Seria Musings #4

Let us begin by making an addendum to the third entry in this series of posts: the thresholds pertaining to each identity being unique on a case by case basis is not something bad, on the contrary, it is good, because it is a guarantee that two things will only be the same if they are, in fact, one and the same thing. This can be backwards posited with a threshold to determine the notion of equality or identity. (In this way, the very notion of identity or equality itself can be defined.)

Now, continuing our topic: on Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, fifth item, Wittgenstein says that: "A proposition is a truth-function of elementary propositions. (An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.)"

Therefore, it seems we are pursuing a more or less accurate trail. There must be, then, some approximation between a logic of becoming, a logic of being, category theory and, perhaps, because it seems to approach category theory, a type theory. But to account for this multiple approach, we would need a mathematical finesse that does not belong here.

It is important to note that a process-based approach will not hinder the emergence of emergent structures.

In this way it is possible to stipulate a rich and complex reality without ignoring the explanatory advances of the sciences, avoiding patently unreasonable eliminativism and reductionism, yet parsimoniously giving an account only of what in fact exists, without a useless ontological anarchic proliferation. Thus, for example, the intentionality of conscious experience can be composed as a fitting of functions that are irreducible to each other.

According to field theory, as well as the gunk nature of time (i.e., something infinitely divisible), it seems that reality is based on interactions. The interpretative key here is in the gunk nature of time: continuous in such a way that it can be infinitely divisible, but for all practical purposes it reaches a threshold which, for us, is small enough, that is, it suffices. (To understand the gunk nature, think of the real number line: we can zoom indefinitely and the results keep showing up.) Making yet another analogy: the point (in the sense of Euclidean geometry) would be only a regional compacting whose threshold is infinitely small.

So, to follow the line of reasoning that is emerging here, we would say that identity (in a sense similar to the strict sense of mathematical equality) is only a case of similarity whose threshold is sufficiently restricted (perhaps infinitely restricted); and, more appropriately and more generally: identity is a differentiation of null (or at least negligible) intensity. To add another analogy: it would be like considering silence as just null intensity sound.

Thus, we do not need to give in to the onticological principle (i.e. there is no difference that does not make a difference, viz., every difference makes a difference) nor, in a broader sense, to flat ontologies (which, most often, are patently false) – simply because there are affectation thresholds: not everything will always affect everything else. In this way we are preserving hierarchized ontologies without, however, establishing concepts with unnecessary internal constraints. We gain flexibility and possibility without losing scientificity.

Moreover, if we wanted to be Humeans to the fullest, we could establish reality itself as based on varying ranges of thresholds of possibilities of existence. It would be an easy way out and would make reality in itself inductive, but it remains – forgive the pun – a possibility (of explanation).