Why don't more fields work towards organizing all of their knowledge into a tree of categories and concepts? Literally this is the best way (for me at least) to learn everything. It's all scattered throughout random incomplete textbooks, scientific papers, things like this.
I want a tree of all categories and sub-categories of related concepts, from high level down to very low level, for things like all topics. Such as math, CS, physics, EE, things like this. But I can't find them. Has nobody made any of these? You can find some for little things but they're never complete
Can knowledge just not be arranged like this or is humanity lazy?
Someone should calculate one based on wikipedia references or something, but even that isn't good since articles and sections aren't organized very well. Idk
Yes but I'm talking about one for all of human knowledge that you can zoom in on like Google Earth
John Gonzalez
>Can knowledge just not be arranged like this This. Any tree of knowledge can be formally encoded into ZFC set theory (with sets as nodes and membership as arrows), and as with any formal system, set theory is known to be incomplete qua Godel (and Tarski).
Leo Ramirez
Also table of contents are often useless in intro level textbooks like "Getting started", "Looking deeper into the data" wow thanks table of contents, so useful /s
Christian Lee
Okay but in practical terms, we can estimate what this tree would be. Just like you can solve the *gasp* undecidable halting problem for a subset of programs if you set a max number of iterations using state caching/hashing
We can make this
Joseph Hall
>Can knowledge just not be arranged like this or is humanity lazy? 2 words. Job security.
Jose Sanders
if you want to make one yourself you could start at something like a university course listing. if you dont want to make one yourself clearly you are the lazy 1
i think human knowledge is more like a directed acyclic graph than a tree though. arguably the "hard thing" about mastering subsets of human knowledge is that advanced topics tend to have multiple lower level dependencies
Jordan Williams
Yes it would obviously be a graph not a tree, but tree seemed more like the phrase "tree of knowledge" or wisdom or whatever so I just wrote tree lol
Landon Nelson
>knowledge doesn't have cycles
Josiah Ward
i agree with you user.. Learning almost about anything (theoretical atleast) becomes way more easier when we can categorize stuff
Ayden Wood
Arbital is a somewhat-related project (for math). I don't believe it will succeed though.
Leo Richardson
That tree is what you see now, but it started as philosophy.
Start there again. It explains all the basics you need. After that all is easy the grasp
Samuel Evans
Have you ever heard of the rhizome, brainlet?
Ayden Young
I see, but I don't think this is relevant
Jayden Gutierrez
>/s You should go back.
Brody Bailey
What is root and main categories?
Joseph Russell
No root. A formal tree doesn't even matter just a loose one, for reference purposes
I don't mean this as a comprehensive perfect thing, just a useful reference for learners where they can enumerate a branch of knowledge and learn it all
There is no root we edited it to a graph
Alexander Rogers
Is there only science stuff on the tree? How about astrology?
Other thing is - a lot of knowledge connect with other knowledge so this could get messy.
it isnt all encompassing but i think its a start towards what youre looking for
Robert Ross
Wow, thanks a TON anons. I appreciate that
David Cooper
i know the feel man, ive wanted to see something like this too. a ridiculously large reference set which shows the steps to any knowledge
to learn this learn these things first and to learn those learn these other things before them.... on an on and on
Colton Fisher
We should make a new wikipedia add-on
The "knowledge graph". They can initialize it based on "Categories", "See also" and internal references. Then people can start adding on
I think desu that this graph should ignore historical data. It should only include things that are timelessly true and unbiased, scientific things. Nothing historic or political except pure political science in the game theory and psychology sense
Then people can edit the graph by making new nodes, new edges, new expansions on nodes. This won't just be a graph with nodes, but a graph with large categories too so you can click "math" and all the math related high level nodes go into one place to view. The graph would rearrange itself.
Idk
Ryan Mitchell
similar to the hyperphysics link or graphically displayed like the mapequation link
Aiden Torres
Like hyperphysics but with a more realtime web interface sort of where you can also view the graph in 3d, color-code dependencies. Just a more complex graph rendering method.
Evan Ramirez
im imagining advanced studies being on the outside of the circle and the more rudimentary concepts toward the inside
what subjects would it go over? math and science?
i dont see how art and history could really be referenced but those are fields im weak in
Tyler Wright
Actually art and history could be timeline based
They could have their own graphs separate from the main one which are singly directed graphs involving people, events, places, artistic creations, and broad categories (ww2, impressionism)
Kayden Barnes
>more fields work towards organizing all of their knowledge into a tree two reasons: (1) "fields" don't organise (2) knowledge is not a tree
Angel Bailey
Read the thread, it's now a graph
Colton Smith
Not exactly what you are looking for but maybe helpful for certain category type selections openknowledgemaps.org
I find things like these interesting and hope they expand.
Cooper Morales
Wow that is amazing user thanks for the link. But yeah not quite this thread since it's just links to research papers
But the best anyone has posted yet
Aiden Foster
>Why don't more fields work towards organizing all of their knowledge into a tree of categories and concepts? You have to see your tree of wisdom and information in your mind. There lies infinite storage.
