What do all things have in common?

Posts tagged “Knowledge Representation

A Holon’s Topology, Morphology, and Dynamics (2a)

A Holon’s Topology, Morphology, and Dynamics (2a)
IntroVideo2a -3131
This is the second video of a large series and the very first video in a mini-series about holons. In this series I will be building the vocabulary of holons which in turn will be used in my knowledge representations.
The video following this one will go into greater detail describing what you see here and will be adding more to the vocabulary.

This is the second video of a large series and the very first video in a mini-series about holons. In this series I will be building the vocabulary of holons which in turn will be used in my knowledge representations.

Ontology: Compelling and ‘Rich’

Ontology (Water)

Ontologies are surfaces… even if ‘rich’. (link)

Ontology: Compelling and ‘Rich’
They are only surfaces, but they seem to provide you with depth.

This exquisite video shows how the representation of knowledge is ripe for a revolution. I’ve written about this in depth in other places so I won’t bore you with the details here unless you ask me in the comments below.

Stay tuned! I’m behind in my schedule (work load), but I’m getting very close just the same. I will publish here and elsewhere.
I’m going to use this video (and others like it) to explain why ontologies are not sufficient to represent knowledge.

Soon everyone will acknowledge this fact and claim they’ve been saying it all along! (In spite of the many thousands of papers and books obsessively claiming the opposite!!!) They do not know that how dangerous that claim is going to be. Our future will be equipped with the ability to determine if such claims are true or not. That’s some of the reason I do what I do.

#KnowledgeRepresentation #BigData #Semantics #Metaphysics   #Ontology
#Knowledge #Wisdom #Understanding #Insight #Learning #MathesisUniversalis #MathesisGeneralis #PhilosophiaUniversalis #PhilosophiaGeneralis #ScientiaUniversalis #ScientiaGeneralis

Knowledge Representation Foundations


Knowledge Representation Foundations
It’s also stuck in ontological framing, but the approach and results are fascinating.


“This map was constructed by sorting roughly 800,000 published papers into 776 different scientific paradigms (shown as pale circular nodes) based on how often the papers were cited together by authors of other papers.”

“Links (curved black lines) were made between the paradigms that shared papers, then treated as rubber bands, holding similar paradigms nearer one another when a physical simulation forced every paradigm to repel every other; thus the layout derives directly from the data.”

“Larger paradigms have more papers; node proximity and darker links indicate how many papers are shared between two paradigms. Flowing labels list common words unique to each paradigm, large labels general areas of scientific inquiry.”

Others doing work on this:

Flickr (versions to download):

Paper on Illuminated Diagrams:
(Also one in German that is VERY comprehensive!)


Manuel DeLanda. 2015. Philosophical Chemistry: Genealogy of a Scientific Field. Bloomsbury
“There is no such thing as Science. The word ‘Science’ refers to a reified generality that together with others, like Nature and Culture, has been a constant source of false problems: are controversies in Science decided by Nature or Culture?”

“Avoiding badly posed problems requires that we replace Science with a population of individual scientific fields, each with it own concepts, statements, significant problems, taxonomic ad explanatory schemas. There are, of course, interactions between fields, and exchanges of cognitive content between them, but that does not mean that they can be fused into a totality in which everything is inextricably related. There is not even a discernible convergence towards a grand synthesis to give us hope that even if the population of fields is highly heterogeneous today, it will one day converge into a unified field. On the contrary, the historical record shows a population progressively differentiating into many subfields, by specialization or hybridization, yielding an overall divergent movement.”

Precursors Of Knowledge

Precursors of KnowledgePrecursors Of Knowledge
Fractal fields provide a nice framework in which to think about knowledge. They are not all we need for precision, but they are helpful in a generic way. I’ll be posting more on them as the knowledge representations are published, because there are many ‘gaps to fill’ to show how these relate to knowledge.

More sources:

Coming Soon To A World Near You

Yes!Coming Soon To A World Near You

The time is coming when we will exchange massive amounts of knowledge between us without any corporation standing in between.
My life’s work is dedicated to this vision and I’m actually carrying it out right in front of you!

We will not only create and share our books, documents, web sites, search results, and media with each other – we will be sharing their conceptual landscapes.

3D Scientific Visualization with Blender

3D Scientific Visualization with Blender

3D Scientific Visualization with Blender
It’s a book everyone in knowledge representation should at least know about. It has great tips and clarifications inside.

Unfortunately it is also based solely on ontologies so it provides only limited value for what I’m doing, but it is a valuable resource for understanding and creating visualizations just the same.

Video – Rendering a data cube:
Video – Colliding galaxies:

Information Visualization Is Not Knowledge Representation

Information visualization is not Knowledge Representation

(Lynda.com – Overview of Data Visualization)

Information Visualization Is Not Knowledge Representation
This great video from Lynda.com shows how the processing language/interpreter is great for modeling information.

With such a multitude of interesting ways to model data, we find it hard to resist the temptation to call this knowledge, but it’s not!

All of the wonderful representations here still require us to interpret their meaning!

What if there were a way to present knowledge in which our own understanding is not required to interpret them? What if our understanding of what we have presented to us becomes part of the presentation itself, and in fact, influences what we take from that representation?

We obviously need knowledge representation that can provide their meaning on their own for only they can provide a true understanding of their inherent structure and dynamics.

You see real understanding is the personalization of knowledge into your own mind. If your mind cannot dialog with that knowledge, it’s not really yours and if your mind does all the work, it’s only information.

Strictly Speaking Can’t! Natural Language Won’t?


Physics is only complex, because it’s in someone’s interest to have it that way.  The way to understanding, even if you don’t understand science, was paved with words. Even if those words led only to a symbolic form of understanding.

I’m a mathematician and can tell you that common ordinary language is quite capable of explaining physics. Mathematics is simply more precise than common language. It pays the price for that precision by being subservient to the causal and compositional relations. These are limitations that metaphysics and philosophy do not have.

Words in language have a structure that mathematics alone will never see as it looks for their structure and dynamics in the wrong places and in the wrong ways. Pure mathematics lacks an underlying expression of inherent purpose in its ‘tool set’.

With natural language we are even able to cross the ‘event horizon’ into interiority (where unity makes its journey through the non-dual into the causal realm). It is a place where mathematics may also ‘visit’ and investigate, but only with some metaphysical foundation to navigate with. The ‘landscape’ is very different there… where even time and space ‘behave’ (manifest) differently. Yet common language can take us there! Why? It’s made of the ‘right stuff’!

The monological gaze with its incipient ontological foundation, as found in pure mathematics, is too myopic. That’s why languages such as category theory, although subtle and general in nature, even lose their way. They can tell us how we got there, but none can tell us why we wanted to get there in the first place!

It’s easy to expose modern corporate science’s (mainstream) limitations with this limited tool set – you need simply ask questions like: “What in my methodology inherently expresses why am I looking in here?” (what purpose) or “What assumptions am I making that I’m not even aware of?” or “Why does it choose to do that? and you’re already there where ontology falls flat on its face.

Even questions like these are met with disdain, intolerance and ridicule (the shadow knows it can’t see and wills to banish what it cannot)! And that’s where science begins to resemble religion (psyence).

Those are also some of the reasons why philosophers and philosophy have almost disappeared from the mainstream. I’ll give you a few philosophical hints to pique your interest.

Why do they call it Chaos Theory and not Cosmos Theory?
Why coincidence and not synchronicity?
Why entropy and not centropy?

Why particle and not field?
(many more examples…)

Knowledge Representation – Self and Other

Knowledge Representation of Self and Other

Knowledge Representation of Self and Other

This knowledge representation, which I made for a presentation in Nürnberg on April 29th, 2013, depicts a partial resonance domain with respect to sentient relation and orientation. The representation is not designed to be comprehensive in any respect, rather it is intended to help those who are not accustomed to viewing knowledge in this way.

It shows how, to quote Carl Sagan: “One voice in the Cosmic fugue.” can be represented more generally. There are certainly other possibilities with respect to relation and orientation between self and other.

You may need to stop this video occasionally as some of the transitions occur very quickly.I’ve indicated what is happening in the representation to aid in the interpretation of what is being shown.

I would appreciate any feedback you may want to give. I’d be pleased to answer any questions that may arise.

Thank you for watching!


A question has come in from an anonymous source asking for clarification on the use of “Resonance Domain”.

A resonance domain is comprised of resonance fields. When one or more fields are being examined, the group is called a domain.

For further clarity I’d like to add that we are looking at two separate fields (sentient beings) in terms of the relation they participate in and the orientation they share with each other.

Fields are always composed of other sub-fields and contain even partial fields from other sources!


UPDATE: “Why do you use the word ‘sentient’ in your description?”

There are basically three types of entities in our universe:
1) Having some measure of interiority (concept of self).
2) Artifacts
3) Heaps

‘Self and other’ can come in any number of combinations:
The knowledge representation above requires that at least two of the participants are of type 1 (sentience) for this knowledge representation to hold.

Type 1) human and type 1) dog will work.
Type 1) human and type 2) book will not work.
Type 1) human and type 3) rock will not work.

This way of looking at our Kosmos (multiverse) is called Mathesis Universalis.

For those interested in more on the subject, go to http://mathesis-universalis.com.

[PS: There are also the conditions that both participants are conscious of each other and that their shared consciousness is such that differences in semantics between them are ‘reconcilable’ (coherence). (for the scientists/mathematicians among us!)] 😉