[FRIAM] Graph/Network discursion.

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -

Thanks for the complementary concept of "labelled transition systems" 
(generalization of "state diagram"?) to juxtapose with Graph and Network.
> The trouble with reduction to a unified ontology is also critical, because I think the majority of the problem we're struggling with (writ large) is reductionism, or more generally, monism/non-duality.  I think Aaronson makes the point nicely here:
>
>    Higher-level causation exists (but I wish it didn’t)
>    http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3294
I'm wading... it is a rich soup.
>
> In microcosm, Nick's _latch_ onto the onion as metaphor for unorderable complexes is a symptom of the underlying problem that we use language (or conceptual structures) according to our temporally- and proximally-bound _purpose_.
A long-winded phrase for "context"?
>   Anyone who claims to work only with some sort of universal, Platonic truth is delusional or disingenuous.  A unification of that language is not only impossible, but if it were possible, it would be a kind of order-death (opposite of heat death).  Perfect and universal normalization to a single norm would paralyze us all.
I intuitively resonate with this but can't quite render it all down to 
something fully rational.
>
> But, obviously given my crybaby tantrum about "level" vs. "layer", I believe _some_ resolution/alignment of language is necessary for any sort of progress/produce.  To me, a collaboratively produced document about complexity that comes from a small subset of this community that intuitively agrees already, with no friction in the process, would be a useless "yet another jargonal paper about complexity".
>
> So far, the useful friction I see is:
>
>    Russ: information is required
>    Stephen: nearly any physical system squeezed in the right way
>    Nick: gen-phen map
>    Eric: cumulative hierarchy
Wow!  I wish I could pull that out of the discussion so easily.  I'd 
have a hard enough time validating (or refuting) this synopsis... but it 
is helpful that you offer it.
>
> I don't think pressurizing this plurality into a unified "system of thought" will produce anything interesting.  But I _do_ think allowing them to flower/flesh out from a bare, common skeleton would be interesting _IF_ the fleshing out didn't lose the skeleton amongst the flowers or lose the flowers by over-emphasizing the skeleton.
Metaphors abound... maybe a rough allegorical analogy to Russ's original 
question might be "do all useful/interesting metaphors ultimately ground 
out in biology?"  I think Lakoff and Nunez might suggest so via their 
"Embodiment of Mind" arguments?!

buh!
  - Steve
>
>
> On June 9, 2017 1:49:45 PM PDT, Steven A Smith <sasmyth at swcp.com> wrote:
>> ... how to explicitely *superpose* multiple
>> graphs/networks, and in particular ontologies, rather than try to
>> *compose* and then resolve the contradictions among them.   It is
>> ancient enough work that I don't remember exactly what I was thinking,
>> but it was revisited in the Faceted Ontology work in 2010ish...  but
>> that was MUCH more speculative since we didn't actually HAVE a specific
>>
>> ontology to work with.   "If we had some rope, we could make a log
>> raft.... if we had some logs!"
>>
>> I sense that both you (Glen) and Marcus have your own work (or
>> avocational) experience with ontologies and I'm sure there are others
>> here.  For me it is both about knowledge representation/manipulation
>> AND
>> collaborative knowledge building which is what I *think* Nick is going
>> on about, and what is implied in our bandying about of "concept/mind
>> mapping".
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
>