tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post6928371378268698417..comments2024-02-17T19:58:47.311-05:00Comments on Textuality: Reasonable Doubt on Non-ContingencyLarry Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-81788094261213335362012-05-21T16:49:11.411-04:002012-05-21T16:49:11.411-04:00KF,
Well, enough time has passed so that I forget...KF,<br /><br />Well, enough time has passed so that I forget some of the immediate context of what we had been discussing. <br /><br />IIRC, we had talked about the truth of 2 + 3 = 5 depending on several factors, though not all factors at once. Physical laws comprised one factor. Relative to the truth of the equation, physical laws are necessary.<br /><br />Are specific physical laws necessary in themselves? You say "no," and that is consistent with my view which continues to wonder where the case for purely necessary beings comes from.Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-90987540397220273542012-05-20T07:52:17.115-04:002012-05-20T07:52:17.115-04:00Thus, mathematics exists in an abstract space that...Thus, mathematics exists in an abstract space that nonetheless impinges on and constrains the material world. Hence, we see hints of why there is sch a thing as the astonishing power of mathematics to predict and guide control of material reality. In short, mathematics is a case where we do have logical, propositional constraints that are rooted in logical necessity and which determine what is possible. As opposed to physics as such, which as we just saw is contingent and empirical: we have to actually try and see it for ourselves, with all the provisionality that the resulting inductions have. <br /><br />We also see through mathematics, where the mental can impinge on and constrain the physical. For if the empirical is X and X mathematically entails Y then we can firmly expect Y. My favourite case was when Young, post the double slit exercise, put forth the wave theory of light. It was objected that then a small ball would have a dot of light in the middle of its shadow, per the mathematics of superposition. Ludicrous!<br /><br />NOT.<br /><br />Someone went out and tested.<br /><br />The little dot of light is there, just as implied by the wave effect established as credibly real through the double slit experiment and interference fringes.<br /><br />So, the issue of the reality of necessary propositional truths and the way this can constrain material phenomena is pivotal and decisive.<br /><br />But then, this is so on much less august cases too.<br /><br />If we have three pennies in one pocket and two more in another, then put the two together, we expect to find five. And if we find less, we go looking for a hole. <br /><br />Beyond, lies the world of the complex frequency domain to which the gateway is the derivation that among other things tosses out the famous Euler relation: 1 + e^i*pi = 0. I used to set my students to work pole spotting as they observed all sorts of objects. In short, we find ourselves in a world where decidedly mental and logical relationships have real world force.<br /><br />Powerful real world force that we use routinely in our designs and technologies.<br /><br />(And maybe that is part of why I do not find it particularly hard to see how mind and body can be linked!)<br /><br />KFGEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-63868643808771758742012-05-20T07:51:26.328-04:002012-05-20T07:51:26.328-04:00LT:
I was not aware until just now that you had c...LT:<br /><br />I was not aware until just now that you had continued.<br /><br />Physics, per modern discussions of cosmology, is seen as contingent. The laws are not laws of logical necessity or physical necessity, and many parameters and observed quantities patently could have been otherwise. That is where the whole discussion of how finely balanced the set of physics behind our observed cosmos is, relative tot he requisites of C-chemistry, aqueous medium, cell based life. Just one example, the physics is set up so that the first four elements are H, He, C, O [in a balanced abundance pivoting on a resonance that led Hoyle to his monkeying with the physics of the cosmos remark] and close to this is N. The first two get you to stars, the next two to water and organic chemistry. The fifth, to proteins. And the properties of both C and H2O are astonishing relative to the requisites of life. Hoyle's overall comment is about put-up jobs.<br /><br />In short, there is no reason to imagine that there is a super-law that forces the ratio of protons to electrons to be as finely balanced as it is [ 1 part in 10^37 IIRC]. A little this way or that, and our universe would not be possible as the electromagnetic force is long range and dozens of orders of magnitude stronger than gravity. <br /><br />The next issue is that Z-F set theory addressed the paradoxes of naive set theory, by starting with the empty set, then constructing a cascade of further sets {}, then the set of the empty set, then the set of the empty set and that containing the empty set, and so forth, which have cardinality 0, 1, 2, 3 . . . <br /><br />So, we construct the set of numbers and set the context for mathematical operations and relationships, without locking ourselves into the paradoxes that stem from another approach that speaks of say a definable collection of objects. Russell's barber shop paradox saw that off: the men in the village shave themselves or are shaved by the barber, so who shaves the barber?GEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-60739117541804125252012-04-04T10:40:39.093-04:002012-04-04T10:40:39.093-04:00KF,
"There is no reason to believe physical ...KF,<br /><br />"There is no reason to believe physical laws and parameters considered as constitutive of particular [sub]universes are necessary."<br /><br />I'm not sure how to parse the above:<br />* "There is no reason to believe physical laws and parameters are necessary."<br />* "There is no reason to believe physical laws (and parameters considered as constitutive of particular [sub]universes) are necessary."<br />* "There is no reason to believe physical laws and parameters (considered as constitutive of particular [sub]universes) are necessary."<br /><br />In any event, I think it's a stretch to say there's no reason to see the necessity of physical laws and parameters. I've argued there's pretty good reason to hold this view. And of course, I have not reduced everything to only physical laws and parameters.<br /><br />I cannot comment with any intelligence on Z-F set theory. But if this is a mathematical theory, which it appears to be, then I don't see how it applies to what we are talking about, which is ontology (the study of what there is). We are talking about non-contingent things and how to identify/verify them.<br /><br />I don't want to move on before you agree, but perhaps it will be more fruitful to suspend our cause-effect disagreement and think about what's next. We have the six principles more or less settled. How do we move on (or up) to larger worldview concerns?Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-81012116792562789232012-04-03T18:08:59.901-04:002012-04-03T18:08:59.901-04:00LT: Passed back for a moment. There is no reason t...LT: Passed back for a moment. There is no reason to believe physical laws and parameters considered as constitutive of particular [sub]universes are necessary. And possible worlds are not just physical or material. That is a part of the ideas context of Z-F set theory. KFGEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-79342733722814549682012-04-03T10:10:53.429-04:002012-04-03T10:10:53.429-04:00Thanks, KF. I generally agree with your point in #...Thanks, KF. I generally agree with your point in #3, at least the first part of it. Point #4 is interesting. Every possible universe operates under physical constraints and limitations. No possible universe is unconstrained. <br /><br />I agree that the truth of 2 + 3 = 5 is constrained by logic. Yet I still see that truth as depending on a combination of factors, as in logic and materiality or as in logic and intelligence--or as in logic, materiality, and intelligence. As I've reasoned truth seems impossible without a combination of factors. Thus, we really do agree and we are both pretty happy with worldviews built on the six principles we've discussed.Larry Tannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642725101009530480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559910.post-66390869637257279172012-04-03T08:06:04.829-04:002012-04-03T08:06:04.829-04:00LT:
I now see a box, when I was going to close th...LT:<br /><br />I now see a box, when I was going to close the tab.<br /><br />Here is the substantial text of an emailed comment:<br />_________<br /><br />>> I am seeing only a black zone in your comments section. I can find no way to submit a comment in the usual way, and have no time to troubleshoot. I think Blogger is doing some changes.<br /><br />My remarks, since I have little time, are brief:<br /><br />1 --> I spoke before, to the question of your earlier suggestion on material dependence, as that is where causal "switches" are a most evident issue. <br /><br />2 --> Z-F set theory shows how this is abstract and establishes numbers thence number relationships independent of materiality. (Isn't it amazing to see numbers built up from nothing by the power of logic! Give the empty set, then the set that has it, then the set that has the empty set AND the one with the empty set, and assign: 0, 1, 2, . . . )<br /><br />3 --> Next, observe a key distinction: <i>logical relationships of ground and consequent are distinct from causal ones that affect beginnings, sustenance in existence, and termination thereof.</i><br /><br />4 --> Specifically, <i>we cannot switch off the relevant laws of logic</i>, they logically constrain what is possible in all possible worlds. Always have, always will, cannot be otherwise. The laws of logic are not on/off switches.<br /><br />5 --> So, the truth in "2 + 3 = 5" is not <i>contingent</i> on such laws of logic, this and other necessarily true propositions are <i>constrained</i> by them, as is anything else that may exist. >><br /><br />_________________ <br /><br />Hope that distinction helps.<br /><br />GEM of TKIGEM of The Kairos Initiativehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10622199013789009422noreply@blogger.com