There is no boundary as a thing. You've done nothing to show that there is such a boundary.You are just playing with words. The talk here is of the boundary that marks the position where the transition happens. It's a well traversed debate in the philosophy of maths. — apokrisis
Oh, so how are these different dichotomies related one to another? And why is it that this vagueness apparently contains unrelated dichotomies inside of it?Sure, the Apeiron would absorb all differences of any category. But the categories that matter at a metaphysical level are all the product of dialectical reasoning. They are dichotomies. — apokrisis
:-} Next time try a different strategy.I'll just say I thought you were smarter than this. Looks like you can't in fact rise above glibness. At least MU is passionate about ideas. You don't sound like you believe your own argument for a minute. — apokrisis
No, that doesn't mean PNC fails to apply. It only means that the boundary cannot have the property of color because it is not a thing, and therefore such a property cannot apply to it. But the PNC still applies - the boundary is a boundary and not - not a boundary.That's why the PNC fails to apply. — apokrisis
A Vagueness Imperative, is not making a case. It is a manufactured phrase designed to replace the word God so as not to upset the sensibilities of "scientific materialists." Pure obfuscation embedded in long paragraphs in the hope that the sleight of hand is not noticed. In short (I do prefer getting to the point), nonsensical babble masquerading as intellectualism. — Rich
No. I denied that there is any in-between. A transition is a process - your eye goes from green line to white line. It's not a thing. There is NOTHING between the white line and the green line. What have I been telling you for the whole time? Are you so heavy headed that you cannot read a simple sentence?It is somehow a third line inbetween that executes "a transition" — apokrisis
I denied that there is any in-between. — Agustino
There is NOTHING between the white line and the green line. — Agustino
You are thinking mathematically, but I'm telling you how things are in reality. Mathematics is just an approximation, that's why you can infinitely divide in mathematics, but obviously can't do that in reality. — Agustino
I think you're tilting at windmills. Your "getting to the point" is just a repetition of dogma, a mantra. You love Bergson. Cool. I like Bergson, too. If that's the last word for you and everything else is a conspiracy to cover up his final revelation of the Truth, then I'm OK with that. Proceed. Believe. Preach on. — t0m
1/9 = 0.1111111111 repeating, agreed?
So if I multiply both sides by 9, I get 9/9 = 0.99999999 correct? So how are the two not equal? I think the idea behind this is rather that decimal notation cannot capture the value of a number to the same precision as fractions can. — Agustino
If you want to say they are not equal, then what number is there between them? Two numbers that are not equal are after-all separated by another number. The problem of mathematics is that continuity cannot really be broken into discreteness without creating such paradoxes. — Agustino
Some have an emotional investment in the word "God" and others have an emotional investment in the word "No God". — Agustino
No, I never said there was anything in-between. There is no in-between. There is no empty space between the white line and the green line, the two are touching.You said there was a boundary in-between. — apokrisis
The PNC does not fail to apply. You have not shown this at all. All that you have demonstrated is that you have a wrong conception of the problem. You conceive of a real problem as a mathematical problem, but the two aren't the same.It all seems to make some weird kind of sense as an example of the PNC failing to apply. — apokrisis
No, I mean there is nothing between them, exactly as it sounds. There is no line between them.You mean there is A nothing in-between the white line and the green line — apokrisis
No, that is exactly the problem. That you confuse the math with reality - the map with the territory - and then go backwards from the infinite divisibility of mathematical space and postulate a necessary vagueness in real space. The vagueness only exists in the map, not in the territory. You have been fooled by the map and are unable to see its limitations.Ah. I see. The problem is now that the maths is "approximate". And when the reason for that is pointed out - the logical vagueness where the PNC fails - you missed the point. — apokrisis
Well if you want your vagueness to apply only to mathematics and epistemology that is fine, but I thought we were talking about ontology. I've already told you that in mathematics space is infinitely divisible, hence where the paradoxes arise from. You were asked in the conversation with MU to provide an example of vagueness which showed that vagueness was ontological, not epistemological. In other words, that it belonged to the terrain, not to the map that we have.So your version is that we have two lines that are touching but separate? Seems a little self-contradictory given the definition of a line is that it has zero width. — apokrisis
Well if you want your vagueness to apply only to mathematics and epistemology that is fine, but I thought we were talking about ontology. — Agustino
You were asked in the conversation with MU to provide an example of vagueness which showed that vagueness was ontological, not epistemological. In other words, that it belonged to the terrain, not to the map that we have. — Agustino
I'm an engineer (by degree anyway), and so it's been very well-ingrained into my blood to be sceptical of mathematics and mathematical models and to be aware that they are very limited in describing reality. You seem - coming from a background of theoretical physics/science - not to have this awareness of the limitations of mathematical modelling. — Agustino
Mathematics, logic, and reasoning are not the same thing. Mathematics is a set of tools, based on logic and intuition that allows us to create, in some limited circumstances and for special purposes, models of the world. Logic is a different branch of study than mathematics.It is about logic - reasoning itself. — apokrisis
No, mathematics is just a tool of reasoning. It's not the only tool in our toolbox, and probably not even the most important one. What Spinoza called intuition, what Plato called noesis, what Einstein referred to as imagination - that is more important than mathematics, since it is what sees into the very first principles themselves.So it is mathematical in that maths is our most rigorous language of reasoning. — apokrisis
No it isn't ontology, that's a non-sequitur. At most, it would provide you with tools that would enable you to do ontology. However, "right reasoning" is much more than the correct logical framework.And then it is ontology, because equipped with the right reasoning, the right logical framework, we can hope to make the best sense of what reality actually is. — apokrisis
Yeah, I wasn't aware that Peirce is a god who cannot be challenged. Please. Put up some argument, don't tell me the historical antecedents of your view.This understanding of what is required just confirms you are a naive realist. Peirce established the proper pragmatic basis for a logico-scientific understanding of reality. — apokrisis
Exactly. That's why you cannot use the map to do ontology. You must go back to the things themselves.So the map isn't the territory of course. But more than that, it doesn't aim to re-present the world. It aims to ignore that world as much as possible. So the map comes to be a map of our own interpretive interests as much as a map of the external reality. It is a picture of ourselves as much as it is a picture of the thing in itself. — apokrisis
Wait, how do you jump from the nature of maps and models, to how we can know about the world? Do you mean that we can only know about the world through models? And if so, what justifies that?So the Peircean argument is internalist. All we can know of the world is the beliefs that we are prepared to hold about it, the beliefs we are prepared to act by. — apokrisis
Okay, but as you can see this cuts your own branch. If this is the case, then you cannot be doing ontology with your philosophy. You can at most be creating narratives that are useful for particular purposes, such as advancing scientific discoveries, while, as per your own statements, leaving you blind to others, which don't interest you. In this case ontology, theology, etc.This doesn't deny the thing in itself. But it should also alert us to the fact we don't really care about the world in some disembodied fashion. The maps we make are as much a self-portrait - indeed, the very act of creating that "interpretive self" - as they are a re-presentation of the world as it might be said to be in terms of its own set of interests. — apokrisis
Yeah, you understand it at a meta-THEORETIC level ;)Nice try at boxing me in. But that pragmatic intersection between theory and practice is exactly what I have a good meta-theoretic understanding of. — apokrisis
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
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.