Descriptive and Normative • Discussion 1

Re: Logical Graphs • Discussion 3
Re: Laws of FormJohn Mingers

JM:
I hesitate to enter into this debate but I would want to draw different distinctions to normative/descriptive.

I would distinguish (following philosopher Roy Bhaskar) between the transitive and intransitive domains of science.

The transitive domain is the realm of our actual human activities as scientists — theories, papers, grants, methodologies, experiments, debates, disagreements, etc.  It is clearly value-full and normative.  It is part of the social world.

The intransitive domain is the realm of the objects of our knowledge, the physical/material world in the case of natural science, and the social and psychological worlds in the case of social science.  In the case of the physical world then these objects are indeed independent of us — the universe existed before humans and will no doubt exist after us.  So to that extent the intransitive domain of natural science is descriptive/positive although of course we can manipulate physical objects in order to meet our interests (or not meet as in climate change!).

However, in the case of the social world then social objects — meanings, practices, roles, structures, motives, etc. is always already value-full — they are intrinsically constituted in terms of good/bad or desirable/undesirable.

So, social science and natural science are broadly similar — they share a commitment to discovering true knowledge (which in itself makes them committed and not value-free), and they share a broadly similar abductive (to use a Peirce term) methodology, but social science has limitations and commitments which make it different in some ways from natural science.

Hi John,

Yeah, I never get a lot from debate styles of discussion.  I need to get back to logical graphs anyway but I pretty much said all I need for now about descriptive/normative.  I’m not one to make much hay out of classifying sciences, never been good at coloring inside the lines or sticking to one disciplinary silo.  All my favorite fields merged and mutated so many times so long ago it cured me of the class of classification mania so endemic among Peirceans.  At any rate, you can’t really disentangle the two styles of inquiries, since the moment you say you want a “good” description you have just introduced a normative concern.  Still, it’s useful as a rule of thumb to distinguish the two axes of value.  Which is why they call it “axiology”.

Cheers,

Jon

cc: CyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Peirce MattersLaws of FormPeirce List

Posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Equational Inference, Graph Theory, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Relations & Their Relatives • Comment 1

I opened a topic on Relation Theory in the Logic stream of Category Theory Zulipchat to discuss the logic of relative terms and the mathematics of relations as they develop from Peirce’s first breakthroughs (1865–1870).  As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, there are radical innovations in this work, probing deeper strata of logic and mathematics than ever before mined and thus undermining the fundamental nominalism of First Order Logic as we know it.

Resource

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Relation TheoryLaws of FormPeirce List

Posted in C.S. Peirce, Category Theory, Dyadic Relations, Logic, Logic of Relatives, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Nominalism, Peirce, Pragmatism, Realism, Relation Theory, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Logical Graphs • Discussion 4

Re: Category TheoryHenry Story

HS:
Evan Patterson’s “Knowledge Representation in Bicategories of Relations” is also drawn up in terms of string diagrams, as a way of explaining the W3C RDF and OWL standards.  So it looks like we have a nice route from Peirce to RDF via string diagrams.  Or the other way around:  whichever route one prefers to travel.

Dear Henry,

I opened a topic on Relation Theory in the Logic stream of Category Theory Zulipchat to discuss the logic of relative terms and the mathematics of relations as they develop from Peirce’s first breakthroughs (1865–1870).  As I have mentioned on a number of occasions, there are radical innovations in this work, probing deeper strata of logic and mathematics than ever before mined and thus undermining the fundamental nominalism of First Order Logic as we know it.

Regards,

Jon

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Logical GraphsLaws of Form • Peirce List (1) (2)

Posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Equational Inference, Graph Theory, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Notes On Categories • 2

Re: Category TheoryJoe Moeller

JM:
In category theory, we have this perspective that we should focus attention on maps, on the relationships between objects, rather than on the objects themselves.  What’s your favorite examples of people giving a schpiel about this?  Blog posts, snippets from books or papers, or even just giving your own take right now, are all welcome.

My first “abstract algebra” course in college (U Mich, 1970), the last project our instructor assigned us was to “do something creative”, a piece of creative writing, painting, sculpture, or other objet d’art, reflecting on one of the topics covered in the course.

I wrote a science fiction story about two species of creatures, the Sets and the Mappings.  No way I can remember all the details but I recall it explored a theme of duality between the two forms of life and the way ideas about “things in themselves” evolved over time into ideas about “that which changes into itself”.

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Relation TheoryLaws of FormPeirce List

Posted in Abstraction, Category Theory, Computing, Graph Theory, Logic, Mathematics, Relation Theory, Type Theory | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Logical Graphs • Discussion 3

Re: Peirce ListJFSRMETRMJFSJFSRM

Dear John, Robert, Edwina,

The Peirce List discussion on “thinking in diagrams vs thinking in words” called to mind the time I spent a hefty sum on a copy of Stjernfelt’s Diagrammatology which ran to over 500 pages with many sections in very small print and had just over 50 diagrams between the covers.

In the same way, the real Versus monopolizing our attention here is not so much the difference between “thinking in diagrams” and “thinking in words” as the difference between “thinking in words about thinking in diagrams” and “thinking in words about thinking in words”.

Those of us who have been developing “moving pictures” from the very get-go have learned to see things rather differently.

Peirce Syllabus

Normative science rests largely on phenomenology and on mathematics;
metaphysics on phenomenology and on normative science.

❧ Charles Sanders Peirce • Collected Papers, CP 1.186 (1903)
Syllabus • Classification of Sciences (CP 1.180–202, G-1903-2b)

Regardez,

Jon

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Logical GraphsLaws of FormPeirce List

Posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Equational Inference, Graph Theory, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Logical Graphs • Discussion 2

Re: Category TheoryChad Nester

CN:
Recently a few of us have been using the “cartesian bicategories of relations” of Carboni and Walters, in particular their string diagrams, as syntax for relations.  The string diagrams in question are more or less a directed version of Peirce’s lines of identity.  They’re usually described in terms of commutative special frobenius algebras.  I suspect the reason we keep finding commutative special frobenius algebras is that they support lines of identity in this way.

Dear Chad, Henry, …

Chaos rules my niche of the world right now so I’ll just break a bit of the ice by sharing the following links to my ongoing study of Peirce’s 1870 Logic Of Relatives.

See especially the following paragraph.

To my way of thinking the above paragraph is one of the most radical passages in the history of logic, relativizing traditional assumptions of an absolute distinction between generals (universals) and individuals.  Among other things, it pulls the rug out from under any standing for nominalism as opposed to realism about universals.

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Logical GraphsLaws of FormPeirce List

Posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Equational Inference, Graph Theory, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Logical Graphs • Discussion 1

Re: Laws of FormJohn Mingers

JM:
I find it very frustrating not to be able to draw crosses and expressions within emails or Word documents.  Does anyone know of any software or apps that can do this?  If not, with so many computer scientists on this group, could someone produce something?

Dear John, All …

People with backgrounds in computing, combinatorics, or graph theory would immediately recognize Spencer Brown’s expressions are isomorphic to what graph theorists know and love as “trees”, more specifically “rooted trees”, with a particular manner of attaching letters to the nodes to be described later.  In those fields there’s a standard way of mapping trees to strings of parentheses and letters.  That operation is called “traversing the tree” when one passes from trees to strings and the reverse operation is called “parsing the string” when one passes from strings to trees.

The transformation of Spencer Brown’s simple closed figures in the plane or his formal expressions of “crosses” into rooted trees, together with the further transformation of those two forms to “pointer data structures” in computer memory, is discussed in the following post on my blog.

There’s a more formal presentation of logical graphs, working from the axioms or “initials” I borrowed with modifications from Peirce and Spencer Brown, in the following blog post.

Those two pieces are combined and extended in the following article.

The program I developed all through the 80s using those data structures in its logic module is documented so far as I’ve done to date on the following page.

Regards,
Jon

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Logical GraphsLaws of FormPeirce List

Posted in Amphecks, Animata, Boolean Algebra, Boolean Functions, C.S. Peirce, Cactus Graphs, Constraint Satisfaction Problems, Deduction, Diagrammatic Reasoning, Duality, Equational Inference, Graph Theory, Laws of Form, Logic, Logical Graphs, Mathematics, Minimal Negation Operators, Model Theory, Painted Cacti, Peirce, Proof Theory, Propositional Calculus, Propositional Equation Reasoning Systems, Spencer Brown, Theorem Proving, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Inquiry Driven Systems • Discussion 9

Re: Laws of FormLeon Conrad

LC:
As someone who has worked on, teaches, and uses the CoI [Calculus of Indications] to make classical syllogistic logic much easier to practice and more visually intuitive than any of the visualisations we have to date, I would be very interested in finding out more about your work in applying GSB’s work to logical tables, particularly if it does a similar thing.

Dear Leon,

Gauging the gap between entry-level formal systems like propositional calculi and calculi qualified to handle quantified predicates, functions, combinators, etc. is one of my oldest research pursuits and still very much a work in progress.  When I point people to the live edges of my understanding, the places where I break off in my searches, I usually end up numbering those episodes of risk-taking under the heading of “Failures to Communicate” — but it doesn’t stop me from trying.  So I’ll take a chance and post a few links along those lines in a little while but it may avert a measure of misunderstanding if I mention the main forces setting me on my present path.

I had already been studying Peirce’s Collected Papers from my first couple of years in college, especially fascinated by his approach to logic, his amphecks, his logical graphs, both entitative and existential, his overall visual and visionary way of doing mathematics.  And then a friend pointed me to the entry for Spencer Brown’s Laws of Form in the first Whole Earth Catalog and I sent off for a copy right away.  My computer courses and self-directed programming play rounded out the triple of primary impacts on the way I would understand and develop logical graphs from that point on.

To be continued …

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Inquiry Driven SystemsLaws of Form • Peirce List (1) (2) (3)

Posted in Animata, Artificial Intelligence, C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Intelligent Systems, Learning Systems, Logic, Logical Graphs, Peirce, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Inquiry Driven Systems • Discussion 8

Re: Category TheorySimon Burton

SB:
From what I’ve noticed there are two kinds of mathematical thinking:  manipulating abstract syntax, versus direct experience/perception of concrete mathematics.  These two are intertwined in various ways, but in my experience people generally excel in one of these two styles of thinking and not the other.  I think that many famous collaborations between two mathematicians are divided along these lines.

Dear Simon.

Susan Awbrey and I have worked a lot and written a little on a variety of “two-culture” and “cognitive style” questions from a broadly pragmatic perspective informed by the work of C.S. Peirce, John Dewey, and like-minded thinkers.  The three dimensional spaces of Peirce’s triadic sign relations afford a perspective on the ways diverse thinkers can specialize their thought to different planes or facets of a sign relation’s full volume.  Various issues along these lines are discussed in the following paper.

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Inquiry Driven SystemsLaws of Form • Peirce List (1) (2) (3)

Posted in Animata, Artificial Intelligence, C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Intelligent Systems, Learning Systems, Logic, Logical Graphs, Peirce, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Inquiry Driven Systems • Discussion 7

Re: Category TheoryHenry Story

HS:
I place Logic within Mathematics and modal logic is a field of Logic,
and so of mathematics.  You will find that modal logic comes up a lot
working with machines, programs, and all state based systems.

Dear Henry,

Just by way of personal orientation, I tend to follow Peirce and assorted classical sources in viewing logic as a normative science whereas mathematics is a hypothetical descriptive science.  That gives a picture of their relationship like the one I drew in the following post.

Definition and Determination • 4

Peirce Syllabus

Normative science rests largely on phenomenology and on mathematics;
metaphysics on phenomenology and on normative science.

❧ Charles Sanders Peirce • Collected Papers, CP 1.186 (1903)
Syllabus • Classification of Sciences (CP 1.180–202, G-1903-2b)

The way I see it, then, logic is more an application of mathematics than a subfield of it.

cc: Category TheoryCyberneticsOntologStructural ModelingSystems Science
cc: FB | Inquiry Driven SystemsLaws of Form • Peirce List (1) (2) (3)

Posted in Animata, Artificial Intelligence, C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Intelligent Systems, Learning Systems, Logic, Logical Graphs, Peirce, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Visualization | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment