Interesting asymmetry: languages don’t constrain parsers much (maybe a bit, very broadly conceived), but a parser does constrain language, or which sequences it can derive meaning from. Unless the parser can extend/modify itself?
Langan seems heavily influenced by Quine, which I think is a good place to start, as that seems to be about where philosophical progress petered out. In particular, Quine’s assertion about scientific theories creating ontological commitments to the building blocks they are made from ‘really existing’ to which Langan’s response seems to be ‘okay, let’s build a theory out of tautologies then.’ This rhymes with Kant’s approach, and then Langan goes farther by trying to really get at what ‘a priori’ as a construct is really about.
I’m not quite sure how this squares with Quine’s indeterminacy. That any particular data is evidence not only for the hypothesis you posed (which corresponds to some of Langan’s talk of binary yes-no questions as a conception of quantum mechanics) but also for a whole family of hypotheses, most of which you don’t know about, that define all the other universes that the data you observed is consistent with.
Thoughts:
Interesting asymmetry: languages don’t constrain parsers much (maybe a bit, very broadly conceived), but a parser does constrain language, or which sequences it can derive meaning from. Unless the parser can extend/modify itself?
Langan seems heavily influenced by Quine, which I think is a good place to start, as that seems to be about where philosophical progress petered out. In particular, Quine’s assertion about scientific theories creating ontological commitments to the building blocks they are made from ‘really existing’ to which Langan’s response seems to be ‘okay, let’s build a theory out of tautologies then.’ This rhymes with Kant’s approach, and then Langan goes farther by trying to really get at what ‘a priori’ as a construct is really about.
I’m not quite sure how this squares with Quine’s indeterminacy. That any particular data is evidence not only for the hypothesis you posed (which corresponds to some of Langan’s talk of binary yes-no questions as a conception of quantum mechanics) but also for a whole family of hypotheses, most of which you don’t know about, that define all the other universes that the data you observed is consistent with.