(Undistorted Figure 1 is attached.) Clark wrote :
"There are many problems with this (exactly where to (073114-1)
place the laws of physics for example). . . ."
I wonder if the MPM category theory would be helpful here. According this
theory, the laws of physics can be viewed as the (mathematical) models of
reality that are determined by phenomenon in such a manner that they are
indirectly constrained/determined by reality (or natural mechanisms):
a b
Mechanisms ---------- > Phenomenon ---------- > Model
(Reality) (Sign) (Physical laws)
| ^
| |
|_________________________________________________|
c
Figure 1. The MPM category, also called the ur-cateogry, as a theory of
everything (TOE).
a = natural process; b = mental construction; c = experimental validation.
If I am right in saying that nominalism is a dyadic (in contrast to a
triadic) perspective emphasizing Step b and lacking Step c, then I must
not be a nominalist but rather a constructive realist since I believe
that
Science is the result of the irreducibly triadic interactions (073114-2)
among Steps a(natural process), b (mental construction) and c
(experimental validation).
With all the best.
Sung
__________________________________________________
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
>
>> On Jul 31, 2014, at 5:06 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> It is rather common to assume some space/time substrate with extension
>> as a necessary substrate for any property. So much so that its rather
>> common for many from the scientific community to even recognize it as an
>> unestablished assumption. (And one which many scientists have disagreed
>> with)
>
> Whoops. Typo. That should be, "So much so that its rather uncommon for
> many from the scientific community to even recognize it as an
> unestablished assumption. That is many in the scientific community have
> tended to adopt a kind of Cartesian view with mind simply discarded from
> the system. There are many problems with this (exactly where to place the
> laws of physics for example) yet its constantly surprising to me how many
> scientists adopt just such a view. (I think Lawrence Krauss moves in that
> direction for example - although at least he gets the substrate a little
> more sophisticated than Descartes)
Clark_07312014Copy.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
