BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Yes - but my point that 'Truth' must never be achieved is not based
on the 'Argument from Ignorance' so to speak but on the 'Argument
from Complexity'.
By this I mean something different. The 'Argument from Ignorance' is
anthropomorphic, where is imagines an external observer, checking to
see if the Interpretant exactly matches the Dynamic Object. Truth
would be an exact match. My image of semiosis is completely
different, where I 'see' that the information from the Dynamic
Object[s] is transformed by the mediative laws of the Representamen,
into something quite different in a new nature as Interpretant[s].
The Argument from Ignorance would say, on seeing an exact
representation of the DO: 'Aha! Finally got the truth - that's
exactly what the DO looks like/is!"
The Argument from Complexity has no such interest; instead, it wants
to see how the Mediative Laws have transformed the raw data of the
DO[s] into a different Interpretant of this data. So, it checks to
see what happens when multiple cells coalesce to form a new organism.
The result can be, quite often, reliable and knowable; but the fact of
self-organization in the real world, not the mechanical world but the
real world, nullifies such reliability. Adaptive change exists.
That's why I assert that there can be no 'Final Interpretant' and no
ultimate Truth - not from ignorance but from the complexity of the
interactions and data.
Edwina
On Sun 21/07/19 10:10 PM , John F Sowa [email protected] sent:
On 7/21/2019 9:37 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> I consider that 'Truth' is a goal that attempts to connect the DO
and
> the Interpretants, BUT - it is also a reality that it not only
cannot
> but must never be achieved in any perfect state.
Yes. The universe is vastly more complex than any human could ever
comprehend, even with the aid of a vast array of supercomputers.
Peirce understood the Cantorian hierarchy of infinities and his own
version of superinfinities.
Even a superintelligent race of aliens armed with incredibly
powerful supercomputers would be limited to at most a finite
number of atoms. They couldn't begin to comprehend all the
implications of the infinities.
John
-----------------------------
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 .
