primitives of meaning - meet bundle theory

My idea of primitives of meaning to describe a conceptual entity (by identifying all of the atomic concepts that combine to make the "whole" entity) is essentially the same as bundle theory, but I was (sadly) unaware of that theory when I did my writing on the atomic-concept based ontology for modeling and simulation (2005-2006) that led to my master's theory.

For a brief introduction to Bundle Theory see this wikipedia entry.

One of the things that Included in my model of an ontology for modeled worlds, is that the components are (1) concepts, (2) entities which are a combination of a set of concepts, (3) relationships between concepts, (4) rules determining under what conditions the relationships are valid. This is a system that is vulnerable to the same complaints about compresence that bundle theory is vulnerable to. However, since my theory is to apply to a modeled world that can be expressed, I don't think that the language/reality vulnerability of bundle theory applies here. By that I mean, since the point of my ontology theory is to provide an ontology for expressing the meaning of a world that can be expressed in a human generated artifact, an artifact about which questions concerning the described world are decidable, then the number and nature of relationships between (what I call) entities and their bundled concepts is countable and finite. But I may be wrong. :)

Tags: bundle theory