Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Grames

Notes on "Induction in Physics and Philosophy"

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Grames said:

The two reductions don't themselves rule out the possibility of a contradiction.  It is good to be able to reduce a concept, and is a requirement of a well formed concept, but it could still be in contradiction to some other concept.

Not sure if I was clear... the point of my question was to determine whether any additional "logic" was happening in a horizontal integration, i.e. something which could uniquely be identified as part of a horizontal integration and not a vertical one.  Finding a contradiction while engaging in a "horizontal integration" or a two connected "vertical integrations" seem also to be the same exercise.

I am missing something about the difference between the following

1)   H(A,B)

and

2)   V(A,C) AND V(B,C)

 

6 hours ago, Grames said:

Consider the recent memewar entrant "Islam is right about women".  This is an attempt to provoke horizontal integration in the reader.  It is quite possible for some feminist to able to identify Islam without actually knowing all of the attributes of the religion.  It is possible to have a concept but have it ordered around nonessentials.  To feminists, Islam and muslims are simply a non-white and non-christian ally in the fight against the white christian patriarchal power structure of America and the whole western tradition.  As one of the Abrahamic religions it is in fact patriarchal also, vehemently so when compared to Christianity.  The feminist concept of Islam is apparently no more than that group of people who claim to be muslims, and a feminist would reduce the concept to its referents and stop.  Horizontal integration is need to provoke the feminist into realizing this level of concept formation about Islam is inadequate.

This seems to describe a simple failure of any kind of rational integration, 1) or 2), by butchering the concepts as you describe.  I'm interested in the techniques of integration on properly well formed concepts, and in particular the "vertical" and "horizontal" aspects.

Your description of horizontal integration is:

19 hours ago, Grames said:

Horizontal integration is performed between two concepts that are not hierarchically dependent upon each other.  They can be related through some other concept(s) are are hierarchically prior to both, and they should not contradict each other directly or indirectly.

It seems that the crux of horizontal integration is finding the x1...xn which are related to and hierarchically prior to both.  It appears as though H(A,B) is a combination of V(A, x1)...AND V(A,xn) AND V(B, x1)...AND V(B, xn) where x1...xn are all the facts which are related to both A and B and are hierarchically prior to both.

So I guess to be more succinct, is it true that:

H(A,B) =  V(A,x1)... AND V(A, xn) AND V(B,x1)... AND V(B, xn)

or is H something more than this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

or is H something more than this?

Horizontal integration should be performed with more than just one other concept.  Ideally it would be done with every other concept one held.  But who has time for that?  So this is a task that is never fully completed, it can only be partially completed.  Still, some of those pairwise selections H(A,B) would be better than others, better in being not trivial and potentially revealing obscured contradictions.

Possibly some heuristic could be invented for selecting two different concepts (or given one, find another)  that would have the most potentially fruitful result.  I would think something about the concepts being "far apart" would be one good metric to employ.

11 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I am missing something about the difference between the following

1)   H(A,B)

and

2)   V(A,C) AND V(B,C)

 

Your 2) V(A,C) AND V(B,C) is merely one way to go about performing H(A,B). I don't know of other methods and don't want to commit to ruling out the possibility of there being others.  So I can't actually answer this question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Grames

Quote

Remember that question you started with. the about Peikoff's so-called (at the time) proof of induction?  It is no proof but it does serve as a nifty horizontal integration. 

Higher level concepts can be related and integrated with two vertical integrations to something in common, but that is not applicable to axioms and first level concepts. 

I think I get what you're saying I just want to affirm a couple things.  I noticed you stated "proof of induction."  I think you might have made a typo here.  What I was referring to was Peikoff's "inductive proof of causality."  My understanding is (or was) that Peikoff was not "proving induction," he was using induction to induce (prove) causality.  This was my previous understanding of what was happening.  And now from you I'm understanding that it was not a proof of causality but a nifty horizontal integration of "identity" and "causality."  Is this an accurate understanding of what you are saying?

And one more thing, you mentioned "not applicable to axioms and first level concepts."  So that's exactly what I was wondering about horizontally integrating "identity" with "causality."  If the way that you horizontally integrate concepts is by vertically integrating to something in common, I was just saying you can't do that with "identity" and "causality" because you can't get beneath them.  So I was thinking that there is no way to horizontally integrate "causality" and "identity" but again you're saying that in that older lecture I referred to about induction, peikoff presents another way to horizontally integrate "causality" and "identity," that doesnt involve vertical integration to something in common, right?

Edited by [email protected]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, [email protected] said:

I think I get what you're saying I just want to affirm a couple things.  I noticed you stated "proof of induction."  I think you might have made a typo here.  What I was referring to was Peikoff's "inductive proof of causality."  My understanding is (or was) that Peikoff was not "proving induction," he was using induction to induce (prove) causality.  This was my previous understanding of what was happening.  And now from you I'm understanding that it was not a proof of causality but a nifty horizontal integration of "identity" and "causality."  Is this an accurate understanding of what you are saying?

Yes, that was a kind of typo.  Peikoff's "inductive proof of causality" is the subject under discussion.  Yes, and by the way proof is also a method of integration because what is proved is related to other knowledge.

 

22 hours ago, [email protected] said:

And one more thing, you mentioned "not applicable to axioms and first level concepts."  So that's exactly what I was wondering about horizontally integrating "identity" with "causality."  If the way that you horizontally integrate concepts is by vertically integrating to something in common, I was just saying you can't do that with "identity" and "causality" because you can't get beneath them.  So I was thinking that there is no way to horizontally integrate "causality" and "identity" but again you're saying that in that older lecture I referred to about induction, peikoff presents another way to horizontally integrate "causality" and "identity," that doesnt involve vertical integration to something in common, right?

Yes, the fact that you can contemplate the axioms and relate them to each other is a form of integration even though Peikoff would deny there is proof or derivation or deduction happening.   The order of Existence, Identity, and Consciousness has methodological (epistemological) significance in order to affirm Primacy of Existence and deny Primacy of Consciousness, but each is a mentally abstracted facet of existence which exhibits all three simultaneously. 

Causality merely appears to come "after" Identity in that it is easier to understand or imagine some object as static and then add the dynamics but in reality everything that exists is always acting (even if slowly).  Understanding Identity as static omits the greater part of an existent's Identity, how it acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...