Your quote speaks more to Comtean positivism than it does to neo-positivism.
Carnap was often challenged by poorly informed statements of this kind
(including from Einstein when he discussed the matter). So Carnap would point
out that the power of inference was not well appreciated by early positivists
and modern positivism escapes or rejects pure solipsism. So for neo-positivists
it is no longer the case that all statements must be reduced to experience. For
the Vienna Circle, logical inference is necessary (though not sufficient for
Carnap). (01)
Carnap was concerned from the beginning with what he termed the essence problem
(see his "Logical Construction of the World") and this is not a problem that
any of the Circle really made real headway upon (see Carnap's responses in
Schlipp's volume on Carnap). I am convinced that had he, Reichenbach, and
others had access to today's biophysical research that they would be leading
the way in terms of its interpretation. Regretfully the logic community today
has too many pin heads upon which to engrave its prayers. (02)
I do hope to offer some progress in my book. In it I embrace Einstein's
arguments for general covariance, I generalize and formalize them further, and
I argue that there are limits to discovery, in so far as essence is
inaccessible except by our direct experience of the world as its part. It is an
epistemic error, for example, to assume material as the sole essence. Indeed, I
argue that it is unscientific, the assumption cannot be verified or falsified.
By this means I overcome the well known objection that general covariance is
"physically vacuous." Significantly, I argue that generally covariant formulas
are to be preferred to axiomatic formulas since general covariance provides a
self-checking ground that ingenious axioms cannot. (03)
The book honors both Charles and Benjamin Peirce and pursues the mission that I
believe Benjamin effectively gave to Charles, that is to build the bridge
between pure mathematics and the physical sciences. I acknowledge value in
Benjamin's intuition that [essentially] complex analysis [then just
quaternions] offered a way forward (abandoned by Charles). I take a different
approach, but the intuition was sound. Over the past few years Benjamin Peirce
has played an increasingly important role in my work, affirming directions
that, perhaps, Charles would not. (04)
One final remark on epistemology and metaphysics. The goal of positivism is to
extract ourselves by some reliable method from the inevitable labyrinth of
empty statements when we first confront difficult and complex problems. It is
not until we have bridged the gap that Benjamin Peirce spoke of that we will
have done so. Logic as a natural science is rightly the fabric of that bridge. (05)
So to this end my epistemology relies upon three epistemic notions: The first
is "necessary distinctions," conceptions that are forced upon us by the world.
The second is "ways of speaking," conceptions that we force upon the world.
This is implied, in fact, in the papers defending general covariance and
discussing the foundations of GR, written by Einstein. Gravitation and Light,
for example, are necessary distinctions, space-time is a way of speaking about
the world. The third epistemic notion is simply that the world is profoundly
uniform: if it is not, then there is nothing that we can speak of by any means
what-so-ever. (06)
In short and of relevance to this forum, arbitrary, axiomatic, conceptual
frameworks, no matter how ingenious, of the kind that we have build so far,
must necessarily run down the rabbit hole and are useless in the general case
(though they have had some facility where conventions are strong). General
covariance provides a ground not provided by other foundations of logical
argument. Otherwise, know your limits. No formal description of heat or love
will convey its essence without recourse to our common experience. And this
presents a challenge to anyone trying to build automated cognitive systems by
modern technology. Just so we're clear, computers do not have this capacity at
all (storing patterns in schemas, not the same thing). There are other problems
but I won't get into that here. (07)
If anyone has to ask me how to rewrite Peano's axioms or ZFC in generally
covariant form then the answer is: think about the problem differently (hint:
there is a certain merology going on). (08)
Too rushed and if I had more time it would be shorter, but it's what I have for
now … and I am unlikely to respond with more than a few words - so yes/no
questions are good - or wait until after October :-) (09)
Regards,
Steven (010)
--
Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
http://iase.info (011)
On Aug 14, 2013, at 6:05 PM, "Bruce Schuman" <bruceschuman@xxxxxxx> wrote: (012)
> Steven, I do understand your time constraints, and thank you – but if you get
>a few minutes to say something in this Ontolog discussion about Rudolf Carnap
>-- and the Vienna circle -- and your ideas about "ground" -- or grounding --
>or the big issue with the Vienna Circle, I personally would be very interested
>to hear it.
>
> Logical analysis shows that there are two different kinds of statements; one
>kind includes statements reducible to simpler statements about the empirically
>given; the other kind includes statements which cannot be reduced to
>statements about experience and thus they are devoid of meaning. Metaphysical
>statements belong to this second kind and therefore they are meaningless. (.
>. .)
>
> "From this aim follows the search for clarity, neatness, and for a symbolic
>language that eliminates the problems arising from the ambiguity of natural
>language."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Circle
>
> This “ambiguity of natural language” was a big driver in my life – and I
>could see, and accepted, the general view of the Vienna Circle, that
>metaphysics and holism are weakly grounded. But I did not agree that the
>solution is to throw out or invalidate metaphysics; the answer is to fix
>metaphysics (perhaps with a new kind of “symbolic language” that spans this
>gulf). If you have a second to glance at the “Bridge/Porphyry” diagram I
>posted earlier today
>
> http://sharedpurpose.net/groupgraphics/porphyrybridge4.png
>
> you might see what I am talking about: a direct “bridge” from a high-level
>(and perhaps fuzzy or “ungrounded” or “metaphysical”) holism to the “empirical
>plane” and quantitative variables – ie, the so-called “bridge between science
>and spirit” – or between “quantitative” and “qualitative” dimensionality.
>
> I hope you’ll find a moment to comment, thanks.
>
> Bruce Schuman
> (805) 966-9515 Santa Barbara
> http://interspirit.net | http://sharedpurpose.net |
>http://bridgeacrossconsciousness.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steven
>Ericsson-Zenith
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 4:58 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Concept dictionaries and interlinguas
>
>
> The book is entitled "On The Origin Of Experience: The Shaping Of Sense And
>The Complex World."
>
> I will be giving a public lecture on the book at Stanford University in
>November, that lecture will be recorded and available through Stanford's
>iTunesU. Details on the IASE website.
>
> I had not planned to announce availability of the book on this list but I can
>change that if requested.
>
> Regards,
> Steven
>
>
> --
> Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
> Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
> http://iase.info
>
>
>
> On Aug 14, 2013, at 4:36 PM, joseph simpson <jjs0sbw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Does the book have a name?
> >
> > Will you announce the book's availability on this list?
> >
> > Have fun,
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven@xxxxxxx>
>wrote:
> >
> > I appreciate your comments in good humor and I acknowledge that further
>explanation is required. As I said, really better I say nothing until I am
>prepared to spend the time justifying my comments. I accept John's criticism.
> >
> > The only reason I cannot linger is that precisely what you and John
>justifiably request is underway and due to be delivered as a book in October.
>Although this book does not relate directly to my work on concept analysis and
>is more directly focused upon how the attempt to mathematize biophysics
>informs the foundations of logic and apprehension (and computation). It does,
>however, deal with basic questions of scientific epistemology.
> >
> > So, my apologies, when I have finished the book, I will have more time to
>engage.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steven
> >
> > --
> > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
> > Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
> > http://iase.info
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 14, 2013, at 3:13 PM, "Bruce Schuman" <bruceschuman@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > Bruce: Just had to laugh, this is a perfect illustration regarding the
>"unpacking" of implicit (tacit) stipulated meaning --not only regarding a few
>broad principles (such as the way complex meaning is tacitly embedded in brief
>abstractions), but also highlighting a very common fundamental driver of the
>entire process: psychological economy (time and/or energy to make things
>clearer).
> > >
> > > There's a whole bunch of interesting things on this web site -
>http://iase.info – but I gotta agree with John.
> > >
> > > JS: I am highly skeptical of one-sentence summaries, especially when they
>contain five vague and highly debatable notions: self-referencing, embody,
>natural, epistemology, and ground.
> > >
> > > Bruce: Every one of those five terms is highly value-laden,
> > > involving a complex/specific definition that “must be stipulated” by
> > > somebody – and negotiated with whoever the speaker is addressing to
> > > make sure the terms are clear and understood. Getting all that done
> > > is a lot of work. J
> > >
> > > If we’re talking about some kind of “universal ontology” on all this
> > > stuff (laugh again) – I think we gotta put some “negotiation
> > > software” in there somewhere. Maybe “diplomacy software”. Let’s
> > > get the dimensions lined up right (“apples and oranges”) and then
> > > everybody push hard (and play nice) for their team --
> > >
> > > I used to be into “relaxation methods” for balancing load stress. Maybe
>that’s what we need JJ
> > >
> > > <image001.png>
> > > Bruce Schuman
> > > (805) 966-9515 Santa Barbara
> > > http://interspirit.net | http://sharedpurpose.net |
> > > http://bridgeacrossconsciousness.net
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steven
> > > Ericsson-Zenith
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2013 1:23 AM
> > > To: [ontolog-forum]
> > > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Concept dictionaries and interlinguas
> > >
> > >
> > > I currently have only time for the passing comment. Better for me to say
>nothing, I agree.
> > >
> > > Steven
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dr. Steven Ericsson-Zenith
> > > Institute for Advanced Science & Engineering
> > > http://iase.info
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 13, 2013, at 7:44 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Steven,
> > > >> The reason that these approaches fail is that they are
> > > >> self-referencing and embody neither a natural epistemology nor ground.
> > > >
> > > > I am highly skeptical of one-sentence summaries, especially when
> > > > they contain five vague and highly debatable notions:
> > > > self-referencing, embody, natural, epistemology, and ground.
> > > >
> > > > I have a high regard for the people who have been doing that
> > > > research over the past half century. I won't claim that they have
> > > > examined every possible approach from every possible point of
> > > > view. But any claim that they have overlooked something that
> > > > could be summarized in one line would require much more justification.
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > > Config Subscr:
> > > http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> > > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
> > > http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join:
> > > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> > > <iaseDOTinfo.PNG>
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > > Config Subscr:
> > > http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> > > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
> > > http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join:
> > > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Joe Simpson
> >
> > Sent From My DROID!!
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> > Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> > Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join:
> > http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join:
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (013)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (014)
|
