Ignore the misunderstandings that have produced the present world.

[kgun]

Ted Nelson competing with Google in organizing all of the world's knowledge. I remember a seminare with Kristen Nygaard, with their view, a Dynabook (the closest medium today is a laptop with wireless access to the internet) where he launced the idea of having access to all of the worlds information in a "dynamic book". Nelsons concept - Transclusion: Fixing Electronic Literature

Listen and view this great Google video ...

In my view nobody will never succeed in organizing all the worlds knowlege, since in my personal opinion knowledge has fractal structure. You never come to "the bottom" of a fractal like the Cantor Set. We can only scan the surface.

What is knowledge? To whom is it knowledge?

[Tubby]

I always compare knowledge to a ball of string. the end piece of string logically extends from the previous and there is a continuous line weaving back to . . . nothing.

an original observation can be the first starter thread. and the ball can grow huge, or not grow at all. The start of the thread is always the suspect part.

My observation is the bigger the ball of string, the more people accept the knowledge. knowledge seems to be no more than confirmation. . .(making the ball bigger - not true-er)

There are many competing balls, and if you unravel them to the very first thread. . they invariably start at the same point. Knowledge is a useful tool. accepting knowledge without scrutinising and understanding the first glimmer of the original thread is common.

Kgun "What is knowledge? To whom is it knowledge?"?
Mate, I think you spend too much time thinking.

[kgun]

Yes, a friend of mine once said that the head is in a sence our worst enemy.

But knowledge to a fisher from Western Norway is different from a farmer in Australia. It is different for an eskimo and my cousin in New York.

I am sure I would have problems surviving in New York.

Good points though. May be you are thinking too much yourself.

[Tubby]

Re
"May be you are thinking too much yourself."

He he he . . yes Kgun, you might well have hit the nail on the head there.

I just posted to the thread because I thought the topic might just fade away. It probably still will. . . .

You wrote
"since in my personal opinion knowledge has fractal structure. You never come to "the bottom" of a fractal like the Cantor Set. We can only scan the surface."

That has to be a natural thread killer.

but I appreciated the thought . . So . . . i posted

[kgun]

Re
You wrote
"since in my personal opinion knowledge has fractal structure. You never come to "the bottom" of a fractal like the Cantor Set. We can only scan the surface."

That has to be a natural thread killer.

Yes, may be. Fractal mathematics also killed the discussion of some "closed books" in Physics. Years ago it was concluded (don't ask me by whom) that calssic mechanics was a closed book and the quantum mechanics book was about to be closed, too. Then came fractal mathematics with its infinite set of possibilities and the book was wide open for all time. How boring the world would have been if we finally came to the bottom of kowledge.

Questions:

1. Are your and my thoughs knowledge?
2. Are your and my dreams (widely defined) knowledge?
3. What about our sites?

There is a assosiate professor from Australia Dr. David Lowe that together with Dr. Erik Wilde has written a good book about a more general protocol and model than that inveted by Tim Berners-Lee (HTTP + HTML).

That book is intimately related to the video in my first post.

I can higly reccomend that Book: "XPath, XLink, XPointer, and XML: A Practical Guide to Web Hyperlinking and Transclusion."

I think it is sold out at amazon. I bought it at alibris. If you do not find it there, you may look at:

Used Books, Rare, Antiquarian, Second-Hand, and Out-of-print Books

Since you are working on implementing RSS (XML) on your sites, that may be the next natural step to study. You may get ideas in that book to develope functionality that keep visitors on your site. Insn't that one of the reasons you and I participate on this forum?

Did you view the video in the first post? If not, take the time to watch it when you have time. If you like it, you may also like that book.

There is always a discussion (and most often a disagreement) about who invented a concept. No exception with fractals. May be Ralph Nelson Elliott foresaw it with his masterwork, Nature's Law -- The Secret of the Universe (1946).

Much more than we are aware of has fractal strucure.

If I am correct that knowledge also has fractal structure, I wish Nelson and Google good luck with their project.

Popular definition of random:
If enough monkeys wrote on a wordprocessor long enough, one of them would by chance produce "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare"

[activeco]

Knowledge is experience.
And yes, I agree it is a plastic thing, individually in a constant change. I guess "collective knowledge" tends to be in an equilibrium.

BTW, isn't this more appropriate for the 'Breakroom' subforum?

[kgun]

BTW, isn't this more appropriate for the 'Breakroom' subforum?

Definitely not. This is about the evolution of hyperlinking, hypermedia, trancslusion, that is the future of the web.

Did you watch the video?

Related thread:

The XML family of technologies will revolutionize web linking etc.

[Tubby]

Kgun.
Are your and my thoughts knowledge?
No, Knowledge may provoke thought - thoughts might discover knowledge. But a thought is not much more than a sieve..

Are your and my dreams (widely defined) knowledge?
No a dream is not much more than an emotional sieve. (but free flowing)

What about our sites?
No our sites are just information. . Knowledge might be acquired from them.

"If Knowledge is Truth. then, confusion is when two conflicting truths collide" (me)

Kgun. I stopped reading books years ago, I never watch Videos, and you must know by now that I dislike any concept that accepts infinity,

ie maths accepts infinity - so it can not be knowledge, it can only be a tool.

Since you are working on implementing RSS (XML) on your sites, that may be the next natural step to study'

Kgun, I am still contemplating feeding my classifieds sites. One day I think - yes. the next day I am not so sure. it sure would be easy to simply jump in and feed the whole lot. But as yet, there are no more positive aspects than there are negative..


Kgun, A scientist and a philosopher were both shown an apple.
The scientist cut the apple into segments and examined the pieces under a microscope.
he was amazed. Here was a whole new world. the higher the magnification the more complex. . . He became confused.
The philosopher looked at the apple. then stepped back to see the tree, he understood the apple to be a seed and stood further back. It was amazing here was a whole new world. the further away the view the more complex it became . He became confused. (me)

[kgun]

Great post Tubby.

Regarding your apple.

Tomatoes

Botanically the tomatoe is a fruit, but the US supreme court in 1893 concluded that the tomato is a vegetable.

Kgun. I stopped reading books years ago, I never watch Videos, and you must know by now that I dislike any concept that accepts infinity,

ie maths accepts infinity - so it can not be knowledge, it can only be a tool.

[Tubby]

I think the net will evolve. like science - and the philosophy examples I think there will be many 'balls of string'.

I think the end determination of what a user chooses will be an emotional decision, not an intellectual one. I think it will evolve in a manner not unlike religion.

I think my own personality would be found using 'philosophy ball' and would not feel happy with the 'science' ball.

Of course this ball of string will not based on philosophy - rather have its own philosophical base.

To put it another way, you could say I am delaying my own implementing of RSS because it takes me one step away from the fixed content philosophy. Yes its easy, but do I really believe content just dragged in from various sources. . will rule the net...
NO. . definitely not, anything precious in this life is nearly always original. a Picasso painting is a one off individual. i do not think I want to live on a network of compilation (I would not buy a 'compiled painting) (or will this be all we are offered and can afford)

Knowledge is what influenced our personal decision today. that's all it is - that's all it does.
I do not wish to be fed corrupted, homogenised, compiled knowledge. I want a knowledge that is original. one off, individual. So I can live as an individual.