Prove with a formal ontology that hierarchies exist in nature

I'm not a postmodernist, but you're not wrong. :^)
Hierarchies aren't actual entities and the abstraction isn't the realization of actual entities. As for the explanatory power the concept is the opposite of useful.
Yeah it's hypothetical

prove with formal ontology that you are not a faggot
Protip; you can't

We are part of nature
We create hierarchies
Therfore hierarchies are part of nature.

>ontology

Nope. Im not going to let you move the goalposts. Starting off looking only for ontologies will blind you to the chain of evidence that scientific method advocates. Thus your brain is diseased.

Hierarchies exist in nature just look at the the queen bee.

>white people only exist as abstractions
what arguments could there be for this?
the claim isn't that the term "white people" is an abstraction, or that the concept 'white people' is an abstraction, or that the property of being a white person is an abstraction
the claim is that white people themselves are abstractions
how is that (1) not nonsense and (2) a justifiable view?

>Prove with a formal ontology
so you want someone to first formulate an ontology, then formalize it, and then derive a proof from it?
there's absolutely no way you'd be able to do the corollary, which is to prove with a formal ontology that hierarchies do not exist in nature, so this is not just a ridiculously high standard of proof but also a hypocritical one

anyway just accept an argument

if you mean hierarchies in general:
1. hierarchies exist wherever priority exists
2. priority exists in causation, time, organization, etc.
3. causation, time, and organization exist in nature
4. hence hierarchies exist in nature

if you just mean evaluative hierarchies:
1. some things are really better than others
2. some things really being better than others amounts to hierarchy existing in nature
3. hence hierarchies exist in nature

hierarchies are not part of us
therefore your transitivity fails

There are hierarchies that we created, maybe not every single one but there are some. I was hoping muh dualism immaterial faggs would get triggered.

>hierarchies exist in nature just look at the queen bee.
Who's to say that the drones are not at the top of the hierarchy? The entire colony depends on them to find their food. Then you have the worker bees working for a living. Finally you have the welfare queens at the bottom, mooching off the system and shiting out babies.
See hierarchies are abstractions realized by arbitrarily drawn boundairies. Not actual entities.
You are making arational conclusions from empirical evidence and are doing science wrong. Empiricuck mindlet get good.
Apply the counter-argument above to your own argument.
>so you want someone to first formulate an ontology, then formalize it, and then derive a proof from it?
there's absolutely no way you'd be able to do the corollary, which is to prove with a formal ontology that hierarchies do not exist in nature, so this is not just a ridiculously high standard of proof but also a hypocritical one
Good job.
>if you mean hierarchies in general:
1. hierarchies exist wherever priority exists
2. priority exists in causation, time, organization, etc.
3. causation, time, and organization exist in nature
4. hence hierarchies exist in nature
good job, I didn't make this thread expecting a coherent response. I'm not denying that incremental levels of composition exist. For example cell>organ>organism>population
What I mean by hierarchy is universal stratified levels of organization.
as in level n is often not realized solely by level n-1
I'm not really sure what else to say right now. Good thing i didn't come up with this argument.
philpapers.org/archive/POTTLO-2.pdf

>Hierarchies aren't actual entities and the abstraction isn't the realization of actual entities.
I see claims but no argument. As far as I'm concerned this is word salad.

He never said people at all

Have you had this picture on your computer already or did you dowload it for this post? Just out of interest

Queen bee

Also muh dick be bigga nigga haha

>There are hierarchies that we created,
>that are nonetheless not part of us
fgt pls

>The entire colony depends on [drones] to find their food
Lrn2biology fgt pls
>the welfare queens
L0Lno, Prezdent Reagan

>prove that heirarchies exist in nature in a philosophically rigorous way, according to my philosophy
who fucking cares. Heirarchies exist in nature, like it or not. The Eagle is higher on the predation heirarchy than the mouse. The normie is higher on the sexual heirarchy than the wizard. These are self evident and prove that abstract philosophizing has a very limited use in reality, and normally serves to make life worse by the neglect of empiricism.

>being a commie
top fucking kek. Neoclassical economics may be seriously flawed, but even they have a better track record than Marxists by an order of magnitude--not to mention they aren't fatally wounded by the LTV.

>The Eagle is higher on the predation heirarchy than the mouse
>t. middle school biology student
thats not how it works, and is in fact an abstraction. A proper synthesis of trophic interactions is a network. which is also an abstraction, but an abstraction realized from actuality.
t ecosystem scientist
>The normie is higher on the sexual heirarchy than the wizard
cancer
>These are self evident and prove that abstract philosophizing has a very limited use in reality
a concept being self evident doesn't make it an actuality.
you have no idea what you are talking about. seriously you dont even understand what abstraction and reality mean. ontology is how we define reality
>neglect of empiricism
empiricism the philosophy? lol. neglecting empiricism would be interpreting empirical evidence without rationalism, like you did earlier in this post. again you have no idea what you are talking about. you are very far from being a proper scientist.
>top fucking kek(cancer). Neoclassical economics may be seriously flawed, but even they have a better track record than Marxists by an order of magnitude--not to mention they aren't fatally wounded by the LTV.
im a left wing market anarchist. Marxist thinkers are not responsible for driving us towards the collapse of human civilization and global extinction with no brakes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude
stop using 'order of magnitude' as a buzzword, dolt.
i will not respond to you again.

improved meme

Gravity, bigger mass is on the top

>Who's to say that the drones are not at the top of the hierarchy?

If you think what you've just said is supported by evidence your brain is lost.

The hierarchy is quantified by level of energy measured in joules of energy. The highest consumption of energy by a single unit is the queen. The consumption of energy of any one worker bee is less.
It can also be quantified by risk.
The entire workforce of a bee hive is specialised to protect the queen even if it means sacrificing their life. The queen on the other hand has no such prerogative.

You simply try to relabel the subjects in this equation does not lead to the same degree of logic. If the drones were the top then they would not receive less resources and less safety.

>See hierarchies are abstractions realized by arbitrarily drawn boundairies
Not every label is an abstraction you idiot. Labels are generalisations, and generalisations can either be mostly right or mostly wrong. If the generalisation is mostly right a conclusion can be drawn. The use of language to transmit these ideas is an abstraction, but the idea themselves, they are proven by observations, observations are not abstract, they are empirical, that is why they are so useful.

>You are making arational conclusions from empirical evidence and are doing science wrong. Empiricuck mindlet get good.

Youve just mixed up the labels again. Just because you call it arational doesnt mean it is. See my previous paragraph.

You also disparage empricial evidence. I would like to see some of your evidence as to why empiricism is flawed. Also, dont bring black swan white swan into this because you will be falling for my trap.

Not every label(symbol) is an abstraction you idiot(Rude). Labels are generalizations and generalisations can either be mostly right or mostly wrong.
Generalizations describe abstract objects. Hierarchy is a concept.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
>ideas are proven by observation
mindlets actually believe this.
No, ideas are tested by observation. The Metaphysical truth of an idea is proven by reason. For example I can gather empirical evidence for the existence of Shrek the ogre by observing that onions do in fact have layers. However concluding that this proves the actuality of Shrek is arational. This is the weakness of empiricism. I do not disparage empirical evidence, I champion it. Just not as a means to truth.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism

>The hierarchy is quantified by level of energy measured in joules of energy.
>It can also be quantified by risk.
Stating the scale of analysis does nothing to prove the actuality of a hiearchy. That there are universal, stratified levels of organization.
I reject your premise that bee hives are hierarchal. Being able to quantify something does not make it an actual entity.
>The entire workforce of a bee hive is specialised to protect the queen even if it means sacrificing their life
So?
>the queen has no such perjorative
So?
A Hetrarchy would make more sense for explaining priority in a beehive. Even then the concept isn't realized from actuality. To explain it properly is to synthesize the hive as a living system, systems are also abstract btw.

>>>>>Anarchy

If an animals function is to survive and reproduce humans are the greatest animal because when the sun dies were currently the only animals that could have a chance of surviving and reproduicing.

>when the sun dies were currently the only animals that could have a chance of surviving

No.