Helmut, List, Helmut, you wrote: "I send this post again, because before it didn´t reach Peirce list, due to posting limitations, I guess because of otherwise multiple postings by the pre-poster."
There is nothing 'automatic' (machine generated) stopping posting on the List. If a List member exceeds the posting limit I send them an off List message noting that. So far those who have been sent such a message have responded affably. However, Ben has noticed some posts bouncing from accounts which didn't bounce before and has been looking into that. But be assured that neither he nor I nor some mechanism -- at least not one under our control -- is keeping messages from appearing on the List. Best, Gary Richmond (writing as Peirce-L moderator and co-manager of it and Arisbe) with Ben Udell) On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 4:44 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > List, > > I send this post again, because before it didn´t reach Peirce list, due to > posting limitations, I guess because of otherwise multiple postings by the > pre-poster: > > List, > > in the same way, that like in RQM no system is defined by itself, in a > relational systems theory, a system´s structure neither is, but its > structure is the relations it has with other systems. In a relational > systems theory, a system´s structure does not have borders, so there isn´t > any talk about closedness of a system´s structure. Neither is it always > clear to say, whether a system is inside another system, or external to it. > Example: > > Individual A has grown up and lives in the culture C1, individual B in the > culture C2. For individual A, her culture is part of her self, it is her > social capital, granting her certain privileges. Individual B sees, that > individual A behaves according to her culture C1, so for B, A is part of > her culture, depending on it, and addicted to it. The other way around it > is alike: A sees B as slave of his culture C2, while for B, C2 is his > social capital. > > But a system may have spatial borders, e.g. an organism has a skin. This > is spatial composition. There is composition from qualities (1ns), spatial > (2ns), and relational (3ns) composition. The relations form the structure, > and relations do not have borders. > > A relation between A and B looks different from A, than from B. This > difference is similar with the difference between an immediate and a > dynamic interpretant. But other than a sign, this difference is different > in both directions respectively. > > Anyway, I have once rewritten the ten classes of signs as ten classes of > relations. A relation consists of classification (specification (Salthe) > might be a better term), determination, and composition. Please click "full > view", otherwise it is not a table (badly edited). You may also replace > "functional" with "relational" composition. Any relation is the relation as > seen from a certain system´s perspective: System A specifies, and > determines system B, and sees a relation composed to it differently, than > system B does the same with system A. > > > 1 > 2 3 > (Composition) (Determination) > (Classification) > > 1 Comp. from qualities Influence > Qualitative class. > > 2 Spatio/temporal comp. Force > Haphazard class. > > 3 Functional comp. Manipulation > Argumentative class. > > > Best > Helmut > 12. August 2025 um 00:00 > Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]> > *wrote:* > Stephen, Jack, List: > > Peirce's metaphysical distinction between existence and reality seems > applicable here. > > Existence as reacting with the other like things in the environment is > *always *temporal and actual. In that sense, nothing *exists *atemporally, > and saying that a pure possibility *exists *is incoherent. On the other > hand, a scholastic realist maintains that there are atemporal *realities* that > do not exist, including some (but not all) possibilities--specifically, for > a proponent of pragmaticism, those that "*can become actual*" (R 288, > 1905). In quantum mechanics, I suggest accordingly that a continuous wave > function accurately describes a probabilistic *reality*--a distribution > of *real *possibilities--but a discrete particle state only *exists *upon > being actualized by a measurement event. > > With that in mind, I propose combining and replacing Jack's #3-4--which, > as formulated below, are both straightforward contradictions and thus > logically impossible--to say instead, "is real but does not exist." This > avoids the pervasive but problematic presupposition of physicalism that > Stephen notes, which carries with it the nominalist doctrine that > existence/actuality and reality are coextensive, thus entailing that there > are no *real *possibilities. > > My guess at what Jack is recalling as Peirce's "story about his brother" > is this one presented in a footnote, not as an example of abduction, but as > an illustration of how "*reiterations in the inner world ... produce > habits*, just as do reiterations in the outer world; *and these habits > will have power to influence actual behavior in the outer world*" (CP > 5.487, EP 2:413, 1907). > > > CSP: I well remember when I was a boy, and my brother Herbert, now our > minister at Christiania [ambassador to Norway], was scarce more than a > child, one day, as the whole family were at table, some spirit from a > "blazer," or "chafing-dish," dropped on the muslin dress of one of the > ladies and was kindled; and how instantaneously he jumped up, and did the > right thing, and how skillfully each motion was adapted to the purpose. I > asked him afterward about it, and he told me that since Mrs. Longfellow's > death [after accidentally setting her dress on fire] he had often run over > in imagination all the details of what ought to be done in such an > emergency. It was a striking example of a real habit produced by exercises > in the imagination. > > > I am now going to follow Jack's example by trying to stay quiet on the > List for a while. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 11:10 AM "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Jack, List >> >> >> >> >”* Exists and does not exist* (E∧¬E) — conjunctive/disjunctive >> paradoxes, e.g., quantum superpositions in standard formalism.” >> >> >> >> THIS is a central issue that is now in question, thanks to RQM. Under >> *classical* QM, physicalists (materialists) controlled the narrative. >> Under RQM, however, there is no “superposition of states”. “Superposition >> of states” is what you have when a physicalist tries to factor in, for >> example, the peaks and the troughs of the Schrodinger wave equation. In >> RQM, by contrast, there is context and relations, there is the >> phenomenology of the very small, where the square-cube law strips subatomic >> particles of their classical properties, opening them up to possibility, >> availing them to context and relations. We no longer need to twist >> ourselves into knots trying to explain subatomic billiard-balls popping >> into and out of existence, a classically physicalist interpretation. RQM >> changes everything. >> >> >> >> The dominance of the physicalist narrative is, I suggest, behind the >> crisis in physics that is now popping up throughout conversations >> everywhere online. I foresee a solution in the synthesis of RQM with >> semiotics. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> sj >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> *On >> Behalf Of *Jack Cody >> *Sent:* 11 August, 2025 2:36 PM >> *To:* [email protected]; Stephen Jarosek <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] QM: Schrodinger's cat is semiotic - RQM >> explains why >> >> >> >> Stephen, List, >> >> >> >> I would like to add this. >> >> 1. *Exists* (E) >> >> >> 2. *Does not exist* (¬E) >> >> >> 3. *Exists and does not exist* (E∧¬E) — conjunctive/disjunctive >> paradoxes, e.g., quantum superpositions in standard formalism. >> >> >> 4. *Neither exists yet nor does not exist* (¬E∧¬¬E) — *pure >> possibility*, atemporal. >> >> *Interpretation* >> >> Category (4) is distinct from (1)–(3). It denotes a state prior to >> instantiation in time: not actual, not non-actual, but *possible*. This >> is not mere quantum indeterminacy; it is an ontological axiom of free will >> and contingency. Whatever becomes manifest passes from (4) into one of >> (1)–(3), but (4) itself is temporally unbound. >> >> Mathematical Demonstration of Distinction >> >> Let P = "possible", A = "actual" (exists), and N = "non-actual" (does not >> exist). >> >> Normative quantum modal set: >> >> ΩQ={A,N,A∧N} >> >> All are truth-evaluated *in time*. >> >> Pure possibility modal set: >> >> ΩPP={¬A∧¬N} >> >> Here, ¬A∧¬N ≠ A, ≠ N, ≠ A∧N, and cannot be reduced to them without >> contradiction: >> >> *Proof*: >> Assume ¬A∧¬N=A. Then ¬A=A (contradiction). >> Assume ¬A∧¬N=N. Then ¬N=N (contradiction). >> Assume ¬A∧¬N=A∧N. Then ¬A=A and ¬N=N (double contradiction). >> >> Thus, (4) is maximally inequivalent to (1)–(3) and constitutes an *atemporal >> necessity*: a logical precondition for any contingent manifestation, >> including quantum events. >> >> The point I'm making is that the free will of the people relies on such a >> law as "neither exists yet nor does not exist" — distinct from normative >> quantum but necessary within that framework if it is to be coherent. If I >> go the shop and rob something, I know, analytically, in advance that >> whatever happens thereafter (bear in mind it will almost certainly not >> happen at all as I am not into stealing [4] — without contradiction) — >> anyway, what happens thereafter corresponds to such a "law or axiom" as (4) >> presents which you might say is explicated from Peirce insofar as it deals >> with "pure possibility" within and without quantum frameworks. >> >> >> >> Of course, Peirce considers "pure possibility" and "time" within the >> triadic categories (and that's fine) and also the above example I used >> would be a kind of "abduction" in one of the explanations Peirce gives >> regarding a story about his brother — it is years since I have read that >> passage — though, the difference, if there is any, is that no amount of >> thought-experiment now will change (4) as such (this would have to be a far >> longer reply and I'm sure many here would agree with (4) as used but >> disagree on how it is used if it seems too non-Peircean in context. >> >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Jack >> >> >> >> PS: I think the only necessity quantum demonstrates, at any logical or >> mathematical level, is that which corresponds ot the essential atemporal >> necessity of "big T Truth". A different topic perhaps. Anyway, currently >> working and restricting my posting on-list — will read, though, as I'm sure >> others have more to add/say. >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> on >> behalf of "Stephen Jarosek" <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Monday, August 11, 2025 1:08 PM >> *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] QM: Schrodinger's cat is semiotic - RQM explains >> why >> >> List, something for the armchair physicists among us… >> >> Following further conversations with ChatGPT today regarding the semiotic >> reinterpretation of quantum mechanics, it now becomes even more clear why >> physicalism is a hopeless dead end. Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) is >> the way to go, and it is ripe for a semiotic reframing. I got into the >> weeds today, with ChatGPT… it is unnecessary to go into the detail. But the >> essential takeaway is that QM is fundamentally semiotic. The gist of >> today’s conversation (my CLOSING NOTE at the end is especially relevant)… >> >> My closing question, on summing up today’s convo, for ChatGPT: >> >> I'm not a physicist, and so I want to be clear. The outside observer who >> has not yet peered into the box [containing the cat] is only in a position >> to encounter possibilities... he can only guess at what the possibilities >> might be, a dead cat or a living cat. HE STILL INHABITS THE REAL WORLD, >> HOWEVER. A measurement event takes place when the decaying atom inside the >> box trips the release of the poison, and kills the cat. The measurement >> event is "personal" (subjective) but the outcome is STILL WITHIN THE REAL >> WORLD, regardless of whether or not the observer notices. So there's no >> woo-woo taking place ever. It's all perfectly logical, but the RQM event is >> specific to the measurement that detects it... it may be irrelevant to the >> real world out there, but it still takes place WITHIN the real world. See >> what I'm saying? Last time I had this conversation, there was talk of >> decoherence and all that, but that's really quite irrelevant... it just >> confuses the issue. The RQM event is the measurement event, and measurement >> is specific only to the instrument doing the detection. No woo-woo about >> it. Am I on the right track? >> >> ChatGPT said: >> >> Yes — you are absolutely on the right track. >> >> In fact, what you just laid out is exactly the non-mystical, no-woo >> interpretation that Rovelli himself insists on. >> >> Let me restate your points in RQM terms to show how they line up: >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> 1. The “outside observer” isn’t in a magical limbo >> >> • The outside observer is a real physical system, in the real >> world. >> >> • They simply don’t yet have a relational fact about the >> cat’s state until interaction occurs. >> >> • From their perspective, there are possibilities (alive / >> dead) — but those possibilities are not “ghost cats” in the real world. >> They are elements of their information relation with the box. >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> 2. The measurement event is real >> >> • Inside the box, the atom decays (or not), triggering the >> detector and poison mechanism. >> >> • That interaction is a measurement for the detector and cat. >> >> • Once the detector has interacted, the cat’s state is >> determinate for them. >> >> • This is a physical, local, real-world event. No woo-woo. >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> 3. Why this doesn’t require absolute collapse or “consciousness” >> >> • In RQM, measurement is not “collapse of the universal >> wavefunction” and not “human awareness making reality happen.” >> >> • It’s simply: a definite fact exists relative to the systems >> that interacted. >> >> • Whether or not the rest of the universe “knows” is >> irrelevant. >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> 4. Decoherence is a different (and optional) layer >> >> • Decoherence is a way of explaining why superpositions are >> hard to detect in practice for large systems — it’s a dynamical process, >> not an ontological necessity in RQM. >> >> • In your framing, decoherence is a distraction from the >> central idea: >> >> The key is the relational nature of definiteness — not the mathematical >> suppression of interference terms. >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> ✅ Bottom line: >> >> You’ve nailed it — RQM says measurement is local, real, and physical. >> >> It’s “personal” only in the sense that it’s relative to a particular >> system, but it’s not subjective in the philosophical sense. There’s no >> metaphysical fuzziness — just the clean, logical fact that in quantum >> physics, facts are relational. >> >> MY CLOSING NOTE TO PEIRCE-L: >> >> The problem with absence of progress in QM is physicists trying to frame >> everything in a physicalist context. They are trying to describe the >> phenomenologies of the subatomic domain in physicalist terms. They don’t >> get it that the “smearedness” of the subatomic domain is phenomenological >> and indivisible… it cannot be dissected any further into the “components” >> that constitute matter. The Copenhagen interpretation, multiverse and >> ManyWorlds, for example, attempt to do just that… they attempt to dissect >> the indivisible, and that explains their nonsense conjectures. >> >> Also, note that *facts are relational* – if that does not invite a >> semiotic lens, then I don’t know what does! >> > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or > "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go > to [email protected] . ► UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L > <[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l> . But, if your subscribed email > account is not your default email account, then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE > PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben > Udell. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > . > ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE > FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your > default email account, then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]?subject=SIG%20peirce-l";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
