Hi Avril,
AS: thanks for the articles Richard, here's one link to Pylkkänen's book:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-3-540-23891-1#section=319512&page=1&locus=0
I'd say that Bohm is on the right track and I've learned a lot from him, but there's some elements that are not required, or could be replaced by simpler alternatives, such as his "active information".
RV: Thanks Avril. Looks very interesting - and from my brief read, I would be inclined to agree with you about “active information”.
AS:
Properties are denoted by P,J,K.
Relations are denoted by R
Level n property P is denoted as P_{n}.
The membership relation is denoted by €.
Let property P_{n} be composed of two level n-1 properties J_{n-1} and
K_{n-1}, which are related by the relation R:
P_{n}=R(J_{n-1},K_{n-1})
Any comments about the syntax?
RV: Syntax makes sense.
The only problem I have is more to do with semantics and the real world application. I am not an ontologist per se, but for me knowledge work needs to be contextual. Thus, axioms need to be constrained and their creation based on what I call practical applications of human interpretative intelligence. Thus, although I am out of my depth here, it is not clear to me what is useful about “the identification of levels – in that it clarifies the ontology of properties”.
In contrast, I like the idea of “focal level” in hierarchy theory because it does not pretend to be universal and it also highlights the importance of the relationship between the conscious knowing entity and the context. I say conscious, only consciousness in principle, allows for the apprehension of the “focal level” in the first place.
Cheers,
Richard