It’s neither, in my opinion: classification systems are a dozen a dime, so they’re useful as long as they reduce complexity allowing for new or improved behaviour. I fail however to see how this system is relevant for anything.
“Is this difficult to understand because it’s full of complex things I haven’t learned before, or is it hard to understand because there’s something fundamentally incorrect or nonsensical about it?”
(I’m riffing off a quote someone posted a while back, “Sufficiently advanced wisdom is indistinguishable from bullshit.”)
This is either advanced wisdom or nonsense, and I’m not sure which.
It’s neither, in my opinion: classification systems are a dozen a dime, so they’re useful as long as they reduce complexity allowing for new or improved behaviour.
I fail however to see how this system is relevant for anything.
“Is this difficult to understand because it’s full of complex things I haven’t learned before, or is it hard to understand because there’s something fundamentally incorrect or nonsensical about it?”
(I’m riffing off a quote someone posted a while back, “Sufficiently advanced wisdom is indistinguishable from bullshit.”)
I think the value is what comes next in being able to interact and communicate about the concept, and perhaps a mathematical proof
Maybe, but at least we can agree that this value is not present in the article at the moment.