Frederik wrote:
"Is there any sign-like process going on in the (091014-1)
macroscopic property of entropy resulting from one
of several possible microscopic particle states?"
Entropy S is defined as
S = dQ/T (091014-2)
where dQ is the heat, Q, absorbed by a thermodynamic system reversible (or
very slowly) at temperature T.
This equation is of the form
S = f(Q) (091014-3)
According to Edwina, all well-formed formulas of the form y = f (x)
implicates semiosis. So my question is
"Does entropy or entropy change implicate semiosis ?" (091014-4)
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
> Dear Clark, list
>
> If feel somewhat bad of having brought the discussion down this tangent.
> (Ive changed subject as per request) I hope you dont mind me making one
> final comment.
>
> Not at all, these are important questions.
>
> On Sep 7, 2014, at 4:49 AM, Frederik Stjernfelt
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> Not all triadicity and thirdness is semiotic - that is my conclusion. In
> Peirce, claims pointing in both directions can be found, so this is not a
> question which can be solved by Peirce philology.
> Rather, it should be solved by looking to what the sciences are actually
> doing. So ,to me, the decisive argument against pan- or physiosemiotics is
> that I have never seen any semiotic redescription of physical processes
> (like: the crater is an index of the meteor) adding the tiniest bit to
> our knowledge of physics. In that sense, such description seems
> superfluous. Quite the contrary is the case in biology where semiotic
> concepts abound.
>
> It seems to me that there are many examples of exactly this sort of dual
> direction and most of the best examples occur in thermodynamics.
> Especially when combined with a statistical mechanics conception.
>
> But perhaps Im missing something obvious about what you mean by adding to
> our knowledge of physics. If I say the entropy is an index of the state of
> particles I am saying something different from entropy is caused by the
> state of the particles. At least it does to me.
>
> but the entropy as a function of the state of the particles may be
> expressed without semiotic terminology, right? Are any sign-like concepts
> necessary in the classic Boltzmann and other descriptions? Is there any
> sign-like process going on in the macroscopic property of entropy
> resulting from one of several possible microscopic particle states?
> I am not speaking about whether WE use sign-like concepts in shaping our
> knowledge of the situation - but whether there is a sign process going on
> when we're not looking, so to speak
>
> Maybe thats not the best example, but then again I may be just missing
> the point you are making. (Again, apologies if I am - I bring it up only
> because it seems something important)
>
> If I have you correctly you are making a distinction between the mental
> and the physical thats somewhat analogous to Davidsons anomalous monism.
> That is a mental description might describe the same physical state as a
> physical description but the physical description doesnt exhaust the
> mental description. That is, the mental description is irreducible. (The
> opposite of say Rortys take where talking about pain or the firing of
> neurons seems the same)
>
> I see the analogy but I do not think semiotics is mental in the sense
> Davidson intends. I think semiotic description in biology is irreducible,
> not so in physics.
>
> The question then is whether going in one direction or the other matters
> in physics.
>
> You mean the direction of time, cf. the second law of thermodynamics - but
> I don't see why this necessitates description in terms of signs. I think
> the existence of signs presuppose the local teleology of the closed
> circuits of the metabolism of an organism - but that is only in ch. 6 of
> Natural Propositions -
>
> (I intend by Davidson just an analogy - not that it is akin to the
> anomalous monism which if I recall depends upon the nature of normative
> descriptions)
>
> If thats right then I really do think the traditional description of
> thermodynamics and the statistical mechanics presentation of
> thermodynamics really is a classic example. Most teachers and interpreters
> tend to be very careful to note that we *shouldnt* assume statistical
> mechanics explains all thermodynamics (although some might think it does).
> Yet with that distinction the index then becomes quite significant.
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
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 .
