Closed Loop Interval Ontology
       The Digital Integration of Conceptual Form


Please sign in
or register

Email *

Password *

Home | About

Select display
Show public menu
Show all theme groups
Show all themes
Show all terms
Order results by
Most recently edited
Progress level

Searches selected display

Aligning the vision

Project under development
Evolving and coalescing

Guiding motivation
Why we do this

A comprehensive vision
Ethics / governance / science

Cybernetic democracy
Homeostatic governance

Collective discernment
Idealized democracy

Objectives and strategy
Reconciliation and integration

Reconciliation of perspectives
Holistic view on alternatives

What is a concept?
Definitions and alternatives

Theories of concepts
Compare alternatives

What is truth?
How do we know?

How meaning is created

Synthetic dimensionality
Foundational recursive definition

Universal hierarchy
Spectrum of levels

A universal foundation
The closed loop ensemble contains
all primary definitions

Dimensions of set theory

What is a number?

Venn diagrams
Topology of sets

Objects in Boolean algebra
How are they constructed?

Core vocabulary
Primary terms

Core terms on the strip
Closed Loop framework

Hierarchical models

Digital geometry
Euclid in digital space

The dimensional construction
of abstract objects
Foundational method

The digital integration
of conceptual form
Compositional semantics

Closed loop interval ontology
How it works

Cognitive science
The integrated science of mind

What does it mean?

Formal systematic definitions
Core terms

Data structures
Constructive elements
and building blocks

Preserving data under transformation

Steady-state cosmology
In the beginning

Semantic ontology
Domain and universal

Foundational ontology
A design proposal

Coordinate systems
Mapping the grid

From other sources

Foundational computation

What is truth?
How do we know?

The issue of "what is truth" has an ancient history and is motivated by significant questions and challenges that have never been fully resolved. In today's world, particularly in collective thinking and in politics, this question has become hugely important. An inability to define shared truth or shared reality in any consensual way can be very dangerous to a democratic society. If even our leading philosophers and political leaders have challenges addressing this question, it makes sense to open this issue in the context of advanced epistemology.

This theme group opens this question.

"Are you being straight with me?"

What does that mean? What is "straightness" in the context of shared reality and judgment?

What is "bias" -- or the tendency to "slant" an interpretation? We see it all day in political news. How do we create a "straight" interpretation, and avoid a "biased" interpretation?

How do we speak "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"

Correspondence theory of reality
Scientific method
The map is not the territory
All models are wrong

Correspondence theory of reality
Sketch | Back

This is a primary factor in ascertaining truth -- a one-to-one mapping (or bijection) between our abstract symbolic model of reality and what seems to be actually happening or present.

How to do this is a major question in philosophy and science. The Closed Loop model begins to propose methods to pursue this significant agenda.

Sat, May 8, 2021

In metaphysics and philosophy of language, the correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.

Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or facts on the other.



Correspondence theory is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by whether it accurately describes that reality. As Aristotle claims in his Metaphysics: "To say that that which is, is not, and that which is not, is, is a falsehood; therefore, to say that which is, is, and that which is not, is not, is true".

A classic example of correspondence theory is the statement by the medieval philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas: "Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus" ("Truth is the adequation of things and intellect"), which Aquinas attributed to the ninth-century Neoplatonist Isaac Israeli.

Correspondence theory was either explicitly or implicitly embraced by most of the early modern thinkers, including René Descartes, Baruch Spinoza, John Locke, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, David Hume, and Immanuel Kant. (However, Spinoza and Kant have also been interpreted as defenders of the coherence theory of truth.) Correspondence theory has also been attributed to Thomas Reid.

In late modern philosophy, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling espoused the correspondence theory. Karl Marx also subscribed to a version of the correspondence theory.

In contemporary Continental philosophy, Edmund Husserl defended the correspondence theory. ] In contemporary analytic philosophy, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein (at least in his early period), J. L. Austin, and Karl Popper defended the correspondence theory.


Correspondence as congruence

Bertrand Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein have in different ways suggested that a statement, to be true, must have some kind of structural isomorphism with the state of affairs in the world that makes it true. For example, "A cat is on a mat" is true if, and only if, there is in the world a cat and a mat and the cat is related to the mat by virtue of being on it. If any of the three pieces (the cat, the mat, and the relation between them which correspond respectively to the subject, object, and verb of the statement) is missing, the statement is false. Some sentences pose difficulties for this model, however. As just one example, adjectives such as "counterfeit", "alleged", or "false" do not have the usual simple meaning of restricting the meaning of the noun they modify: a "tall lawyer" is a kind of lawyer, but an "alleged lawyer" may not be.

Correspondence as correlation

J. L. Austin theorized that there need not be any structural parallelism between a true statement and the state of affairs that makes it true. It is only necessary that the semantics of the language in which the statement is expressed are such as to correlate whole-for-whole the statement with the state of affairs. A false statement, for Austin, is one that is correlated by the language to a state of affairs that does not exist.


Scientific method
Sketch | Back

The "scientific method" can bolster our ideas about what is real or true. It maybe necessary or essential

Mon, Apr 19, 2021

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.[1][2][3]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.[4][5] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.[6]

The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from a hypothesis.[7] Experiments can take place anywhere from a garage to CERN's Large Hadron Collider. There are difficulties in a formulaic statement of method, however. Though the scientific method is often presented as a fixed sequence of steps, it represents rather a set of general principles.[8] Not all steps take place in every scientific inquiry (nor to the same degree), and they are not always in the same order.[9][10]


Note | Back

There are many ways that incorrect or biased or badly informed thinking can come to "incorrect" (not true) conclusions. Wikipedia has a long list, and there are others.

Mon, Apr 19, 2021



The map is not the territory
Sketch | Back

Concepts and words and numbers are symbolic abstractions, that we use to describe some aspect of reality. Using these abstractions, we create a "map" of reality.

Mon, Apr 19, 2021

The map–territory relation describes the relationship between an object and a representation of that object, as in the relation between a geographical territory and a map of it. Polish-American scientist and philosopher Alfred Korzybski remarked that "the map is not the territory" and that "the word is not the thing", encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself. Korzybski held that many people do confuse maps with territories, that is, confuse models of reality with reality itself. The relationship has also been expressed in other terms, such as Alan Watts's "The menu is not the meal."


A universal foundation for ontology
What is truth?

All models are wrong
Sketch | Back

All models are wrong but some are useful

What goes into a model is selective. Those selections might embody bias or become misleading. Or they might not. A map of the Philadelphia subway system might be very helpful , accurate and reliable.

Mon, Apr 19, 2021

"All models are wrong" is a common aphorism in statistics; it is often expanded as "All models are wrong, but some are useful". It is usually considered to be applicable to not only statistical models, but to scientific models generally. The aphorism recognizes that statistical or scientific models always fall short of the complexities of reality but can still be of use.

The aphorism is generally attributed to the statistician George Box, although the underlying concept predates Box's writings.