tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096768023184485364.post6978565134050384678..comments2022-04-05T05:48:04.499-07:00Comments on On the margins of source code: Foundations of my systemic metaphysicsLukasz Stafiniakhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13429327869433289392noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096768023184485364.post-78033927527487856762012-09-05T19:14:53.565-07:002012-09-05T19:14:53.565-07:00The similarities with Spinoza, Locke (and etc. I g...The similarities with Spinoza, Locke (and etc. I guess) were not intended.Lukasz Stafiniakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13429327869433289392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096768023184485364.post-43056618976135080442012-08-23T13:34:41.828-07:002012-08-23T13:34:41.828-07:00I think the presented metaphysics could be called ...I think the presented metaphysics could be called non-eliminativist reductionism: it is reductionism because it reduces everything to its mechanism. It is non-eliminativist because the more concrete processes do not eliminate the more abstract processes: the fact that a fractal image is computed by electrons does not eliminate the fact that it is computed by iterating a function.Lukasz Stafiniakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13429327869433289392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096768023184485364.post-10063571070676134332012-08-19T11:26:21.821-07:002012-08-19T11:26:21.821-07:00Added "materialism" point 24 and its gen...Added "materialism" point 24 and its generalization "essentialism" point 24.1.Lukasz Stafiniakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13429327869433289392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096768023184485364.post-42337899604279313322012-08-10T08:24:03.692-07:002012-08-10T08:24:03.692-07:00(See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Me...(See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism#Metaphysical_nihilism )Lukasz Stafiniakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13429327869433289392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096768023184485364.post-33613772476932203982012-08-10T08:22:41.688-07:002012-08-10T08:22:41.688-07:00I have misunderstood what the term anti-realism me...I have misunderstood what the term anti-realism means. I thought it is not a statement that "reality is not real", i.e. it is not nihilism, but it is a statement that the predication of existence is relative to the theory which gives it (this predication) validity, so to say. But it seems to be much closer to nihilism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-realismLukasz Stafiniakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13429327869433289392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096768023184485364.post-62513136378059145172012-08-09T07:13:27.104-07:002012-08-09T07:13:27.104-07:00So in short, there are two strands of anti-realism...So in short, there are two strands of anti-realism: reductionist anti-realism is positivism, and non-reductionist anti-realism is neopragmatism. The reductionism in positivism, the meat in the claim that "the growth of knowledge approximates the ultimate reality", is in that for a theory to count as knowledge under positivism, it has to fit into the body of knowledge, there have to be links that can be mathematically traced. In other words, in positivism, the total, firm knowledge postulates a possible reality. There is no claim that the possible reality is real (therefore anti-realism). But for it to count as knowledge it has to be metaphysically possible, there could be reality exactly as described. Where we are not led to believe that a part of our experience or experiments has to be part of "reality exactly as described by the integrated theory including core theories", that part of our knowledge hasn't been reduced yet.Lukasz Stafiniakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13429327869433289392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096768023184485364.post-51057239007210224052012-08-09T05:12:00.520-07:002012-08-09T05:12:00.520-07:00I commented on LW: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ct3/nat...I commented on LW: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ct3/natural_laws_are_descriptions_not_rules/769e<br />I said: "The problem with descriptivism in modern physics is that you say physical theory describes something independent, but you end up postulating the things that it describes as part of the description language, you do not provide any additional denotation for them. I.e. you claim that it describes the real stuff, but in fact it only describes the constants of its language. So the descriptive view forces anti-realism. But it seems your mereological reductionism is a form of realism.<br /><br />Under prescriptivism, the theory postulates reality. So we can remain realists, just uncertain whether we are not mistaken about what is real.<br /><br />I think that various-level-of-prescription laws are not contradictory. I've heard on LW that arithmetic might cause the calculator to output 4 to 2+2."<br /><br />Both positivism and neopragmatism are descriptive in this sense.Lukasz Stafiniakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13429327869433289392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096768023184485364.post-6830157910468803492012-08-08T15:57:30.769-07:002012-08-08T15:57:30.769-07:00Let me briefly present the views of my inner neopr...Let me briefly present the views of my inner neopragmatist and my inner positivist.<br /><br />My inner neopragmatist considers this to be a metaphysical discourse, which is similar to poetry; and existence / reality is relative to discourses and the discourses are more or less useful in life. The most useful is perhaps the "discourse of the senses", i.e. phenomenal experience.<br /><br />My inner positivist thinks the discussion here does not make sense, because he also sees existence / reality as relative, i.e. as relative to a theory. A theory is not purely a mathematical theory, but at least includes scientific methodology. But more importantly, my positivist sees theories as corresponding to reality to a degree, and with the development of knowledge they better and better approach the ultimate reality.Lukasz Stafiniakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13429327869433289392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096768023184485364.post-60337473430152176162012-08-06T17:31:14.314-07:002012-08-06T17:31:14.314-07:00Another fix, I removed the term "empirically&...Another fix, I removed the term "empirically" which I, by a slip of attention, very badly used to describe the physicality.Lukasz Stafiniakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13429327869433289392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8096768023184485364.post-6576456369903259002012-08-05T15:00:04.584-07:002012-08-05T15:00:04.584-07:00I'm not satisfied. At least it's an option...I'm not satisfied. At least it's an option to just taking universal-distribution-platonism. Perhaps I'll make another try when I sort out how to start from evolution and complexity.Lukasz Stafiniakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13429327869433289392noreply@blogger.com