List, Clark: > On Apr 19, 2016, at 2:25 PM, Clark Goble <[email protected]> wrote: > > I raise this not necessarily to disagree but to just suggest that things are > more complex than they first appear - and perhaps in a fashion Peirce would > have agreed with. (I think Putnam’s paper on semi-empirical methods is in its > way very Peircean - it in particular makes me think of how metaphysics can be > verified) > > Returning to the question of units and mathematics/nature if the unit of > mathematics is the sign and we simultaneously embrace a semiotic realism as > underlying nature then I wonder if they are different as they sometimes > appear. That is, is the basic unit of nature really some finite spatial > object? >
Of course, things are always more complex than they first appear. I would argue for a completely connected world if my purpose were metaphysical in nature. But, language itself separates the world from its totality into manageable parts. And culture has found it convenient to separate academic disciplines. I am simply saying that habits of PURE mathematicians do not allow non-mathematical terms in mathematical reasoning, although they co-op many, many terms from other disciplines and use them in a different sense. Applied mathematics, as a derogatory term to pure mathematicians, permits sloppy usage. Perhaps, such is the case with Mochizuki case, which remains open as to what it is. The issue of concern to me is the interpretation given to the meta-languages that use mathematical symbols. Tarski’s insistence of the role of meta-languages in logical and mathematical communication seems to be one of the roots of the “purification” of mathematical proofs - and in logic itself. (See 13 Questions Universal Logic paper) > That is, is the basic unit of nature really some finite spatial object? The challenge such a question offers is that the difference that makes a difference is the distinction between percept and precept. From what perspective are you asking the question? BTW, you-all may interested in the paper by Carl Hempel, The theoretician's dilemma: A study in the logic of theory construction as a comparison to CSP’s perspectives. Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
