The inference
In a specified category an object’s full hom-functor fixes it up to isomorphism. Read as “an object is determined by its relations”, that would make a communicative act what its relations make it, which is CLAIM-151: which act an utterance performs “is partly constituted by its relations to participant roles, norms and expected uptake”.
Critical questions
- Does the mapping premise hold? Only as categorical identification. A191 §4: “Yoneda establishes the first. Our experiments investigate the second. Moderate communicative structural realism asserts the third. Neither of the first two logically entails the third.” A187: “Yoneda establishes the first. It does not independently establish the second.”
- Are the model’s assumptions met in the new domain? No, and this is the question that fails. The record’s reading of the lemma (THEORY-032, from LIT-221, read in NOTE-195): it fixes an object “only up to isomorphism, among objects the category already has”. y(c) is indexed by every object of C. “So as a formal version of ‘an object is determined by its relations’ it presupposes the relata. It cannot establish constitution, and it gives elimination of the relata no support at all.” Lam and Wüthrich (LIT-222) reach the matching conclusion for category theory generally: morphisms relate objects the category presupposes.
Verdict
Rejected. CLAIM-150 undercuts it: an ontology of intrinsically individuated objects with relational properties reproduces the categorical identification, so identification underdetermines constitution. That is a claim about the subject matter, and it leaves the lemma and CLAIM-151 standing. The result suits the non-eliminative choice the owner made at U54. What would establish constitution is A214 §13’s “Conceptual argument”, which is named, not given (QUESTION-028).