Dear Rob, Thanks for your informative comments on syllogisms. One thing I don't understand is that you do not seem to think that "mathematical equation" (such as a double exponential function) is a Peircean. Am I understanding you right ? If so, what would you call a mathematical equation ? I thought anything and everything that we can and do think of is a sign. That is, we think in signs, don't we ?
With all the best. Sung Let me ask you one question. > Hello Sung, > Please find my response attached. > Regards, > Rob > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sungchul Ji [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, July 4, 2014 12:53 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [biosemiotics:6072] Re: > > Robert, > > Thanks for your detailed & informative comments. I will have to mull over > them carefully. In the meantime, I have the following counter-response. > > You wrote: > > "1) Mathematics is a species of the sign. (6071-1) > Is not equivalent to: > (2) Mathematics is a sign." > > But what if you replace "Mathematics" with "Mathematical equations" ? This > would make the second proposition read > > "Mathematical equations are signs." (6071-2) > > > As I pointed out on this list several times already, it is important to > keep in mind that the term "mathematics" appearing in my syllogism was > meant to be "mathematical equations" as indicated in the table that > accompanied my emails. More specifically, "Mathematics" was referring > to the Planckian distribution, the double exponential function of Lu et > al. and the ex-Gaussian distribution of Luce. > > With all the best. > > Sung > > > > >> Dear Sung, >> Sorry, that I am writing so late. There is no doubt that this >> syllogism is not correct as terms are not correctly set in it. >> >> Mathematics is a species of the sign. >> Signs is arbitrary. >> Therefore, mathematics is arbitrary. >> >> In that case above syllogism looks as: >> S ââ¬â Mathematics >> M ââ¬â Sign >> P ââ¬â Arbitrary >> SaM >> MaP >> SaP >> >> Statement: >> (1) Mathematics is a species of the sign. >> Is not equivalent to: >> (2) Mathematics is a sign. >> Better: >> Mathematics is a sign. (sic!) >> Signs is arbitrary. >> Therefore, mathematics is arbitrary. >> S ââ¬â Mathematics >> M ââ¬â Sign >> P ââ¬â Arbitrary >> >> MaP >> SaM >> SaP >> >> In my opinion, the correctness of syllogism is not a problem; problem >> is if the statement: ââ¬Åmathematics is arbitraryââ¬Â is true. >> >> I understand that ââ¬Åarbitraryââ¬Â here is as kind of >> ââ¬Åagreementââ¬Â >> between sb. >> >> >> Sung wrote: ââ¬ÅIf "reisim" is alternatively called "concretism", >> would >> "abstractism" the antonym to "reism" ? Has anyone suggested this ? >> >> Abstraction is not a real item, Kotarbinski call it >> ââ¬Åhypostasisââ¬Â, >> or ââ¬Åonomanoidââ¬Â; for example: justice; this is not a real >> item. >> (Kotarbià âski example). >> >> >> I believe that there is a kind of the language problem (Polish to >> English) referring to object and item (?) For example: >> Item is: 1 >> 1 + 1 are two items in ââ¬Å+ââ¬Â relation ââ¬â this is an >> object: 1 + 1 >> consist of two items in ââ¬Å+ââ¬Â relation. >> >> >> According to Poincare, as well as Kotarbinski if I remember so far, >> Math is arbitrary ââ¬â Kotarbià âski claimed that for example >> natural >> numbers does not exist as real items they exist in a kind of the >> convenional way; well Kotarbià âski bring great rumour having claiming >> that and was criticized. >> >> I have to say that Kotarbià âski approach is not semiotics at all, but >> as you have said why do not to give a go to try look at Kotarbià âski >> proposal seriously? After all there is not a valid prove that signs >> exist as real objects in Kotarbià âski terms. >> >> Regards, >> Rob >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sungchul Ji [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, July 3, 2014 12:09 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [biosemiotics:6042] Re: >> >> 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 (KotarbiÃâ¦Ã¢â¬Å¾ski). >>> >>> 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 (KotarbiÃâ¦Ã¢â¬Å¾ski). >>> >>> 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 >>> ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬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 >>> ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¾arbitraryÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Å >>> human >>> product but is rooted in Nature >>> herself: >>> it is the ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Ålanguage of >>> NatureÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà(Galileo, >>> 1623). Therefore, Galileo and Newton chose Euclidean geometry as the >>> mathematical tool for their natural philosophy and the theory of >>> motion. Note that GalileoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s >>> Discorsi of >>> 1638 (IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve edited a new German >>> translation recently) >>> and NewtonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s Principia (which I >>> edited in German in >>> 1988) as well are throughout based on synthetic geometry, not on the >>> calculus differentialis! This >>> ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅsyntheticÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà>>> 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 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢â∠â a >>> relation that would >>> be impossible in arithmetic and algebra. (Note that algebra >>> doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know the basic >>> ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅalgorithmÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà>>> 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 >>> ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅenergyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà>>> E and >>> ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅmomentumÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà>>> 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 >>> ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅenergyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà>>> 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 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅThe >>> language of >>> nature is not algebraÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà(cf. my 2012 >>> essay on my website >>> www.neutonus-reformatus.com <http://www.neutonus-reformatus.com/> >>> ). >>> >>> >>> >>> All the best, >>> >>> >>> >>> Ed. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----UrsprÃÆÃâÃâüngliche 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: >>> >>> >>> >>> ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅMathematics is a species of the sign >>> according to >>> Peirce. >>> (070114-1) >>> >>> All signs are arbitrary according to Saussure. Therefore, >>> >>> mathematics is arbitrary.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà>>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅThere should exist at least two >>> mathematical models >>> of >>> (070114-2) >>> >>> quantum phenomena that are compatible with all known >>> >>> experimental data.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà>>> >>> >>> >>> 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 ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢â∠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 >>> >>> >>> >>> ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬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.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà>>> >>> >>> >>> 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, >>>>> ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Â¦Ã¢â∠>>>>> âUnreasonable >>>>> Effectiveness of >>> MathematicsÃÆÃâÃââÃÆâââ∠>>> ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ. >>> In >>> >>>>> it, he >>> >>>>> cites a question presumably raised by one of his students at >>>>> Princeton >>> >>>>> (hence I will refer to it as the >>>>> ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Â¦Ã¢â∠>>>>> âWerner >>>>> questionÃÆÃâÃââÃÆâââ∠>>>>> ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâà>>>>> 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. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆâââ∠>>>>> ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅHow >>>>> 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?ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆâââ∠>>>>> ¡ÃâìÃÆââââ¬à ¾Ãââ >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> 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 >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Â¦Ã¢â∠>>>>> âMathematics >>>>> is unreasonably >>>>> effective.ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆâââ∠>>>>> ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâà>>> (062914-2) >>> >>>>> which we may refer to as the >>>>> ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Â¦Ã¢â∠>>>>> âWigner >>>>> thesisÃÆÃâÃââÃÆâââ∠>>>>> ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Å¡ÃâÃÂ. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> In other words, >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Â¦Ã¢â∠>>>>> âThe >>>>> Wigner thesis cannot provide >>>>> any definitive >>>>> (062914-3) >>> >>>>> answer to the Werner question, neither positive >>> >>>>> nor negative, and hence is >>>>> incomplete.ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆâââ∠>>>>> ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâà>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> The reason that the Wigner thesis is incomplete is because of >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Â¦Ã¢â∠>>>>> âThe >>>>> Unreasonable Arbitrariness >>>>> of Mathematics >>>>> (UAM)ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆâââ∠>>>>> ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâà>>> >>>>> (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., >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Â¦Ã¢â∠>>>>> 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.ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆâââ∠>>>>> ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâà>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> I think Statement (062914-5) is consistent with the facts (i) >>>>> that >>> >>>>> mathematical models are examples of Peircean signs (or, more >>> >>>>> specifically, >>> >>>>> the >>>>> ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆâââ∠>>>>> ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Â¹Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åargument-symbolic-legisignÃÆÃâÃââ >>>>> ÃÆââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆââââ¬à ¾Ãââ) >>>>> and >>>>> (ii) that all >>>>> signs are >>> >>>>> arbitrary , >>> >>>>> according to >>>>> SaussureÃÆÃâÃââÃÆâââ∠>>>>> ¡ÃâìÃÆââââ¬à ¾Ãââs >>>>> thesis >>>>> of the >>>>> ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Â¦Ã¢â∠>>>>> âArbitrariness >>>>> of >>> SignsÃÆÃâÃââÃÆââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâà>>> >>>>> [2]. I am >>> >>>>> assuming here that >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆââââ¬à ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Â¦Ã¢â∠>>>>> âSaussureÃÆÃâÃââÃÆââââ¬à ¡ÃâÈ >>>>> Æââââ¬à ¾Ãââs >>>>> dyadic theory of signs >>>>> can be viewed as >>> (062914-6) >>> >>>>> a reduced version of >>>>> PeirceÃÆÃâÃââÃÆâââ∠>>>>> ¡ÃâìÃÆââââ¬à ¾Ãââs >>>>> triadic theory of >>>>> signs >>> >>>>> -- reduced in the sense that the role of the semiotic >>> >>>>> agent was not EXPLICITLY taken into >>>>> account.ÃÆÃâÃââÃÆâââ∠>>>>> ¡ÃâìÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâà>>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> 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 .
