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
The laws of logic were produced, and developed by human beings. — Metaphysician Undercover
. The claim that there was a time when the universe didn't consist of a collection of objects would need to be justified — Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, that is indeed an interesting implication of any growth process that depends on symmetry breakings - it must ultimately reduce itself to a beginning point.As a dichotomous growth process, they directly model this issue of convergence towards a limit that I stressed in earlier posts.
Think about the implications of that for a theory of cosmic origination. It argues that a world that can arise from a symmetry breaking - a going in both its dichotomous directions freely - does in fact have its own natural asymptotic cut off point. The Planck scale Big Bang is not a problem but a prediction. Run a constantly diverging process back in time to recover its initial conditions and you must see it converging at a point at the beginning of time.
This has in fact been argued as a theorem in relation to Linde's fractal spawning multiverse hypothesis. So if inflation happens to be true and our universe is only one of a potential infinity, the maths still says the history of the multiverse must converge at some point at the beginning of time. It is a truly general metaphysical result. — apokrisis
I don't follow how "what begins" has no actual size. Fractals always have some size. Even the simplest ones like Koch curve start from some definite size of a simple line segment. But see the absence of a definitive perimeter, combined with things like having no tangents at any points, make such fractals strange mathematical objects, which may approximate some real objects, but not in this lack of definitiveness.Another way to illustrate this is how we derive the constant of growth itself - e. Run growth backwards and it must converge on some unit 1 process that started doing the growing. Thus what begins things has no actual size. It is always just 1 - the bare potential of whatever fluctuation got things started. So a definite growth constant emerges without needing any starting point more definite than a fleeting one-ness. — apokrisis
Okay. But I don't see anything in your position that could elude what Aristotle has determined. You have redefined the terms, but this redefinition does not save you from the requirement that there is a prior act to all potency (using these terms to mean what Aristotle meant by them). As I said, it makes sense when you say that everything reduces to a primal fluctuation. I can understand that. But I cannot understand the movement from primal fluctuation to ontic vagueness - that sounds contradictory to me.Now you are repeating what I have disputed. And I have provided the rationale for my position. So instead of just citing scholastic aristoteleanism to me, as if that could make a difference, just move on and consider my actual arguments. — apokrisis
Yeah, much of actual math is done this way. The difficulties of infinite divisibility and the like are avoided through limit calculus in practice while doing math. This is fine so long as you are aware that you're just doing math. Limit calculus enables you to perform through an infinity of operations and arrive at a definite answer - in some cases, those which are convergent. Not all are though, and the cases where there exist problems in physics - such as the Big Bang singularity, are precisely those cases where limits are divergent. Again, such issues illustrate discrepancies between mathematical models and reality.It is also important to see that Peirce's mathematical conceptions are based on the duality of generality and vagueness. So you can both have a general continuum limit and also find that it has potential infinity in terms of its divisibility. In fact, you've got to have both. — apokrisis
Well, we're not sure, we have to wait for quantum gravity to be more fully developed to see what's what. If there is a quantum theory of gravity, then GR will be reduced to it, as would be natural, in my opinion. It's absurd to have a macro theory that cannot be shown to emerge from the micro level.And funnily enough, real space is like that. Just look at how we have to have the duality of general relativity and quantum mechanics to account for it fully. One describes the global continuity of the constraints, the other, the local infinite potential, the inherent uncertainty that just keeps giving. — apokrisis
No, I'm not sure that he believes in the "clockwork Newtonian universe". Depends on what you are engineering. Standard structures will be engineered according to the Newtonian clockwork view of the universe, because it's a close enough approximation - especially when you put factors of safety on top of it.And yet an engineer has a metaphysics. He believes in a world of clockwork Newtonian forces. That is the right maths. And on the whole it works because the universe - at the scale at which the engineer operates - is pretty much just "classical". There is no ontic vagueness to speak of. — apokrisis
Yes, the phenomenon of buckling is more complicated than our lower bound calculations suggest. Non-linear effects do start to play a role, and there are other mechanisms too - in reinforced concrete beams for example, a phenomenon known as arching can develop making the behaviour of the beam plastic and permitting it to withstand more load than predicted.Of course, the beam will buckle unpredictably. An engineer has to know the practical limits of his classically-inspired mathematical tools. The engineer will say in theory, every micro-cause contributing to the failure of the beam could be modelled by sufficiently complex "non-linear" equations. The issue of coarse graining - the fact that eventually the engineer will insert himself into the modelling as the observer to decide when to just average over the events in each region of space - is brushed off as a necessary heuristic and not an epistemic embarrassment. — apokrisis
Actually, real world engineering projects most often are overdeisgned. We just hear about the failures more often than not, but the many successes are forgotten. When you use lower bound approaches combined with factors of safety of 1.5 for structures, and up to 3-4 sometimes for foundations, you are bound to overdesign to a certain extent. Basically whatever answer you calculate you will multiply by the factor of safety to really make sure it's safe - and you are pretty much forced to do so by legislation in many countries, just because failure can lead to death. So better safe than sorry - better to be humble and expect that you don't know than to have false pretences to knowledge.Which is why real world engineering projects fail so regularly — apokrisis
Fractals always have some size. Even the simplest ones like Koch curve start from some definite size of a simple line segment. — Agustino
You have redefined the terms, but this redefinition does not save you from the requirement that there is a prior act to all potency (using these terms to mean what Aristotle meant by them). — Agustino
It's absurd to have a macro theory that cannot be shown to emerge from the micro level. — Agustino
Yes, the phenomenon of buckling is more complicated than our lower bound calculations suggest. — Agustino
Actually, real world engineering projects most often are overdeisgned. — Agustino
Real world structures which do collapse or fail likely do so because they involve an upper bound method of calculation, and the lowest failure mechanism wasn't thought about or taken into account. — Agustino
Okay, but I fail to see how this changes anything :s - I mean sure, you can use whatever number system you want, so effectively you always start with "unit 1" if that's what you want. But how does this change the fact that there is a definitive size to this beginning, regardless of the number/measuring system you choose to use, and hence what you use as the standard for 1 unit?Sure. To model, we need to start at some initial scale. My point was that log e, or Euler's number, shows how we can just start with "unit 1" as the place to start things.
It may seem like you always have to start your simulation with some definite value. But actually the maths itself abstracts away this apparent particularity by saying whatever value you start at, that is 1. The analysis is dimensionless rather than dimensioned. Even if we have to "stick in a number" to feed the recursive equation. — apokrisis
Why should I think that this vague "anythingness" was ever possible?Sure, irregularity being constrained is what produces the now definite possibilities or degrees of freedom. Once a history has got going, vague "anythingness" is no longer possible. — apokrisis
Why do you say it didn't work out? Aristotle showed that prime matter is impossible to exist in-itself. But prime matter does exist in the sense of the underlying potentiality for anything already actual to be other than it is - in other words, the radical potentiality for a chair to change into an elephant, as an example.But Aristotle tried to make sense of the bare potential of prime matter. As we know, that didn't work out so well. — apokrisis
So is "bare potential" actual?Now both formal and material cause are what arise in mutual fashion from bare potential. They are its potencies. — apokrisis
:s - if Prime Mover is the potentiality of something else, then it is not Prime Mover anymore. Prime Mover would be whatever lies behind and is pure act.Prime mover and prime matter are together what would be latent in prime potential. — apokrisis
Yes, because other beginnings are logically contradictory and impossible, just like square circles are impossible.You keep coming back to a need to believe in a concrete beginning. It is the presumption that you have not yet questioned in the way Peirce says you need to question. — apokrisis
Yes, I do believe there is a non-contradictory underlying reality.But you still do believe there is a concrete bottom level to these non-linear situations right? — apokrisis
No, absolutely not. The phenomenon of buckling in these non-linear ways is most commonly seen in shell structures. What happens is that there are imperfections in the structure (not perfectly round, etc.). And these tiny imperfections reduce the failure load significantly. They can be ignored for most structures, but things like shell structures are imperfection sensitive. So there is an actual cause for why they buckle - just that we cannot pin-point it. It's epistemologically, but not ontologically vague. This is exactly how we were taught this in University, and how it makes sense. If a professor said that the structure is ontologically vague, and that's why there is no discernible reason for buckling, we wouldn't have understood much of anything, because it doesn't make much sense :s - it's illogical. How can you have an illogical metaphysics?The beam buckles because of a "fluctuation". Another way of saying "for no discernible reason at all". Anything and everything could have been what tipped the balance. — apokrisis
Right, or rather creating a safe distance from the area that we cannot know very well, since our models and theories do not permit us to. That's also a possibility, one that seems to be more logically coherent.(Well, I've already said why - creating a "safe" distance from fundamental uncertainty by employing informal or heuristic coarse-graining.) — apokrisis
Okay, but I fail to see how this changes anything — Agustino
So there is an actual cause for why they buckle - just that we cannot pin-point it. It's epistemologically, but not ontologically vague. — Agustino
in other words, the radical potentiality for a chair to change into an elephant, as an example. — Agustino
No, I do understand dimensionless quantities quite well, thank you. What I don't understand is your silly metaphorical fancy of treating a dimensionless quantity as a "1 unit", which is then somehow also a "bare potential" :s .So you don't understand dimensionless quantities. Cool. https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensionless_quantity — apokrisis
Material accidents are not "uncontrolled fluctuations" :sImperfections are just another name for material accidents or uncontrolled fluctuations. — apokrisis
That would be a methodological limitation of our manufacturing techniques, it would definitely not be an ontological limitation of reality itself...The reason is that imperfection or fluctuation can only be constrained, not eliminated. — apokrisis
Right, so you are willing to accept ontological contradictions. Why aren't you going to accept square circles then, and other contradictions? Maybe at the level of those fluctuations squares and circles aren't all that different anymore - there's some vague square circles :sHence this being the ontological conclusion that follows from epistemic observation. — apokrisis
:-} The point there was simply that any object has to potential to become another - the elephant is made of atoms, as is the chair, now supposing there are sufficient atoms in one as in the other, all it would take would be a rearrangement of them - in other words, a new form. That's what Aristotle meant by prime matter - but prime matter only applies to already actual objects - it doesn't exist in-itself, abstracted away from such objects.Now you are really just making shit up. — apokrisis
No, I do understand dimensionless quantities quite well, — Agustino
a dimensionless quantity (or more precisely, a quantity with the dimensions of 1) is a quantity without any physical units and thus a pure number.
Material accidents are not "uncontrolled fluctuations" :s — Agustino
That would be a methodological limitation of our manufacturing techniques, it would definitely not be an ontological limitation of reality itself... — Agustino
Right, so you are willing to accept ontological contradictions. Why aren't you going to accept square circles then, and other contradictions? Maybe at the level of those fluctuations squares and circles aren't all that different anymore - there's some vague square circles — Agustino
The point there was simply that any object has to potential to become another - the elephant is made of atoms, as is the chair, now supposing there are sufficient atoms in one as in the other, all it would take would be a rearrangement of them - in other words, a new form. — Agustino
Sure we framed them to explain the world as we have found it. The deeper question is why the existence of that intelligible world? — apokrisis
If the laws were merely social constructs, they would hardly hold a foundational place in our methods of reasoning. — apokrisis
Fer fuck's sakes. If existence isn't eternal, it must have developed or been created. Being created doesn't work as that leads to infinite regress in terms of claims about first causes. So development is the metaphysical option worth exploring - rather than being pig-headed about, as is your wont. — apokrisis
And then cosmology gives good support to that metaphysical reasoning. Look back to the Big Bang and you don't see much evidence for the existence of a collection of objects. — apokrisis
Yeah, I find that contradictory, and contradictions are by definition impossible. If you will allow contradictions in your system of thought, there's no way to make heads from tails anymore - that's completely irrational.And your problem is?
Vagueness is as much circular as it is square. The PNC does not apply. Just like it says on the box. — apokrisis
You're not actually interested in having your views questioned and thinking through them honestly. — Agustino
You're not actually interested in having your views questioned and thinking through them honestly. — Agustino
The first cause of intention of a creator, which is commonly referred to as "final cause", does not produce an infinite regress. — Metaphysician Undercover
But to proceed from this, to the assumption that there was a time when there was not such a reality, is what I see as irrational. — Metaphysician Undercover
The "development" of a universe with intelligible order, emerging from no order, does not make any sense without invoking a developer. — Metaphysician Undercover
The Big Bang theory only demonstrates that current, conventional theories in physics are unable to understand the existence of the universe prior to a certain time. — Metaphysician Undercover
Creation by a creator is efficient cause masquerading as something else. — apokrisis
Sure, somehow there must be a "miraculous" connection if the story is going to work. — apokrisis
When our smartest modern metaphysician and the full weight of our highly successful physics community agree on something in terms of ontology, that seems a good reason to take it seriously, don't you think? — apokrisis
Have you never heard of the concept of free will? This is a cause which is not an efficient cause. — Metaphysician Undercover
You can call free will miraculous if you want, I prefer to call it final cause. — Metaphysician Undercover
Where do you find this "smartest modern metaphysician"? If you mean Peirce, I can only take that as a joke. — Metaphysician Undercover
See how freewill works? It is mostly the power to say no even when by rights you should be saying yes. It is the way people justify their irrationality. — apokrisis
Peter Hoffman's Life's Ratchet is another good new read if you want to understand how informational mechanism can milk the tremendous free energy available at the molecular scale. Life goes from surprising to inevitable once you realise how strongly it is entropically favoured. — apokrisis
In the case of the spatio-temporal regulation of protein folding for instance, while the exact mechanisms are still being worked out, the dynamics have to do, ultimately, with physical forces acting on the amino acids - forces like energy and chemical differentials/gradients, hydrophobic and electrostatic forces, binding and bending energies, as well as ambient conditions like pH, temperature and ion concentration. As Peter Hoffmann puts it, "a large part of the necessary information to form a protein is not contained in DNA, but rather in the physical laws governing charges, thermodynamics, and mechanics. And finally, randomness is needed to allow the amino acid chain to search the space of possible shapes and to find its optimal shape." - The 'space of possible shapes' that Hoffmann refers to is the so-called 'energy landscape' that a protein explores while folding into its final shape, where it settles into energy-optimal state after making it's way through a few different possible configurations (different configurations 'cost' different amounts of energy, and cells regulate things so that the desired protein form settles into the 'right' energy state). (Quote from Hoffmann's Life's Ratchet). — StreetlightX
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.