I’m not really talking about making choices here – binary or otherwise – between schools of thought. No, I jest, since the point of any tuple representation – pair or triple – is about their integration, not their separation. Ultimately any ontology is an arbitrary choice of which “objects” to represent your world view, with everything hanging on what you want to say about their relationships.
Interested to see today
Sir Roger Penrose’s “three worlds” diagram is the most brilliant illustration of the relationship between math, our minds, and the physical world that I’ve ever seen. pic.twitter.com/5z2i5zxDAr
— Iosif Lazaridis (@iosif_lazaridis) April 1, 2018
The image being from Penrose “Road to Reality” (and a good thread discussing earlier origins).
I like that, though in both variants everything hangs on the meanings given to the 1,2,3 relationships?
— Ian Glendinning (@psybertron) April 4, 2018
A couple of years ago I posted this triad:
summarising how I read Foucault (1970):
I see Jessica Flack‘s take mapping cleanly onto this version. That is raw “Data” is the objectively physical world out there,”Natural Language” is the subjectively human expression of our experience of it and “Mathematical Representations” are the formal symbolic representations of concepts. The latter is traditionally “Platonic” but – take note – human constructed nevertheless.
I like it, though as I say, everything hangs on what we intend to say about the relationships and how “useful” the result is in answering questions. And with all “network” diagrams, there is an equivalence in switching node (object) and edge (relation) representations anyway.
Also, shout out to the EES project again, which has some great minds clustered around proper understanding of the evolution of life, the universe and everything.