What is your Framework and System of Reality?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:12 am Not to a person's point of view.
WOW! You must be the first person in the history of the universe who knows how to assume a non-person's point of view!
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:26 pm None of the above is necessarily true in quantum physics.

Given two observations of an electron at T1 and T2 there is absolutely no way of telling whether it's the "exact same electron".
e.g there is no way to determine whether it's AN existent; or existents

You could assert it's the same electron.
You could also assert that any electron, anywhere in spacetime is "the exact same electron".

The identity axiom is undecidable. Any nominal assertion of "sameness" is purely pragmatic.

DOI: 10.1007/BF01057649
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe
I think it is also unclear that particles exist as things, ding an sich. And since they can 'have been in several places at the same time' just previously I also would suggestion caution thinking of them as the same over time, or even existent in the sense we usually use that term. Yes, for practical purposes, but not when waxing metaphysical as we are.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:53 am I think it is also unclear that particles exist as things, ding an sich. And since they can 'have been in several places at the same time' just previously I also would suggestion caution thinking of them as the same over time, or even existent in the sense we usually use that term. Yes, for practical purposes, but not when waxing metaphysical as we are.
For all metaphysical purposes it's sufficient to observe two things:

1. "Is this the same electron?" Is a yes/no question. This is the standard form of ALL decision problems.
2. Arriving at either answer requires 1 bit of information, else the question is undecidable.
2.1 If you decide "yes" then all you are saying is "Time-coordinates don't falsify the identity of an observed electron.". T1 is the same as T2.
2.2 If you decide "no" then all you are saying is "Time-coordinates falsify the identity of an observed electron.". T1 is different to T2.

Both of those are arbitrary decisions at the foundation of your designed system of logic. My axiom is "T1 is ontologically different to T2". Any notion of sameness is an epistemic categorisation and requires epistemic justification.

This is my point of departure: Decision/decidability theory.

Metaphysics (and meta-metaphysics, and meta^N metaphysics) IS computer science/information theory. Infinite regress is not a bug - it's a feature. Recursion/self-reference.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?

Post by Terrapin Station »

bahman wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:31 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:12 am
bahman wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:55 pm
Any relational property is respect to a point of view.
Not to a person's point of view.
The point of view could be anything.
Sure. I prefer to call it a "perspective," in the vein of perspective in the visual arts.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?

Post by bahman »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:57 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:31 am
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:12 am

Not to a person's point of view.
The point of view could be anything.
Sure. I prefer to call it a "perspective," in the vein of perspective in the visual arts.
So, back to our former discussion. The properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?

Post by Terrapin Station »

bahman wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:51 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:57 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 5:31 am
The point of view could be anything.
Sure. I prefer to call it a "perspective," in the vein of perspective in the visual arts.
So, back to our former discussion. The properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.
Only if parts include relations and processes.

You can't have a working automobile if you have all the materials but they're not in a particular structure, right?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?

Post by bahman »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:23 pm
bahman wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:51 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:57 pm

Sure. I prefer to call it a "perspective," in the vein of perspective in the visual arts.
So, back to our former discussion. The properties of the whole are functions of the properties of parts. Therefore, there is no emergence.
Only if parts include relations and processes.
Again, parts have relations and motions/process.
Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:23 pm You can't have a working automobile if you have all the materials but they're not in a particular structure, right?
Yes. The function of automobiles is a function of properties of parts. That is soft emergence. Whereas, the emergence of consciousness is the hard emergence.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?

Post by Iwannaplato »

Skepdick wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:38 am
Iwannaplato wrote: Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:53 am I think it is also unclear that particles exist as things, ding an sich. And since they can 'have been in several places at the same time' just previously I also would suggestion caution thinking of them as the same over time, or even existent in the sense we usually use that term. Yes, for practical purposes, but not when waxing metaphysical as we are.
For all metaphysical purposes it's sufficient to observe two things:

1. "Is this the same electron?" Is a yes/no question. This is the standard form of ALL decision problems.
2. Arriving at either answer requires 1 bit of information, else the question is undecidable.
2.1 If you decide "yes" then all you are saying is "Time-coordinates don't falsify the identity of an observed electron.". T1 is the same as T2.
2.2 If you decide "no" then all you are saying is "Time-coordinates falsify the identity of an observed electron.". T1 is different to T2.

Both of those are arbitrary decisions at the foundation of your designed system of logic. My axiom is "T1 is ontologically different to T2". Any notion of sameness is an epistemic categorisation and requires epistemic justification.

This is my point of departure: Decision/decidability theory.

Metaphysics (and meta-metaphysics, and meta^N metaphysics) IS computer science/information theory. Infinite regress is not a bug - it's a feature. Recursion/self-reference.
I am not sure that I put forward my designed system of logic. I said it was unclear. I don't think I can draw a conclusion from what anyone says about electrons regarding identity over time. It seems up in the air, potentially nonsensical, perhaps meaningful, but not yet to me. I don't think that metaphyiscs is computer science. But someone's metaphysics could be. Or perhaps meta-metaphysics it would be.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: What is your Framework and System of Reality?

Post by Skepdick »

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 8:40 am I am not sure that I put forward my designed system of logic. I said it was unclear.
That's fine. Before intuitionism became explicit it was implicit.

Nowadays if you are using a system of logic intuitively you just have to call it something else simply to avoid confusion.

None the less, informally - logic is intuitive and needs no designation.
Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 8:40 am I don't think I can draw a conclusion from what anyone says about electrons regarding identity over time.
Well, conclusions (implications) is precisely what you get by putting forth a logic.

Until then all you have is observations. Data without implication.

Iwannaplato wrote: Sat Jul 03, 2021 8:40 am It seems up in the air, potentially nonsensical, perhaps meaningful, but not yet to me. I don't think that metaphyiscs is computer science. But someone's metaphysics could be. Or perhaps meta-metaphysics it would be.
Meaning emerges when you relate your observations to a theory.

The point is that meta-physics, or meta-meta-physics, or meta-meta-meta..........physics has a pattern. That pattern is infinite regress/recursion.
Logic. Meta-logic. Meta-meta-logic. Meta-meta-meta......logic. Recursion.
Mathematics. Meta-mathemathics. Meta-meta-meta.....mathematics. Recursion.

The study of recursion/infinite regress is computer science. And having that understanding enables one to construct (invent) meaningful formal languages from first principles. What it means for a formal language to be "meaningful" is covered in the study of formal semantics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_se ... _language)
Post Reply