0

I was sympathetic about an ontology of patterns, but it seem it is lacking.

How can a monistic theory of patterns ( math, physical things, mental states can all be seen as patterns ) genuine deal with the idea of facts ( 5 is prime, "taller than" relation is transitive ) ? How can we interpret facts as patterns ?
You could say that facts depend on sufficient cognition enough in order to be recognized, and hence they are mere ideas or thoughts ( they would then patterns that can be triggered on the brains of a community ). But i think facts are more than ideas or thoughts, i assume even without cognition, facts would still exist, for instance , the fact that 5 is prime.

So, can facts be considered as patterns, but more than patterns merely representing ideas or thoughts ? If, not perhaps the only way would be to consider an ontology made not only of patterns, but also of facts ( pluralism ).
What do you guys think ?

5
  • I'm do not think this abstract level is worth pursuing, because it is a solution in search of a problem. But you could think of matching real world inputs to your mental model of the world, activating fact memories. The matching is a pattern match. But again, I do not think that level of abstraction is worth pursuing. It's just empty rhetoric, IMHO. May 20 '15 at 23:40
  • I don't really get what you mean by "it is a solution in search of a problem", could you elaborate a bit more ? What in your opinion is not worth pursuing ? Having an Ontology ? Trying to have a Monistic Ontology ? Or trying to have a monistic ontology of patterns that include the idea of patterns ?
    – nerdy
    May 20 '15 at 23:43
  • Well then, maybe I'm wrong about that. Let's say that you're able to force-fit everything as "patterns". What problem does it solve? May 20 '15 at 23:45
  • 1
    The problem of finding a good enough Ontology . And i don't see any reason it's not a reasonable problem. Do you think there are problems that have more value in being solved ? Where would we draw the line ? In my view, most problems that the study of philosophy can solve for people are of that kind ... they are not like math or science problems, but they are still problems that have a reason in being tackled in my view.
    – nerdy
    May 20 '15 at 23:47
  • Could you explain, what is a pattern, in the context of this question? Thanks May 22 '15 at 16:56
1

A monistic theory of patterns can deal with facts by being many-sorted. This means that the theory has to have a proper definition of different sorts of things (i.e. types of things), but still uses the same operators to describe them.

An example of this is 2nd order logic. While 1st order logic allows only for individual objects as variables, 2nd order logic allows for sets and relations of objects to be variables as well.

1
  • You are right, i had that idea in the back of my mind but it was not coming to me. Thanks for the help
    – nerdy
    May 20 '15 at 23:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.