List,
Here's a seminal text, quoted a number of times on the list over the years,
on Peirce's idea that laws evolve (more quotations when I have time).
Now the only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature and for
uniformity in general is to suppose them results of evolution. This
supposes them not to be absolute, not to be obeyed precisely. It makes an
element of indeterminacy, spontaneity, or absolute chance in nature. Just
as, when we attempt to verify any physical law, we find our observations
cannot be precisely satisfied by it, and rightly attribute the discrepancy
to errors of observation, so we must suppose far more minute discrepancies
to exist owing to the imperfect cogency of the law itself, to a certain
swerving of the facts from any definite formula. CP 6.13
Mr. Herbert Spencer wishes to explain evolution upon mechanical
principles. This is illogical, for four reasons. First, because the
principle of evolution requires no extraneous cause, since the tendency to
growth can be supposed itself to have grown from an infinitesimal germ
accidentally started. Second, because law ought more than anything else to
be supposed a result of evolution. Third, because exact law obviously never
can produce heterogeneity out of homogeneity; and arbitrary heterogeneity
is the feature of the universe the most manifest and characteristic.
Fourth, because the law of the conservation of energy is equivalent to the
proposition that all operations governed by mechanical laws are reversible;
so that an immediate corollary from it is that growth is not explicable by
those laws, even if they be not violated in the process of growth. In
short, Spencer is not a philosophical evolutionist, but only a
half-evolutionist -- or, if you will, only a semi-Spencerian. Now
philosophy requires thorough-going evolutionism or none.CP 6.14
Best,
Gary
[image: Gary Richmond]
*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690*
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Edwina, Soren, Jon, list,
>
> I agree with you, Edwina, that a topic having been addressed on peirce-l
> in the past might very well be fruitfully taken up at a later time since
> any number of list members may not have followed that earlier discussion or
> even joined the list after said discussion, while those who have followed
> it or who even participated in it may have modified their understandings
> (for example, having been exposed to some of the contemporary literature
> relating to it such as, for example, that which Soren recently pointed to).
>
> I also tend to strongly agree with you and disagree with Jon that the
> matter of the evolution of laws is a "pseudo-issue," and I don't recall our
> arriving at anything like a consensus that it's a "pseudo-issue" in that
> earlier discussion. Also it seems clear from the Peirce and Smolin texts
> that they both see the evolution of laws *as such *and not as merely our
> better, more clearly understanding them. For Peirce and Smolin laws
> themselves evolve over perhaps vast periods of time. And I would even
> maintain that Peirce's notion of laws evolving includes not only biological
> laws relating to the evolution on the earth, but involves 'cosmological'
> ones as well (this, I think, is Smolin's position as well). I'll try to
> hunt up a few Peirce excepts supporting that position in the next few days,
> but at the moment I'm exceedingly busy, so any help here would be
> appreciated.
>
> The idea of evolution occurring "over perhaps vast periods of time" leads
> me to one question I have regarding your conclusion, Edwina. While I do
> agree with you that the present question (the evolution of laws) "has
> little to do with 'variables varying over time' - which removes those
> variables from a causality due to interaction with the environment and
> reduces them to merely a causality due to the linear passage of time. The
> theory of adaptive evolution on the other hand inserts an informational
> networking of organisms with other organisms/envt...and suggests a freedom,
> a spontaneous and informed change to adapt to the requirements of the
> environment".
>
> But you conclude "Nothing to do with time.
>
> Even if 'variables varying over time' has little (or almost nothing) to do
> with evolutionary change, it seems strange to say that adaptive evolution
> has "nothing to do with time" given that all, for one, semiosic processes
> involve time. Or am I missing something here?
>
> Best,
>
> Gary
>
>
>
> xxx
>
> [image: Gary Richmond]
>
> *Gary Richmond*
> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
> *Communication Studies*
> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
> *C 745*
> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> List, Jon, Soren, Steven:
>>
>> Let's go a full step deeper into the inquiry of time.
>>
>> Start with the presumption that an event initiated the becoming into
>> existence of concept of matter.
>> (Alternatively, one can start with the Eastern view of the universe
>> cycling and re-cycling itself which forces even more difficult conundrums
>> into metaphysical discourse.)
>>
>> What existed before matter?
>> Mind? If so, what sort of mind?
>> Time? If so, when was time initiated? And what were its origins?
>> Mathematics? If so, when was mathematics initiated? Did mathematics
>> initiate time? Matter? If so, how?
>>
>> Intertwined with these conundrums are the questions on the nature of
>> mathematics itself.
>>
>> Was mathematics initiated by the mind of man? (as a part of the
>> emergence of man's mind?)
>> Or, does mathematics pre-exist the existence of humans?
>> If mathematics pre-exists human constructionism, when was it initiated?
>> Or, is mathematics a consequence of natural events, such as the atomic
>> numbers?
>> Or, did the ordinals exist before the cardinal?
>> Or, did the cardinals exist before the ordinals?
>> And, what motivated the (illicit?) constructions of the complex numbers?
>> Electricity?
>>
>> Just a few of the conundrums that come to mind when thinking of the
>> physical representation of time.
>>
>> Whatever one decides about physical time, both chemical time and
>> biological time and mental time are far more difficult problems BECAUSE the
>> unbounded irregularities of time "flow" (that is, change) in these
>> disciplines.
>>
>> A simple example of these irregularities are the concatenation of
>> enzyme-catalysed reactions in creating the feedback and feed forward
>> "flows" of time in living systems. (Origin of logic of Biosemiotics?)
>>
>> If you can afford the efforts, play with these assertions in terms of the
>> small set of "connectives" of propositional logics.
>> Your conclusions, if logically sound and complete, would be keenly
>> evaluated by the scientific community.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mar 20, 2015, at 9:40 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>>
>> > Thread:
>> > SB:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15878
>> > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15879
>> > SB:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15880
>> >
>> > Søren, List,
>> >
>> > Oh, of course, it was nice to be reminded, and that inspired me
>> > to scan through a sample of what had been said before, plus I'm
>> > really fond of that particular quote I featured on my blog, and
>> > I thought the glancing review from NPR was kind of interesting:
>> >
>> > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/06/01/wherefore-aught/
>> > http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/05/02/180037757/is-time-real
>> >
>> > To my way of thinking, the whole thing is really a pseudo-issue.
>> > Saying that "the laws of physics evolve" means nothing more than
>> > "the laws of physics are not what we used to think they were",
>> > which historically speaking is just the usual case.
>> >
>> > To say that "the laws of physics evolve" is just to say
>> > that the laws of physics we know contain parameters that
>> > we used to believe were constants but now we believe are
>> > variables, and all that does is initiate an inquiry into
>> > the laws that rule the time evolution of those variables.
>> > Which is again just another variation on the usual theme.
>> > The form of inquiry itself persists.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Jon
>> >
>> > On 3/20/2015 5:46 AM, Søren Brier wrote:
>> >> Jon
>> >>
>> >> Thanks. I just wanted to remind Steven that an eminent modern
>> physicist found it possible to uphold his position while having a view
>> close to Peirce's.
>> >>
>> >> Søren
>> >>
>> >> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>> >> Fra: Jon Awbrey [mailto:[email protected]]
>> >> Sendt: 19. marts 2015 15:32
>> >> Til: Søren Brier; Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Edwina Taborsky
>> >> Cc: Jerry LR Chandler; Peirce List
>> >> Emne: Re: A System Of Analytic Mechanics
>> >>
>> >> Re: Søren Brier
>> >> At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15878
>> >>
>> >> Søren, List,
>> >>
>> >> Smolin's 'Time Reborn' was the subject, or at least the instigation,
>> of much discussion here and there around the web a couple years ago.
>> >> From a cursory search, I think it was Michael Shapiro who broached
>> the topic on the Peirce List, inciting discussions that went on for the
>> rest of the summer:
>> >>
>> >> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2013-05/msg00028.html
>> >>
>> >> I recall blogging on it and adding a quote from Peirce in connection
>> with a discussion on a blog devoted to computational complexity and the
>> theory of computation:
>> >>
>> >> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/06/01/wherefore-aught/
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Jon
>> >>
>> >> On 3/19/2015 2:13 AM, Søren Brier wrote:
>> >>> Dear Steven
>> >>>
>> >>> Are you aware of the work of Unger and Smolin where they argue for
>> the evolution of laws?
>> >>> The Singular Universe....THE SINGULAR UNIVERSE AND THE REALITY OF TIME
>> >>> Cambridge University Press, November 30, 2014.
>> >>> Synopsis
>> >>> This is a book on the nature of time and the basic laws of nature.
>> We argue for the inclusive reality of time as well as for the mutability of
>> the laws of nature. We seek to breathe new life and meaning into natural
>> philosophy -- a form of reasoning that crosses the boundaries between
>> science and philosophy.
>> >>> The work should appeal to a broad educated readership as well as to
>> scientists and philosophers. It is not a popularization, but neither does
>> it use a technical vocabulary that would restrict it to specialized
>> readers. The subjects that it addresses are of paramount interest to people
>> in many disciplines outside cosmology and physics.
>> >>> In the twentieth century, physics and cosmology overturned the idea
>> of an unchanging background of time and space. In so doing, however, they
>> maintained the idea of an immutable framework of laws of nature. This
>> second idea must now also be attacked and replaced. What results is a new
>> picture of the agenda of physics and cosmology as well as of the methods of
>> fundamental science.
>> >>> The book develops four inter-related themes:
>> >>> 1) There is only one universe at a time. Our universe is not one of
>> many worlds. It has no copy or complete model, even in mathematics. The
>> current interest in multiverse cosmologies is based on fallacious reasoning.
>> >>> 2) Time is real, and indeed the only aspect of our description of
>> nature which is not emergent or approximate. The inclusive reality of time
>> has revolutionary implications for many of our conventional beliefs.
>> >>> 3) Everything evolves in this real time including laws of nature.
>> There is only a relative distinction between laws and the states of affairs
>> that they govern..
>> >>> 4) Mathematics deals with the one real world. We need not imagine it
>> to be a shortcut to timeless truth about an immaterial reality (Platonism)
>> in order to make sense of its "unreasonable effectiveness" in science.
>> >>> We argue by systematic philosophical and scientific reasoning , as
>> well as by detailed examples, that these principles are the only way
>> theoretical cosmology can break out of its current crisis in a manner that
>> is scientific, i.e. results in falsifiable predictions for doable
>> experiments.
>> >>>
>> >>> And Smolin's Time Reborn
>> >>> "What is time?
>> >>>
>> >>> It's the sort of question we rarely ask because it seems so obvious.
>> And yet, to a physicist, time is simply a human construct and an illusion.
>> If you could somehow get outside the universe and observe it from there,
>> you would see that every moment has always existed and always will. Lee
>> Smolin disagrees, and in Time Reborn he lays out the case why.
>> >>>
>> >>> Recent developments in physics and cosmology point toward the reality
>> of time and the openness of the future. Smolin's groundbreaking theory
>> postulates that physical laws can evolve over time and the future is not
>> yet determined. Newton's fundamental laws may not remain so fundamental."
>> >>> Smolin quotes Peirce several times in this book for the view that
>> different laws emerging in the course of the development of the universe
>> over time.
>> >>>
>> >>> Søren
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
>> > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
>> > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
>> > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
>> > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
>> > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
>> >
>> > -----------------------------
>> > 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 .
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------
>> 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 .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
-----------------------------
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 .
