Jon: Thanks for continuing to provide this excellent commentary.
Take care, be good to yourself and have fun, Joe On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 6:00 AM Jon Awbrey <[email protected]> wrote: > Cf: Differential Propositional Calculus • Discussion 2 > At: > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/03/18/differential-propositional-calculus-%e2%80%a2-discussion-2/ > > All, > > The times are rife with distraction, so let's pause and retrace how we got > to this place. > > Our last reading in "Cybernetics" brought us in sight of a convergence or > complementarity between the triadic relations > in Peirce's semiotics and those in Ashby's regulator games. There's a lot > more to explore in that direction and I plan > to get back to it soon. > > The two threads intertwined here, Cybernetics and Differential Logic, both > spun off a thread on Pragmatic Truth, asking > what theories of truth are compatible with Peircean disciplines of > pragmatic thinking. That's a topic with a tangled > history but the latest local tangle is documented in the following posts > and excerpts. > > Pragmatic Theory Of Truth • 13 > > https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/11/03/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-13/ > > Pragmatic inquiry into a candidate concept of truth would begin by > applying the pragmatic maxim to clarify the concept > as far as possible and a pragmatic definition of truth, should any result, > would find its place within Peirce's theory > of logic as formal semiotics, in other words, stated in terms of a formal > theory of triadic sign relations. > > Pragmatic Theory Of Truth • 14 > > https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/11/06/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-14/ > > There are many conceptions of truth — linguistic, model-theoretic, > proof-theoretic — for the moment I'm focused on > cybernetics, systems, and experimental sciences and this is where the > pragmatic conception of truth fits what we > naturally do in those sciences remarkably well. > > The main thing in those activities is the relationship among symbol > systems, the world, and our actions, whether in > thought, among ourselves, or between ourselves and the world. So the > notion of truth we want here is predicated on > three dimensions: the patch of the world we are dealing with in a given > application, the systems of signs we are using > to describe that domain, and the transformations of signs we find of good > service in bearing information about that > piece of the world. > > Pragmatic Theory Of Truth • 18 > > https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2019/11/14/pragmatic-theory-of-truth-%e2%80%a2-18/ > > We do not live in axiom systems. We do not live encased in languages, > formal or natural. There is no reason to think > we will ever have exact and exhaustive theories of what's out there, and > the truth, as we know, is “out there”. Peirce > understood there are more truths in mathematics than are dreamt of in > logic and Gödel's realism should have put the last > nail in the coffin of logicism, but some ways of thinking just never get a > clue. > > That brings us to the question — > > * What are formalisms and all their embodiments in brains and computers > good for? > > For that I'll turn to cybernetics … > > Survey of Cybernetics > > https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/03/18/survey-of-cybernetics-%e2%80%a2-1/ > > The Survey linked above recaps the reading of Ashby's "Cybernetics" up to > the present date. > > Meanwhile, the inquiry into Pragmatic Truth branched off at another point > when a question from Stephen Paul King > demanded an answer in terms of Differential Logic. That point of > departure is documented in the following post. > > Differential Logic • Comment 4 > > https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2020/01/04/differential-logic-%e2%80%a2-comment-4/ > > This updates the state of the threads linking pragmatic truth, > cybernetics, and differential logic. Disentangling them > to any large extent has always been difficult if not impossible, at least > for me. > > Regards, > > Jon > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Structural Modeling" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/structural-modeling/eaf369ab-fa3e-b2c8-c3b0-9f435e1151dd%40att.net > . > -- Joe Simpson “Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.” George Bernard Shaw Git Hub link: https://github.com/jjs0sbw Research Gate link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joseph_Simpson3 YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/jjs0sbw Web Site: https://systemsconcept.org/
----------------------------- 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 .
