Re: Operational Closure

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

Hmm, "near-solipsistic"? Well, we differ here, certainly. :) I do not
consider my position solipsistic in the least. It rests on there actually
existing "out there" phenomena and relations between them.

I disagree somewhat with your assertion that this "view would also require
that there is no matter or forces in the external world". Concepts of
'force' and 'matter' are just that: concepts. Whether 'force' is a "real"
quality or not is debatable. Hertz proposed a forceless mechanics.
Einstein's general relativity has bodies not being forced, but rather bodies
follow a warping of spacetime. As to "matter", my position is as Rosen
states - that we consider there to be noumena behind the phenomena we
perceive. Thae exact nature of that noumena remains shrouded. We've modeled
"matter" as everything from the four elements of earth-wind-water-fire to
the unbreakable atoms of Democritus to vibrating infinitesimal strings.

I suppose I could restate my view by saying that all our concepts and
terminology sit on the formal side and when we impute them to the external
world, we have decorated (somewhat in the sense of decorationg a graph) the
external world of phenomena with these concepts and labels. This works
eminently well day-to-day or FAPP, but I find it to be a confusion to take
those decorations as ontological. I think this is what leads to things like
considering the Newtonian paradigm as self-evident, because there is a
blurred distinction between the model (or, in this case, the paradigm for
the models) and what is being modeled, such that the decorations are
considered to actually *be* aspects of the external world on the same
ontological footing as the phenomena.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by a "more real existence". In your
previous post, you said "HP: I agree we can?t say much about what really
exists."

Regards,
Tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Howard
> Pattee
> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 4:33 PM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Operational Closure
>
>
> Tim wrote:
> All that sits on the natural system side of the modelling relation are
> percepts (perceived phenomena) and the relations between them. There is no
> 'acceleration' or 'velocity' in the external world.
>
> HP: This near-solipsistic view would also require that there is
> no matter or forces in the external world. I agree that this
> metaphysical belief is logically consistent and empirically
> irrefutable, and consequently not profitably discussed much
> further. My feeling is that both Rosen and I believe in a more
> real existence corresponding to these observables that is also
> logically consistent and empirically irrefutable.
>
> Howard