as yet undiscovered law (kinda likely, considering the paucity
of data we've seen so far)? We have to formulate or hypothesize or
conjecture based on what's available at crunch time when we start the next tick.
Crisis; opportunity; choice; history. The sequence has also been called:
Innovative Phase, Resistive Phase, Productive Phase, and Recorded Phase; shake
Organic evolution, from speciation of species to
macroevolution of new
classes and kinds,
Category error: the kind (class) is not the thing (species) is not the
instance (Bambi); each rose has unique leaves, flowers, branches and thorns. Only
after I have decided which species to put it in do I configure a law to
represent that species. There are no species other than those in our
imaginations, which we keep there for convenient linguistic designations among
interpretation trading partners.
falls under Ontological Evolution (OntoGenesis), the
evolutionary development of ontological kinds of all
types and sorts:
physical kinds, chemical kinds, biological kinds,
mental kinds, social
kinds, and technological kinds, like the real semantic
The commonly used definition for Ontogeny is
the developmental process of an individual from conception to death. So
an individual can be an ontology or plurality of ontologies, or can comprise the
same among other stuff.