Search Forum:

Hi All interested, It seems to me that one can ask whether the universality and necessity (U and N) apply to the physical realm, or only to the conceptual realm.? I mean, it can be argued that arithmetic relations can be said to hold with U and N only within a system of concepts that sets this up.?It can be argued that within the physical realm, spheres of mercury may coalesce etc etc. so that you can have 5 bits of stuff add 2 bits of stuff and end up with?a number other than 7.?Of course, we might then say--"No that's not what we mean."?But one could argue that when we examine what we mean, we find we mean that the U and N hold for certain idealized cases--bringing us back to the role of a conceptual system/framework as the basis for knowledge that has U and N. In this perspective,?we do not have knowledge with U and N concerning actual bits of physical stuff.?In this perspective, (a) knowledge with U and N is always based on a system/framework of concepts and (b) it never holds with U and N regarding the physical realm.? Thus, in such a perspective?knowledge with U and N?is very much like analytical knowledge.?Note that such a perspective does not have to fit Carnap's views-- it can endorse the idea of mind, and mental entities in a way that Carnap rejected. If we mean by APK, knowledge that applies in the physical realm with U and N, I tend to say it does not exist.? However, I do consider that we have knowledge that has U and N within the conceptual systems set up in our minds.?And I regard Piagetian theory as a proposal as to how such conceptual systems get set up in our minds.?I regard Vygotskian theory as a competing proposal on that question.