Charles' many appeals to the continuum and (essentially) deconstruction (the inverse of the constructive approach) suggest that his appeal to atomism and constructive approaches is exactly as his appeal is to evolution. IOW, atoms are ideas, in my terms "ways of speaking about the world," Charles' would call this "the real world," the continuum is the existent world (a base distinction of ontology).
Benjamin's view is, I believe, the same. My own view differs only in that I believe we can be less mysterian (more precise) but, in essence, it is a refinement. The world is a continuous fluid structure thru gas, liquid, and solid. Take a snapshot and it will look atomic, but take a movie and it will show that it is a dynamic fluid with structure that has dynamics in the distinct proportions described by the standard model, these are particular structures or "light field distortions" given mass/energy by the general distortions of the light field (gravitation) according to the equivalence principle. The Elements of chemistry may then be described by these atomic portions. (See my "recent" Stanford lecture for more detail). Regards, Steven On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <[email protected] > wrote: > John, Steven, Gary: > > The critical role of Boscovich in CSP's scientific thinking is expressed > very clearly in W8:284-285, in an article for Nation, entitled "The > Periodic Law." > > In the last paragraph, he hypothesizes ... "it might be supposed that most > of the existing chemical elements have been built up from a few different > kinds and it is this way that the relations between atomic weights have > arisen." > > Note that this is a constructionist's view of how atoms came to be. > Note that this asserts an interdependence between parts of different atoms > without invoking the concept of molecules. > Note that he carefully avoids a generalization to all different sorts of > atoms. > Note that Boscovich (1711 - 1787) was just a few decades prior to > Lavoisier and Dalton. > Also note no mention of electricity as a source of motion / behavior of > atoms, almost a hundred years after Volta. > > Thus, this note in Nation sheds much light on how he viewed the logic of > chemistry. > > The logic of modern chemistry is built from the concept of electricity as > physical particles, as polar opposites, as ordinal and cardinal numbers. > Rather remote from Boscovich's scientific views. > > Consequently, this begins to approach closure on the comparison of CSP > logic of chemistry to today's logic of chemistry. > > Steven: From your perspective of the Peirce familial interactions, does > such a constructionistic philosophy of chemistry from the "infinitesimal - > like" points of Boscovich convict deeply with the idealism grounded in > cosmology? > > The passage CP 6.82 lacks scientific specificity. > Modern chemical thought requires the bi-polarity of electricity as a > foundational image of chemical icons and indices and symbols. And, of > course, hybrid logic to construct relations between parts of the whole. > > Cheers > > Jerry > > > > > On Mar 25, 2015, at 2:57 PM, John Collier wrote: > > > Interesting, Jerry. The Scottish Common Sense philosophers (Thomas Reid > and his followers) were Boscovichians, but they thought just that atoms > were very small, not points, since one could not confirm they were points, > but they acted like points, being very small. They were quite influential > on many later developments in Empiricism. The table also misses Thomas > Hobbes, whose political philosophy was based entirely on an atheistic > atomism. > > > > Lucretius, interestingly, proposed evolution by natural selection, which > he thought was a corollary to his atomism. I think that Peirce's > evolutionary views and his views on continuity are more in line with > Boscovich, as you suggest Jerry. I didn't know that Peirce followed > Boscovich, but it makes sense. > > > > John > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: March 25, 2015 3:58 PM > > To: Peirce List > > Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Philosophies of Atomic Theory > > > > List: > > > > This website: > > > > http://www.eoht.info/page/Atomic+theory > > > > > > gives a short survey of atomism, from classic Greek philosophy to modern > times, including its relation to sub-atomic physics. The stages of > development of philosophical thought about the nature of matter are > presented diagrammatically over various periods of thought. > > > > One can place CSP's scientific views in the contexts of his times, a > topic I have mentioned on several occasions. > > > > Many students of CSP could find this useful for evaluating various CSP's > text. In particular, note that CSP was a follower of Boscovich. > > > > 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 .
