Sung, since you ask me, no, this sign is not dicent, nor is it indexical, nor is it a legisign, as Peirce defines these terms. Nor does your particular concept of complementarity have anything to do with NP 3.12. More generally: you have the right to post your original ideas here, but nobody has a responsibility to read or reply to them.
gary f. -----Original Message----- From: Sungchul Ji [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16-Oct-14 8:55 PM Gary F and Frederik, How about what I call the Hofstadter cubes (see the picture attached) as the decent indexical legisign standing for the concept of Complementarity ? N. Bohr never gave any rigorous definition of the concept of complementarity that he introduced to physics and philosophy in the early decades of the 20th century. In 1995 [1, p. 524] I defined complementarity in terms of three logical criteria: (1) EXCLUSIVITY: A and B are mutually exclusive (.e., wave and particle)> (2) ESSENTIALITY: A and B are essential to completely describe C (e.g., wave an particle properties of light). (3) TRANSCENDENTALITY: C transcends the level where A and B have meanings and yet serves as the source of A and B. Evidently, the Hofstadter cubes embody all these three criteria, as indicated the letters and other sybmols in the figure. The cubes symbolizing C transcends the three orthogonal planes on which A and B reside, since the cubes are hanging in a 3-dimensional space while A and B reside on 2-dimensional palnes. The figure also illustrates two kinds of complementarities - C and C', the former being 3-dimensional and the latter 2-dimensional. The difference is that C' are in the same planes as A and B so that they can be combined mathematically, as exemplified by the de Broglie equation shown in the bottom of the figure. In contrast, C is in a different space than A and B and hence cannot be mathematically combined. Many physicists and philosophers of science may believe that light (C) is both wave and particle simultaneously because they appear together in a mathematical equation, i.e., C'. But, as the Hofstadter cubes clearly demonstrate, C and C' are not identical and hence light cannot be equated with the combination of wave and particle, as Einstein, de Broglie, Bohm and his followers believe. They in effect may be conflating C and C'. For convenience, the two kinds of complementarities illustrated by the Hofstadter cubes, may be called the 2-D complementarity and 3-D complementarity. Most complementarity pairs written about in numerous books and articles belong to the class of 2-D complementarity, and discussions on 3-D complementary pairs seem rare. 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 Reference: [1] Ji, S. (1995). Complementarism: A Biology-Based Philosophical Framework to Integrate Western Science and Eastern Tao, in Psychotherapy East and West: Integration of Psychotherapies, Korean Academy of Psychotherapists, 178-23 Sungbuk-dong, Songbuk-ku, Seoul 136-020, Korea, pp. 517-548. PDF available at http://www.conformon.net under Publications > Proceedings and Abstract.
----------------------------- 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 .
