Dear Ed, Ed: does an elephant exist only as the sign of it that is in my brain?
S: Of course not. Elephants exist outside the human brain and they cast their image on our mind. Ed: Does the moon exist only if I look at her? S: My answer is the same as above; just replace an elephant with the moon. Ed: Is it true that QM is the result of human thought, as you say? S: I think so, because, as you well know, what we call QM is nothing but a system of signs which include diagrams, mathematical equations, numbers, and laws that refer to some fundamental aspect of the reality (called the object of the sign) since experiments based on QM produce results as expected. Ed: Remember Plancks law. How did he find it? Did he not find it as a result of experience and experiment only? S: I disagree. Planck discovered his law not only through experiment but also through his ability to think logically. Experimental data were available to Raleigh and Jeans as well but their logical thinking led to the Raleigh-Jean law which is an exponential law, not the Planck radiation law which contains both an exponential and a power law. Ed: Did he not find it as a law that existed in nature before it made its way into Plancks brain? S: But then why did it get into Plancks brain only and not to the brains of Raleigh and Jeans ? this indicates to me that the discovery of fundamental laws of nature depends on both (i) the existence of the laws in nature before humans appeared on this planet and (ii) the ability of humans to think lawfully, i.e., analyze experimental data based on the human logic that have evolved in the human society because of its compatibility (or coincidence) with the logic of Nature. Ed: Did he not hesitate for a long time to accept and publish it because it does not fit with human logic? S: True, but Planck was too timid to believe that received human logic can be wrong and can evolve. Ed: Note that Plancks law is not a logical law, S: I agree. Plancks law was not deduced based on some axioms as in mathematics. But you must admit that Plancks law is logical (otherwise it would not be called a logical law). I think the crucial point here is that Plancks law is logical not only because human thought is logical but also Nature itself is at least in part logical. Ed: . . . because it asserts a lawful relation between heterogeneous variables E, f, which to conceive lies beyond the limits of logical reasoning. Plancks constant is something beyond logic. Human logic doesnt know trinominal relations (E, f, h; E, p, c); but geometry knows: E/f = h = constant! E/p = c = constant! S: At least some humans (e.g., Ed Dellian) must know trinominal relations and the geometric proportional relations, E/f = h = constant, and E/p = c = constant. To me, both these types of relations are SIGNS referring to reality and not REALITY itself ! Conflating these two nodes of the triadic sign relation of Peirce may lead to close-minded attitudes and unnecessary debates (e.g., the Einstein-Bohr debate). Ed: And this is why geometry represents the language of Nature, and why it allows for discovering the laws of nature that lie as natural truths outside of the human brain. S: Again, if geometry is a sign referring to Nature and not Nature itself, two inferences can be suggested: (i) geometry can lie, since all signs can, and (ii) geometry cannot be the only language of Nature, since non-geometric languages (e.g., algebra) have been used to discover fundamental laws of Nature. Ed: The principles of semiotics are certainly anthropocentric principles, that is, principles of logical human reasoning. S: Not really. The basic principle of semiotics, according to Peirce, is the irreducible triadicity, which implicates the non-human world as object and hence is at least in part cosmocentric. Ed: Note that Euclidean geometry is not an anthropocentric construct of the human brain. S: As indicated already, Euclidean geometry is a SIGN. As such it can lie. For example, it can persuade some human mind, not all, to believe it as being something (e.g., the only language of Nature) that it really is not. Ed: The fact that the basic structure of QM is evidently Euclidean; that it solves all the enigmas of QM asserted by the experts so far; the fact that the experts so far admit not to understand how QM works all because they do not realize the Euclidean structure of QM so far! - : all this proves that this basic structure of QM is n o t a result of human thought. Euclidean geometry is cosmocentric; it is the pre-existing true and simple language of Nature (Galileo, 1623, Newton 1687, both corroborated in the 20ieth century by QM). Did Peirce or anybody else ever disprove this? If so, please let me know. S: Yes. If my interpretation of Peirces semiotics is right, his sign theory would deny any absolute claims about the validity of any sign, including QM, because, again, a sign can lie. 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 Sung, > > > > does an elephant exist only as the sign of it that is in my brain? Does > the moon exist only if I look at her? Is it true that âQM is the result > of human thoughtâ, as you say? Remember Planckâs law. How did he find > it? Did he not find it as a result of experience and experiment only? Did > he not find it as a law that existed in nature before it made its way into > Planckâs brain? Did he not hesitate for a long time to accept and > publish it because it does not fit with human logic? Note that Planckâs > law is not a logical law, because it asserts a lawful relation between > heterogeneous variables E, f, which to conceive lies beyond the limits of > logical reasoning. Planckâs constant is something beyond logic. Human > logic doesnât know trinominal relations (E, f, h; E, p, c); but geometry > knows: E/f = h = constant! E/p = c = constant! And this is why geometry > represents the language of Nature, and why it allows for discovering the > laws of nature that lie as natural truths âoutsideâ of the human > brain. The principles of semiotics are certainly âanthropocentricâ > principles, that is, principles of logical human reasoning. Note that > Euclidean geometry is n o t an anthropocentric construct of the human > brain. The fact that the basic structure of QM is evidently Euclidean; > that it solves all the enigmas of QM asserted by the experts so far; the > fact that the experts so far admit ânot to understandâ how QM works > â all because they do not realize the Euclidean structure of QM so far! > - : all this proves that this basic structure of QM is n o t a result of > human thought. Euclidean geometry is âcosmocentricâ; it is the > pre-existing true and simple language of Nature (Galileo, 1623, Newton > 1687, both corroborated in the 20ieth century by QM). Did Peirce or > anybody else ever disprove this? If so, please let me know. > > > > Best wishes, > > Ed. > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
