Re: Electronic Democracy
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Jon Awbrey
Feb 21, 2019, 9:46:01 AM2/21/19
to Ontolog Forum, SysSciWG, Structural Modeling
Michael, Bruce, Andrew, Paola, All —
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
On 2/18/2019 5:54 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,.
>
> 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
>
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
On 2/18/2019 5:54 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,.
>
> 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
>
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages