Jerry your chemical example provides an interesting testing ground for a simple 'breadth x depth' account of meaning. I'm not sure what the *propositions* would be in this case though, exactly - ?
What is the "crisp distinction between a philosopher's "predicate" and the copulative forces of a copula" that you're thinking of? Cheers, Cathy On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected]> wrote: > List, Catherine: > > On Mar 3, 2015, at 1:41 PM, Catherine Legg wrote: > > The logical tradition that Peirce was responding to with his > piece "Logical Extension and Comprehension" was basically a 'term logic', > according to which this rough formula held: > > Breadth x Depth = k (where k is some constant) > > > *QUESTIONS: In what sense, and to what degree might this 'information' be > measured? (If not in some absolute sense, then perhaps relatively, between > propositions?) Doesn't the very notion of measuring this value conflict > with Peirce's contrite fallibilism, which holds that what a given term will > come to mean to us is not something that can be decided in advance of > scientific inquiry? In other words, scientific terms can hold a great deal > of implicit information as well as the explicit information that scientists > are working with at a given time.* > > > Once again, I offer simple answers from the formal view of logic > expressed in chemistry and the perplex number system: > > Information about a chemical can be expressed in terms of the molecular > formula, one of the fundamental principles of chemistry, historically > introduced by Lavoisier and Dalton about the turn of the 19 Century, some > 60 years before this text was conceived. > > The molecular formula is the breadth of the material content. It is > referenced in the table of elements (TOE) and the perplex numerals (aka the > atomic numbers). It specifies what is present and the RELATIVE ratio of the > components as a partition of a molecular number as a representation of the > thing itself. It is an explicit measure of the logical content of the > instance at hand, as determined by physical analysis. The breadth of > information in any chemical structure is subject to measurement The > molecular formula of individual DNA, RNA and protein molecules are known > from physical measurements. Are these sufficient example of breadth of > information and its correspondence with qualia? > > The depth of the information of any member of the TOE or perplex numeral > is the implicit in it forms of presentations to the senses. The SAME > perplex numeral can be a member of uncountably many different molecular > numbers. The SAME chemical symbol can related to several different valence > states. The reactivity of each chemical element differs with the context > of the immediate surroundings. The changes of attributes of any chemical > compound is related to basic physical measures. Many chemical forms same > be perceived as solids, liquids or gases - exactly the same matter from the > physical components but radically difference human experiences. And, by > the way, with different physical attributes. > > The concept of information as > > Breadth x Depth = k (where k is some constant) > > > simply means that for a given the same perplex number (as breadth), the > same depth of sorts or kinds of experiences will be experienced as > attributes. If the context of the measurements of the depth changes, the > depth measurements will change. > In simpler terms, if the experiments are reproducible, consistency is to > be expected between the the breadth and depth of observation. Thus, the > value of each constant is different for each perplex number. > In even simpler terms, the unity of nature demands consistency. (This is > sharply different from the uniformity of nature.) > > CSP's use of the notion of multiplication in this context is rather lax, > but the ground of meaning for the two semantic terms, breadth and depth, > seems rather simple enough. > > Of course, this interpretation of breadth and depth in terms of perplex > number theory is remote from the meaning of the term (Shannon) > "Information" in computer sciences (and set theory!). > > With regard to the distinction between term logic and proposition logic, > you note that the meaning of a term must have a definition, that is, a > sentence. But, keep in mind the crisp distinction between a philosopher's > "predicate" and the copulative forces of a copula. > > Cheers > > jerry > > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
