Continuing from this post, any model or system (mathematical or otherwise) posits non-provable
axioms and goes from there. And whatever the axioms one can find logical
and consistent conclusions arising therefrom, even if such axioms
contradict another system's axioms. So one problem is in assuming that
the system's axioms are the objective in itself universal givens instead
of creations of the system. Another is that the insatiable desire to
have that one theory of everything that subsumes all the others under
its 'more correct' auspices. I'm granting that indeed we can make
progress, evolve if you will, but that our current 'highest'
understanding is that there are multiple models of equal 'altitude' that
'work' as viable and productive tools. And that no one of them can
fulfill the ultimate meta function of stepping outside The Real to see
the Really Real. The name for that phenomenon is assholon.
As for changing equations within a given set of system
axioms, that plays into Bryant's ontology in that a given suobject can
indeed change its combinations or interactions within itself and/or in
relation to other suobjects, thus changing those space-time equations.
But I was also pointing to how for example this might also violate the
axioms of another system that says space-time is itself an unchanging
given. And yes! The former might indeed be a progressive development
over the latter! There just might be, and are, several variations on the
latter's thematic axioms.
Another thing occurred to me. What if indeed within a given axiomatic
model there comes a point where to maintain its coherence the axioms
themselves must change or evolve? And thereby replace those former
axioms instead of include them in a nest? I'm again thinking of the
difference between basic and transitional structures. Kind of like for
Bryant endo-relations can and do indeed change depending on its
environmental exo-relations. Sure, it's withdrawn core is never
exhausted. But that withdrawn core, being itself constructed, does
change and evolve, perhaps quite drastically.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.