Edwina, Helmut, Rob, and list,
According to "reism", as I understand it, objects are "real-real" and the "relations" among them are "pseudo-real". So I see no contradiction between reism and semiotics/semiosis. It all seems to depend on how one defines his/her terms, the natural consequence of the principle of the aribitrariness of signs (?). 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 > Well, reism certainly isn't semiosis, that's for sure! Semiosis rests > within relations and laws-of-organization. These laws are definitely not > objects (i.e., particular entities) but are laws-of-organization and are > 'real' in the universal or Aristotelian sense of realism. Furthermore, in > semiosis, no 'thing' or particular unit stands isolate but exists within > numerous relations. > > Edwina > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Helmut Raulien > To: [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 4:38 PM > Subject: [biosemiotics:6038] Re: > > > Hi Rob, Sung, Edwina, List, > This reism is fantastic! I love it. It has the power to set us free > from- well, many things that make us unfree. How many things in our > everyday-life do we regard for objects, but for real they are just > relations, conditions? Conditions perhaps are just conditions as long as > we regard them for objects, which they are not. Every object has a body, > and we have bodies, but social conditions dont. It reminds me of Kant: > The human doesnt have value, but dignity. The body makes the object, is > the dignity. There is no dignity in property, relation, status. I would > not say, that reism is anarchism, because it does not deny that there is > something like different property or status, but it is profoundly > humanistic, because it denies the object status of social relations, but > not of people. Especially in the country (Germany) where I live in, I > sense some sickness due to conflation of what someone is and what he or > she is showing off. In other countries, eg. England, there is some more > ground-consensus between people, that there is something to just being a > human, i have read somewhere. Mathematics: Are there objects in the > sense of bodies in mathematics, or only variables with values? Does a > variable have a body? > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 02. Juli 2014 um 20:56 Uhr > Von: "Robert Boroch" <[email protected]> > An: [email protected] > Betreff: [biosemiotics:6037] Re: > 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¬ï¿½ (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¬ï¿½ 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¬ï¿½ 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¬ï¿½ E and ââ¬Åmomentumââ¬ï¿½ 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¬ï¿½ 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¬ï¿½ (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¬ï¿½ > > > > 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¬ï¿½ > > > > 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¬ï¿½ > > > > 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¬Ã�. 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¬Ã�. > > >> > > >> 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 .
