4 ms·
He doesn't directly reference semiotics, it's just the line of argument that adds an interpreter to the equation. This implies that data is just a signifier, wh
by kreetx 2y ago
He doesn't directly reference semiotics, it's just the line of argument that adds an interpreter to the equation. This implies that data is just a signifier, which can then be resolved to a signified by the help of an interpreter, hence you also need to send an interpreter alongside it.
In what form is an interpreter sent though remains an open question (because if the answer is "data" then wouldn't that mean a recursion in the argument?).
- spacebacon 2y agoThanks for clarifying that, I appreciate that connection you made.
- spacebacon 2y agoAt some point of exhaustion the recursion can be interrupted by a dynamic conceptual framework as the interpreter. Still left with philosophy.
- spacebacon 2y agoAnything less than being a convincing prophet or an exhaustive orator won't suffice. There is likely no definitive answer to anything—only varying degrees of certainty, based on conceptual frameworks that are ultimately rooted in philosophy.