Distinct points/instants are indeed arbitrary and artificial creations of thought, but indefinite infinitesimals/moments are real, with length/duration less than any assignable value and no discernible boundaries. — aletheist
No, I do not agree with this, and neither did Peirce. Infinitesimals/moments are indefinite, not distinct. The principle of excluded middle does not apply to them. Points/instants are arbitrarily inserted as boundaries between continuous segments/lapses of finite length.Do you agree with this, there is no infinitesimal without a boundary to separate it from others? — Metaphysician Undercover
Again, his view was that infinitesimals/moments are real, while points/instants are artificial creations. I have already provided several quotes from his writings to support this summary. Unless you can produce citations to the contrary, we have nothing more to discuss here.Where do you get the idea that Peirce thought there were infinitesimals which are not created by those arbitrary divisions? — Metaphysician Undercover
Infinitesimals/moments are indefinite, not distinct. — aletheist
The principle of excluded middle does not apply to them. — aletheist
Scotus.....
- Denies whatever is 'one' is an individual. — Mapping the Medium
- Accounts for causation in this 'degree of less than numerical'. (Experience and events provide this 'degree' of influential causation. Think about what science is now discovering about epigenetic/environmental/experiential influences.) — Mapping the Medium
Singular essences are unknowable to us, even though they ARE real. We refer to their reality indirectly by recognizing and differentiating what it is not. Example: Humans develop and recognize 'self' only in relation to that which is 'not' self. — Mapping the Medium
But again, the nominalists and the realists are still both misguided. So we have all of these 'camps' of thought going round and round on this merry-go-round, and never getting off. — Mapping the Medium
The only way to make any difference in what has happened is to try and teach the general public how human beings actually develop and how life interacts with each other. If we only recognize ourselves and our 'medium' by what it is not, then we have to realize that the only way to learn and reach a shared understanding is through dialogue with others who have a different perspective. — Mapping the Medium
Citation, please. On the contrary, Peirce does not dismiss points/instants, he clarifies that they are creations of thought rather than real constituents of lines/time.So the point is useless and that's why I said Peirce dismisses it. — Metaphysician Undercover
No, the only boundaries within a continuous medium are the artificial ones that we arbitrarily insert at finite intervals for some particular purpose, such as measurement.The existence of infinitesimals in the medium requires that there are natural boundaries. — Metaphysician Undercover
Citation, please. On the contrary, according to his own words Peirce is an objective idealist for whom the principle of non-contradiction does not apply to that which is vague/indefinite and the principle of excluded middle does not apply to that which is general/continuous. In accordance with the latter, he is now recognized as the first person ever to develop truth tables for a rudimentary three-valued logic--true, false, and the limit between truth and falsity.Peirce is a dialectical materialist, or dialetheist, one who allows for the law of non-contradiction to be violated. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, although before going any farther we need to establish what we mean in this context by "consciousness" and "real."1) Do you think that consciousness is 'real'? — Mapping the Medium
I am not sure what that would even mean, but like anything else, I think that it can be explained/described mathematically--i.e., with a retroductive hypothesis that we can then deductively explicate and inductively evaluate. The subject matter of mathematics is much broader than just numbers.2) If so, do you think it can be explained/described numerically? — Mapping the Medium
Again, we need to define "consciousness," and numbers are strictly hypothetical. Semiotics is a relatively recent science, so it clearly came last; but if you meant to say semeiosis, the real process that semiotics studies, then I am inclined to believe that it came first.4) Considering the above questions, which came first, consciousness, numbers, or semiotics? — Mapping the Medium
My current working hypothesis is that time is a manifestation of semeiosis, the ongoing evolution of the universe as dynamical objects determine sign tokens to determine dynamical interpretants. Linguistics is a special science that studies actual languages, while semiotics is a normative science that studies the nature of signs in general (speculative grammar), good vs. bad reasoning (logical critic), and methods for obtaining true beliefs (speculative rhetoric).5) How do all of the above questions factor into time, evolution, and ever-changing linguistics? — Mapping the Medium
No, the only boundaries within a continuous medium are the artificial ones that we arbitrarily insert at finite intervals for some particular purpose, such as measurement. — aletheist
On the contrary, according to his own words Peirce is an objective idealist for whom the principle of non-contradiction does not apply to that which is vague/indefinite and the principle of excluded middle does not apply to that which is general/continuous. In accordance with the latter, he is now recognized as the first person ever to develop truth tables for a rudimentary three-valued logic--true, false, and the limit between truth and falsity. — aletheist
Again, hair-slitting. You either believe that Platonic Forms are real entities separate from God or not. Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas all thought not. Neo-Platonic Christianity and Christian Aristotelianism are not different. They just have a little different emphasis — Gregory
God creates the division. Augustine and Aquinas explicitly say the forms are in God. The doctrine of Plato that the forms are separate from God are held by few Christians. — Gregory
Aquinas supported the Inquisition. — Gregory
Are you just not paying attention? Infinitesimals do not have distinct boundaries, which is why the principle of excluded middle does not apply to them.Infinitesimals are within a continuous medium, and they also require boundaries. — Metaphysician Undercover
Are you just not paying attention? He held that the principle of contradiction (not the same as LNC) does not apply to that which is vague/indefinite.Exactly as I said, Peirce allows for violation of the law of non-contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover
Are you just not paying attention? Your judgment is incorrect; Peirce vehemently rejected materialism, explicitly identifying his metaphysics as objective idealism.Therefore he is dialetheist, and in my judgement, dialectical materialist. — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, although before going any farther we need to establish what we mean in this context by "consciousness" and "real." — aletheist
I am not sure what that would even mean, but like anything else, I think that it can be explained/described mathematically--i.e., with a retroductive hypothesis that we can then deductively explicate and inductively evaluate. The subject matter of mathematics is much broader than just numbers. — aletheist
Again, we need to define "consciousness," and numbers are strictly hypothetical. Semiotics is a relatively recent science, so it clearly came last; but if you meant to say semeiosis, the real process that semiotics studies, then I am inclined to believe that it came first. — aletheist
My current working hypothesis is that time is a manifestation of semeiosis, the ongoing evolution of the universe as dynamical objects determine sign tokens to determine dynamical interpretants. Linguistics is a special science that studies actual languages, while semiotics is a normative science that studies the nature of signs in general (speculative grammar), good vs. bad reasoning (logical critic), and methods for obtaining true beliefs (speculative rhetoric). — aletheist
That is painting with far too broad a brush. Peirce's objective idealism does not say that we create the world, it describes "the physical law as derived and special, the psychical law as primordial" such that "matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws" (CP 6.24-25; 1891).Objective idealism says we create the world and it's real. George Berkeley believed in the former, while Hegel, Royce, Peirce, and Giovanni Gentilies probably can be said to be objective idealists — Gregory
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.