---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Re: [biosemiotics:6037] Re: From: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]> Date: Thu, July 3, 2014 6:09 am To: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Rob, Thanks for the link to "reism" which I reproduce below and intend to study more: "Reism >From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Reism or concretism is a philosophical theory of Tadeusz Kotarbiński, based on the ontology of Stanislaw Lesniewski, specifically, his "calculus of names". In ontological sense, reism was condensed by Kotarbiński to the two postulates "every object is a body", i.e., all abstract concepts are to be reduced to concrete objects. No object is a state or relation, or property. In semantical sense, it is a theory of language which draws a distinction between "real" names, i.e., names associated with bodies and pseudo-names, onomatoids, which denote states, relations, properties, events, etc. It further elaborates on when a sentence is meaningful, when it has a literal, direct sense or when it is meaningful or has an indirect sense." If "reisim" is alternatively called "concretism", would "abstractism" the antonym to "reism" ? Has anyone suggested this ? In this connection, I have been wondering if we can group all intellectual discourses into three mutually exclusive classes (not that I am a trichotomaniac), tentatively named "philosophy", "science" and "scientific philosophy", or more abstractly "1-discourse", "2-discourse", and "3-discourse"? If we can establish such a categorial distinction, it may be possible to further state that "Meaningful debates are possible only within a (6037-1) given category of intellectual discourses, not across categories." If Statement (6037-1) is true, it may help resolve many debates on this list (e.g., the debate on whether or not the UAM (Unreasonable Arbitrariness of Mathematics)is a 3-term or 4-term argument) as well as in science, philosophy, and religion, in general. The conclusion that Edwina came to that the UAM thesis commits the fallacy of four terms, I believe, resulted from Edwina not having taken into account of the EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE that I provided to support UAM, namely, the fact that two very different mathematical equations can account for a given set of experimental data -- (i) the Planckian distribution and a double exponential function to account for the single-molecule turnover times of cholseterol oxidase, and (ii) the Planckian distribution and the ex-Gaussian distribution to account for the decision-time histogram. In short, Edwina is talking about "philosophy" and I "scientific philosophy". With all the best. Sung _____________________________________________________ Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net > Hello Sung, > I would like to bring your attention to Reism (KotarbiÅski). > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reism > > Just food for thoughts, > Regards, > Rob > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sungchul Ji [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 7:03 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [biosemiotics:6035] [Fwd: AW: "Unreasonable Arbitrariness of > Mathematics":: Evidence] > > Hi, > > The following response from Ed Dellian seems to raise an interesting > possibility for evaluating the UAM thesis. According to Ed, I should not > include geometry as a part of "mathematics" in the expression > "Unreasonable Arbitrariness of Mathematics (UAM)". I tend to agree with > him, since my evidence supporting UAM comes mainly from algebra, not > geometry. If this turns out to be true on further inquiry, then the UAM > thesis may have to be modified as > > "The Unreasonable Arbitrariness of Algebra (UAA)" (070214-1) > > > With all the best. > > Sung > __________________________________________________ > Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of > Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers > University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 > 732-445-4701 > > www.conformon.net > > > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: AW: "Unreasonable Arbitrariness of Mathematics":: Evidence > From: "Ed Dellian" <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, July 2, 2014 5:08 am > To: "'Sungchul Ji'" <[email protected]> > "'Malcolm Dean'" <malcol > Hello Sung, > I would like to bring your attention to Reism (KotarbiÅski). > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reism > > Just food for thoughts, > Regards, > Rob > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sungchul Ji [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 7:03 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [biosemiotics:6035] [Fwd: AW: "Unreasonable Arbitrariness of > Mathematics":: Evidence] > > Hi, > > The following response from Ed Dellian seems to raise an interesting > possibility for evaluating the UAM thesis. According to Ed, I should not > include geometry as a part of "mathematics" in the expression > "Unreasonable Arbitrariness of Mathematics (UAM)". I tend to agree with > him, since my evidence supporting UAM comes mainly from algebra, not > geometry. If this turns out to be true on further inquiry, then the UAM > thesis may have to be modified as > > "The Unreasonable Arbitrariness of Algebra (UAA)" (070214-1) > > > With all the best. > > Sung > __________________________________________________ > Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of > Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers > University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 > 732-445-4701 > > www.conformon.net > > > > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: AW: "Unreasonable Arbitrariness of Mathematics":: Evidence > From: "Ed Dellian" <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, July 2, 2014 5:08 am > To: "'Sungchul Ji'" <[email protected]> > "'Malcolm Dean'" <[email protected]> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Dear Sung, > > > > you're absolutely right on UAM with respect to arithmetic and algebra. > > This branch of mathematics is arbitrary as it is a product of human logic > and reason only, based on logic, and therefore - as all of logic - > ultimately based on the principle of non-contradiction. In arithmetic and > algebra, this principle appears as the tautology " A = A " (equivalently, > "A is not "non-A"), on which all "equations" are built. As a consequence, > different mathematical equations can fit to describe experimental data, > none of which equations tells anything about the real meaning of the data. > > It was Leibniz who held the principle A = A ââ¬Åto be the foundation of > "all of mathematics" (see Leibniz's second letter to Caroline Princess of > Wales, paragraph 1, in: The Leibniz-Clarke exchange of letters, 1715/6). > But Leibniz was wrong when he included Euclidean geometry. This geometry > is not an ââ¬Å¾arbitraryââ¬Å human product but is rooted in Nature > herself: > it is the ââ¬Ålanguage of Natureââ¬Â (Galileo, 1623). Therefore, > Galileo and Newton chose Euclidean geometry as the mathematical tool for > their natural philosophy and the theory of motion. Note that > Galileoââ¬â¢s Discorsi of > 1638 (Iââ¬â¢ve edited a new German translation recently) and > Newtonââ¬â¢s Principia (which I edited in German in 1988) as well are > throughout based on synthetic geometry, not on the calculus > differentialis! This ââ¬Åsyntheticââ¬Â geometry (contrary to > arithmetic and algebra, and also contrary to Cartesian analytical > geometry) knows a non-tautological principle A : B = C = constant (the > principle of proportionality of heterogeneous entities A * B) that allows > for a rational mathematical relation between natural entities of a > different kind ââ¬â a relation that would be impossible in arithmetic > and algebra. (Note that algebra doesnââ¬â¢t know the basic > ââ¬Åalgorithmââ¬Â of proportion theory A/B = C = constant, nor does > it know natural constants which actually always are geometric > proportionality constants). And, this is the reason why synthetic geometry > passes the analytic power of tautological arithmetic and algebra, and even > allows for discovering the > unknown on the basis of the known. Whenever natural experience brings > lawful relations between heterogeneous natural entities to light, as for > instance the relation between ââ¬Åenergyââ¬Â E and > ââ¬Åmomentumââ¬Â p in applications of the Maxwell theory, the > correct resulting mathematical description will always be a geometric > proportionality that mirrors the naturally existing structure, not > something that has been taken from the human brain and arbitrarily > imposed on nature. This was the case when John Henry Poynting (1884) > discovered the relation E/p = c = constant. The same thing happened when > Planck found a relation between ââ¬Åenergyââ¬Â E and the frequency > f of light, a relation that urged him to form the relation E/f = h = > constant. > This is a geometric proportionality again according to the pattern A/B = C > = constant. Geometric proportion theory also provides the basic structure > of the double helix which is a quaternate proportion according to A : B = > C : D. Therefore natural science should eventually accept the truth that > ââ¬ÅThe language of nature is not algebraââ¬Â (cf. my 2012 essay on > my website www.neutonus-reformatus.com > <http://www.neutonus-reformatus.com/> > ). > > > > All the best, > > > > Ed. > > > > > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Sungchul Ji [mailto:[email protected]] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 2. Juli 2014 01:38 > An: Malcolm Dean > Betreff: Re: "Unreasonable Arbitrariness of Mathematics":: Evidence > > > > Malcolm, > > > > Did I attach the evidence for UAM (unreasonable aribtrariness of > > mathematics) to this email ? If not, it is now attached below. > > > > As you can see in the table attached, each of the two sets of experimental > > data, i.e., the single-molecule enzyme kinetic data and the decision-time > > histogram, can be fit into two very different mathematical equations -- > > the Planck distribution and a double-exponential function for the former > > and the Planck distribution and the ex-Gaussian distribution for the > > latter. These recent findings of mine suggested to me that mathematical > > models may be arbitrary. In fact you do not need any experimental data to > > come to such a conclusion, since the same conclusion can be reached at by > > simply combining the definition of the sign given by Peirce and the > > linguistic principle of the arbitrariness of signs apparently first > > articulated by Ferdinand de Saussure: > > > > ââ¬ÅMathematics is a species of the sign according to Peirce. > (070114-1) > > All signs are arbitrary according to Saussure. Therefore, > > mathematics is arbitrary.ââ¬Â > > > > Let me refer to Statement (070114-1) as the UAM (Unreasonable > > Arbitrariness of Mathematics) thesis. If we apply the UAM thesis to > > quantum mechanics (as a body of experimental data on the microscopic > > world), it may be predicted that > > > > ââ¬ÅThere should exist at least two mathematical models of > (070114-2) > > quantum phenomena that are compatible with all known > > experimental data.ââ¬Â > > > > I suggest that Prediction (070114-2) based on the UAM thesis has been > > validated by the fact that physicists, after over one century of quantum > > mechanical research, are still passionately debating as to which of the > > two theories are true ââ¬â i) the non-deterministic, probability-wave > theory > > of Bohr, Bon, Heisenberg, etc, or ii) the deterministic, pilot-wave theory > > of de Broglie, Schroedinger, Einstein, Bohm, and their more recent > > followers, including my fellow professor at Rutgers, S. Goldstein, and his > > research group. > > > > Since Statement (071014-2) seems to be well supported by the modern > > history of physics, it may be further asserted that > > > > ââ¬ÅThe century-old debate between Einstein and Bohr on > (070114-3) > > the mathematical nature of quantum mechanics may be > > ascribed to the principle of the arbitrariness of > > mathematics specifically and the principle of the > > arbitrariness of signs more generally. There may be > > neither winner nor loser on this debate, since both > > schools of thought can be judged valid within their > > own theoretical framework.ââ¬Â > > > > If the above argument proves to be valid, the century-old debate in > > physics may end up being finally solved by the knowledge gained outside of > > physics, namely in biology, linguyistics and semiotics. It is possible > > that the problem under debate is/was too complex to be resoved within > > physics, just as some of the current probelms fased in biology may turn > > oout to be too difficult to be solved within biology or even within > > natural sciences assisted by mathemtics and high-power computer science. > > > > With all the best. > > > > Sung > > _______________________________________________ > > Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. > > Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology > > Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology > > Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy > > Rutgers University > > Piscataway, N.J. 08855 > > 732-445-4701 > > > > www.conformon.net > > > > > >> Thanks. > >> > >> I think the enthusiasm with which mathematicians present their >> "accuracy" > >> is produced by very narrow observations of the phenomena which happen >> to > >> match their expectations. The world is fuzzy and messy, except in rare > >> cases. The mathematics students I have observed have little > >> self-reflection. They do not see that their mathematical experiences >> are > >> special mental abilities, similar to religious states, in that >> mathematics > >> is a form of generalization. I once asked Sean Carroll about the >> ontology > >> of his particle physics. "They are just numbers, statistics," he >> replied. > >> > >> My departed friends, Michel and Francoise Gauquelin, once set out to > >> finally disprove Astrology. They gathered large statistical databases > >> (30k) > >> and compared planetary positions at birth with adult professions. And >> lo! > >> Given a complicated statistical method, they were able to demonstrate >> a > >> significant correlation. American skeptics decided that since this was >> the > >> most promising evidence for planetary effects in human affairs, a >> simple > >> replication would provide a knock-out blow to the superstition. And lo! > >> With a U.S. sample size of 15k, they replicated the findings of the > >> Gauquelins. Did they honestly report the results? Of course not. The > >> statistical method was now "problematic" and "unclear." The results >> were > >> "dubious." > >> > >> Personally, I no longer care whether planetary effects are >> acknowledged, > >> or > >> whether psi is shown to exist. I'm satisfied that a bunch of skeptics > >> proved that mathematicians can lie just like the rest of us. > >> > >> M. > >> > >> On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 4:20 AM, Sungchul Ji <[email protected]> >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> In 1960, Eugene Wigner made the following statement in a paper with >>> the > >>> now-iconic title, ââ∠âUnreasonable Effectiveness of > Mathematicsâââ¬ÃÂ. In > >>> it, he > >>> cites a question presumably raised by one of his students at >>> Princeton > >>> (hence I will refer to it as the ââ∠âWerner >>> questionâââ¬Ã for > convenience): > >>> > >>> ". . . someone came to me and expressed his bewilderment [The > >>> remark to be quoted was made by F. Werner when he was a student in > >>> Princeton.] . . . with the fact that we make a rather narrow >>> selection > >>> when choosing the data on which we test our theories. > >>> > >>> âââ¬ÃÅHow do we know that, if we made a theory which >>> (062914-1) > >>> focuses its attention on phenomena we disregard > >>> and disregards some of the phenomena now commanding > >>> our attention, that we could not build another theory > >>> which has little in common with the present one but > >>> which, nevertheless, explains just as many phenomena > >>> as the present theory?âââ‰â¢ > >>> > >>> It has to be admitted that we have no definite evidence > >>> that there is no such theory." > >>> > >>> Reading between the lines, it seems reasonable to infer that Wigner >>> was > >>> fully aware of the incompleteness of his famous thesis that > >>> > >>> ââ∠âMathematics is unreasonably effective.âââ¬Ã > (062914-2) > >>> which we may refer to as the ââ∠âWigner >>> thesisâââ¬ÃÂ. > >>> > >>> In other words, > >>> > >>> ââ∠âThe Wigner thesis cannot provide any definitive >>> (062914-3) > >>> answer to the Werner question, neither positive > >>> nor negative, and hence is incomplete.âââ¬Ã > >>> > >>> The reason that the Wigner thesis is incomplete is because of > >>> > >>> ââ∠âThe Unreasonable Arbitrariness of Mathematics >>> (UAM)âââ¬Ã > >>> (062914-4) > >>> > >>> The purpose of this email is to bring to your attention some recent > >>> developments in theoretical biology (see Table 1 attached) that >>> support > >>> the UAM thesis: i.e., > >>> > >>> ââ∠âTwo or more mathematical models can simulate a given >>> (062914-5) > >>> set of experimental data, just as two or more signs > >>> can represent a given object in semiotics.âââ¬Ã > >>> > >>> I think Statement (062914-5) is consistent with the facts (i) that > >>> mathematical models are examples of Peircean signs (or, more > >>> specifically, > >>> the âââ¬ÃÅargument-symbolic-legisignâââ‰â¢) and >>> (ii) that all >>> signs are > >>> arbitrary , > >>> according to Saussureâââ‰â¢s thesis of the >>> ââ∠âArbitrariness of > Signsâââ¬Ã > >>> [2]. I am > >>> assuming here that > >>> > >>> ââ∠âSaussureâââ‰â¢s dyadic theory of signs can >>> be viewed as > (062914-6) > >>> a reduced version of Peirceâââ‰â¢s triadic theory of signs > >>> -- reduced in the sense that the role of the semiotic > >>> agent was not EXPLICITLY taken into account.âââ¬Ã > >>> > >>> > >>> With all the best. > >>> > >>> Sung > >>> ______________________________________________ > >>> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. > >>> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology > >>> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology > >>> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy > >>> Rutgers University > >>> Piscataway, N.J. 08855 > >>> 732-445-4701 > >>> > >>> www.conformon.net > >>> > >>> [1] Wigner, E. (1960). The Unreasonable Effectiveness of >>> Mathematics > >>> in the Natural Sciences. Communications in Pure and Applied > >>> Mathematics 13 (I). Available at > >>> https://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html. > >>> [2] See, for example, > >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign_(linguistics). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
