But mathematics models the relation.
Metaphysics arrives as its ultimate qualities via the dialectic or dichotomy, which is a reciprocal or inverse relation. So in Yin-Yang fashion, this is a self-quantifying approach to qualities. Thesis and antithesis meet synthesis in the degree to which each it’s not its “other”.
To be discrete is not to be continuous. And vice versa. And this dichotomisation of possibility is mathematically expressed as a reciprocal relation. Discrete = 1/continuous. And continuous = 1/discrete.
Each is the limit on its other. Each is the unit which is thus the basis of measurement or quantification in regard to that other.
I can measure discreteness in the world to the degree I can measure no continuity. And vice versa. And that is expressible as the simplest mathematical relation. — apokrisis
It is the universal trick that allows measurement. We can only ever ground an act of measurement in terms of a claim of what is, within the context of all that it is thus not. — apokrisis
Which is fine, as long as you recognise the qualitative complexity of the relation you started with. — Possibility
We talk about energy as if it’s continuous, but it’s not really. We talk about protons as if they’re discrete, but they’re not really. — Possibility
Yin-yang is not about ‘dark’ and ‘light’, ultimate qualities, but about the indivisible whole: — Possibility
Wiki - In Ancient Chinese philosophy, yin and yang (/jɪn/ and /jɑːŋ, jæŋ/; Chinese: 陰陽 yīnyáng pronounced [ín jǎŋ], lit. "dark-light", "negative-positive") is a Chinese philosophical concept that describes how obviously opposite or contrary forces may actually be complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they may give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.
In Chinese cosmology, the universe creates itself out of a primary chaos of material energy, organized into the cycles of Yin and Yang and formed into objects and lives. Yin is the receptive and Yang the active principle, seen in all forms of change and difference such as the annual cycle (winter and summer), the landscape (north-facing shade and south-facing brightness), sexual coupling (female and male), the formation of both men and women as characters and sociopolitical history (disorder and order).
And Peirce draws attention to the third aspect of any linear continuum: a reflection of the observer as the source of any limitations in the system. — Possibility
I think we can more accurately ground an act of measurement in the limitations of the device/observer. — Possibility
Err, extracting the qualitative simplicity of existence would be the entire point of metaphysics.
Some folk just reduce it to unmeasurable momisms - god, mind, spirit, whatever - rather than the reciprocal relations that justify some scheme of measurement or observation. — apokrisis
We talk about energy as if it’s continuous, but it’s not really. We talk about protons as if they’re discrete, but they’re not really.
— Possibility
Yes. And how do we know that? Our measurements have told us at energy is not continuous except as a bulk view that doesn’t see the Planck grain, and protons are merely hadronic blobs confined by their strong force. — apokrisis
Yin-yang is not about ‘dark’ and ‘light’, ultimate qualities, but about the indivisible whole:
— Possibility
And yet the indivisible whole is also divided in some dichotomous fashion at every available turn. — apokrisis
Same Wiki (further down): In Taoist metaphysics, distinctions between good and bad, along with other dichotomous moral judgments, are perceptual, not real; so, the duality of yin and yang is an indivisible whole.
And Peirce draws attention to the third aspect of any linear continuum: a reflection of the observer as the source of any limitations in the system.
— Possibility
Being the modeller with the pragmatic purpose certainly imposes limitations on how the world gets modelled. But also science is human inquiry doing its level best to transcend the limits of this subjectivism.
It can’t of course remove itself from the world entirely. But it has been making exponential progress for some time now. — apokrisis
I think we can more accurately ground an act of measurement in the limitations of the device/observer.
— Possibility
Again, if you think this is “Peircean”, you would have to explain what the heck he was doing when employed in tasks like producing a better working definition of the standard yard for the US weights and measure service. He came up with the diffraction grating approach that could provide accuracy to parts in a million — apokrisis
No - the point of metaphysics is to extract the holistic simplicity of existence, which I think you and I can agree is triadic. — Possibility
They’re just different ways to describe or configure reality in relation to a limited observer. What matters is the qualitative structure of the observer in relation to the measurement, not so much the measurement itself, which doesn’t speak. — Possibility
No - the point of metaphysics is to extract the holistic simplicity of existence, which I think you and I can agree is triadic.
— Possibility
Sure. Out of the monism of unconstrained potential (Firstness) comes the mutually constraining reciprocity of the dichotomy (secondness). And from there arises the triadic relation which is a hierarchical structure (thirdness). — apokrisis
What matters is that the observer has some concept in mind that feels measurable - such as some spectrum of possibility defined by its dichotomous bounds, like whether the observable tends more towards the discrete or the continuous. — apokrisis
I don’t really subscribe to this Peircean sequencing as such. — Possibility
The grounding here is feeling, affect. — Possibility
I don’t really subscribe to this Peircean sequencing as such.
— Possibility
So you don’t really subscribe to his naturalistic view of a developmental cosmos and thus not really to Peirceanism at all? Ah, well. — apokrisis
Subjective idealism rather than objective idealism? Ah, well. — apokrisis
Leaning more towards ontic structural realism, if we have to label it. — Possibility
If you say so. But then your inclusion of affect or observers makes even less sense to me. — apokrisis
Hi Universeness. To further our conversation: — Watchmaker
I personally think that an Eternal, self existing Mind, that is the very essence of Being, is far more parsimonious — Watchmaker
the mere fact that it happened, that consciousness and self awareness (identity) emerged from the cosmic soup, means that the materials needed already existed (which is obvious, right?) — Watchmaker
I can't see any reason as to why consciousness would have necessarily sparked unless it is eternally entwined in the fabric of space time, perhaps a space/time/consciousness continuum, if you will. — Watchmaker
I further suggest that the need for such an entity is down to human primal fears. — universeness
Yes it can, in time — universeness
I hope so, we can then throw it in jail forever for abandoning its responsibilities for so long.God will show himself. In time. — Haglund
I don't know, need more time. If you give your god more time to appear then give your fellow humans more time to figure out the origin story of the Universe. At least we can appear to each other, which is more than your puny gods seem able to do.But then, from where comes the stuff used in the explanation? — Haglund
God will show himself. In time.
— Haglund
I hope so, we can then throw it in jail forever for abandoning its responsibilities for so long. — universeness
But then, from where comes the stuff used in the explanation?
— Haglund
I don't know, need more time. — universeness
Then we will understand why the god posit was wrong. — universeness
You and I have absorbed about 2500 years of scientific thought in a half lifetime — Haglund
I personally think that an Eternal, self existing Mind, that is the very essence of Being, is far more parsimonious
— Watchmaker
I think many theists take this position. They reject the infinite regression or 'first cause' problem by claiming that god is 'outside of time,' and 'outside of causality.' I think this is just the same as saying 'you can NEVER approach the concept of god using a mere human mind, the scientific method, and empiricism.
My counter is that I personally, therefore, have no need for god, AT ALL.
I further suggest that the need for such an entity is down to human primal fears. — universeness
Interesting that you cite ‘human primal fears’ as the basis of a need for god - where do they fit into your list of ‘human mind, the scientific method, and empiricism’? — Possibility
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.