With the skillset of our
senses we can observe concepts and
reflect on concepts - especially our own ignorance - i.e the
unknown. From observing, reflecting and conceptualizing about a concept we see that we posess ignorance -
structureless -
nothingness -
unknown. That's how concepts and knowledge arises, and
knowledge is only about
concepts.
Reality is also a concept, and it exists as a concept, as does existence - and we have no problem conceptualizing (i.e learning or reflecting on) these concepts. This might sound a bit like
Plato, but consider that concepts are the knowledge, and knowing something just means we have conceptualized a
structure - observed the structure or reflected on the structure. I don't see anything as absolutely
true or
false, but adhere to several basic values which in themselves are concepts derived from nothingness - while reflecting on our own
ignorance. I see further basic values like possible and the most basic one -
unknown. This sounds similar to
hegeliandialectics, but I do consider some static knowledge as valid and real - although not encompassing everything, all aspects of reality - otherwise would be impossible for something part of reality. I'm not into any -isms like
nihilism, though not just for the sake of not-being-so itself. I think there is the
unknown and everything adheres from it. Pretty close to
intuitionism - but not quite the same thing, since I base everything on the
unknown or
notion of nothing - different from
structure. Neither is this
physicalism, nor reductive, or as in general
supervenience, and this is definitely not
epiphenomenalism - since I consider concepts which have no, and possibly never had or will have, real structural physical representation as also valid.
Structuralism or
deconstruction is also different than this, because I do hold the structureless - unknown - as part of reality as well as a basis for freedom of choice. It is somewhat similar (as in
confirmation bias) to
differentiation and
Hegel's views.
This makes the representation very clean and uncomplicated - even mechanically at first sight.
A lot of the theories of
epistemology are just too complicated and have many implicit prerequisites in my opinion. I don't see a big problem with the
Gettier problem either, but these are some of the basic concepts I think gets created when we start observing and reasoning - learning and acquiring knowledge. The multi-values might sound a bit like
modal logic or other
multi-valued logic. For practical purposes I'm modelling these concepts and representing them using
ZFC from basic
set theory, actually using
model theory which I haven't studied much since the university days. Oh, and one of the practical sides to this is that I'm having native
XML support in the language (kind of like with
E4X), especially since I'm very much into
XTM topic maps, an XML representation based on
ontology for representing knowledge. I have also been very inspired by the
Clean programming language and
Joy programming language - as well as
Prolog and
declarative languages,
specification languages for a long time. I would like to see a richer paradigm, like a conceptual programming language - and hope I can achieve this, maybe using
abstract interpretation techniques. Impressed as I am with the
Z notation, I think that for representing intrinsically flawed human knowledge some sort of
dialetheism,
paraconsistent logic is needed - perhaps similar to
Zenkoans like in
101 Zen Stories. You can really get around a lot of stuff by simulating concepts with other concepts - but the fundaments need to be of the right fiber in my opinion.
PS! For anyone wondering about my view on the physical world then - or
reality - it's all
structure - wrapped around
volatileenergy - something different than, and possibly the opposite of, nothingness - and structures directing energetic properties - like
force. I see force as a
indeterministicproperty - like an
irrational number - e.g not
exact. Also, where force is applied to one structure it results differently than on a different structure because of structural properties and
accuracypossibility.
I am inclined to think of energy as the volatile
duality in forceful structures, with
volatility the result of the
fundamental interaction by the forces which are the ever
evolving structures themselves.
My second article on english wikipedia was about
exertion after doing som research on Wikipedia and elsewhere.
My third article was about
Ahah (rewritten and extended a small stub article), a recent method I bumped into while researching Javascript techniques for browser
WYSIWYG-editors.
My fifth article will involve a rewrite of the article on
dialetheism, broadening the topic with more history, explanation and making it
NPOV - allowing it to become more
encyclopedic.
Below are some temporarily unordered categorizations:
With the skillset of our
senses we can observe concepts and
reflect on concepts - especially our own ignorance - i.e the
unknown. From observing, reflecting and conceptualizing about a concept we see that we posess ignorance -
structureless -
nothingness -
unknown. That's how concepts and knowledge arises, and
knowledge is only about
concepts.
Reality is also a concept, and it exists as a concept, as does existence - and we have no problem conceptualizing (i.e learning or reflecting on) these concepts. This might sound a bit like
Plato, but consider that concepts are the knowledge, and knowing something just means we have conceptualized a
structure - observed the structure or reflected on the structure. I don't see anything as absolutely
true or
false, but adhere to several basic values which in themselves are concepts derived from nothingness - while reflecting on our own
ignorance. I see further basic values like possible and the most basic one -
unknown. This sounds similar to
hegeliandialectics, but I do consider some static knowledge as valid and real - although not encompassing everything, all aspects of reality - otherwise would be impossible for something part of reality. I'm not into any -isms like
nihilism, though not just for the sake of not-being-so itself. I think there is the
unknown and everything adheres from it. Pretty close to
intuitionism - but not quite the same thing, since I base everything on the
unknown or
notion of nothing - different from
structure. Neither is this
physicalism, nor reductive, or as in general
supervenience, and this is definitely not
epiphenomenalism - since I consider concepts which have no, and possibly never had or will have, real structural physical representation as also valid.
Structuralism or
deconstruction is also different than this, because I do hold the structureless - unknown - as part of reality as well as a basis for freedom of choice. It is somewhat similar (as in
confirmation bias) to
differentiation and
Hegel's views.
This makes the representation very clean and uncomplicated - even mechanically at first sight.
A lot of the theories of
epistemology are just too complicated and have many implicit prerequisites in my opinion. I don't see a big problem with the
Gettier problem either, but these are some of the basic concepts I think gets created when we start observing and reasoning - learning and acquiring knowledge. The multi-values might sound a bit like
modal logic or other
multi-valued logic. For practical purposes I'm modelling these concepts and representing them using
ZFC from basic
set theory, actually using
model theory which I haven't studied much since the university days. Oh, and one of the practical sides to this is that I'm having native
XML support in the language (kind of like with
E4X), especially since I'm very much into
XTM topic maps, an XML representation based on
ontology for representing knowledge. I have also been very inspired by the
Clean programming language and
Joy programming language - as well as
Prolog and
declarative languages,
specification languages for a long time. I would like to see a richer paradigm, like a conceptual programming language - and hope I can achieve this, maybe using
abstract interpretation techniques. Impressed as I am with the
Z notation, I think that for representing intrinsically flawed human knowledge some sort of
dialetheism,
paraconsistent logic is needed - perhaps similar to
Zenkoans like in
101 Zen Stories. You can really get around a lot of stuff by simulating concepts with other concepts - but the fundaments need to be of the right fiber in my opinion.
PS! For anyone wondering about my view on the physical world then - or
reality - it's all
structure - wrapped around
volatileenergy - something different than, and possibly the opposite of, nothingness - and structures directing energetic properties - like
force. I see force as a
indeterministicproperty - like an
irrational number - e.g not
exact. Also, where force is applied to one structure it results differently than on a different structure because of structural properties and
accuracypossibility.
I am inclined to think of energy as the volatile
duality in forceful structures, with
volatility the result of the
fundamental interaction by the forces which are the ever
evolving structures themselves.
My second article on english wikipedia was about
exertion after doing som research on Wikipedia and elsewhere.
My third article was about
Ahah (rewritten and extended a small stub article), a recent method I bumped into while researching Javascript techniques for browser
WYSIWYG-editors.
My fifth article will involve a rewrite of the article on
dialetheism, broadening the topic with more history, explanation and making it
NPOV - allowing it to become more
encyclopedic.
Below are some temporarily unordered categorizations: