Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
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 contingency and
temporality, but aimed at forming
timeless global techno-organic-political
kinds, as the future Internet of things
and human beings.
Or something. What have you been smoking
(vaporizing)?
Without the kinds it is not possible to
have scientific knowledge.
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.
Platonic
realism, when Ideas and Forms supposed to
exist in their own way,
Where did they suppose this, or who supposed
it?
sounds
archaic today as much as the opposite
mindset that universality is a
property of words (general names) alone,
forming their meaning.
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 "concrete universal"
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.
is the
singular mark and tendency of emerging
meta-sciences and meta-technologies.
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
Property
? 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
related properties).
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 basic
law, while a natural species, a
particular law. The reality of natural laws
implies the existence of natural kinds,
and vice versa.
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 and iterate.
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 web.
Azamat
Abdoullaev
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.
-Rich