But I do have an issue if you want to claim that vagueness is ontological, and exists at the level of the terrain, not just of the m — Agustino
Well, I will make an argument once you explain to me how you go from the vagueness in the map to vagueness in the territory. I'm looking to see how you derive your ontological vagueness at this point. We've arrived at there being some vagueness in the map. How do we go from this epistemological vagueness to the ontological one? This may be a more productive route given the way none of the other routes have worked with you so far.Well you would have to make that argument then. So far you have only told me about your own map of the territory. And that turned out to have separated togethernesses. — apokrisis
I will make an argument once you explain to me how you go from the vagueness in the map to vagueness in the territory. — Agustino
Aha! Exactly. Now we're getting onto something. So the phenomenon is very similar to this.For instance, engineers are always telling me that my definite models of reality turn out not to fit the world in vague ways. Quantum wavefunctions still need to be collapsed. Chaos turns out to forget its initial conditions. The way the maps keep failing look to be trying to tell me something deep about the essential spontaneity of the territory. — apokrisis
There cannot be any primordial chaos, infinite potential, vagueness and the like - some minimal degree of order and act are always required. — Agustino
If there is a fluctuation it seems to me like there is some act already. — Agustino
why would there be any sort of fluctuation in the first place if there is a necessarily inert vagueness in the first place? — Agustino
Surely it could be a fluctuation I do not care what it is for the purposes of this discussion, but it must be something actual, not an infinite potential, vagueness and the like.You mean like a fluctuation? — apokrisis
Because you want it to be an infinite potential, a vagueness where no act is present. If that's the case, then it is necessarily inert since it cannot actualise itself. Its chaos - as it were - prevents it from creating anything spontaneously, even a fluctuation. That's how chaotic it is.Why would inertness be necessary? — apokrisis
Yes, and this was Aristotle's argument to show the primacy of act over potency in his metaphysics.The very fact something exists shows that by necessity it couldn't be. — apokrisis
You can rely on the fluctuation, but you cannot rely on the infinite vagueness to account for the fluctuation. If you want, the fluctuation can be a brute fact in yours - that's not a problem within the constraints of this discussion. But you cannot rely on the infinite vagueness. So scratch that out. That's the mythological element. The beginning point is a fluctuation for you, as for science actually. Science cannot get beyond that assuming that there is even a beyond.Of course vagueness doesn't even exist according to your own map of reality. You rely on God to kick things off. Or divine circular motion to swirl things about. Or something equally bizarre. — apokrisis
Aha! Exactly. Now we're getting onto something. So the phenomenon is very similar to this. — Agustino
Surely it could be a fluctuation I do not care what it is for the purposes of this discussion, but it must be something actual, not an infinite potential, vagueness and the like. — Agustino
Okay, no disagreement there.As the first fluctuation, it would have as yet no context. History follows the act. — apokrisis
It's difficult to make sense of what you're trying to say here because you're using words differently from Aristotle it seems to me. Matter is inert, it is form which is act, and actualises. So form is imposed on the inert matter (which is potential), and this form would be the fluctuation. But note that form must be independent to and prior to matter.It seems the mistake you keep making is to forget I am arguing for the actualisation of a dichotomy - the birth of matter and form in a first substantial event. You just keep talking about the material half of the equation. — apokrisis
Right, so then the mathematical concept of space as infinitely divisible isn't how real space actually is. It's important to see this.You get infinite outcomes if your model offers no lower bound cut-off to limit material contributions. — apokrisis
Yeah, so reality eliminates all those infinities that are inherent in our mathematical models. Our initial predictions that blackbodies would emit infinite amounts of UV were based on the mistake in our mathematical model of assuming an infinite continuity going all the way down, while the truth is that things are cut off at one point, they become discrete.Our measurements coarse grain over fractal reality. We are happy to approximate in this fashion. And then even reality itself coarse grains. The possibility of contributions must be definitely truncated at some scale - like the Planck scale - to avoid an ultraviolet catastrophe. — apokrisis
I don't follow this.Vagueness is required at the base of things to prevent the disaster of infinite actualisation. — apokrisis
Well that's a metaphorical way to put it regarding the "primal fluctuation". They do arise from a symmetry breaking, or rather that the process of constructing a fractal involves a symmetry breaking. Regarding the recursive eq, are you talking about fractal dimensionality? As in log(number copies)/log(scale factor)?Also how much do you understand fractals? Note how they arise from a seed dichotomy, a symmetry breaking or primal fluctuation. That is what the recursive equation with its log/log growth structure represents. — apokrisis
But another example of the vagueness/PNC~generality/LEM dichotomy which is basic to his logic is the triangle. A triangle is a general concept that forms a continuum limit - a global constraint - that then can't be exhausted by its particular instances. An infinite variety of particular triangles can be embraced by the general notion of a triangle.
So the LEM does not apply to this generality as a triangle can, in genus~species fashion, be equilateral, isosceles, or scalene. Of course the triangle must be a three-sided polygon, but that is talking of a still higher level generality of which it now partakes as a definite particular. — apokrisis
Then vagueness is defined dichotomously to the general. Where generality allows you to say any particular triangle can be either scalene or isosceles, vagueness speaks to the indefinite case where there is as yet no triangle specified and so there is no fact of the matter as to whether it is scalene or isosceles. It is not a contradiction to say the potential triangle is both. — apokrisis
It's difficult to make sense of what you're trying to say here because you're using words differently from Aristotle it seems to me. — Agustino
Matter is inert, it is form which is act, and actualises. So form is imposed on the inert matter (which is potential), and this form would be the fluctuation. But note that form must be independent to and prior to matter. — Agustino
Right, so then the mathematical concept of space as infinitely divisible isn't how real space actually is. It's important to see this. — Agustino
Yeah, so reality eliminates all those infinities that are inherent in our mathematical models. Our initial predictions that blackbodies would emit infinite amounts of UV were based on the mistake in our mathematical model of assuming an infinite continuity going all the way down, while the truth is that things are cut off at one point, they become discrete. — Agustino
Regarding the recursive eq, are you talking about fractal dimensionality? As in log(number copies)/log(scale factor)? — Agustino
You say that any particular triangle, must be one of a number of different types of triangles. Where does the LEM not apply? — Metaphysician Undercover
It doesn't make sense to say that the concept of triangle in general must be a particular type of triangle, — Metaphysician Undercover
It doesn't make sense to attribute a species to the genus, that's a category error, not a failure of the LEM. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your claim seems to be that if there is no particular triangle, then this particular triangle the potential triangle, may be both scalene and isosceles. — Metaphysician Undercover
Of course the LEM applies to any particular triangle. It doesn't apply to the notion of the general triangle. — apokrisis
The LEM fails to apply. It doesn't even make sense to think it could. It is definitional of generality that it doesn't. — apokrisis
Before a particular triangle has been drawn, it may be scalene or isosceles. — apokrisis
And so while still just a potential, it is not contradictory to say this potential triangle is as much one as the other. That is, what it actually will be is right at this moment vague - as defined by the PNC not being applicable and any proposition that pretends otherwise being a logical failure. — apokrisis
The laws of logic are rules of predication, how we attribute predicates to a subject. If your subject is the general notion of a triangle, the rules apply. The subject is identified as the triangle, by the law of identity, and the other two rules of predication apply. — Metaphysician Undercover
The PNC and LEM rely on the law of identity, the identification of a subject. Until you ,move to identify a particular, it is a foregone conclusion that the laws of logic do not apply. — Metaphysician Undercover
You are avoiding the point. Peirce is dealing with how the laws could even develop. You are talking about the laws as they would apply when the world has crisply developed, when everything is mostly a collection of objects, a settled state of affairs, a set of atomistic facts.
So sure, generals can have universality predicated of them. They can be said to cover all instances of some class. They can themselves be regarded as particular subjects. That is what make sense once a world has developed and generals come to be crisply fixed within the context of some evolved state of affairs. — apokrisis
So the laws of thought don't apply until they start to do. That is what a developmental ontology is claiming. Peirce described the Cosmos as the universal growth of reasonableness. The lawfulness the laws encode are the product of evolution and self organisation. — apokrisis
There is no point you just telling me you don't see the laws as a product of development. I already know that you just presume their natural existence. You have never inquired how the laws might come to be as the result of a larger ur-logical process.
So why not set aside your predudices and actually consider an alternative metaphysics for once? Make a proper effort to understand Peirce rather than simply assert that existence exists and that's the end of it. — 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.