0
   

Thoughts Concerning States-of-Affairs

 
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 03:12 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Nah...I donĀ“t think its the case of Fresco...Fresco is just a stubborn smart guy dumbing away its potential...I like him !
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 04:10 pm
Quote:
There are only universes of discourse. A universe of discourse is the dynamic set of inter-relationships between entities called "thingers" and entities called "things". Since the ontological basis of such universes is dynamic rather than static, static set theoretic formalisms are inapplicable.


I think that settings appropriate to the type of discourse exhibited there are the closest to where a static set of theoretic formalisms are applicable.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 05:41 pm
@Ding an Sich,
Axiom: All "observation" is "consciously reported" and hence has language /communicative inter-relationships as a priori. Hence all "observed universes" are by definition "of discourse" which by nature is subject to shifting contextual dynamics, which can be visualized as travelling "nodes of agreement" within a holistic semantic web. Think of all "semantic agreements" as functionally temporary paradigms as in e.g. the classical view of "the four elements". Consider the temporary "membership" of "air" as "a member of the set of elements". (Or consider the more recent demise of Pluto as a member of the set "planets")
Conclusion: There are no static set membership boundaries from an ontological point of view hence the set theoretic axioms of Aristotelian logic cannot apply.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Dec, 2010 06:47 pm
@fresco,
...that changes nothing...while a member still true as a member...what turns out to be decisive is causality...hard or soft determinism...or indeterminism instead...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 01:46 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
"Causality" is applicable only to local areas of temporary agreement in order to satisfy the human disposition to "predict and control". It has no universal status.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Dec, 2010 02:07 am
@fresco,
You might disagree if you consider that "objects" are themselves "systems of functions" that carry with them, in their very own caused nature, the imprinted previous "mirror signatures" of all now further away system of functions from the time of event horizon separation, then the "original block" still is present, even after loss of contact, specially if to consider an hard determined set, in which all developments are only dependent of initial conditions in that very same entire block...so, I guess it depends on how you look at it... Wink
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2010 08:40 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Axiom: All "observation" is "consciously reported" and hence has language /communicative inter-relationships as a priori. Hence all "observed universes" are by definition "of discourse" which by nature is subject to shifting contextual dynamics, which can be visualized as travelling "nodes of agreement" within a holistic semantic web. Think of all "semantic agreements" as functionally temporary paradigms as in e.g. the classical view of "the four elements". Consider the temporary "membership" of "air" as "a member of the set of elements". (Or consider the more recent demise of Pluto as a member of the set "planets")
Conclusion: There are no static set membership boundaries from an ontological point of view hence the set theoretic axioms of Aristotelian logic cannot apply.


That really does not change the set U, but only other sets that are members of U. The set U contains everything in the Universe, which consists of objects entities, things. The fact that Pluto is now a member of a different set does not mean that Pluto is no longer a member of the set U.

x =df Pluto

x is not the element of the set P (P stands for planets).

x is now the element of another set, call it Y, which is still an element of the set U.

ergo, x is still an element of U.

So even if the Universe of Discourse changes, that does not mean that we add anything new. We simply rearrange.

Unless of course I am mistaken in how sets and members of sets work.


fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 15 Dec, 2010 11:17 am
@Ding an Sich,
You have not dealt with U as "a universe of discourse". You have assumed that "the universe" has ontological status independent of "observers". Under my paradigm "entities" are concepts which may or may not imply "physicality". They have no "persistence" except with respect to their functional status as agreed by observers. Pluto's status is not a matter of "re-arrangement", its a matter of the epistemological functionality of the concept "planet".

In the past, the present day "single entity" Venus was thought to be the two "separate entities" The Morning Star and The Evening Star. The naive realist would argue that our ancestors were "wrong" in assuming separate entities, but the argument above implies that cardinality of "entities" is a matter of social functionality.
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 09:46 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

You have not dealt with U as "a universe of discourse". You have assumed that "the universe" has ontological status independent of "observers". Under my paradigm "entities" are concepts which may or may not imply "physicality". They have no "persistence" except with respect to their functional status as agreed by observers. Pluto's status is not a matter of "re-arrangement", its a matter of the epistemological functionality of the concept "planet".

In the past, the present day "single entity" Venus was thought to be the two "separate entities" The Morning Star and The Evening Star. The naive realist would argue that our ancestors were "wrong" in assuming separate entities, but the argument above implies that cardinality of "entities" is a matter of social functionality.


Here is the thing: I had to prove that members of the set U had an onotological status in that universe. I have changed it recently, but my theorem still holds:

Theorem 1: (x)((Ux -> E(y)(Uy & x=y))

So there is not an assumption (at least I think) here about the ontological status. However, as you so pertinently addressed, I did assume a universe independent, as far as ontology is concerned, of observers. Do I have any reason to think that the universe exists independent of observers? Yes. It would seem nonsensical to think that the moon did not exist until someone observed it.

Question: why do you use quotes around certain words? Does that give them some magical meaning? Or are you using them in a different way? Or do you simply like to mention words?

fresco
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 10:30 am
@Ding an Sich,
I use parenthesis to indicate that my usage of certain words may depart from the norm. There may be no direct translation between paradigms.

As for "the moon existing before observers", all that a naive realist is doing is forgetting that he is the observer of that "past moon" in his mind's eye. Such "persistence of objects" is a requirement for his cognitive disposition to predict and retrodict aspects of his own existence (= relationship with his world), but he is beguiled by language...by the abstract persistence of words which function so as to fix the dynamics of inter-relations, and thereby render them "controllable". According to this, "properties" are not possessed by "things", they are predictions of potential inter-relational activities between observer and observed. "Physicality" for example pre-supposes a particular physiological structure of an observer in order for him to report "hardness" etc. Without the observer ,"properties "are meaningless.

Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 03:24 pm
@fresco,
Are you telling me that the moon did not exist until I oserved it or someone else observed it? If so what a queer notion. Reminds me of Berkeley without God.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 05:33 pm
@Ding an Sich,
What you are failing to see is that both "time" and "events" are human psychological constructs. They have no meaning outside the disposition of observers to order their album of snapshots of inter-relationships. You are thinking of a seeing a hypothetical moon snapshot that you would inductively place at some front end of your album. But that is not what the import of "the existence of an ancient moon" is about....it is about how such a postulate accounts for current events like the geomorphology of shorelines etc. Our retrodiction is exactly analogous to our prediction. It is an attempt to establish causal links between events in order to anticipate and gain a measure of control over them. But such "events" are ultimately about our species specific relationships with the world. From the point of view of a blind species the is no "moon" and never will be. From the point of view of a dog, promising to take it for a walk in an hour will not stop it scratching at the door it immediately hears the word "walk", because it has no concept of time.

Who is to say what future paradigms may bring ? In a thousand years time (if we survive) people may be laughing at the idea that celestial bodies are separate entities, just like we laugh now at the idea of separate Morning and Evening stars. In QED (quantum electro-dynamics) we already postulate particles which travel backwards in time, or that simultaneously occupy different locations in space. In a thousand years, what will constitute "an event" ? What will constitute "time" ? What will constitute "an entity". Will the photo album be linear ?

I repeat, things and thingers are co-existent and co-extensive.
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Fri 17 Dec, 2010 06:35 pm
@fresco,
We all agree fresco. It's obvious. Banal even.

What do we do about it is what we want to know.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/22/2020 at 07:34:32