Facticity ?

Your assertion that "ultimately social agreement between those for whom specific contexts have significance" does not have to constitute the makings of a fact.

For example the entropy of a system approaches a constant value as the temperature approaches zero. This would be just as factual if there were no sentient beings in the universe to consider the notion of "social agreement".

We have had this discussion before as to the laws of thermodynamics having no requirement for the existence of sentient beings in the universe.

Further it can be argued that "social agreement" is nothing more than the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

I stand by the assertion on the basis that "ordered energy" requires an observer to define it. Note also that "Big Bang" theory is likely to be revised with the possiblity of revision of the second law.

Sounds to me like you are standing on the limitations of the English language, not on the laws of thermodynamics. Further it can be argued that "social agreement" is nothing more than the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Also, even if your claim has merit as to thermodynamic revisions , that changes nothing as per: no requirement for the existence of sentient beings in the universe.

Which universe ?

"Man is the measure of all things"
Protagoras(italics mine)

Fresco,
Do you have a take on information theory as it pertains to deconstruction?
Particularly quantum information theory. This seems like a bit of a middle ground or possible reconciliation between deconstruction and realism. What are your thoughts?

Oh yeah, I know you like references:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4451/1/MyrvoldBostonPaperRevised2.pdf

Tough reference !

My initial thoughts are ...
The utility of information theory (quantum or otherwise) utimately rests on the fact that "information" is observer specific. But allowing for an axiom of common perceptual/cognitive systems which have come to operate in a paradigm about quantum physics, we can assume that the nature of the concept of "information" should reflect that paradigm. The resolution (if any) is therefore to allow a move away from traditional "realism" to a shifting paradigmatic one, but not to go as far as atranscendent position which deconstructs the separation of observer and observed.

I think I see what you mean regarding the subjective/objective dichotomy being important to deconstruction especially in it's utility at deconstructing false dichotomy. The power I see in information theory (taking quanta of "information") as axiomatic, is that it also allows one to dissect the subjective/objective dichotomy.
The realist perspective having a "foundation" of information.
The deconstructionist perspective allowing for a coherent perception of subjective reality.
Both valid, especially in the sense that the complete reality from the realist perspective can never be fully known.

Agreed. Sorry about that. A lot of maths.
I still have a ways to go in the mathematics.
I think the basic premise is a formalized treatment of coherence under the assumption of "information as packets".

I think that the axiom regarding information is similar to following the quanta tract in the classical (quanta v qualia).
The foundation being basic distinction, and demonstrating that this is not different than structure (qualia).
Number is relationship.

It seems to me that the sides we take on issues like realism vs. idealism reflect our cognitive styles which reflect deep psychological foundations. Protagoras stated a profound truth when he noted that man is the measure of all things. But what is it about man that he was addressing? Clearly it was his mental activity. Human mind (and language) constitutes the World as we are now conceiving it, and this applies as much to our scientific laws of nature (observed regularities not statutes) as it does to our poems.
Mind is the measure of all things--and that's an objective fact.

Is this your way of calling us narcissists?
I do agree with you regarding mind being required for measurement, I think we just disagree about what there may, or may not, be to measure.

Is so, that applies to me as well. My personality favors a cognitive style drawn to the ambiguity of artistic approches to experiene and repelled by cognitive styles that emphasize measurement and black and white reasoning.

I know this is a bit off topic, but...
What is it that appeals to you about ambiguity?
Do you mean ambiguous in that something can have multiple meanings, or in something having a loose meaning?
I noticed that you associated art with ambiguity. I find the most value in art not in "loose" meanings, but rather in the layers of multiple meanings. Sort of a tangled heirarchy, the separate levels of meaning referring back and influencing each other. I don't find this illogical, I find it complex. I appreciate art that is logically complex.
I personally don't find (good) art to be illogical, though it is emotive. Even surrealist art is not illogical, it plays upon paradox and toys with expectation. Sometimes it is even more logical in that it breaks down the need to conform with physical reality so that only mental associations are revealed.
What could be more logical than pure association?

My second impressions concern the reference to the concept "entangled space". or in lay terms "non-locality" in which quantum events are deemed to operate. At the discursive level (analogy level) this tends to support a general "inseparability" idea which might be applicabile to the transcendent observer-observed deconstruction. i.e It may be inappropriate at the second order level (observation of observation) to talk about "external states" impinging on "internal states ". Note too that "quantum consciousness" has been suggested by Hameroff and Penrose to operate at the micro-level in neurones.

But my reservations on this extrapolation commune with those of JLN, insofar that such extrapolation I have indulged in above still lies in the realm of attempts at scientific explanation (an attempt at control) rather than a self-evident view which has immediate impact like an "artistic experience". Analysis of the brush strokes would do little to enhance the experience of of viewing a painting except perhaps to introduce a provenance factor.

And that's a fact!

There's nothing more profound than silence. That's why 'few' meditate.

Which universe ? The one in which the laws of thermodynamics apply, notably this one. As to man is the measure of all things = hubris.

To acknowledge that man is the measure of all things, is to acknowledge that he is the measure of all things as he experiences them. The narcissism in this acknowledgement is also a kind of humility, a recognition of the actual authorship of his constructions (and not his constructed gods').

As Julian Baggini once put it, for even the metaphysical realist:

The phrase "man is the measure of all things" looks like the zenith of arrogance. Are we really so important that everything that exists has to be measured against our scales, our values and our judgment? But this is not the only way to understand our roles as the cosmic measurers. Rather than assuming importance for humanity, we should instead start by accepting our helplessness. We are the measure of all things simply because we are unable to access any better yardstick. We do not have access to the mind of the deity and nor can we adopt a god's eye view for ourselves. We are condemned to see the world only from a human perspective. Man is not therefore the measure of all things because of arrogance, but because there is no alternative. Even the religious should agree. For when they decide a religion offers the true guide to life, it is the overgrown chimpanzee, not God, who has to choose that it is the right road to follow.