ScierGuy

It's pretty much based on basic epistemology as I see it. So that means I'm going pretty much wide and finely granulated with regards to operations in this language, but see also agent communication language and actor model.

In principle I see knowledge as something which rises from a structureless - nothingness - unknown.

With the skillset of our senses we can observe concepts and reflect on concepts - especially our own ignorance - i.e the unknown. From observing, reflecting and conceptualizing about a concept we see that we posess ignorance - structureless - nothingness - unknown. That's how concepts and knowledge arises, and knowledge is only about concepts. Reality is also a concept, and it exists as a concept, as does existence - and we have no problem conceptualizing (i.e learning or reflecting on) these concepts. This might sound a bit like Plato, but consider that concepts are the knowledge, and knowing something just means we have conceptualized a structure - observed the structure or reflected on the structure. I don't see anything as absolutely true or false, but adhere to several basic values which in themselves are concepts derived from nothingness - while reflecting on our own ignorance. I see further basic values like possible and the most basic one - unknown. This sounds similar to hegelian dialectics, but I do consider some static knowledge as valid and real - although not encompassing everything, all aspects of reality - otherwise would be impossible for something part of reality. I'm not into any -isms like nihilism, though not just for the sake of not-being-so itself. I think there is the unknown and everything adheres from it. Pretty close to intuitionism - but not quite the same thing, since I base everything on the unknown or notion of nothing - different from structure. Neither is this physicalism, nor reductive, or as in general supervenience, and this is definitely not epiphenomenalism - since I consider concepts which have no, and possibly never had or will have, real structural physical representation as also valid. Structuralism or deconstruction is also different than this, because I do hold the structureless - unknown - as part of reality as well as a basis for freedom of choice. It is somewhat similar (as in confirmation bias) to differentiation and Hegel's views.

This makes the representation very clean and uncomplicated - even mechanically at first sight.

A lot of the theories of epistemology are just too complicated and have many implicit prerequisites in my opinion. I don't see a big problem with the Gettier problem either, but these are some of the basic concepts I think gets created when we start observing and reasoning - learning and acquiring knowledge. The multi-values might sound a bit like modal logic or other multi-valued logic. For practical purposes I'm modelling these concepts and representing them using ZFC from basic set theory, actually using model theory which I haven't studied much since the university days. Oh, and one of the practical sides to this is that I'm having native XML support in the language (kind of like with E4X), especially since I'm very much into XTM topic maps, an XML representation based on ontology for representing knowledge. I have also been very inspired by the Clean programming language and Joy programming language - as well as Prolog and declarative languages, specification languages for a long time. I would like to see a richer paradigm, like a conceptual programming language - and hope I can achieve this, maybe using abstract interpretation techniques. Impressed as I am with the Z notation, I think that for representing intrinsically flawed human knowledge some sort of dialetheism, paraconsistent logic is needed - perhaps similar to Zen koans like in 101 Zen Stories. You can really get around a lot of stuff by simulating concepts with other concepts - but the fundaments need to be of the right fiber in my opinion.

PS! For anyone wondering about my view on the physical world then - or reality - it's all structure - wrapped around volatile energy - something different than, and possibly the opposite of, nothingness - and structures directing energetic properties - like force. I see force as a indeterministic property - like an irrational number - e.g not exact. Also, where force is applied to one structure it results differently than on a different structure because of structural properties and accuracy possibility.

I am inclined to think of energy as the volatile duality in forceful structures, with volatility the result of the fundamental interaction by the forces which are the ever evolving structures themselves.

Life is the concept of such a self-preserving evolving structure. Existence is the conceptual representation of the ever forming and evolving structures from nothingness, meaning where there is nothing - something will form a structure. Structures can partly be described with (differentiable) manifolds - allowing the phase transitions of a (chaotic) snowflake into a waterdrop, gaseous and plasma matter, or logistic maps; unlike the all-is-one logos of Heraclitus. Nothingness - loss/change of structure - happens when the structure is able to turn all forces inwards (similar to imploding; see also vacuum) - and explodes under the structural force; otherwise structure preserves itself - sometimes by seeking expansion and evolution; conceptually nothingness is the negation of existence (see Heidegger's view), factually it's the unknown. Opportunity and possibility thus hail from nothingness. Structural change can also arise from a consciously structured concept's exertion - producing variations of the unknown - like indifference, ignorance, unlearning, discarding, amnesia, blocking - or more positively connotated like open-mindedness and freedom. This also partly explains my view on free will, consciousness as a skill and a neat way of fitting any concept, without failing to reification - since structure is the reality, nor failing to equivocation since structure is really different from nothingness.

Nothing is before, larger and greater than everything and anything. By structuring nothingness we get everything or anything. ;-)

If you observe nothing somewhere - behold your ignorance!

If you find all this self-evident and trivial - then I guess we really are on the same page!

My first article on english wikipedia was about sequence theory as explained by Christopher Alexander of pattern languages-fame.

My second article on english wikipedia was about exertion after doing som research on Wikipedia and elsewhere.

My third article was about Ahah (rewritten and extended a small stub article), a recent method I bumped into while researching Javascript techniques for browser WYSIWYG-editors.

My fourth article was about Interactive skeleton-driven simulation after doing some research on dynamic motion synthesis techniques and looking at the Spore (video game) video releases.

My fifth article will involve a rewrite of the article on dialetheism, broadening the topic with more history, explanation and making it NPOV - allowing it to become more encyclopedic.