second order cybernetics applied to physics?

[Jim Whitescarver]

I would expect second order cybernetics would be applied to physics, especially by Lou . I did not find anything.

I was hoping I could use it to make my answer below more compelling. Suggestions would be most welcome.

Do we already have a theory of everything but refuse to deny legacy physics?

No and yes. Science has largely discarded legacy notions like a flat earth and absolute space and time. However many legacy notions remain which add complexity can obscure simple truths.

I suggest there can never be a theory of everything that explains everything. Quantum logical systems are universal logical systems including all conceivable logical systems, all possible worlds. Logical descriptions of quantum systems are complete and the simplest description of themselves. There can be no simpler theory to describe them.

At the same time there is no actual evidence that the emergence of any phenomenon is inconsistent with the universe being a quantum logical construction where each qubit of information obeys the complementary logic rules of matrix mechanics. If that is true, we already have a theory of everything and all legacy science including the standard model of the quantum are mythological.

There is good reason to believe there can be nothing other than quantum logical systems affecting our world. Quantum computing always yields perfect integer results. Any tiny influence like charge or gravity would corrupt the result as suggested by the no hidden variable theorem. Magical forces at a distance become myth in a quantum world. Instead there are only finite complimentary logical connections among the particles comprising our world. This would suggest there could be nothing but quantum logical entanglements constructing our world.

We would like to find simple equations but can always construct a quantum logical system that has more dimensions and violates any finite. theory. Given a quantum logical universe string theories, or any theory having a limited number of dimensions becoming a theory of everything is a myth.

Modern quantum theory is useful but is based on assumptions that are incompatible with quantum logical construction including continuum and randomness. It is impossible to construct a continuum with quantum logic. Each logical element is discrete. Constructing true randomness is not possible with quantum logical construction. This suggests continuum and intrinsic randomness are myths in a quantum logical universe and ought not be postulated.. The equivalent deterministic interpretations of Bohm and Cramer prove there is no justification in presuming the myth of inherent randomness. Is it not unscientific to choose randomness when there are deterministic explanations?

https://www.quora.com/How-do-the-probabilistic-elements-of-quantum-mechanics-get-operationalized-in-nature/answer/Jim-Whitescarver

Deterministic theories have been criticized for having backward in time causality However even in the standard model electron interaction involves a photon transferring momentum in one direction and antiphoton transferring in the other direction backwards in time. Due to relativity, what is forward in time in the rest frame of one electron is backward in time in the rest frame for the other, In its rest frame each electron has zero energy and sees a photon coming from the other higher energy electron after a speed of light delay. Which way it went in both space and time is relative to the frame of the observer. No causes are actually back in time except by perspective. Insead we can think of the effect of a photon not being determined until a resonant electron is encountered in phase. The event is bi-causal and bi-local being a result caused by both the sender and receiver being in harmony. Time and space on a light speed path is zero so for both the photon and the anti-photon causation is purely local. This implies backwards in time causality is a myth and local causality is not violated in the frame of the photon.

It is widely taught that we do not know what causes quantum events to happen. We know it is a participatory universe and the participants affect the outcome of events. Without a participant, nothing happens. Many believe nothing happens unless it is registered in the human brain. We know causes of the collapse of the wave function determining the real measurable values from undetermined complex quantum binary bits of information that selects from possible histories and changes future possibilities. The Pauli exclusion principle tells us events occur preventing independent logical action from occupying the same logical state. We know that quantum creation, electron interaction, complex hermitian conjugate represent equal and opposite logical action that happens by least action, delayed choice and first opportunity. We do know causes of quantum events. That it is mysterious may largely be a myth.

Quantum logical systems happen on every scale on every frequency. That they only happen only on a small scale is a myth. It is suggested that even the brain exploits quantum logic at low frequency macroscopically (ref?).

There are only two fundamental constants in quantum system affects in our world, the speed of light and planck's constant where distance equals the speed of light times time, and energy equals the frequency times planck’s constant. That there are other fundamental forces or constants in in a quantum logical world is a myth. Other constants, like electron charge, emerge from quantum logical systems. Electrons exchange momentum if they are in phase at the same energy in some reference frame as if to avoid occupying the same logical state. That electrons repel each other otherwise is a myth.

Quantum creation is limited to create equal and opposite logical construction (particles) forever entangled. Free charged particles like electrons and protons are a myth. We know that all particles have a finite number of entanglements determined by their mass divided by Planck’s lesser constant that collectively determine their properties.

It is said there is no time in quantum logic as if everything happens at once. However logical action is delayed by particle interactions between absorption and emission constructing local time. It was expected that time might be in discrete multiples of the Planck time but the evidence is against that. In Hitoshi's Quantum Mechanics and Relativity --- Their Unification by Local Time --- it is shown local time is consistent with general relativity. If we consider local time to be quantized rather than global time. This accounts for relativistic time dilation with clocks independent by distance over light speed.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-precise-definition-of-time/answer/Jim-Whitescarver

Quantum field theory is linked to general relativity in the new information-theoretic process physics which links to the phenomenology of general relativity. It appears the incompatibility of quantum systems and general relativity is a myth.

We have no basis to think the zero point energy is any different from any other energy except it is at the lowest energy we measure against. It is the point we cannot measure below because there is nothing lower to measure against. We could expect this energy just below the cosmic background microwave radiation to be so uniform from all directions, permeating and animating matter approaching maximum entropy such that its interaction appears completely random. That the vacuum is not ordinary energy coming from the early universe rather than random fluctuation As wheeler pointed out the energy density of the vacuum is only marginally less than matter. If the only thing happening in the universe are quantum events that the universe magically endows the vacuum with random fluctuations is a myth.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-nature-of-the-vacuum/answer/Jim-Whitescarver

Disposing of the unnecessary assumptions about vacuum energy can lead to greater understanding.

General relativity is consistent with the relative energy density of the vacuum being greater relatively (slow time) near masses and lower in deep space which may account for dark matter and dark energy.

In a purely quantum world atoms may be conceived as logical knots (Kauffman) that can be thought of as quantum black holes switching the role of energy exhibiting space to exhibit local time when absorbed and trapped by an atom this instantiating a local time delay until escaping the knot and being reemitted in a hawking’s radiation like manner. Perhaps it is no coincidence that particle sizes are generally within orders of magnitude of black holes of equivalent mass.

Evidence suggests that all extra dimensions are local and do not extend across our normal dimensions and indeed other dimensions in quantum systems are constructed locally without extent in our space. While extra dimensions exhibit delay locally in one place each is independent. In spacetime and matter we can infer that time goes in every direction, not just one. This evidence suggests the block universe of four or more dimensions is a myth. Dispelling of the minkowski space myth can make relativity comprehensible.

Jim Whitescarver's answer to What is time dilation? Why does a body at rest experience time slowly, while a body in motion experiences time comparatively faster, when in relation to the first body?

Carver Mead, in his book “Collective Electrodynamics” Carver Mead, a student of Feynman and pioneer of modern microelectronics has called for the reconceptualization of modern physics and to stop teaching legacy physics as being fundamental.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-thoughts-about-Collective-Electrodynamics-by-Carver-A-Mead/answer/Jim-Whitescarver

If the universe can be considered be be a quanum logical construction we can consider it to be an information system where there is an ecology of information, where systems that lose information to other systems are doomed and those that conserve information persist. The new information theory could be the bases of a new information physics which could be the theory of everything in the new physics.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-future-of-information-theory/answer/Jim-Whitescarverhttps://www.quora.com/What-did-Max-Planck-mean-by-saying-I-regard-consciousness-as-fundamental-I-regard-matter-as-derivative-from-consciousness-We-cannot-get-behind-consciousness/answer/Jim-Whitescarver

Wheeler’s quandary “How do we get IT from BIT?” may just mean dropping the legacy myth of the Cartesian duality and accept that the universe is a memetic information system unifying the physical, mental and spiritual in a singular ecology of information.

While mathematics may be considered distinct from science it seems scientific breakthroughs have been realized by new mathematics. Differential calculus gave us the Newtonian clockwork universe. Matrix math gave us an understanding of quantum mechanics, tensor math gave us the equations of general relativity, to name a few. Might science be crippled by legacy mathematics? It may be that while there have been great strides in recent years in mathematics and computation theory old tools are being used for new problems where they are impotent in solving. It may be that legacy mathematics solving unanswered fundamental questions is a myth.

It is generally considered a sacrilege to deny proof by contradiction but plato may not have had the authority to declare that a proposition may be true or false and there is no third possibility. However nature exhibits paradox everywhere. Quantum logic defies plato with propositions being in effect both true and false.

Godel used proof by contradiction showing legacy mathematics is incomplete. This cannot be applied to quantum logic. It may be that quantum logic is correct logic. Like evolutionary logic quantum logic gives good answers to intractable problems. It makes the impossible possible. As long as we remain loyal to legacy mathematics it seems understanding the quantum information universe is not possible. Unless we embrace paradox we cannot accept the apparent truth that the universe being constructed by unconstrained deterministic quantum logical action explains everything and that the natural nature of truth itself has a quantum nature.

[Louis Kauffman]

Dear Jim,

Yeah, well I agree that more need be said.

I have not resolved the observer problem in physics to my satisfaction.

See Eigenquanta and the paper on Compresence and Coallesence.

Second order cybernetics is also not resolved to my satisfaction. 

A key to connecting the observer problem in cybernetics with the observer problem in physics is the understanding of “objects as tokens for eigenbehaviours” of which 

we have barely scratched the surface.

And where is the “guarded source of the discrete”?

It is a mistake to think that second order cybernetics could be “applied” to physics. 

Maybe it will help to understand what IS physics.

You might start with Buckminster Fuller:

"An energy event is always special case. 

Whenever we have experienced energy, we have special case.

The physicist's first definition of physical is that it is an experience that is 

extracorporeally, remotely, instrumentally apprehensible. 

Metaphysical includes all the experiences that are excluded by the definition of physical. 

Metaphysical is always generalized principle.(1075.11)”

Physics, Metaphysics and Cybernetics need to be enfolded into a wider vision.

My puzzle and maybe yours.  

Everything included below is second order cybernetics, but all I have done is put it in some sort of language that helps me.

And that is all anyone can do.

Speak the language that you speak.

I cannot write it in someone else’s language.

But I can keep saying my language until it is our language.

A rose is a rose is a rose.

No translation is possible.

The only hope is that translation is possible.

It is, if you understand it, the language of a child playing with toys and maps and puzzles and games. And it is more and more and more incomplete as it gets

articulated. But this can all be turned around into a story FROM the observer. 

Bucky Fuller kept to that 

and I would like to keep to that, 

but I have to follow certain lines where they lead. 

We’ll see what happens.

Oh yes.

 Beware the jubjub bird and shun the frumious bandersnatch of bit and qubit and quantum information.

This is still under the spell of Shannon and bereft of 

the semantics/semiotics that might make it second order cybernetic.

Best,

Lou

 

[Jim Whitescarver]

You never cease to amaze me Lou.

If we conceive the universe as being composed of quantum logical machines the measurement problem becomes the memory problem because we never can know exactly which logically possible history will be persisted into the future. Walking by the river with JAW in princeton junction I failed to convince him there is no measurement problem, the problem being legacy thinking. If we accept that our world is an information ecology it surely consists only of what information is persisted.

I need to add that to the article, thanks!

Together, quantum logical machines like atoms, become components of higher order logical systems on every related scale (frequency/energy/qubits) to the unbounded n squared order. atoms, chemistry, composites, 4D chinese dolls from the single qubit and up to the planck energy.. Is this beyond the scope of 2nd order cybernetics? It is rather mind blowing. I guess cybernetics is more about creating a history than discovering it. We do that by registering an event, persisting it by putting memory of it into our memory.

What else needs to be said?

Thanks again!

jim

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/5306F6E2-A9F2-464A-985E-F897625E87C7%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/5306F6E2-A9F2-464A-985E-F897625E87C7%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/5306F6E2-A9F2-464A-985E-F897625E87C7%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/5306F6E2-A9F2-464A-985E-F897625E87C7%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/5306F6E2-A9F2-464A-985E-F897625E87C7%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/5306F6E2-A9F2-464A-985E-F897625E87C7%40gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CAN8-P6dmHD95cT%3DK3uaAJP8nmTvFJ7nnMDpoxQwOT_8kDnFGjg%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CYBCOM" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cybcom+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/5306F6E2-A9F2-464A-985E-F897625E87C7%40gmail.com.

[Jim Whitescarver]

I hope I didn't sound sarcastic. Lou's reply was valuable beyond measure.

I've updated my answer accordingly. Comments on quora would be most appreciated.

https://www.quora.com/Do-we-already-have-a-theory-of-everything-but-refuse-to-deny-legacy-physics/answer/Jim-Whitescarver

[Louis Kauffman]

Dear Jim,

If you assume that the world is made of quantum logical machines, indeed there is nothing more to be said.

Understanding does not emerge from machines nor from quantum logical machines.

Understanding Understanding transcends the physical.

"An energy event is always special case. 

Whenever we have experienced energy, we have special case.

The physicist's first definition of physical is that it is an experience that is 

extracorporeally, remotely, instrumentally apprehensible. 

Metaphysical includes all the experiences that are excluded by the definition of physical. 

Metaphysical is always generalized principle.(1075.11)”

Beware the jubjub bird and shun the frumious bandersnatch of 

Bit and qubit and quantum information.

This is still under the spell of Shannon, 

Bereft of

Semantics/semiotics that 

Could make it

Second Order Cybernetic.

Very best,

Lou

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CAN8-P6fgSjZVkV4A4FGjMGwe2h2GzFnjMRoFpwbKZBAc%2B8xcpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Louis Kauffman]

You did not intend to be sarcastic, but I did intend to be sarcastic.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CAN8-P6eEJ59n4Gr-GMW95iC5e-rWKa3P5Yxf8gn1j5-p%2BmRFtg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Jim Whitescarver]

Lou

I sensed some sarcasm in your reply but also thoughtful advice. I should have realized that you are still an adherent of cartesian duality. In my view, the myth that the metaphysical is distinct from the physical in kind and substance of composition is likely the crux of our disagreements and perhaps one reason why 2nd order cybernetics has not been applied to physics.

I missed noticing your attachments which I will review since it has been many years since reading your stuff. It seems my conclusions from your writing have been from a very different perspective. I do not expect I will find in your writing evidence of information without representation or lack of universality of quantum logical systems happening on every scale. My conclusion is that quantum logic is correct and complete and the natural nature of truth. I suggest application of classical logic and classical information create a chasm that defies comprehension of my arguments by those having them ingrained. It is not clear there is anything I can add to my arguments to transcend such legacy thinking.

Best.

jim

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/051347AD-1FF2-4FD5-A96E-23ADD7407C96%40gmail.com.

[Louis Kauffman]

No. I am an adherent of second order cybernetics.

I have said enough. We need have no further discussion at this time.

I include again one paper of mine.

[Louis Kauffman]

Jim,

I should explain.

The sarcasm gets in the way. But the only way to avoid it is W’s silence.

I do not adhere to Buckminster Fuller’s characterization of physics, but the physicists do adhere to it.

And the whole world’s notion of what is physical follows their lead. 

Principles and concepts are not “in” the physical world unless you allow it.

Take the number Two.

There are innumerable INSTANCES of Two in the world.

But Two herself is not a denizen of the physical world if she has any existence at all, in the standard view.

I say that Two arises with every instance of two, and they are not separable.

Neither is our perception separable from the physical world.

There is still a cartesian boundary in all of physics taking the form in quantum mechanics of the very sharp measurement principles.

Nothing is resolved and there is no understanding nor is there any forthcoming of understanding in the attitude that the universe is built from qubits (and measurements of course).

Perhaps you mean a universe quite different from the quantum information universe of the physicists.

My framework is that with every distinction arises both the difference and the joining, and arises with that distinction the awareness (of the making)  of the distinction.

The distinction does not exist without the awareness of the distinction.

The awareness is not separate from the distinction.

Each distinction is an observing system.

Now you see the problem. 

Some individuals would say — 

Explain this in terms that the ‘others’ use. 

But to do so would be to take on the assumptions that “they” make.

So one has to forge one’s own language. 

The alternative is a deadly double bind.

There is the possibility of opening up the worlds of quantum mechanics and the world of understanding so that they would flow into one another.

All that said, isn’t it amazing to realize that we are just (quantum logical) machines with a capacity for self-reference 

and that as soon as we realize this we transcend the

very assumption just made, and yet verify its verity!

Best,

Lou

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CAN8-P6cmJMi0es5vewZ6-7bOL9oWDmVOLTv5Te0vtZEWFy2-Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Lissack]

Lou writes

Now you see the problem. 

Some individuals would say — 

Explain this in terms that the ‘others’ use. 

But to do so would be to take on the assumptions that “they” make.

So one has to forge one’s own language. 

The alternative is a deadly double bind.

With much I must strenuously disagree

"Taking on" the assumptions of others behind their language use is NOT the only alternative.  There exists the mode of asking questions and thereby communicating difference by actively articulating a possibility set of multiple answers.  To acknowledge that others start with a set of assumptions different from your own is NOT the same as adopting those assumptions to be your own, it is instead an opening for questions that in turn can lead to shared understandings.

The essence of communication is an exchange of meaning.  For either participant in a conversation to insist that the other must share assumptions in order for that communication to occur is to presuppose one final outcome of such an exchange at the expense of discarding all other emergent and creative possibilities. 

Sarcasm usually is a device for hiding fear.

I sense Lou has a fear of the communicative world becoming Ossining.

Current events might seem to suggest that such a fear is reasonable.

Is it true that Andrew Cuomo announced he "now" believes Tara Reade?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/09689D59-467F-4F45-BE99-116D77707187%40gmail.com.

[Michael Lissack]

[Michael Lissack]

Jim

Second order cybernetics is practiced daily by most quantum physicists.  Please read The Philosophy of As If (either the original by Vaihinger or the modern adaptation by Appiah).  Either book fully explains.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CAN8-P6cmJMi0es5vewZ6-7bOL9oWDmVOLTv5Te0vtZEWFy2-Dg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Michael Lissack]

Lou writes:

Now you see the problem. 

Some individuals would say —

Explain this in terms that the ‘others’ use. 

But to do so would be to take on the assumptions that “they” make.

So one has to forge one’s own language. 

The alternative is a deadly double bind.

With much I must strenuously disagree

"Taking on" the assumptions of others behind their language use is NOT the only alternative.  There exists the mode of asking questions and thereby communicating difference by actively articulating a possibility set of multiple answers.  To acknowledge that others start with a set of assumptions different from your own is NOT the same as adopting those assumptions to be your own, it is instead an opening for questions that in turn can lead to shared understandings.

The essence of communication is an exchange of meaning.  For either participant in a conversation to insist that the other must share assumptions in order for that communication to occur is to presuppose one final outcome of such an exchange at the expense of discarding all other emergent and creative possibilities. 

Sarcasm usually is a device for hiding fear.

I sense Lou has a fear of the communicative world becoming Ossining.

Current events might seem to suggest that such a fear is reasonable.

Is it true that Andrew Cuomo announced he "now" believes Tara Reade?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CAPmNe_bwcQGkD6fSKcJpWOFPF1pXi4wJeBsdNCC7qZjQFLgN0w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Louis Kauffman]

Dear Michael,

Dayenu.

I have since found enlightenment in that transcendental Steersman, that Seer of cybernetics.

Steamboat Willie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBgghnQF6E4

For in that world of quantum logical machines the animate inanimate is immanent.

Note that the Black Hole Information Paradox is solved in goat form in the middle of the film.

Best,

Lou

On Aug 11, 2021, at 12:56 AM, Michael Lissack <liss...@gmail.com> wrote:

<Gmail - Re_ [CYBCOM] Anil Seth on 'consciousness'.PDF>

[Jim Whitescarver]

Michael,

The notion that 2nd order cyber is practiced daily by most quantum physicists may be true but the distinction in what I am seeking seems to go back to the supposed measurement problem. 

I am led to Bucky's quote:

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.”
― Buckminster Fuller

In my view "as if" and "sort of" have no place at the foundation of physics. Certainly the standard model of the quantum is a very useful fantasy, to a point. I may need to express better that postulating human legacy ideals rather than unadorned discrete logical action just leads to a zoo of fantasies.  I believe 

the laws of physics needn't lie

..

SOC deals with understanding the nature of the observer and intensionality which are largely beyond modern physics swaying SOC toward anthropomorphism. I suggest that an event is not reified by observation, but by witnessing it and propagating information about it in the information ecology. In this view even an atom reifies events by relaying information about it.

Another hurdle is understanding control over the selection of possible histories. In my view SOC can be applied whenever a higher order logical system determines an effect on a lower level system, We can consider the emergence of higher level systems to be of unlimited order. We see collective being emerge from our trillions of cells and in a hive mind. We have not discovered uncontroversial other collective being outside of the human scale of time and space but can expect them to have emerged. 

If we consider an observer in the last instant of the information universe, causing everything before it to happen, our perceptions may or may not be included in the selected possible history and thus may never have had any effect. 

We can say distinctions arise from a distorted perspective on nothingness. Quantum creation only allows equal and opposite logical action (in some frame) adding to nothing except by relative perspective. In the event that the relative distinctions of an event are communicated by subsequent events in the collective experience of matter, mind or spirit they become increasingly registered events in the singular information ecology exhibiting our collective world. Considering all possible logical systems only those having delay elements, such as atoms, are universal and capable of participation in our information ecology. That such systems have emerged ought not be surprising.

Quantum logic is not unlike evolutionary logic. Both get good solutions to intractable problems as if by trying all possibilities a best solution is approached. Both are not unlike the evolution of our thinking. I do not believe we can consider evolution of the natural to be purely random. Instead we must consider it to be highly organic. We can expect intelligence emerges as an evolutionary advantage.

Hawking proclaimed the end of philosophy and frankly I find much of philosophy to be based on classical logic, proven incomplete, and therefore somewhat arbitrary. I am not saying it has no utility. It can be clever and enlightening, but ultimately wrong because of its incompleteness. I was sceptical that Appiah's philosophy would be of interest to me but it was a pleasing surprise his whole video was relevant to this discussion. "The Philosophy of "As If" with Kwame Anthony Appiah" https://youtu.be/Ec80Gtqrj48

Thanks,

jim

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cybcom/CAPmNe_bwcQGkD6fSKcJpWOFPF1pXi4wJeBsdNCC7qZjQFLgN0w%40mail.gmail.com.