The Next Great Work ...
... or its failure. So I'm sinning for going back through philosophy posts but this one is directly related to computing.
"... I foresee the next Great Work as some systematic representation of [knowledge] OR the failure of every such attempt, where the latter result will not rest kindly in the minds of philosophers who expect structure and order to their field. If there is a logical structure, then we can represent it more ways than just a truth table. Note that I do not expect a Wiki or anything similar to represent everything [knowable] for the reasons you cite, however, we now have tools in our hands that supplant the limitations imposed by the quill, typsetter, or even the keyboard [, i.e. we have modern tools to process what we want or need to know in a finite or bound sense].
Again, if there is structure and order, then the programmers should be able to find some conclusions that our previous methods had not (so easily) afforded us, such as your 'attractor states'" [... because, to clarify: knowledge systems, such as the meta decision-making system I've alluded to when people cannot agree, would be represented by algorithms, and the rest, such as the actual data of the dispute, would merely be processed, i.e. compute and out pops the answer from our agreed-upon system -- aka. out pops knowledge.]
The verdict on actually systematizing or programming some representation of knowledge via algorithms is still out ...
"... I foresee the next Great Work as some systematic representation of [knowledge] OR the failure of every such attempt, where the latter result will not rest kindly in the minds of philosophers who expect structure and order to their field. If there is a logical structure, then we can represent it more ways than just a truth table. Note that I do not expect a Wiki or anything similar to represent everything [knowable] for the reasons you cite, however, we now have tools in our hands that supplant the limitations imposed by the quill, typsetter, or even the keyboard [, i.e. we have modern tools to process what we want or need to know in a finite or bound sense].
Again, if there is structure and order, then the programmers should be able to find some conclusions that our previous methods had not (so easily) afforded us, such as your 'attractor states'" [... because, to clarify: knowledge systems, such as the meta decision-making system I've alluded to when people cannot agree, would be represented by algorithms, and the rest, such as the actual data of the dispute, would merely be processed, i.e. compute and out pops the answer from our agreed-upon system -- aka. out pops knowledge.]
The verdict on actually systematizing or programming some representation of knowledge via algorithms is still out ...