> Sorry, not trying to take things down a tangent, just very curious as to this > point. I think Peirce tended to adopt more biological conceptions and apply > them to physical ones whereas especially in the 19th century that was far > less common. > > While it is a tangent, it seems to be a tangent with important implications > for the main topic. >
Just to add, I think in particular elementary particles function in physics completely as signs in the Peircean sense. Further I think that approach is itself an extrapolation from naive Newtonian forms. See for example http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/10339/1/Signs_bis2.pdf
----------------------------- 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 .
