Project	discursive moments

	metascientific musing gary e. davis	January 26, 2019

In light of intrinsic curiosity writ large, good* science intends itself to serve cultivation of humanity for goodG. Conceptual inquiry can be scientific without empiricism. Indeed, traditionally “scientific” “theory” tends toward conceptual inquiriality in itself (i.e., advancing paradigmicity of model-theoretic experimentalism). Empirical science is not inherently empiricist (i.e., not cognitivist or epistemicentric) because its paradigmicity is always implicitly in question. This condition seems to be in play for Articulating the World: conceptual understanding and the scientific image, 2015. “Image”? I swear, I haven’t looked at the book recently, not yet read it (even forgotten it, except as long-ago noted desire to give it attention). But its table of contents implies that I was overtly anticipating the book. “ch. 2: What Is Conceptual Understanding?”; “3: Conceptual Understanding in Light of Evolution.” And so on. All is so complex, we venture for Unsimple Truths via a “variegated, interdependent fabric of many levels and kinds of explanation that are integrated with one another to ground effective prediction and action.” “are Integrated”? Are to be so—for what purpose and how? In any case, it’s understatement to assert that we need “model-based creativity in conceptual change” (Creating Scientific Concepts). Certainly, no “absolute conception of the world is obtainable,” yet “reconciling scientific and humanistic views of the world that have long appeared incompatible” is quite feasible (Naturalism, Realism, and Normativity). It’s all about conceivability, then conceptuality of that: What is “inner space” as trope for that which emerges as space-time: “strings” of theory emergent from quantum foam? Dark (Indiscernible) Energy is accelerating expansion of the universe because it’s “perpendicular” to space-time which is gravitational—not that the mysterious Energy is within the universe and stronger than gravity, constraining expansion. No: The mystery is acting on the universe from “outside” the universe, as intrinsic aspect of there being the universe: that It is in accelerating expansion. We want our conceptions to submit to linguisticality, but the strings play to a mathematicity that is beyond Our ability to mathematically conceive (which is allegedly the evolutionary “trouble with physics”). A physicist recently troped quantum entanglement with a sphere, where a quantum particle was represented as a point on the surface of the sphere (“Canada”) and its bound twin point elsewhere (“Mexico”), such that the “entanglement” (a trope) could really be a wave-line through the sphere, but 3-d space is the surface of the “sphere” through which a quantum wave-line (string) emerges at two points in space-time. The quantum wave-line shows in space-time as two distant points. An ant experiences the entirety of a tree surface as flat, such that a distance from leaf to distant leaf for the ant is for us a little space of air between two long branches on a shared bough. So, what’s to say of meta-physics? Is it conceptual mathesis, i.e., ontologization of mathematicity? Are We Humanity in a creative universe or does the Anthropic universe evolve creative, self-mirroring capacity to behold Our Mathematical Universe within the bounds of Our evolving so far?

next—> historiology and the “intellectual”

 

 

 

 

 

Be fair. © 2019, gary e. davis