Archive for the ‘Metaphysics’ Category

Fourfold Physicalism

February 17, 2018

It is not enough for a wise man to study nature and truth, he should dare state truth for the benefit of the few who are willing and able to think. As for the rest, who are voluntarily slaves of prejudice, they can no more attain truth, than frogs can fly.

— From Man a Machine, by Julien Offray de La Mettrie

Further Reading:

https://equivalentexchange.wordpress.com/2012/07/03/structure-function/

https://equivalentexchange.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/things-happen/

https://equivalentexchange.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/relations-all-the-way-down/

https://equivalentexchange.wordpress.com/2015/06/09/four-primary-relations/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_a_Machine

Notes:

Structures are built from parts.
Parts are reductions of structures.
Functions are assembled from actions.
Actions are the constituents of functions.

[*8.132, *9.104, *10.10]

<>

Atom and Archetype

January 23, 2018

A few weeks ago I ran across this nice review of the book Atom and Archetype: the Pauli-Jung letters 1932-1958. This is a collection of letters exchanged between psychiatrist Carl Jung and physicist Wolfgang Pauli over a course of years. Evidently, Pauli was quite the metaphysician and Jung was intrigued by Einstein’s physics of relative space and time. Together in dialectic they argued and struggled to join together the disparate notions of mind and matter.

What mainly caught my eye was a diagram that I’ve slightly altered and shown above. I’ve mainly just replaced energy with matter-energy for two reasons: first because matter and energy are inter-convertible and second because matter conditions space. This results in similarity to the fourfold diagram for Lucretius that I’ve shown before, consisting of Particles, the Void, Falling, and Swerving.

Further Reading:

https://www.brainpickings.org/2017/03/09/atom-and-archetype-pauli-jung/

Carl Jung and Wolfgang Pauli / Atom and Archetype: the Pauli-Jung letters 1932-1958, Princeton University Press; Updated edition (July 21, 2014)

https://www.amazon.com/Atom-Archetype-Pauli-Letters-1932-1958/dp/069116147X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1516537804&sr=1-1&keywords=atom+and+archetype

https://equivalentexchange.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/lucretius-on-the-nature-of-things/

https://equivalentexchange.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/matter-energy-space-and-time/

https://equivalentexchange.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/wave-particle-duality/

https://equivalentexchange.wordpress.com/2012/05/04/noethers-theorem/

[*10.60]

<>

Kant’s Synthetic-Analytic Distinction, V3

January 15, 2018

One of the oldest and most problematic philosophical questions is the comparison of the a prioria posteriori distinction with that of the analyticsynthetic distinction. Both are used in epistemology to divide knowledge, or true statements, between the innate and the learned, or the immediate and the earned, so they might even be considered the same. A priori and a posteriori statements are before “experience” and after it, respectively. Analytic statements are true only by their “meaning”, whereas synthetic statements are true only when facts about the world are combined consistently with that meaning.

It seems we have complicated the issue because now we must define and understand “experience” and “meaning”. However, these concepts are not independent because we must experience meaning, and meaning in turn conditions experience. In addition, even the a priori or the analytic are not innate or immediately obvious because deductions and the rules of logic require effort just like inductions do. Otherwise we would have Fitch’s Paradox: all truths are in fact known. What a muddle! So both experience and meaning are necessarily locked into a cooperative spiral dance to improve each other.

In addition, if you search for the two pairs a priori-a posterior and analytic-synthetic, you also find that the pair necessary-contingent is associated with them. Are these three pairs independent of one another and so give rise to eight triplets, or are they dependent in some way and reduce into fewer combinations? In addition, from Wikipedia:

Thus, the relationship between aprioricity, necessity, and analyticity is not easy to discern. However, most philosophers at least seem to agree that while the various distinctions may overlap, the notions are clearly not identical: the a priori/a posteriori distinction is epistemological, the analytic/synthetic distinction is linguistic, and the necessary/contingent distinction is metaphysical.

The web site of Stephen R. Palmquist has a great wealth of material on fourfolds in relation to Kant’s as well as his own philosophy. From my own initial reading of his extensive material I have tried to choose a canonical Kantian fourfold which has the most relevance to my project.

The fourfold shown to the right Dr. Palmquist calls Kant’s “reflective perspectives on experience”. Consisting of the logical, the empirical, the transcendental, and the hypothetical, these facets bear a close analogical likeness to many of the fourfolds presented here.

Logical: Analytic a priori
Transcendental: Synthetic a priori
Hypothetical: Analytic a posteriori
Empirical: Synthetic a posteriorikant_table

Dr. Palmquist also has many of his own books available on his web site for the interested reader. I will certainly be returning to his web site in the future for much enjoyable study.

Further Reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic-synthetic_distinction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori_and_a_posteriori

http://factmyth.com/a-priori-a-posteriori-analytic-synthetic-and-necessary-contingent-distinctions/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

http://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fitch-paradox/

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5f.htm

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp2/KCR3.htm

[*7.68, *7.84, *8.126, *10.54]

<>

 

The Ogdoad: Unity of Eight Gods

March 24, 2017

Here’s a notable fourfold of dualities: the Ogdoad, or eightfold of deities. I usually don’t stray into ancient mythology but this cosmological system evidently led the Greeks to their idea of the four elements. These paired male and female deities were personifications of certain metaphysical concepts and their opposites.

  • Amun and Amaunet: The Hidden and its opposite
  • Nun and Naunet: The Abyss and its opposite
  • Kuk and Kauket: The Darkness and its opposite
  • Huh and Hauthet: The Boundless and its opposite

Some even conjecture that the word ANKH was formed from the initial sounds of these four or eight deities.

Further Reading:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/afr/stle/stle12.htm

https://henadology.wordpress.com/theology/netjeru/hermopolitan-ogdoad/

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Egypt/Hermopolis.html

http://www.secretoftheankh.com/

http://www.doremishock.com/articles/thememphitetheology.htm

[*9.232]

<+>

Distinctions with and without Differences

September 24, 2016

sq_distinction2It is often asked, why is there something rather than nothing?

Instead why not ask, why is there a rich diversity of things, rather than a dull sameness? And even though the closer and the further one looks the diversity is almost without limit, one also sees the world divided into natural kinds that partition it into a differentiated but interrelated mixture.

Several ancient philosophers thought that the entire world was an indivisible whole, a solid “being”. Others thought that you can’t even step into the same river twice, thus a fluid “becoming”. The real world seems to be somewhere in-between these two poles, moving continuously back and forth to now generate difference and newness, and then returning to sameness and oldness, and next continuing on to newness again.

Why drives these generative processes? One could say evolution, but evolution merely means “change over time”. And it would need to be an evolution at all levels of the cosmos, from the physical constituents of matter to the psychological constructs of culture. What do these disparate systems have in common?

Perhaps the commonality lies in the relations between small and large ensembles of chunks of space and time. In theories of statistical thermodynamics, the associations between micro states and macro states as well as micro events and macros events may drive entropy.

Here I present a schema that divides the continuum between one and many into four: Sameness, Similarity, Distinction, and Difference.
A member of the “being” camp might say these aren’t really different, whereas one from the “becoming” camp could say there really isn’t any sameness to begin with. Here I’ve chosen neither camp but struggled to bridge the gap between them.

References:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Becoming_(philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distinction_without_a_difference

Also see:

Statistical Thermodynamics

One and Many

[*9.110]

<>

Four Primary Relations

June 9, 2015

sq_four_ances

I’ve written previously about my fourfold Structure-Function (consisting of Structures, Functions, Actions, and Parts) and its association with four Modal Verbs (Must, Should, May, and Can). This resulted in the combined fourfold of Modal Things.

Here I present the next step: what it is that Structures Must do, what it is that Functions Should do, what it is that Actions May do, and what it is that Parts Can do.

Structures Must Maintain => Maintenance
Functions Should Perform => Performance
Actions May Occur => Occurrence
Parts Can Vary => Variance

The first column lists the four aspects of Structure-Function. They are loosely based on Aristotle’s Four Causes. Structures correspond to the formal cause. Functions correspond to the final cause. Actions correspond to the efficient cause. Parts correspond to the material cause.

The second column lists the Modal Verbs, the “modes” of each aspect. They are similar to deontic logic, two being more or less necessary and two being more or less contingent.

The third column lists the Actional Verbs, what it is that each aspect does in its modal way. One could also say these as mottos: “Structures must be maintained”, “Functions should be performed”, “Actions may have occurred”, and “Parts can be varied”.

The fifth column lists the four primary relations that correspond to each of the four aspects.

These four relations could inform a metaphysics, consisting of relations all the way down, all the way up, all the way back, and all the way forward.

Links:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-deontic/

[*7.192, *8.40, *8.136]

<>

Lucretius: On the Nature of Things

October 10, 2011

But, now again to weave the tale begun,
All nature, then, as self-sustained, consists
Of twain of things: of bodies and of void
In which they’re set, and where they’re moved around.
For common instinct of our race declares
That body of itself exists: unless
This primal faith, deep-founded, fail us not,
Naught will there be whereunto to appeal
On things occult when seeking aught to prove
By reasonings of mind. Again, without
That place and room, which we do call the inane,
Nowhere could bodies then be set, nor go
Hither or thither at all- as shown before.

—  From On the Nature of Things by Lucretius

A book on the  rediscovery of  the ancient Epicurean poem “On the Nature of Things” by Lucretius has recently been published. “The Swerve: how the world became modern” by Stephen Greenblatt looks quite interesting. The fourfold above was inspired by the previous fourfold Spacetime. A very nice NPR review can be found below.

References:

http://www.npr.org/books/titles/140464239/the-swerve-how-the-world-became-modern

http://classics.mit.edu/Carus/nature_things.1.i.html

[*7.18]

<>

Graham Harman’s Quadruple Object

June 30, 2011

Graham Harman’s book The Quadruple Object is now available in English, and hopefully it will clarify some of the questions I have about his metaphysics. I have made an attempt at orienting his fourfold of real object, sensual object, real qualities, and sensual qualities with respect to the other fourfolds presented here. The fourfold object emerges from Harman’s analysis of Heidegger’s das Geviert.

Graham Harman / Guerrilla Metaphysics: phenomenology and the carpentry of things

Graham Harman / Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and metaphysics

Graham Harman / The Quadruple Object

<>

E. J. Lowe’s Four Category Ontology

June 27, 2011

References:

E. J. Lowe / The Four-Category Ontology: a metaphysical foundation for natural science

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.J._Lowe

http://www.cs.vassar.edu/~weltyc/fois/fois-2001/keynote/

http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6341

[*4.94, *6.98]

<>

Arthur M. Young’s Fourfold Theory of Process

January 2, 2011

I have recently come across the philosophical work of Arthur M. Young (AMY). This is an initial impression of that work since I have only read what is available from the web links below, and even then there is a great deal to digest. In addition, there is difficulty in presenting a summary of his theory because of similarities to my ideas as well as substantial differences. I am sure I will need to return to AMY’s theory after more consideration.

I have hinted at a correspondence between several double duals presented in this blog, but I have steered away from claiming that they are all linked to each other – that they are essentially equivalently exchangeable. AMY’s theory links the four elements, the four causes, Jung’s functions of the psyche, geometrical elements and transformations, as well as several other fourfolds into a cosmic theory of reality.

Some of these same fourfolds are present in my theory, and I am considering how others may be introduced. Some not mentioned by AMY are only mentioned in earlier entries on this blog, without presentation. However, from many of these same fourfolds I have reached substantially different conclusions from AMY. I believe this is because AMY’s theory of process is essentially dualistic, whereas my theory appears to be physicalistic, although one might also say it is a process and/or relational theory.

Below is a table of some of the correspondences for AMY’s theory of process:

Aristotle’s
Four
Causes
Jung’s
Functions
of the Psyche
Four
Elements of
Empedocles
Geometric
Transform-
ations
Purpose Final Intuition Fire Rotation Spirit
Value Material Emotion Water Scale Soul
Form Formal Intellect Air Inversion Mind
Object Efficient Sensation Earth Translation Body

Below is a table of some of the correspondences for my theory:

Four Elements
of Empedocles
The Here and
the Now
Aristotle’s
Four Causes
Duality of
Time and
Information
Hjelmslev’s
Net
Fire Before Efficient Change time Substance
of content
Water After Final Bear time Form of
content
Air Above Formal Bear
information
Form of
expression
Earth Below Material Change
information
Substance
of expression

References:

Arthur M. Young / The Reflexive Universe

Arthur M. Young / The Geometry of Meaning

http://www.arthuryoung.com/index.html

http://www.arthuryoung.com/barr.html

http://www.arthuryoung.com/4levels.html

http://www.arthuryoung.com/the2exc.html

[*6.84-*6.89, *7.78, *7.79, *8.62, *8.63]

<>


%d bloggers like this: