Edwina, John, Jerry, lists, If "time" is another name for (or synonymous with) "change" and if "beginning" is a species of "change", it would follow that there would have been no time before the Universe began, in agreement with John and Edwina. But this may be only a scientific view of time, which may not represent "time" completely. Can there be non-scientific representations of time as well, such as the artistic and religious representations ? I am asking this question because I am a firm believer in the universality of complementarity, which, when applied to the question of time, would suggest that "time" may be a complementary union of irreconcilably opposite aspects which I identify as the scientific and the nonscientific aspects of time.
All the best. Sung On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, list: > > First- the quotes you provided to the list from Peirce on evolution, > (6.13-14), and from Smolin are excellent. I think they make clear the fact > that the universe has a history. That's important; it didn't just emerge > 'fully clothed' so to speak; it has a history. > > I also agree with John Collier that before the universe began- there was > 'no time'. There was nothing, so I don't know if Jerry Chandler's questions > can be answered outside of the smoke of the seminar room. > > Gary, you wrote: > "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?" > > Perhaps I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say that 'time' in itself, > by itself, is not a cause-of-change. That is, just because a > species continues and exists as that species through the passage of time, > does not mean that this passage of time...itself causes any changes in the > rules-of-organization in the species. What causes the species to change, > adapt, evolve in its rules...is informational networking with other matter > in its envt, that will require adaptation in the species in order to exist > in that envt. Sure, time passes during this adaptive phase, but time > itself doesn't cause those adaptive changes. > > I hope that is clearer. > > Edwina > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > *To:* Peirce-L <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 1:22 PM > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: A System Of Analytic Mechanics > > 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 > . > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > . > > > > > > -- 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
----------------------------- 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 .
