apokrisis

But there is a distinction to be had between simply a reaction between two objects and the relation between an object and its world. So a property is ...

Yep. So precisely as I say. Intelligibility is claimed on the basis of establishing a dichotomy. I forgot though that Pomo likes to a lot of denouncin...

Indeed. It is the necessary relation of becoming (crisply) unrelated and so no longer "singular" (or vague). Only once possibility is divided into som...

I'm guessing that capitalisation makes some really big difference that is over my head. You are going all Platonic in response to my un-capitalised pr...

So did time exist before there was space or matter? Explain that in a way that seems meaningful. How does the future relate to the past if neither - r...

You are asking me to make sense of the use of terms in an OP that made no particular sense to me. But being charitable, I am trying to make the best s...

So temporal relations might appear to be constrained to relate inside time. But what prevents more general notions of relation that exist outside such...

In the context of the OP, clearly I thought not. I was talking about metaphysical generality - which could of course start abductively from anywhere. ...

Aha. So time has an outside! (Or spacetime has an outside! - if you are indeed talking relativistically.) It is itself a definite thing and so is embe...

I mention invariance as Nozick did a good book on that (if you want a more contemporary reference to answer Rorty). But yes, invariance is the natural...

Pragmatiism highlights the place goals have in rational inquiry. So that in fact defines "reference points in nature" in explicitly self-interested fa...

And this coming from you who can never deal with the notion of vagueness, or emergent temporality, or finality that is not prior to what it calls to, ...

Its just the term that a group of us were using as we were discussing bio- and pan-semiosis a decade or so ago. I think Stan Salthe coined it. And I t...

The usual epic whinge....

Calling it 1 is again just to say that there is something, abductively, which is just whatever the hell it is. By then going through the further steps...

The baseline condition of the Universe is that it was born as a spreading/cooling bath of radiation. So at the heat and smallness of scale near the bi...

You are just assuming the extensibility that for modal logic - in wanting to include the dichotomy of possibly vs necessary - is what it must establis...

I don't follow. The only place we are is inbetween. My position is internalist. And also - a further aspect of symmetry breaking - there is indeed a g...

So you didn't read the article or failed to understand the point? The counterpart argument is that even under the concrete reductionist interpretation...

I should add that the whole story is triadic. So you have to add in the hierarchy that stabilises the dichotomy which is breaking the vagueness. The s...

You are quite right. Except of course time then becomes another distinction. As does the notion of space that is invoked in talking of something being...

This just again confirms Deleuze to be a donkey. There couldn't be a more precise movement than a reciprocal or inverse relation. Again, if you could ...

Draw me a square circle.

That's nonsense because it says what conflicts can't exist. So histories lock in destinies.

So for Hegel, becoming is elemental and not derived? Yet being is then derived and not elemental? How are we to understand his thesis precisely. Is th...

Did someone mention limits?????

So you don't recognise this as a distinction between syntax and semantics? A new syntactical medium - one with fewer constraints/more dimensionality -...

No. they signify maximum cool.

Huh? Metaphysics discovered the dichotomies through rational argument and then science cashed the relationships out empirically - while continuing als...

And yet the whole wonderful edifice of science arose based on metaphysical dialectics. Curious.

But what justifies that when any one term can only have cogent definiteness or counterfactuality in terms of its "other"? You have to be able to say w...

You are jumping ahead to the claimed result and not thinking about how the framework is developed. The OP article in fact is a very good one. It makes...

Great. I will be sure to address him by his correct title of Professor Terrapin when I have to explain to him how to go Google all these long words he...

Was it a very long time ago you did a course or two of philosophy at uni? Did you get your high grades because you answered your exam questions like y...

I just did. And you earlier proved my case in seeking the choice among the interpretative options given in the OP that could function as the sign, the...

Perhaps it makes sense to understand that the ambition of classical logic is to establish a rigorous syntax in which to speak about the world. The wor...

Such fiction might not need to be constrained by physical coherence - time travel or use telepathy if you like - but generalised emotional and social ...

That's silly because all my claims are framed in terms of observables. I've talked about ideas that are factually tested. But I am talking about Big H...

It must be noted that this is all going off a nominalist, reductionist, predicate logic, view of "the world". So sure one can define a world in these ...

It is silly to claim we have "no idea" when patently we have very a clear and empirically supported set of ideas. There are many things we can speak w...

But you admitted that it was you who misread me. "Novelty - which I mistakenly understood you to be asking after...." So it is your illiteracy which i...

To be fair to QM, it is deterministic at the wavefunction level of description. Indeed, extremely so (as it extends this determinism all the way back ...

So perhaps you can explain how spontaneity and novelty are the same or different in your book? How is one to understand you when you keep shifting you...

OK, I think I get how random and ethical might be very different categorisations. But I'm asking you to explain how random and spontaneity are differe...

So an event can have no cause at all? Or a general cause and no particular cause? Or a particular cause that comes from ... self-determination?

You are still transparently avoiding my question. It doesn't matter that you treat randomness as epistemic unpredictability and spontaneity as ontic u...

So when one observes the world, how can one tell the difference between a random event and a spontaneous event? How do we know that the one is the res...

So again - if the issue here is merely epistemic vs properly ontic sources of unpredictability - how could we know when nature is being random and whe...

So how is spontaneity ontic unpredictability but randomness only epistemic unpredictability? Not sounding very thought out.

Metaphysics includes both epistemology and ontology usually. Yeah. But ever since Kant.... So your beef is against Scientism and not science. Cool.