Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 8

Re: Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 7
Re: Academia.edu • Milo Gardner

MG:
Peirce sensed that bivalent syntax was superceded by trivalent syntax,
but never resolved that nagging question.

The main thing is not a question of syntax but a question of the mathematical models we use to cope with object realities and real objectives (pragmata).  Signs, syntax, and systems of representation can make a big difference in how well they represent the object domain and how well they serve the purpose at hand but they remain accessory to those objects and purposes.

cc: Inquiry Driven SystemsLaws of FormMathstodonAcademia.edu
cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

This entry was posted in Automata, C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Compositionality, Formal Languages, Inference, Information, Information Fusion, Initiative, Inquiry, Logic, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Triadic Relation Irreducibility, Visualization and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Inquiry Into Inquiry • Discussion 8

  1. Pingback: Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems • 5 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

  2. Thorbjørn Mann says:

    An important additional consideration might be the ability of receivers to receive and properly interprete (understand?) the representation?

  3. Pingback: Survey of Inquiry Driven Systems • 6 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.