SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
LIS. Discussion Note 99
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JA = Jon Awbrey
MW = Matthew West
MW: Some consequences of 4 being an individual in some possible
world are that there are no things of which 4 can be said,
since individuals have no members. Since at least one way
that 4 is ordinarily thought of is as the set of sets with
4 members, this must be some other object, and not the 4
that we ordinarily think of.
Matthew,
We need a more systematic way of keeping track of where we are
in our discussion, as it involves a diverse mixture of notions
that are formulated at many different levels of formalization,
moreover, it mixes together many different stories from hosts
of different belief and concept and data systems, all of them
ostensibly pointing to orders of things in the/a cosmos that
may or may not ever be possible to reconcile as stories as
about the same things at all.
I know many stories about numbers. I know many stories about unicorns.
There are people with a stake in mathematics, physics, statistics, and
computer science who take their stories about numbers rather seriously.
There are people with a stake in the arts, medieval literature, modern
literature, fantasy and science fiction -- both the academic study and
the bread-and-butter, pot-boiling working craft -- and psychologies of
especially the Jungian variety, all of whom take the global-historical
corpus of stories about unicorns, and entire zoological gardens of the
human imagination, extremely seriously. And all of these serious folk,
and all of these serial folktaletellers are in the market for software
that would live-long-and-prosper them in their day-to-day work.
But. It ain't gonna happen this way.
So. I believe that we should start getting at least half as serious
as these other folk, and start thinking seriously about how it might.
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o