So, on a purely logical basis, a "mathematical universe" makes no sense to me — Alkis Piskas
Thanks for reminding me of this term! It's quite a long time since it has disappeared from my view ... Well, who knows, there may be some analogy between our mathematics and some inherent system in the universe ... If something like that is discovered, it will certainly be a huge scientific revolution. (Anyway, I will certainly not be here to enjoy it! :grin:)hinge upon the notion of "isomorphism" — jgill
Well, the history of science has proved thatwhatever complex concepts mathematicians created, they finally came to be applicable in the mathematics of physics or even to directly describe an empirical context. Take for instance the classical example of complex numbers.
This is a bold claim... that all pure math is eventually applied. Really? — Pie
perhaps we are tuned by evolution to appreciate the beauty of an efficient and graceful syntax — Pie
We wouldn’t need an evolutionary explanation if ‘beauty’ ‘efficient’ and ‘graceful’ can be understood as self-grounding concepts. — Joshs
they must be dumped in favor of what evolutionary process implies: selection of adaptive concatenations of arbitrary causal mechanisms. — Joshs
Why arbitrary? Dennett's vision of a evolution as an algorithm makes sense to me. It's true that neutral traits can come along for the ride (so there's some randomness), but surely there is real selection too. — Pie
But purposeful behavior must be considered fundamentally arbitrary if it is merely the product of such randomly acting bits. — Joshs
Concepts like evolution , order and beauty are ‘higher-order’ products of these primary processes, but how are they any more justified than any other concepts associated with the intentional stance? We can talk ‘as if’ there really is an evolution of order but the meaning of such a notion vanishes within the physical stance. — Joshs
But purposeful behavior must be considered fundamentally arbitrary if it is merely the product of such randomly acting bits.
— Joshs
What is arbitrary doing in that sentence?
If something is an algorithmic process it's not random, and hence not arbitrary. If something is physical, it's not based on a personal whim, and so is not arbitrary.
Evolution is not a random process — Banno
do we say that the non-arbitrary order of the algorithm emerges somehow out of a process that does not have its order? — Joshs
As I see it, it is the claims that apply concepts like evolution which are more or less justified in terms of the usual scientific/rational norms. This is what Brandom calls the primacy of the propositional, and he credits Kant for foregrounding it. We don't build claims from concepts. We understand concepts in terms of the role they play in claims (the inferences they license, etc.)
In case it's helpful, I'm happy to grant that Dennett does not know the quiet secret of the universe. We find ourselves here in the mess together (the nightmare of history), and we slowly and painfully work toward being less ignorant and confused, largely by thinking about thinking — Pie
“Orthodox and liberal naturalists identify “the scientific image” as a position within the space of reasons, a body of claims that have been justified and accepted scientifically, or as I earlier quoted Price, “the sum of all we take to be the case.”
[\quote]
To me it makes sense to speak roughly of the scientific understanding of a place and time, 'the sum of what we [the scientifically educated] take to be the case.'
— Joshs
Scientific understanding in practice is instead an ongoing reconfiguration of the space of reasons, of what can count as intelligible and significant projects, defensible positions, reasons for or against them, and possible ways of extending or revising them. Science offers not a single “image” of the world, but a conceptual space of research opportunities and intelligible disagreements.” (Beyond Realism and Anti-Realism At Last) — Joshs
This approach rids us the the gap between normative claims ( manifest image) and the empirical world it addresses (scientific image). — Joshs
Imagine a chaotic soup of items which are capable of being arranged in self-replicating structures. Perhaps such arrangements are relatively rare, but once they appear they'll tend to say, precisely because they replicate themselves. If such replication is not perfect and includes mutations, it may be that some mutants are more effective self-replicators than others (perhaps most mutations prevent replication.) The essence seems to be that 'progress' is 'saved' or cumulative. We tend to find patterns that are good at hanging around hanging around. — Pie
I think the key term here is ‘imagine’. Without some implicit normative overview transcendent to the phenomena being described we can’t get from ‘chaotic soup’ to ‘self-replicating pattern’. — Joshs
For Rouse, normativity is a property of systems of material nature rather than a mind split off from nature. — Joshs
I think that's Sellars' explicit goal. If we imagine a species evolving a second-order tradition of norms for establishing beliefs (a way of talking and acting the world), then we are half way there? Or more? — Pie
Our performances enact normative pattens just as other living self-organizing systems assimilate their environment to their own normative functioning in relation to their constructed world , while accommodating those norms to the changing circumstances that their own behavior produces in their niche. — Joshs
Well, the history of science has proved that whatever complex concepts mathematicians created, they finally came to be applicable in the mathematics of physics or even to directly describe an empirical context. Take for instance the classical example of complex numbers.
We can talk ‘as if’ there really is an evolution of order but the meaning of such a notion vanishes within the physical stance. — Joshs
Apokrisis wrote a fair bit in previous threads about the gap between the dependence of biological and psychological phenomena on semiotic codes and algorithms vs the absence of the concept of semiosis in physics. One is left with either a kind of dualism in which semiosis appears out of nowhere in living systems or a pan-semiotics inclusive of physics , requiring an updating of meta-theoretical assumptions in physics. — Joshs
This approach rids us the the gap between normative claims ( manifest image) and the empirical world it addresses (scientific image). — Joshs
For Rouse, normativity is a property of systems of material nature rather than a mind split off from nature. — Joshs
And complex numbers make commutative order matter in a way that is "physically realistic" — apokrisis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.