I suppose there’s an argument there. But I am unable to work out what it is arguing.
As I suspect you know, it’s no doubt to do with semiotics. I can understand the name dropping: Peirce as an originator of semiotics, von Neumann for the “epistemic cut” in his explanation of applying QM math, and Pattee for combining the epistemic cut with semiotics. I think the alternatives stuff is Pattee type philosophy
This Pattee paper contains many hints , I think, although I find it hard to make heads or tails out of Pattee’s philosophy/science. I suppose my problem is that I need to somehow consider both ends of the cat/sides of the coin at the same time.
https://www.informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/publications/pattee/pattee.html
Yes, that’s @Upright_BiPed 's thing.
The problem is that he only gives vague hints and never spells anything out. But perhaps that’s just how things are done with semiotics.
1 Like