List, Soren: Soren, I am a bit confused by your message.
Please allow me to make a simple comment that may or may not be responsive to your thoughts. CSP used the the triad of "thing, representation, and form" on several occasions in his earlier writings (W1). It is part of his philosophical perspective underlying his construct of "information" as well as his conceptualization of triadicity in general. Now, from my perspective, the question of form is a deeply abstract one, far deeper than the retroductive usage of the term "form" in the physical in-form-ation theory of Shannon. Why? The question of form lies at the heart of chemistry. From invisible ????, nature creates forms. Vast numbers of forms. Forms with a huge range of attributes (properties, predicates, sinsigns, quali-signs, indices, icons, etc.) Some of the invisible forms of chemistry (DNA, RNA, protein, and thousands of others) sublate into living forms and associated attributes. The challenge is to understand how the measurements preformed on invisible forms, represented as quantities, become the geometric forms of procreation. (In this context, John Collier insists that it is merely a matter of "from bits to its", or, in the present case, to extend this physical perspective of information, "from bits to its to tits".) My perspective is that the genesis of habits (or formal habits of electricity) requires a sublative sequence of syndetic processes. Cheers Jerry On Jun 29, 2014, at 7:54 AM, Søren Brier wrote: > Jerry > > As I understand it, this is where the concept of information in > self-organizing systems has its relevance in modern physics . But for Peirce > it would be Thirdness, but where the habits comes from evolutionary in a > metaphysics that does not believe in Platonic ideas or even Aristotelian > forms I do not know. And I do not know any relevant Peirce text. > > Søren > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:[email protected]] > Sendt: 28. juni 2014 21:44 > Til: Søren Brier > Cc: Evgenii Rudnyi; [email protected] > Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The second law of thermodynamics > > Soren, List: > > Does the concept of heat embody the concept of form? If so, how? > > Entropy, as a component of the logic of thermodynamics, lacks form. > > What gives entropy form? > > Cheers > > jerry > > > > > > > On Jun 28, 2014, at 6:54 AM, Søren Brier wrote: > >> Dear Evgenii and list >> >> That fact is - as Schrödinger and Prigogine points out - that more and more >> complicated self-organized systems develop feeding on the general growth of >> entropy in the universe. These systems order more and more of their >> surroundings in order to support and prolong their own existence. We are >> already influencing the whole of our planet and is beginning to explore >> other planets in the solar system in order to use them for our own purpose. >> So, Peirce is right that our rationality is influencing the universe. Who >> can say if order or chaos will win in the end? >> >> Best >> Søren >> >> -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >> Fra: Evgenii Rudnyi [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sendt: 28. juni 2014 09:44 >> Til: [email protected] >> Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The second law of thermodynamics >> >> There is a nice historical book >> >> Helge Kragh, Entropic Creation: Religious Contexts of Thermodynamics >> and Cosmology, 2008 >> >> where the author discusses the heat death debates in 1850-1920. Peirce is >> mentioned there and a quote from the book is below. >> >> p. 187-188 "In 1891 he [Peirce] described his hypothesis as follows: >> >> 'The state of things in the infinite past is chaos ... the nothingness of >> which consists in the total absence of regularity. The state of things in >> the infinite future is death, the nothingness of which consists in the >> complete triumph of law and absence of all spontaneity. >> Between these, we have on our side a state of things in which there is some >> absolute spontaneity counter to all law, and some degree of conformity to >> law, ...' >> >> This picture, starting from chaos and ending in an ordered and symmetrical >> system, turns the ordinary interpretation of the second law on its head. >> Some years earlier, in a 1884 lecture on 'Design and Chance', he declared >> that the heat death - in which 'there shall be no force but heat and the >> temperature everywhere the same' - was unavoidable. Confusingly, the next >> year he rejected the global heat death scenario, retracting to a position >> similar to that of many other evolutionary progressivists of the Victorian >> era: 'But, on the other hand, we may take it as certain that other >> intellectual races exist on other planets, - if not of our solar system, >> then of others; and also that innumerable new intellectual races have yet to >> be developed; so that on the whole, it may be regarded as most certain that >> intellectual life in the universe will never finally cease.' Perhaps he >> thought, such as he said in his 'Design and Chance', that the living >> universe would be saved by what he called 'chance', an influence he >> considered to be opposite to dissipative forces, of what some later authors >> referred to as 'entropy'." >> >> Evgenii >> -- >> http://blog.rudnyi.ru >> >> On 27.06.2014 17:15 Stephen C. Rose said the following: >>> How fixed is the scientific argument for this law? Certainly in this >>> century there have been some who have chipped away at the idea of >>> entropy as a fixed star in an otherwise fallible (subject to >>> revision) scientific universe. And I am unaware of where Peirce stood >>> on this matter. Were his notions of continuity and logic uneasy in >>> the shadow of the assertion that everything falls apart? >>> >>> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* >>> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but >> to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of >> the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> > > > ----------------------------- > 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] > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > >
----------------------------- 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] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
