What we deem as true is determined by the repeatability of the event within a given context. The expansion of the context in turn changes the measure in which a phenomenon is repeated. It is this repeatability through the expansion and contraction of context which gives a necessary prerequisite to context as determining truth and false values.
All events are falsifiable, or justifiable, given the appropriate context. Thus empirical testing is not necessarily the sole means of justifying a phenomenon as the context from which truth value is derived is subject to a non empirical means of determining the context itself.
It is the absence of empiricality, in determining context, that necessitates all empirical truths being grounded within a prerequisite abstraction that stands above the empirical senses itself. For example the testing of a rat's diet within the contexts of A and B events may as well be empirical in the test itself but what determines which context is applied is based upon an abstraction.
Under these terms all empirical testing is subject to a descriptive process of reasoning where phenomenon are defined in accord to abstractions. Part of this abstraction is the consensus of which abstraction to apply, with this not being subject to any empirical laws but rather group agreement. In simpler terms the test applied to measure a phenomenon are not limited to empirical knowledge but rather a group subjective agreement as to which empirical test the phenomena is subject to.
Thus in the quest of justifiability, all scientific and philosophical truths are derived from a group agreement in test ability, as any test can be applied to any phenomenon thus leading to any set of results within a given scientific or philosophical experiment.
What is derived through the process of experimentation is the application of context, with the summation of "everything" as "reality itself" being unable to be tested considering the summation of experience must be aligned within a given outside context thus causing a disjunction between "everything" and "test for everything". Testability, as context application, suffers an infinite regress as what can be tested will always have a test beyond it necessary to justify the former context.
The summation of reality alone, as "everything", will always have the test/context itself as a subset thus leading to a circularity: The test is needed to justify reality, but the test must be "real" in order for the test to be valid, this reality to the test is unjustifiable without going into a circularity.
Empirical Testing Requires Unpredictable Abstractions
Re: Empirical Testing Requires Unpredictable Abstractions
That's what monads solve. Context.
Re: Empirical Testing Requires Unpredictable Abstractions
Then perhaps you want to take it up a notch and read up on monoids, which is a generalisation of monads.
The thing that a monoid has that a monad doesn't is an identity element. The seed from which the tree grows.
Think of it as the starting (or ending - perspective) point.
Or if you REALLY bend your head a little, you can think of it as solipsism with "you" being the identity element.
Re: Empirical Testing Requires Unpredictable Abstractions
A series of monads is one monad superpositioned in multiple states. There are both one and many monads. A monoid would be the monad reflecting itself as a perpetual state of movements. The monoid is the monad moving through itself as itself.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:22 pmThen perhaps you want to take it up a notch and read up on monoids, which is a generalisation of monads.
The thing that a monoid has that a monad doesn't is an identity element. The seed from which the tree grows.
Think of it as the starting (or ending - perspective) point.
Or if you REALLY bend your head a little, you can think of it as solipsism with "you" being the identity element.
Re: Empirical Testing Requires Unpredictable Abstractions
"Movement" is the object as it only maintains a sense of identity if changing, generation is the manifestation of identity.
Re: Empirical Testing Requires Unpredictable Abstractions
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=28798
Re: Empirical Testing Requires Unpredictable Abstractions
It's not in a language I speak. Mind translating it, or relating it to some other work in the public domain?
Re: Empirical Testing Requires Unpredictable Abstractions
For every variable there is a tautology of that variable.
Each tautology of variables is a variable.
This tautology of variables, as a variable, manifests as a tautology of further variables as a variable itself.
This is in itself becomes a tautology of variables.
Variables and tautology alternate, a variable results in a tautology and the tautology results in a variable.
What differs the ending as a variable or a tautology is subject to choice thus how knowledge manifests is random.
Re: Empirical Testing Requires Unpredictable Abstractions
What do yo mean by "random"?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:47 pmFor every variable there is a tautology of that variable.
Each tautology of variables is a variable.
This tautology of variables, as a variable, manifests as a tautology of further variables as a variable itself.
This is in itself becomes a tautology of variables.
Variables and tautology alternate, a variable results in a tautology and the tautology results in a variable.
What differs the ending as a variable or a tautology is subject to choice thus how knowledge manifests is random.
Re: Empirical Testing Requires Unpredictable Abstractions
Absence of observable structure where the entirety of phenomenon cannot be observed.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:50 pmWhat do yo mean by "random"?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:47 pmFor every variable there is a tautology of that variable.
Each tautology of variables is a variable.
This tautology of variables, as a variable, manifests as a tautology of further variables as a variable itself.
This is in itself becomes a tautology of variables.
Variables and tautology alternate, a variable results in a tautology and the tautology results in a variable.
What differs the ending as a variable or a tautology is subject to choice thus how knowledge manifests is random.