Re: SUO: Re: Lifecycle Integration Schema :> Abstract & Physical
Jon,
OK. I agree with that:
> When I said "this is the phenomenon that is due to be explained here",
> my comment, in its context, was pointing to the phenomenon of success
> in the ways of inquiry that scientific method frequently provides us
> with adaptable models of, for all its rife pretending of hypothetical
> entities and for all its rampant use of abstract objects, mathematical
> and otherwise. What I am saying is, not that it's our job to supplant
> all that -- it ain't me who imagines that such a thing would be feasible --
> but merely that what we do here must be in accord with the best current
> accounts of "what is, out there", and so our work should be sensitive to
> the best thinking that has come down the intellectual history pike as to
> "how indeed scientific knowledge is possible", inasmuch as it seems to be.
> And we both know where to look for samples of that kind of thinking, but it
> just seems that it will take a bit more work for us to abstract its essence.
My approach to abstracting its essence is the lattice
of all possible theories, which I relate via all the
possible models of those theories to the world, for
some purpose in some context.
I also relate that lattice to the ideas of Peirce,
Whitehead, and Wittgenstein in the paper I often cite:
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.htm
Signs, Processes, and Language Games
John