Scientists Makes Science!

[Rade]

Reading the last post dialog, I sense confusion about what Wittgenstein meant with the words "simple" and "composite". So, here is what he said directly:

 

2. What is the case--a fact--is the existence of states of affairs.

2.01 A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects (things).

 

[comment: This epistemic notion is further clarified by a discussion of objects or things as metaphysical substances]

 

2.0141 The possibility of its occurring in states of affairs is the form of an object.

2.02 Objects are simple.

2.021 Objects make up the substance of the world. That is why they cannot be composite.

==

 

Thus,

 

Because there are FACTS there exists a STATE OF AFFAIRS

OBJECTS are SIMPLE

A COMBINATION of SIMPLEs (as Objects) is a STATE OF AFFAIRS

The EXPECTATION of a SIMPLE (Object) occurring within a STATE OF AFFAIRS is the FORM of the Object

The substance of the world is made up of Objects (Simples). Substance is not made up of COMPOSITES

[sigurdV]

Hi All, and welcome to a thread on the methods of Science and Logic!

 

Of interest to "this string in the web of time".

 

1 Every Lifethread in T defines its length with the variable "Now!" (Here We are.)

2 T = " " (Space we are parts of.)

3 R = " " ( R = "Reality")

 

In Short: Time Space and Truth!

[Qfwfq]

Dick, you are hijacking sigurdV's topic and even presuming to be the one that ought to specify what the point of it is. For this reason I will scarcely address all your argumentative fallacies, and also because I know how useless it always is.

 

You really think you've demonstrated that I once said what you claim I did, when I had only tried to make a point about words when it wasn't yet so clear what you were on about. Next thing you'll extrapolate my words into having suggested that, given enough time, a squirrel would make an abacus of twigs and acorns to carry out the numerical computations with.

[sigurdV]

Reading the last post dialog, I sense confusion about what Wittgenstein meant with the words "simple" and "composite". So, here is what he said directly:

 

2. What is the case--a fact--is the existence of states of affairs.

2.01 A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects (things).

 

[comment: This epistemic notion is further clarified by a discussion of objects or things as metaphysical substances]

 

2.0141 The possibility of its occurring in states of affairs is the form of an object.

2.02 Objects are simple.

2.021 Objects make up the substance of the world. That is why they cannot be composite.

==

 

Thus,

 

Because there are FACTS there exists a STATE OF AFFAIRS

OBJECTS are SIMPLE

A COMBINATION of SIMPLEs (as Objects) is a STATE OF AFFAIRS

The EXPECTATION of a SIMPLE (Object) occurring within a STATE OF AFFAIRS is the FORM of the Object

The substance of the world is made up of Objects (Simples). Substance is not made up of COMPOSITES

I dont recall the early W ever coming into close contact with reality,and in the end he seemed to give it up in saying that what cant be said must be kept quiet.

 

Comments

1 With Wittgenstein the correspondence theory of truth is exemplified.

2"Objects are simple" is a definition rather than a report on the state of affairs.

[sigurdV]

Hi Dick and New Visitors! :)

 

Lets concentrate on Explaining, and Temporarily forget about Differencies:

 

On the topic.

 

1 What makes Science Science? (The Scientific Method.)

2 What makes x Science? (Use of the Scientific Method.)

3 What makes xZ? (Abstraction.)

 

Logic is the Science of Abstraction and Science is the Logic of Exemplification.

 

As exemplified in the Acts/Processes of Deduction and Induction.

 

I think no act is not involving both. Reality exemplifies into us. And we abstract ourselves from it.

 

My "Philosophy" in short:(if there is one)

 

Thesis 1 Logic is the Science of Abstraction

Thesis 2 Science is the Logic of Exemplification.

Thesis 3 Reality exemplifies in ourselves and we abstract from it.

[sigurdV]

Progress is slow (yawn)

 

The difference between A = 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... and B = 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 ... is that A is a real number but B is not...

 

The problem of understanding the writings of the hot tempered " Doctor Dick " seems similar to counting up to the sum of B.

No matter how far you read theres more to read on how to explain what you already have read.

 

Still I harbour the hope that dick will visit and post a minimal set of sentences (in english) resembling a summary or the foundation of his view on the scientific method.

 

Maybe as thinkers we are each others reverses? I try to concentrate, abstract and simplify.

and simplify etc.(writing AND reading)

 

His concept "Fundamental Equation" ...Identities, Equations and Fundament ...Hmmm.

 

Dicks Hypothesis: There IS a single fundamental equation.

 

My Hypothesis: There is no such thing since " x = " x "" is as fundamental.

 

(to be edited)