you need a positive reason to assert that they are standpoint dependent
“Fundamental entity” is a reference and references are deictic.
In the mainstream, reductionism is seen as as a methodology that sometimes works, or a falsifiable hypothesis. Meaning, that it is already granted that it could fail.
I am certainly not intending to argue against this methodological reductionism, rather only physicalism as “universal truth”.
For most purposes, physics can be done with automatic recording devices.
Still needs an account of what is a recording device, in physicalist terms. Which things do the theory-building thingies try to explain? Rocks could be said to be “automatic recording devices” but they don’t provide the data fed into theory-building processes (unless another recording device is observing the rock). This perhaps isn’t the same as consciousness per se but has similar problems.
Remember, you have only established that indexicality is needed for reference, ie. semantic, not that it applies to entities in themselves.
Is “entities in themselves” a reference or not? If so then indexicality applies. If not then what is it? As Wittgenstein noted, “That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.”
You are treating two different definitions of “function”—“performed on another’s behalf” and “multiply realisable”—as equivalent.
Paradigmatic functions are performed on someone’s behalf, so an account of functions not performed on anyone’s behalf needs to add detail on top of the “function” analogy. I am not positively asserting that no such account exist, just that it isn’t obvious. (I believe in multiple realizability)
No, it’s easy: standpoint-independence plus indeterminism.
I agree my argument doesn’t apply under indeterminism (there would be no such Laplace’s demon).
“Fundamental entity” is a reference and references are deictic.
I am certainly not intending to argue against this methodological reductionism, rather only physicalism as “universal truth”.
Still needs an account of what is a recording device, in physicalist terms. Which things do the theory-building thingies try to explain? Rocks could be said to be “automatic recording devices” but they don’t provide the data fed into theory-building processes (unless another recording device is observing the rock). This perhaps isn’t the same as consciousness per se but has similar problems.
Is “entities in themselves” a reference or not? If so then indexicality applies. If not then what is it? As Wittgenstein noted, “That whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent.”
Paradigmatic functions are performed on someone’s behalf, so an account of functions not performed on anyone’s behalf needs to add detail on top of the “function” analogy. I am not positively asserting that no such account exist, just that it isn’t obvious. (I believe in multiple realizability)
I agree my argument doesn’t apply under indeterminism (there would be no such Laplace’s demon).
You haven’t shown that every reference is deictic. In particular ,you haven’t shown that references to classes are deictic.
I don’t see why that would be a major problem.
Thats gainsaying my point. I say that “function” has several barely related meanings ,you say there is a single “paradigmatic” meaning.