| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Logic Forum » Laws and systems and things...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| John Jones |
 Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:05 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 4263
|
I present arguments to show that "systems" and "axioms" are unnecessary
adjuncts to a description of things (things such as mathematical objects):
[1] UNDERMINING "SYSTEMS"
Things subsist in a system and a system subsists according to laws
(axioms). This is the common view.
Yet there is no reason to keep the middle-man - "system". We can drop
"system" and just have things and laws. "System" is a name given to
certain allowable arrangements, patterns and behaviours of things.
But even this is giving "system" too much sway: we cannot define systems
as certain arrangements or patterns of things, if all we have are things
and laws. This is because an arrangement emerges independently of both
things and laws.
So let's re-formulate the original (top) formulation. Rather than write
"Things subsist in a system and a system subsists according to laws" we
ought to write "Things subsist according to laws, and things and systems
arise according to conditions of manifestation. To talk of "systems" in
respect of things and axioms, we need more in our toolbox than things
and axioms.
[2] UNDERMINING LAWS (or axioms)
The state of objecthood is given prior to the axiom. This is how axioms
acquire and present their objects. That is, a law or axiom presents the
idea of an object or thing as a given, propertyless receiver of laws.
The object offered to us by an axiom has no conditions for its presence.
The conditions for the interaction of objects are, I argue, wrongly
presumed to be given through laws or axioms.
I can argue, weakly, that we ought to offer reasons for the presence per
se of an object as much as for its interactions. Laws or axioms are
offered as arguments or conditions for the latter, but no reasons are
offered for the former. To offer a condition for interaction but none
for presence seems a little unfair, it is an asymmetrical way of going
about the way we justify or explain things. More strongly, I can argue
that the conditions for the presence and the interaction of objects are
distinct. The presence of an object is a necessary a priori condition
for any axioms we associate with it. In fact, these conditions are the
same a priori conditions for systems, for a system can be considered as
an object, albeit with parts.
For the coup de grace, axioms are "after the fact". Objects, arising
according to their manifesting conditions, interact according to these
manifesting conditions, and not according to laws. Laws, axioms, or
rules are postcedent formulations derived from the interactions of
objects. These interactions are already given through the manifesting
conditions of objects. It is the things themselves that dictate which
axioms are likely to be derived from them.
CONCLUSION
We can replace the standard formulation of "laws (axioms), systems and
things" with "things and manifesting conditions". |
|
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| MoeBlee... |
| Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jun 12, 3:05 pm, John Jones <jonescard... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
Quote: Things subsist in a system and a system subsists according to laws
(axioms). This is the common view.
All things in general? I didn't know that that is THE common view.
MoeBlee |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| John Jones |
| Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2008 1:54 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 26 Oct 2004
Posts: 4263
|
Jan Burse wrote:
Quote: John Jones schrieb:
We can replace the standard formulation of "laws (axioms), systems and
things" with "things and manifesting conditions".
Foolish wordplay.
We can use the common naming terminologies of systems. In certain
circumstances, however, it would become pertinent to remind ourselves
that these systems are not derived, postcedent, from laws. Such
citcumstances would arise in certain extreme positions or arrangements.
For example, monad object(s). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:02 pm
|
|