You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
Jonas I (Feb 06 2025 at 15:08):https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Science+of+Logic
Jonas I (Feb 06 2025 at 15:09):seems to me to explain how and why our universe started from nothing, and why string theory is right, whats your opinion
Morgan Rogers (he/him) (Feb 06 2025 at 16:49):I'm pretty sure you're going to have to be more specific. There are tens of thousands of words on that page...
Jonas I (Feb 06 2025 at 19:52):Morgan Rogers (he/him) said:
I'm pretty sure you're going to have to be more specific. There are tens of thousands of words on that page...
Does it explain how our universe started from nothing and the emergence of string theory as inevitable following. I think it does. But my real question is, what does it say about the nature of consciousness and the meaning of life? Hegel wrote alot about that if he is right about that also its interesting
Jonas I (Feb 06 2025 at 19:58):has anyone formalized hegels other theories in hott in a similar vein as scheriber
Jonas I (Feb 06 2025 at 19:58):about consciousness for instance
David Michael Roberts (Feb 07 2025 at 02:03):Jonas I said:
Morgan Rogers (he/him) said:
I'm pretty sure you're going to have to be more specific. There are tens of thousands of words on that page...
Does it explain how our universe started from nothing and the emergence of string theory as inevitable following. I think it does. But my real question is, what does it say about the nature of consciousness and the meaning of life? Hegel wrote alot about that if he is right about that also its interesting
No. Urs is making a rigorous mathematical model of Hegel's framework. It says nothing about actual reality, unless you take as hypothesis that string theory is a model of the real world. It says nothing at all about consciousness, let alone any putative meaning of life. No one that I know of has picked up what Urs has put down, though David Corfield was involved with the discussions somewhat—but I don't see him doing anything like taking the process further into Hegel's work.
David Corfield (Feb 07 2025 at 16:05):I don't think you should look for someone to supply definitive answers to such questions, but if you are looking for what is probably the gentlest way into the system, I'd start with Urs's Laws of Type.
Pablo Donato (Feb 07 2025 at 20:27):David Corfield said:
I don't think you should look for someone to supply definitive answers to such questions, but if you are looking for what is probably the gentlest way into the system, I'd start with Urs's Laws of Type.
That's a nice article, but the interpretation of the function type symbol as corresponding to the severing line in Laws of Form (LoF) feels a little bit forced. It turns out that LoF itself is just a spinoff of C. S. Peirce's existential graphs (see also #learning: questions > Peirce, logic and the categories), or rather of his entitative graphs, which Peirce deemed vastly inferior to the existential graphs.
In the existential graphs, the universe is denoted by empty space which Peirce calls the blank sheet of assertion, and is logically interpreted as trivial truth (the unit type ). Then the existence of something in the universe is denoted by drawing literally a single line (not an arbitrary arrow symbol), called a line of identity.
As for implications/function types, they are denoted by what Peirce calls the scroll, which is a self-intersecting closed continuous curve that looks like this for :
scroll.png
See how it is made of an outer close and an inner close , with two boundaries. Then LoF's "law of crossing" is captured by the law that the two boundaries can collapse when the outer close is empty, corresponding to the logical equivalence . Thus there only needs to be one line/scroll/implication (admittedly not a straight line as in the Kabbalah) to sever the space in two, rather than two implications as in Urs' analysis.
I really recommend reading this from the source, in Peirce's article Prolegomena to an Apology for Pragmaticism (you can read starting from page 533 if you're only interested in the scroll). Otherwise the only freely available source in english that I know of is my own work: there is a short introduction to EGs and the scroll in the first 4 sections of my article on the Flower Calculus, as well as more in-depth exegesis in chapters 9 and 10 of my PhD thesis (section 10.1.1 for the scroll).