Jeff, List, Since you introduced your research project to the List I've been thinking about it in the light of contemporary cosmologies, especially Big Bang Theory (which your project would seem to presuppose), but also as regards alternative contemporary cosmologies, most especially the timeless and relational cosmologies of Julian Barbour (*The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Science*) and Carlos Rovelli. What prompted a review of the cosmological work in physics that I'd read about years ago was, firstly, my dissatisfaction with Big Bang cosmology (which I've expressed on the List from time to time) but, more importantly, a sense that the way many discuss the possible origin of the universe assumes more structure in the early cosmos than, as some see it, can be reasonably supported. And this is the thinking of Barbour, Hannes Alfvén, and Carlo Rovelli, to give just a few examples. Indeed, more than a few scientists and philosophers of science have argued that Big Bang cosmology has acquired an unwarranted, really dogmatic status, and that it should not be treated as settled or complete. Some have suggested (e.g. Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge) that it is at least as much a sociological phenomenon as it is a scientific one. Yet it remains the dominant model even as it is questioned in part and in toto even by insiders.
I believe that at least some alternative cosmological frameworks deserve further consideration and, in my opinion, this includes especially the timeless relational ones. I'd at first thought I'd read about timeless cosmologies in *The Big Bang Never Happened* (1991) by Eric J. Lerner, but on reviewing that book I see that it is centered on Hannes Alfvén's plasma theory, one alternative cosmology with which I was much taken a couple of decades ago and which I still believe makes some important points. But now returning to timeless/relational theories: In most Big Bang narratives time is assumed from the outset, that is, before, during, and after inflation. Inflation, one reads, smooths and stretches space, but it also presupposes time passing through those extreme early conditions. Barbour's approach asks whether this presupposition of time is warranted. Indeed, it suggests that the very notion of time may not be appropriate in discussing the early cosmos any more than particles, classical geometry, etc. are. Barbour argues that the universe is fundamentally a 'space' of *possible configurations*, and that what we call temporal order comes from 'correlations among configurations', especially those that contain records of other configurations (histories). He, and Carlo Rovelli, who also argues for a timeless and relational cosmology from the standpoint of quantum gravity, conclude that today's physics really has no place for a 'universal time parameter'; rather, physics is relational through and through such that time emerges from thermodynamic and informational structures. The basic idea is simple: *the universe does not begin in time, because time itself is something the universe gradually makes meaningful*. What we call the beginning (origin?) of the universe is not a first instant on some cosmic clock, but where patterns, correlations, etc. become sufficiently developed for temporal concepts eventually to become useful. [Barbour's comment that "time is in the instant, not the instant in time," reminds me that *lived time* is a very different animal, so that Peirce can say that the minimum of (lived) time is the tripartite moment, and that in lived time the instant is only a mathematical abstraction. Needless to say, reconciling those two 'times' is a related, but different -- and difficult -- problem.] Nevertheless, from a Peircean perspective Barbour's way of framing at least early cosmological time seems tenable since, as discussed on the List, Peirce refuted the idea that lawfulness, order, and temporality were primordial. His cosmology commences with vagueness and spontaneity, regularity *emerging *through habit-taking under the constraints of continuity. Time is not something which pre-exists the cosmos, but part of the cosmos’s growing structure and intelligibility. Seen in that light, a timeless and relational cosmology looks less like a radical departure from contemporary physics and more like physics echoing a Peircean insight: *law, order, and temporality are all emergent*. As Barbour sees it, the 'beginning of time' might be best understood as the point at which the universe first becomes stable enough to remember, compare, and eventually to 'tell time' at all. You can read a review of Barbour's book, *The End of Time,* here: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/00/03/26/reviews/000326.26saundet.html Best, Gary R On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 2:05 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > List: > > As defined by Jeff below, EFEs = Einstein's field equations. > > His research project is indeed impressive (and ambitious), although the > details are beyond the range of my personal interests and technical > competence. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2026 at 6:07 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Jeff -’I’d be interested in the questions you have about the Lambda CDM >> account of the emergence of the universe. I think the nature of dark energy >> [lambda] [1ns? 3-1?]and dark matter [CDM][3-2?].and the relation to >> ’so-called ordinary matter [2ns] is fascinating. >> >> What is EFE? [I understand QFT- quantum field theory] >> >> Edwina >> >> On Jan 14, 2026, at 6:20 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> For those, like Gary R and Edwina, willing to share suggestions and >> ideas, Thanks! >> >> The short description I provided in the prior email of the *Origins of >> Order in the Cosmos* project is only meant to convey they aims and main >> strategies of each of the three volumes. >> >> In response to Edwina, I've been taken by Prigogine's work on entropy and >> dissipative systems for many years and by the concept of autopoesis >> developed by Maturana and Varela. In response to Gary R., the central aim >> of my project is to extend Peirce's metaphysical hypothses by building >> models, guided by the principle of continuity, and then drawing out >> conceivable tests and predicted consequences, guided by the pragmatic >> maxim. In doing so, I'm trying to show practicing cosmologists and students >> of physics that the standard Lambda CDM account leaves a lot of questions >> unanswered and generates explanations about what happened in the "first >> second" of the cosmos that seem implausible, at least to me. That sets up a >> comparison between three competing families of hypotheses which I try to >> carry through from the the origins of the cosmos to the present—pointing >> out the strengths and weaknesses of the three families. >> >> As such, my aim is not scholarship of Peirce's texts. Rather, I'm in the >> pursuit of truth about the real nature of cosmological evolution and am >> keen to explore how ordered habits and laws might evolve from randomness. >> I've discovered it is something of a to give a rigorous explanation of >> that growth of order that can also explain how the order that did evolve in >> the early cosmos gave rise to sorts of laws expressed in the EFEs and QFT, >> or something like them. >> >> In response to Gary F., intellectual modesty will get you nowhere, at >> least not with me. I know better. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jeff >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 13, 2026 8:10 AM >> *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]>; Jeffrey Brian Downard >> <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Origins of Order in the Cosmos: invitation to >> collaborate >> >> Jeff >> >> Again - I am very impressed by your outline. I don’t know if any others >> have replied off list. I can see how your grant applications would go >> nowhere - the scope is far beyond the normal thought processes of review >> boards! >> >> I’d say that the three categories are primal - not developmental ie, all >> are basic to the operation of the universe from the start - and the >> semiosic triad [which enables both continuity and deviational adaptation]. >> That is - continuity is required for some forms of matter [the most >> primal]. But not for other forms of matter [the more complex]; and both >> processes must exist. >> >> Edwina >> >> On Jan 11, 2026, at 3:40 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Jeff- that’s a monumental project. I very much like your three volume >> outline. >> >> You don’t refer in this abstract to the reason for this development of >> order - which I suggest is the prevention of the entropic dissipation of >> the energy of the universe - and the resultant development of a CAS >> [complex adaptive system] which keeps energy and matter in a >> ‘far-from-equilibrium state [Prigogine]. >> >> See also Stuart Kauffman’s Book ’The Origins of Order: self-organization >> and selection in Evolution Oxford Press 1993…[which could almost be a 4th >> volume!] >> >> But again - an impressive and well-articulated project… >> >> Edwina >> >> On Jan 11, 2026, at 3:00 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> I forgot to give my message a suitable subject heading, and I don't want >> to short circuit the ongoing conversation about AI. As such, I am resending >> the message under a new subject. If you are going to respond on-list, >> please respond in this thread. Let me add, however, that I am using AI >> resources, including LLMs, ML to advance this project in a number of ways. >> In the near future, I am hoping to gain access to Deep Mind and similar >> resources. >> For the last three decades I’ve been working—bit by bit—on a project to >> extend Peirce’s “Guess at the Riddle” and apply pragmatic methods to >> contemporary questions about the origins of physical order in the cosmos, >> the origins and evolution of life, and the origins and evolution of >> intelligent thought and action. Much of the time, it has been difficult for >> me to see the forest for the trees. In the last few years, however, I’ve >> made a concerted effort to tackle the first set of questions. An editor at >> Bloomsbury Academic has expressed interest in publishing the first volume >> as a monograph, so I'll be focused on turning the current sow's ear of a >> working draft into something more finished. >> A while back Terry Moore and I, with the help of others, attempted to >> develop a framework for collaborative research, both for (a) the >> transcription of Peirce’s manuscripts and scholarship and (b) the >> application of pragmatic methods to questions in metaphysics and the >> various sciences. Several members of the list wrote letters of support as a >> few of us wrote applications for grant funding. After some years of trying >> and a couple of decisions by the NSF that nearly went our way, we found it >> necessary to put the grant writing to the side. At the time, Doug Anderson >> provided some advice, which I now want to put to better effect. He >> suggested that, if the work was worth doing, then we ought to dig into the >> project and worry about the funding later. In the spirit of the SPIN and >> APERI projects, I’ve developed the following framework on the first of >> Peirce’s questions in “A Guess at the Riddle”: how did physical order first >> grow in the cosmos? >> Here is a very short overview of the research project—together with an >> offer to share working drafts with those who might want to work >> collaboratively on the questions. >> >> 1. *Aims:* The *Origins of Order in the Cosmos* project is my attempt >> to tell a single, continuous story about how the universe became >> physically >> ordered—how law, time, space, and stable objects emerged from a potential >> field of extreme randomness and indeterminacy. The project is not written >> as an argument for or against any one orthodox cosmology. Rather, it is >> written as an invitation to inquiry: a structured attempt to make >> competing >> explanations comparable, to expose hidden assumptions, and to build models >> that can be criticized, repaired, and improved. I want colleagues and >> students—including philosophers, physicists, mathematicians, engineers, >> and >> interested lay people—to treat these drafts as working research >> instruments: something you can push against, test, and use to generate new >> questions. >> 2. *Methods and strategies:* The trilogy is built around Peircean >> method, especially the cycle of inquiry involving iterative patterns of >> surprising observation and abductive, deductive, and inductive inference; >> the pragmatic maxim; and the principle of continuity. The methods are used >> to clarify and further develop three comparative families of hypotheses. >> H₁ >> treats fundamental physical laws as fixed and primordial; the early cosmos >> is a parameterized stage-play governed by timeless equations. H₃ treats >> early history as selection and quenching: many possibilities exist, but >> only certain channels survive, leaving fossils—suppressed remnants, noise >> floors, and relic constraints. H₂—the Peircean family I am especially keen >> to explore and develop—treats laws as the result of the growth of ordered >> habits: regularities strengthen as degrees of freedom reduce, as >> coarse-graining stabilizes, and as the very meaning of what is >> “measurable” >> sharpens. To sharpen the hypotheses in each family, the books insist on >> explicit interfaces, “glue rules,” and conceivable tests and predicted >> consequences that can shift comparative weights rather than merely >> decorate >> a narrative. >> 3. *Formal toolkit:* We question the presupposition that early >> regimes are naturally point-like as rational values or fully metric. As >> such, we develop a modeling toolbox designed to respect structural >> uncertainty and changing “license conditions” for concepts. Phase and >> parameter space models are scaffolded with hypercomplex (Cayley–Dickson) >> and other composition algebras as a way to represent evolving degrees of >> freedom, compositional stability, and stabilization across epochs of >> cosmological evolution. We use surreal (non-Archimedean) and >> interval-valued bookkeeping when the regime does not justify >> rational-number determinacy, and to permit the natural inclusion of values >> for our variables that are infinitesimals and infinities. And we use >> multiple logics to match multiple regimes: probabilistic logic for >> randomness and inference; constructive logic when existence claims must be >> operationally witnessed; Peirce’s Gamma existential graphs for >> higher-order/modal structure; and categorical logic to build disciplined >> bridges between compositional algebras and between these logical systems >> and the more deterministic language of first-order theory. The ambition is >> to make our reasoning about physics more faithful to what the different >> regimes reasonably allow. >> 4. *Volume I: Origins of Order—Evolution of Law, Time and Space* lays >> down the backbone: an “interface-first” cosmology in which topology, >> projective comparability, and metric structure are treated as rungs on a >> ladder rather than as givens. The core question is deceptively simple: How >> could a world that begins as high-dimensional, highly random potentiality >> ever become a world where stable quantities, stable geometry, and stable >> processes are possible? Here we introduce a strategy of >> non-retrojection—don’t talk as if clocks, particles, or equilibrium >> thermodynamics were primitive where they are not licensed—and we begin to >> articulate what would count as a “durable carrier”—something that persists >> under coarse-graining and can transport structure forward. Volume I is >> where the comparative posture leads the way: every claim is framed against >> H₁ and H₃, with H₂ defended by continuity and by its ability to reduce >> errors while still generating testable proxy profiles. >> In practice, Volume I builds toy models of order-growth: we start >> with toy models of weighted dice and urns, and work our way to variance >> collapse and attractor-like regularities; stabilization under repeated >> coarse-graining; and the emergence of ordered conditions from chaotic >> regimes that precede full metric time. The hypercomplex and surreal tools >> enter here as modeling strategies: they let us represent pre-metric >> regimes >> without pretending we already have real-number metrical geometry, and they >> allow us to treat “dimension” as something that can be effective, local, >> and historically stabilized rather than eternally fixed. The goal is to >> explain how the laws expressed as Einstein’s field equations (EFEs) might, >> under H₂ and H₃, have evolved in the first several epochs of cosmological >> history. The payoff is a framework that can be carried forward: a way of >> saying exactly what changes at each interface, what invariants are >> preserved, and what new operations are meaningful. This is the conceptual >> platform Volume II then uses to explore how the laws of quantum field >> theory and the Standard Model might have co-evolved with EFEs. >> 5. *Volume II: First Second of the Cosmos—Grand Metamorphosis* takes >> the ladder and runs it through the most conceptually volatile terrain: the >> early epochs usually narrated as “the first second.” Here the main claim >> is >> not that the standard ΛCDM story is wrong—it’s that its presuppositions >> about the nature of “fixed” fundamental laws often outrun the >> observational >> supports. We reframe the origin talk as a Grand Metamorphosis: a sequence >> of regime interfaces in which degrees of freedom reduce, effective >> descriptions become legitimate, and particle/field/vacuum language becomes >> progressively more stable. Renormalization and effective field theory >> become central topological “glue rules” in H₂: repeated stabilization >> under >> coarse-graining is treated as the physical analogue of habit-formation. >> Through inflation and reheating to confinement and hadronization epochs, >> we >> keep asking: what is durable, what is evolving, what remains vague and >> interval-valued, and what proxy consequences constrain the story? >> Two landmarks organize the territory explored in the latter half of >> Volume II. First, matter asymmetry: the universe’s net matter is an >> important explanandum, so any plausible family of hypotheses must meet the >> minimal structural conditions. Second, confinement/hadronization is where >> “durable carriers” (e.g., protons and neutrons) become legitimate as >> stable >> letters in the material alphabet, making later composition of durable >> particles—nuclei and atoms—possible. The philosophical point follows from >> a >> demand for rigor: what is often called “emergence” of such particles is >> not >> magic if the interface operations and invariants are declared; but it is >> magic if one simply retrojects late-time ontology backward. >> 6. *Volume III: Cosmological Evolution: Laws as Nested Modalities* >> (currently >> in the early drafting stage) aims to extend the same method beyond the >> “first second” into the long arc where physical and chemical order becomes >> richly layered: nucleosynthesis and the periodic table; recombination and >> the CMB as a memory ledger; stars as cyclic engines; galaxies as >> meso-scale >> stabilizations; black holes as interface stress tests; and vacuum energy >> and dark matter as an abductive frontier. The goal is to explain the >> evolution of the physical and chemical laws we take to be >> fundamental—starting from the work done on EFEs and QFT in Volumes I and >> II. The third volume is especially well-suited to comparing the strengths >> and weaknesses of H₃ and H₂: selection, quenching, and fossil constraints >> become vivid across structure formation, feedback, and the survival of >> specific channels under coarse-graining. The guiding idea is that “law” >> evolves from ordered habits as nested systems of modalities—possibility, >> actuality, necessity—implemented as operational postures for the >> development of each family of hypotheses that become sharper as carriers >> stabilize and as inference pipelines become robust. I’m eager for readers >> to engage these drafts as collaborators: to challenge the interfaces, >> sharpen the proxy suites, propose better toy models, and help evaluate >> where H₂ genuinely earns explanatory continuity—and where H₁ or H₃ may, in >> particular domains, deserve the stronger score. >> >> If you have questions about what collaborative inquiry concerning these >> questions might look like, let me know. I’d be happy to talk on or off >> list. For those interested in reading the introduction or a chapter or two, >> I'd be keen to have suggestions for revisions. If there is a small group of >> colleagues who are interested, I'd be willing to do a series of discussions >> as Zoom meetings, or something similar. >> Yours, >> Jeff >> >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► 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]";>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]";>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.
