Is There a Universal Classification System for All Things?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Avichal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Classification
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of creating a universal classification system for all things, inspired by the 20 Questions game. Participants explore whether such a categorization can exist and how it might be structured, considering both natural and human-made objects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest starting with broad categories like natural and human-made things and then further subdividing them.
  • Others propose that while everything can be classified, new categories would need to be created for items that do not fit existing classifications.
  • There is mention of set theory as a potential framework, although its relevance is questioned by some participants.
  • Several participants note the existence of various taxonomies, but none that encompass everything, likening the challenge to depicting every detail of a fractal.
  • Ambiguities in classification are highlighted, with examples from the 20 Questions game illustrating how certain items may not fit neatly into categories.
  • One participant suggests that a web-like structure might be more appropriate than a tree for representing classifications, allowing for multiple connections between categories.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that a universal classification system is challenging and may not be fully achievable, with multiple competing views on how such a system could be structured. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the feasibility and structure of a comprehensive classification system.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the completeness of existing taxonomies and the impact of cultural differences and language semantics on classification efforts. There are also unresolved questions about the relationship between set theory and the proposed classification system.

Avichal
Messages
294
Reaction score
0
Is there a classification of all things? This question actually arises from the 20 Q game. If things are categorized and arranged as a tree, it would be very easy.
I don't think there exist such a categorization (who has the time!) but still is it possible?

You could start with natural and human-made things and then go on further.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
consult set theory
 
Of course everything can be put into classes...I if something is discovered that doesn't fit, we just make a new class for it!
 
Aero51 said:
consult set theory
I don't understand how set theory is related to my question.
consciousness said:
Of course everything can be put into classes...I if something is discovered that doesn't fit, we just make a new class for it!
Yes of course. I was looking if it is possible to intuitively list out all the categories.
Something like this - Well, we need food, shelter, things for our comfort. Now food can be plants or animals ... and so on.
 
Avichal said:
Is there a classification of all things? This question actually arises from the 20 Q game. If things are categorized and arranged as a tree, it would be very easy.
I don't think there exist such a categorization (who has the time!) but still is it possible?

You could start with natural and human-made things and then go on further.

There are many taxonomies, or taxonomic schemes that have been created for things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_%28general%29

But no practical taxonomy explicitly contains everything. I suppose it would be like trying to draw every detail of a fractal. And you can count on some things being more ambiguous to classify than others, for any given taxonomic scheme. I imagine cultural difference, language semantics and connotations complicate the process. (It doesn't keep people from trying though).
 
collinsmark said:
There are many taxonomies, or taxonomic schemes that have been created for things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_%28general%29

But no practical taxonomy explicitly contains everything. I suppose it would be like trying to draw every detail of a fractal. And you can count on some things being more ambiguous to classify than others, for any given taxonomic scheme. I imagine cultural difference, language semantics and connotations complicate the process. (It doesn't keep people from trying though).

I love when things are systematic like the way we have classified each fundamental particle, elements etc.
But I suppose there are just too many things, too many combinations to systematically categorize everything.

Thank You anyways!
 
I think in the 20Q thread there was also a link to an online version. If you have played it you will already have noticed some ambiguities.
For example, I was thinking of the sun, and then it asks questions like "is it shiny", "is it used for entertainment" to which I don't really know the answer. And I answered "Yes" to "Can it be painted" while apparently it thinks not. In that case, I guess you will have answered your own question.
 
I think its possible, but rather than a tree it would form a web, where single node can have many connections.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K