Category of being. Categorical distinctions[edit] The common or dominant ways to view categories as of the end of the 20th century. via bundle theory as bundles of properties – categories reflect differences in thesevia peer-to-peer comparisons or dialectics – categories are formed by conflict/debatevia value theory as leading to specific ends – categories are formed by choosing endsvia conceptual metaphors as arising from characteristics of human cognition itself – categories are found via cognitive science and other study of that biological system Any of these ways can be criticized for... In process philosophy, this last is the only possibility, but historically philosophers have been loath to conclude that nothing exists but process.
Categorization of existence[edit] As bundles of properties[edit] For example, if we take the concept of a black square, bundle theory would suggest that all that can be said to exist are the properties of a black square. As formed by debate[edit] Intuition as evasion[edit] [edit] Www.math.ucla.edu/~mburgin/papers/FstrSUM4.pdf. Systems theory.
Systems theory is the interdisciplinary study of systems in general, with the goal of elucidating principles that can be applied to all types of systems at all nesting levels in all fields of research. [citation needed] The term does not yet have a well-established, precise meaning, but systems theory can reasonably be considered a specialization of systems thinking; alternatively as a goal output of systems science and systems engineering, with an emphasis on generality useful across a broad range of systems (versus the particular models of individual fields).
A central topic of systems theory is self-regulating systems, i.e. systems self-correcting through feedback. Self-regulating systems are found in nature, including the physiological systems of our body, in local and global ecosystems, and in climate—and in human learning processes (from the individual on up through international organizations like the UN).[3] Overview[edit] Examples of applications[edit] Systems biology[edit] Ousia. Philosophical and scientific use[edit] Theological significance[edit] New Testament[edit] The word ousia is not used in the New Testament except in relation to the substance in the sense of goods twice in the parable of the Prodigal Son where the son asked his father to divide to him his inheritance, and then wasted it on riotous living.[4][5] Early Christianity[edit] It must be regarded as certain that the council, which condemned Paul, rejected the term homoousios; but, naturally, only in a false sense, used by Paul; not, it seems, because he meant by it a unity of Hypostasis in the Trinity (so St.
The generally agreed-upon meaning of ousia in Eastern Christianity is "all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another"[7] - in contrast to hypostasis, which is used to mean "reality" or "existence".[8] See also[edit] References[edit] Bibliography[edit] Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology, Liturgical Press, 1983. Bootstrapping. In general parlance, bootstrapping usually refers to the starting of a self-sustaining process that is supposed to proceed without external input. In computer technology the term (usually shortened to booting) usually refers to the process of loading the basic software into the memory of a computer after power-on or general reset, especially the operating system which will then take care of loading other software as needed.
The term appears to have originated in the early 19th century United States (particularly in the phrase "pull oneself over a fence by one's bootstraps"), to mean an absurdly impossible action, an adynaton.[1][2][3] Etymology[edit] A pair of boots with one bootstrap visible Tall boots may have a tab, loop or handle at the top known as a bootstrap, allowing one to use fingers or a boot hook tool to help pulling the boots on. Applications[edit] Computing[edit] Software loading and execution[edit] The computer term bootstrap began as a metaphor in the 1950s.
Compilers[edit] World line. In physics, the world line of an object is the unique path of that object as it travels through 4-dimensional spacetime. The concept of "world line" is distinguished from the concept of "orbit" or "trajectory" (such as an orbit in space or a trajectory of a truck on a road map) by the time dimension, and typically encompasses a large area of spacetime wherein perceptually straight paths are recalculated to show their (relatively) more absolute position states — to reveal the nature of special relativity or gravitational interactions.
The idea of world lines originates in physics and was pioneered by Hermann Minkowski. The term is now most often used in relativity theories (i.e., special relativity and general relativity). However, world lines are a general way of representing the course of events. Usage in physics[edit] , upwards and the space coordinate, say horizontally. A curve M in [spacetime] is called a worldline of a particle if its tangent is future timelike at each point.
(where. Bootstrap paradox. The bootstrap paradox, or ontological paradox, is a paradox of time travel that refers to scenarios whereby items or information are passed from the future to the past, which in turn become the same items or information that are subsequently passed from the past to the future - this creates a circularity of cause-effect such that the items or information have no discernible origin. Thus, the paradox raises the ontological questions of where, when and by whom the items were created or the information derived. After information or an object is sent back in time, it is recovered in the present and becomes the very object or information that was initially brought back in time in the first place. Numerous science fiction stories are based on this paradox, which has also been the subject of serious physics articles.[1] The term "bootstrap paradox" refers to the expression "pulling yourself up by your bootstraps"; the use of the term for the time-travel paradox was popularized by Robert A.
Ontic. In philosophy, ontic (from the Greek ὄν, genitive ὄντος: "of that which is") is physical, real, or factual existence. "Ontic" describes what is there, as opposed to the nature or properties of that being. To illustrate: Usage in philosophy of science[edit] Harald Atmanspacher writes extensively about the philosophy of science, especially as it relates to Chaos theory, determinism, causation, and stochasticity. He explains that "ontic states describe all properties of a physical system exhaustively. ('Exhaustive' in this context means that an ontic state is 'precisely the way it is,' without any reference to epistemic knowledge or ignorance.)
" [1] In an earlier paper, Atmanspacher portrays the difference between an epistemic perspective of a system, and an ontic perspective: Philosophical discourse traditionally distinguishes between ontology and epistemology and generally enforces this distinction by keeping the two subject areas separated. Usage in philosophy of critical realism[edit] Pluralism (philosophy) Pluralism is a term used in philosophy, meaning "doctrine of multiplicity", often used in opposition to monism ("doctrine of unity") and dualism ("doctrine of duality").
The term has different meanings in metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology. In metaphysics, pluralism is a doctrine that there is more than one reality, while realism holds that there is but one reality, that may have single objective ontology or plural ontology. In one form, it is a doctrine that many substances exist, in contrast with monism which holds existence to be a single substance, often either matter (materialism) or mind (idealism), and dualism believes two substances, such as matter and mind, to be necessary.
In ontology, pluralism refers to different ways, kinds, or modes of being. In epistemology, pluralism is the position that there is not one consistent means of approaching truths about the world, but rather many. The topic of ontological pluralism discusses different ways, kinds, or modes of being. Substance theory. Ancient Greek philosophy[edit] A substance—that which is called a substance most strictly, primarily, and most of all—is that which is neither said of a subject nor in a subject, e.g. the individual man or the individual horse. The species in which the things primarily called substances are, are called secondary substances, as also are the genera of these species. For example, the individual man belongs in a species, man, and animal is a genus of the species; so these—both man and animal—are called secondary substances.[2]—Aristotle, Categories 2a13, (trans.
J.L. Ackrill) Neither the "bare particulars" nor "property bundles" of modern theory have their antecedent in Aristotle, according to whom, all matter exists in some form. However, according to Aristotle's theology, a form of invariant form exists without matter, beyond the cosmos, powerless and oblivious, in the eternal substance of the unmoved movers. Early Western philosophy[edit] Locke defined substance as follows: Inherence[edit] Philosophy of mathematics. The philosophy of mathematics is the branch of philosophy that studies the philosophical assumptions, foundations, and implications of mathematics. The aim of the philosophy of mathematics is to provide an account of the nature and methodology of mathematics and to understand the place of mathematics in people's lives.
The logical and structural nature of mathematics itself makes this study both broad and unique among its philosophical counterparts. The terms philosophy of mathematics and mathematical philosophy are frequently used as synonyms.[1] The latter, however, may be used to refer to several other areas of study. One refers to a project of formalizing a philosophical subject matter, say, aesthetics, ethics, logic, metaphysics, or theology, in a purportedly more exact and rigorous form, as for example the labors of scholastic theologians, or the systematic aims of Leibniz and Spinoza. Recurrent themes[edit] Recurrent themes include: History[edit] 20th century[edit] Major themes[edit]
Mereology. Mereology has been axiomatized in various ways as applications of predicate logic to formal ontology, of which mereology is an important part. A common element of such axiomatizations is the assumption, shared with inclusion, that the part-whole relation orders its universe, meaning that everything is a part of itself (reflexivity), that a part of a part of a whole is itself a part of that whole (transitivity), and that two distinct entities cannot each be a part of the other (antisymmetry).
A variant of this axiomatization denies that anything is ever part of itself (irreflexive) while accepting transitivity, from which antisymmetry follows automatically. Standard university texts on logic and mathematics are silent about mereology, which has undoubtedly contributed to its obscurity. History[edit] A.N. Whitehead planned a fourth volume of Principia Mathematica, on geometry, but never wrote it. Axioms and primitive notions[edit] An object lacking proper parts is an atom.
The axioms are: Gunk (mereology) In mereology, an area of philosophical logic, the term gunk applies to any whole whose parts all have further proper parts. That is, a gunky object is not made of indivisible atoms: If something is made of atomless gunk then it divides forever into smaller and smaller parts—it is infinitely divisible. However, a line segment is infinitely divisible, and yet has atomic parts: the points. A hunk of gunk does not even have atomic parts ‘at infinity’; all parts of such an object have proper parts.[1] If point-sized objects are always simple, then a gunky object does not have any point-sized parts.
By usual accounts of gunk, such as Alfred Tarski's in 1929, three-dimensional gunky objects also do not have other degenerate parts shaped like one-dimensional curves or two-dimensional surfaces. (See also Whitehead's point-free geometry.) The term was first used by David Lewis in his work Parts of Classes (1991). Jump up ^ Sider, Theodore (1993). General formal ontology. Includes objects as well as processes and both are integrated into one coherent system,includes levels of reality,[2]is designed to support interoperability by principles of ontological mapping and reduction,contains several novel ontological modules, in particular, a module for functions and a module for roles, andis designed for applications, firstly in medical, biological, and biomedical areas, but also in the fields of economics and sociology.
Taxonomic tree of GFO[edit] Basic taxonomic tree of the General Formal Ontology Categories[edit] The common property of all categories is that they can be predicated of an entity. Conceptual structures are mental representations of entities or universals, and they exist in an agent's mind. For example, the individual representation of the (linguistic) term "apple" inside an agent's mind (determined by the agent's experience, knowledge and belief, etc.).
Symbolic structures are signs which may be instantiated by tokens. Space and time[edit] Upper ontology. The seemingly conflicting use of metaphors implying a solid rigorous bottom-up "foundation" or a top-down imposition of somewhat arbitrary, and possibly political, decisions is no accident – the field is characterized by the usual mix of controversy, politics, competing approaches and academic rivalry.
Some upper ontologies have led to commercial products, causing a financial incentive to promote one ontology over the competing systems. Debates notwithstanding, it can be said that a very important part of each upper ontology can be considered as the computational implementation of natural philosophy, which itself is a more empirical method for investigating the topics within the philosophical discipline of physical ontology. Library classification systems predate these upper ontology systems.
Though library classifications organize and categorize knowledge using general concepts that are the same across all knowledge domains, neither system is a replacement for the other. Cyc[edit]