The Relationship between Axiom and Translation
November 24th, 2007, search relatedRelated posts :: The Relationship between Axiom and Translation :: Yes, I Have No Holerons :: Axiom 0 and its Translation (1) :: Is Dasein a Reality?
chaney525 wrote:
>Micheal Eldred said (I think)
actually it was me.
>”Do the words ‘red’, ‘green’ and ‘blue’ mean the same thing when
>speaking about color vision as when speaking about the theory of the
>strong nuclear force? No.
>when physicists probed the internal structure of protons, neutrons and
>other particles, they found the particles that came to be known as
>quarks. there were three kinds. to refer to these in words instead of
>in mathematical symbols, they needed three words. they could have
>chosenthree words at random; but, they didn’t. they chose a set of
>related words, the names of the three primary colors. the red, blue and
>green quarks are said to carry the color charge; and, the theory is
>called the theory of quantum chromodynamics.”
>Just a few points about this issue: The physical cause of colors is a
>combination of hue or wavelengths, brightness or intensity, and
>saturation or lightness. The same colors can be formed from different
>wavelengths and by manipulating the brightness and saturation. In
>philosophy, or the psychology of philosphy, what is striking is the
>distinction between color as a physical entity and as a sensory entity.
>Color is perceived differentially by observers perhaps because of
>perspective or lighting or context, or experience. “Quantum
>chromodynamics,” as far as I know has nothing to do with color since it
>pertains to particles and not wavelengths or light.
quite right. the use of ‘red’, ‘blue’ and ‘green’ in quantum
chromodynamics is unrelated to their use in discussions of color —
whether they are discussions of the physical causes or the sensory
quality of color vision.
>The physical causes
>of color pertain to the dynamics of energy and to the qualities of
>physical matter, but also to the distinct sensory order. The two are
>irreducible - the physical order is irreducible to the sensory order.
also true. I would conclude from the physical order and the sensory
order are different reality types. someone who used ‘being’ as a root
predicate might say that they have different modes of being.
>In the same way, there is no determinable or necessary connexion
>between a name and an entity, and of course there is a large divide
>between the meaning of a word and its significance.
when physicists adopted ‘red’, ‘blue’ and ‘green’ as terms for precise
meanings defined by the mathematical formalism they are using, it was
clear to all that the meanings assigned by the formalism had nothing to
do with the meanings those words had with reference to color vision.
the situation within philosophy is murkier than that. clearly, certain
words (’being’, ‘existence’ and ‘reality’) can be used as a root
predicate with a meaning limited to that assigned by the axiomatic
system I have been presented; but, those same words can also be used as
fundamental concepts within philosophy and can have a wide range of
meanings.
clarifying the relationship between the two uses of the same word is
problematic for philosophers because there are reasonable grounds for
claiming that the two uses are not completely unrelated as in the case
of quantum chromodynamics.
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
