Electronic Democracy
bruces...@cox.net
Interesting that you would mention politics, Michael. For me, politics seems like a huge opportunity for a new ontology. People complain all the time about “the system” – and from many points of view, that system does seem stricken. Maybe it works at local levels – where to put the stop sign – but at national or global levels, it’s scary.
I’ve been an advocate for a network-based politics for a long time. That’s a subject some serious engineers ought to get their head around. Many years ago I came across a couple of books by Dr. Simon Ramo, founder of TRW corporation, on the application of network science to politics (“Cure for Chaos”, “Century of Mismatch”). His thesis more or less was that we are idiots if we don’t see this. And “cyberspace” – it seems a natural fit for some kind of “control systems optimization”. A “governor” is the basic cybernetic device – like a governor on a steam engine. Democracy itself is essentially a cybernetic concept – a model for the “self-regulation of society”. I wrote a letter to Simon Ramo about this years ago, and was thrilled to get an encouraging personal letter back. He died recently at age 103, one of the hero engineers of our times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Ramo
I was in love with control theory. I couldn’t really understand the continuously variable math, but I would go out to the Naval Postgraduate School library in Monterey and just gaze loving at these amazing books, and I purchased some big generic texts. Today, one of the big problems – apart from all questions about specific issues and values and positions and differences among people – is the sheer fact of simultaneity. We have hundreds of interdependent simultaneous variables hitting us at the same time, and a processing system with far too little bandwidth and capacity.
Another de rigueur cognitive science article is the famous “Magical Number Seven Plus or Minus Two” by psychologist and WordNet developer George Miller, which reviews the capacity of the normal human mind to process simultaneous chunks of information. We are limited, it seems, to about 7 at any one time. God help us if we need to process 70 or 700.
I think this limit has been an issue for me for years, and has slowed down or stopped my capacity to build this “synthetic dimensionality” framework – since it seems to connect hundreds of simultaneous interdependencies. Maybe it’s this current database format that is capable of holding hundreds of things at the same time, even if my little brain staggers at the challenge. It seems that what is trying to happen is a kind of “holistic mathematics” – where instead of constructing large complex objects out of little pieces defined by axioms, the required method seems to involve a very few large-scale composite objects that exist as units. Getting those things defined properly is not so easy,.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two
http://originresearch.com/docs/MagicalNumberSeven.docx
But I am sensing the winds are changing. Internet technology is now so fast, we can accomplish much more than we could ten or twenty years ago. Compared to driving to the university, finding a book in the library stacks and photo-copying a few pages, then transcribing that info to paper or a computer – today we are 1,000 times faster. God bless Wikipedia.
Yesterday, I started sketching out an overview of synthetic dimensionality just drawn together from a few big-picture factors, that seem to be getting clearer and clearer. Hundreds of factors start to fall into place. I can handle 7 “big holistic chunks” a lot better than I can handle 700 little independent simultaneous definitions and concepts – and if I can explain (or construct) the big pieces in terms of the little ones, this vastly complex jig-saw puzzle starts coming into focus.
So yes, I think we need system ontology for a new network politics. Maybe Marianne Williamson can help push that kind of thing. Here’s a dream/vision I essay I wrote in 1988, right at the beginning of The WELL (“Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link”, Stewart Brand). http://originresearch.com/docs/UtopianComputerNetworking1988.docx
Bruce Schuman
Santa Barbara CA USA, 805-705-9174
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Michael DeBellis
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2019 10:31 AM
To: ontolog-forum <ontolo...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: Decimal places as genus / species / taxonomy
Bruce, I know Tom Gruber. I'm not sure he would remember me but I talked with him back at the very beginning of the dot.com boom. He was starting a knowledge management company and I was thinking of joining them. I probably would have because I hated the consulting job I had at the time but I got an offer from Deloitte to lead an applied R&D lab which was sort of my dream job so took that instead. I have more to say about your reply but as I started typing I realized it was getting rather political and far from ontologies so I'm going to send you a direct email rather than put political stuff here.
Michael
andrew u frank
A series of interesting books and articles were published by Mesarovic, M.D. et al. on complex systems adapting to changing outside conditions and optimizing their behavior. I have "a theory of hierarchical, multilevel, systems (academic press 1970 - obtained second hand); my 'take home message' is that hierarchically structured systems, making decision on the lowest possible level for adaptation are optimal (considering the amount of communication required). The mathematical argument is using linear algebra mostly and seems rigorous to me. Mesarovic was later contributing to the club of rome report 'limits to growth'. I think the contribution is meaningful for todays political systems but should be applied as well to ontology to contain complexity.
andrew frank
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/00c701d4c7dc%24e586db60%24b0949220%24%40cox.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Paola Di Maio
my 'take home message' is that hierarchically structured systems, making decision on the lowest possible level for adaptation are optimal (considering the amount of communication required).
The mathematical argument is using linear algebra mostly and seems rigorous to me. Mesarovic was later contributing to the club of rome report 'limits to growth'. I think the contribution is meaningful for todays political systems but should be applied as well to ontology to contain complexity.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/1e0d5029-dd03-d7a8-087d-db7e5ee11b9e%40gmail.com.
Jon Awbrey
Information and optimization go hand in hand (or hand and gage sometimes) —
discovering the laws or constraints that naturally govern the systems in
which we live is a big part of inching or nanometering toward our hearts'
desires within them. I'm engaged in trying to clear up a few old puzzles
about information at present but the dual relationship of information and
control in cybernetic systems is never far from my mind. Anyways, here's
a sampling of thoughts along those lines I thought I might add to the mix.
The Place Where Three Wars Meet
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/06/21/the-place-where-three-wars-meet/
If the People rule, then the People must be wise
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2012/04/14/if-the-people-rule-then-the-people-must-be-wise/
Theory and Therapy of Representations
1. https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/13/theory-and-therapy-of-representations-%e2%80%a2-1/
2. https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/12/19/theory-and-therapy-of-representations-%e2%80%a2-2/
Basal Ingredients Of Society (BIOS)
• https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/?s=Basal+Ingredients+Of+Society
Peirce and Democracy
1. https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/11/23/peirce-and-democracy-%e2%80%a2-1/
2. https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/12/30/peirce-and-democracy-%e2%80%a2-2/
Regards,
Jon
--
inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
bruces...@cox.net
Thanks, people, for these comments. I am plugging away on a single database framework that attempts to span these topics – ranging from science and engineering to ontology to group decision-making processes at various levels of scale. This project is exploring the very ambitious notion that by interconnecting hundreds of elements – probably including “the great religions and spiritual traditions of the world” – it might be possible to define a kind of universal moral/ethical compass capable of helping to coordinate or guide decisions at the local level by alignment with a global collaborative principle. This might be great for local/global integration, and help “get everybody on the same page” (while supporting local independence, freedom, and diversity). Maybe a guiding principle would be something like “balance all factors with respect to the whole” – which might (?) be conceivable in a globally-networked system.
This idea might dovetail with Andrew Frank’s comment that hierarchical systems running “at the lowest possible level” (perhaps meaning highly local, with a lot of specific empirical detail) should include anything contingent on a specific decision at some level of scale (family, neighborhood, city, region, nation, global). The right kind of network connections could scale the influence of local decisions upward as appropriate. Maybe this becomes a huge local/global “learning network” process, where we all get smarter and more in tune by listening to one another.
I am tempted to add into this kind of design a connection with an organization like Claudio Gnoli’s “International Society for Knowledge Organization” - http://www.isko.org/ko.html - because, it seems to me, that with right kind of addressing schematic, something like “the collective knowledge of the human race” might also become contingent on political/collective decisions.
This might help address an important and frustrating/scary chronic problem with democracy – which is that wisdom and expertise can be dismissed by “populist” movements that tend to see expertise and skill as “elitist”. This has happened in revolutionary cultures – in China, I think as Mao rose to power – and in Cambodia, with the rise of the Khmer Rouge. There are tendencies like this in the USA today, and probably also in Europe.
“Expertise” is too wobbly, too fragmented, too scattered, too riddled with controversy, lacking in credibility in the mass market. Everything is “just your opinion”. But “converging” it somehow, maybe under the influence of highly-vetted principles like “scientific method” and some fundamentals of human relationships (“mutual respect”), a global-scale library or network of libraries might become a very significant and helpful global influence.
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of andrew u frank
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 2:55 AM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Electronic Democracy
A series of interesting books and articles were published by Mesarovic, M.D. et al. on complex systems adapting to changing outside conditions and optimizing their behavior. I have "a theory of hierarchical, multilevel, systems (academic press 1970 - obtained second hand); my 'take home message' is that hierarchically structured systems, making decision on the lowest possible level for adaptation are optimal (considering the amount of communication required). The mathematical argument is using linear algebra mostly and seems rigorous to me. Mesarovic was later contributing to the club of rome report 'limits to growth'. I think the contribution is meaningful for todays political systems but should be applied as well to ontology to contain complexity.
andrew frank
On 2/18/19 11:54 PM, bruces...@cox.net wrote:
Interesting that you would mention politics, Michael. For me, politics seems like a huge opportunity for a new ontology. People complain all the time about “the system” – and from many points of view, that system does seem stricken. Maybe it works at local levels – where to put the stop sign – but at national or global levels, it’s scary.
I’ve been an advocate for a network-based politics for a long time. That’s a subject some serious engineers ought to get their head around. Many years ago I came across a couple of books by Dr. Simon Ramo, founder of TRW corporation, on the application of network science to politics (“Cure for Chaos”, “Century of Mismatch”). His thesis more or less was that we are idiots if we don’t see this. And “cyberspace” – it seems a natural fit for some kind of “control systems optimization”. A “governor” is the basic cybernetic device – like a governor on a steam engine. Democracy itself is essentially a cybernetic concept – a model for the “self-regulation of society”. I wrote a letter to Simon Ramo about this years ago, and was thrilled to get an encouraging personal letter back. He died recently at age 103, one of the hero engineers of our times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Ramo
I was in love with control theory. I couldn’t really understand the continuously variable math, but I would go out to the Naval Postgraduate School library in Monterey and just gaze loving at these amazing books, and I purchased some big generic texts. Today, one of the big problems – apart from all questions about specific issues and values and positions and differences among people – is the sheer fact of simultaneity. We have hundreds of interdependent simultaneous variables hitting us at the same time, and a processing system with far too little bandwidth and capacity.
Another de rigueur cognitive science article is the famous “Magical Number Seven Plus or Minus Two” by psychologist and WordNet developer George Miller, which reviews the capacity of the normal human mind to process simultaneous chunks of information. We are limited, it seems, to about 7 at any one time. God help us if we need to process 70 or 700.
I think this limit has been an issue for me for years, and has slowed down or stopped my capacity to build this “synthetic dimensionality” framework – since it seems to connect hundreds of simultaneous interdependencies. Maybe it’s this current database format that is capable of holding hundreds of things at the same time, even if my little brain staggers at the challenge. It seems that what is trying to happen is a kind of “holistic mathematics” – where instead of constructing large complex objects out of little pieces defined by axioms, the required method seems to involve a very few large-scale composite objects that exist as units. Getting those things defined properly is not so easy.
bruces...@cox.net
Just have to comment on
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihajlo_D._Mesarovic
That guy is right on target with everything I have been considering, thank you Andrew for citing him.
His research interests include the areas and topics like complexity, complex systems theory, global change and sustainable human development, hierarchical systems, large-scale systems theory, mathematical theory of general systems, multi-level systems, systems biology, and world and regional modeling. In the field of mathematics he is considered to be founder of:
Mathematical theory of coordination
Multi-level Hierarchical Systems Developer
Negotiation Support Software System
That is exactly what I want to do or am looking at.
Mathematical theory of coordination? Heck yes!
Multi-level hierarchical system developer? The ontology system I am building is based on that principle. So is the database system that contains and organizes it.
And negotiation support software? Yes, Lord help us – get that going, please! We need a system like that at every point of controversy in a global-scale network that reaches down perfectly to local levels.
“Linearly optimize the whole thing!”
Thanks. 😊
From: ontolo...@googlegroups.com <ontolo...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of andrew u frank
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2019 2:55 AM
To: ontolo...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Electronic Democracy
Jack Park
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/00b501d4ca0d%2461ad4d00%242507e700%24%40cox.net.
Azamat Abdoullaev
SmartWorld 2019 topics include but are not limited to the following: – Smart Industry and Manufacture – Smart Home and Furniture – Smart Agriculture and Aquaculture – Smart Appliances and Goods – Smart Materials and Fabric – Smart Wearables and Implants – Smart Environment and Ecosystems – Smart Medicine and Healthcare – Smart Earth/Space System – Smart Elderly/Kiddy Care – Smart Grid and Energy – Smart Foods and Living – Smart Logistics and Retail – Smart Learning and Education – Smart Building and Structure – Smart Disaster Management – Smart Roads and Transportation – Smart Internet of Things – Smart Vehicles and Networks – Smart Sensing, System and Service – Smart Machines and Robots
--
All contributions to this forum are covered by an open-source license.
For information about the wiki, the license, and how to subscribe or
unsubscribe to the forum, see http://ontologforum.org/info/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ontolog-forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ontolog-foru...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ontolog-forum/00b501d4ca0d%2461ad4d00%242507e700%24%40cox.net.