Between the iron posts and the paper maché, you mean? — Wayfarer
I have outlined many times how biosemiosis now adds the epistemic cut to the business of quantum interpretation — apokrisis
Hegel's logic has generally been dealt with in a category theoretic framework. — Count Timothy von Icarus
I’ve learned, and not all of the scholars in that field are as committed to physicalist principles. — Wayfarer
Thanks. I'm not reading that this morning. Maybe later.I added a more detailed link. — Count Timothy von Icarus
"Let us consider what a completely undifferentiable entity x might be. It would be one unobservable and unidentifiable at any possible [level of abstraction]. Modally, this means that there would be no possible world in which x would exist. And this simply means that there is no such x. [ . . . ] Imagine a toy universe constituted by a two-dimensional, boundless, white surface. Anything like this toy universe is a paradoxical fiction that only a sloppy use of logic can generate. For example, where is the observer in this universe? Would the toy universe include (at least distinguishable) points? Would there be distances between these points? The answers should be in the negative, for this is a universe without relations. "
(2011, Chapter 15, p. 354) [This is Bynum quoting Floridi's 2011 "The Philosophy of Information," which is quite good, but dense.]
Thus, there can be no possible universe without relations; and since dedomena are preconditions for any relations, it follows that every possible universe must be made of at least some dedomena. (Note that there might also be other things which, for us, are forever unknowable.) There is much more to Floridi’s defense of Informational Structural Realism, including his replies to ten possible objections, and I leave it to interested readers to find the details in Chapter 15 of The Philosophy of Information. Floridi views the fact that his ontology applies to every possible world as a very positive feature. It means, for example, that Informational Structural Realism has maximum "portability,” “scalability,” and “interoperability.”
Regarding portability, Floridi notes that:
"The most portable ontology would be one that could be made to ‘run’ in any possible world. This is what Aristotle meant by a general metaphysics of Being qua Being. The portability of an ontology is a function of its importability and exportability between theories even when they are disjointed ([their models] have observables in common). Imagine an ontology that successfully accounts for the natural numbers and for natural kinds."
Hegel's logic has generally been dealt with in a category theoretic framework — Count Timothy von Icarus
Looking upon the course of logic as a whole we see that it proceeds from the question to the answer -- from the vague to the definite. And so likewise all the evolution we know of proceeds from the vague to the definite. The indeterminate future becomes the irrevocable past. In Spencer's phrase the undifferentiated differentiates itself. The homogeneous puts on heterogeneity. However it may be in special cases, then, we must suppose that as a rule the continuum has been derived from a more general continuum, a continuum of higher generality.
My critique is that dialectic approaches do not fix the nature of the synthesis. So given any thesis and antithesis, any of a number of syntheses are possible. — Banno
A dichotomous distinction – such as local and global – has to show itself to frame the opposing limits of a reciprocal or inverse relation. How do you define local? As 1/global. How do you define global? As 1/local. — apokrisis
And if anything will do, then nothing has been achieved. — Banno
Does idealism break physics? — bert1
[1]So for some reason it is OK for you to use commonsense to make inferences about things you can’t directly know, but science as a formal method for making such inferences does not enjoy the same privilege? [2]It is defeated by the zombies in which you don’t believe? Curious.
[3]So what does your commonsense tell you about the consciousness of the chair you are sat on? [4]Given the zombie argument that is so legit, how can you know it is either conscious or not conscious[?] It might be just keeping very quiet and still. It might be aware but suffering locked in syndrome.
Your commonsense is this magical power that transcends mere scientific inference. Please clear up these deep riddles of Nature. — apokrisis
I have outlined many times how biosemiosis now adds the epistemic cut to the business of quantum interpretation. As a mechanism, a modelling relation, even our enzymes and respiratory chains are actually doing that - preparing states of coherence with the intention of collapsing them and so ratcheting the entropy flows of a Cosmos guided by the telos of the newly NASA-rediscovered concept of dissipative structure. — 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.