I must apologize to the list. In being drawn by John into a tension that is not my usual practice, I spoke without thinking of the wider implications. My intension was localized and meant only to illustrate the nature of "ad hominem" in the light of John's continuation, after I had yielded. I am also on medications that are not well suited to rapid responses. It is no excuse but I hope offers some mitigation. :-)
In any case, I hope those of you that undertake the very worthy education of young people will not take my remarks as directed toward you. I do not advocate "teaching" in general, because of its inclination toward indoctrinations. But this is a subtly unnecessary for now. However, please profess away! Regards, Steven On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> wrote: > As they say, "those that can't do, teach." > > Steven > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:33 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I know the definition of fallacy, Steven. I teach fallacy detection. >> Just as not all appeals to authority are fallacies, not all appeals to a >> person’s perspective are fallacies. Sometimes they are sound. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith >> *Sent:* April 1, 2015 6:31 PM >> *To:* John Collier >> *Cc:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8162] Re: Article on origina >> of the universe >> >> >> >> Do you actually know the definition of "ad hominem"? >> >> >> >> I rest. >> >> >> >> Steven >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:28 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Sorry, Steven, I don't see any ad hominem fallacy here, I was stating >> that it didn't make sense to continue this discussion since your >> preconceptions blind you to views that don't fit them in this case. The >> reasons to me are fairly obvious, but if I am correct, you would not be >> able to see them. So further discussion is pointless. I don't grasp poetry >> very well, and most others can see that, but it isn't an ad hominem fallacy >> for someone to say that I won't understand something because I don't >> understand poetry very well. >> >> >> >> In any case, I see the problem as working from different paradigms, which >> are also pragmatically incommensurable. I wrote my PhD topic on the issue, >> so I am pretty good at detecting incommensurability. As Kuhn, argues, the >> only way out is to "go native", which is what I advised you to do, but you >> do not see the point, dismissing the work I suggested, which I am sure >> makes sense to you from your perspective. >> >> >> >> Otherwise, maybe, you are just being stubborn, but I don't think so. >> >> >> >> John >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of >> Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* 01 April 2015 23:03 >> >> >> *To:* John Collier >> *Cc:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8162] Re: Article on origina >> of the universe >> >> >> >> Perhaps it is not I that will not accept (the ad hominem) of "anything >> that does not fit my conceptions?" >> >> >> >> You are making unjustified accusations as far as I can see - and this is >> not merely because my own opinions differ from the mainstream of physics on >> information theory. I am certainly able to understand an argument even if I >> disagree with it. In fact, I see nothing in what you have said to actually >> disagree with, except in the matter of the ideal. >> >> >> >> And so we, you and I, are an example here. >> >> >> >> Information, as you said, is necessary (or base covariant) distinctions, >> observable/measurable in behavior. Shannon's mathematics is informative, it >> highlights the nature of distinctions and the quantifiable limits of their >> apprehension (their transmission). >> >> >> >> For me, at least, "communication" is an idea and not something that >> actually happens. It is something that we speak about. In apprehension, >> Shannon's work is informative in the above way, it tells us more about what >> is happening. It informs us concerning the nature of information and it is >> for this reason that it is the corner stone of modern information theory. >> >> >> >> In information theory it is important to understand the separation of >> ideas: i.e., the message from the messenger. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Steven >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:35 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think we will have to agree to disagree, Steven. You are going to >> object to anything that doesn’t fit your notion of information. The trend >> is pretty obvious. >> >> >> >> I said before that I thought your preconceptions do not allow you to see >> other approaches, and I now take that as confirmed. So further discussion >> on this is pointless. Fortunately that doesn’t make discussion on other >> issues a problem. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith >> *Sent:* April 1, 2015 5:29 PM >> *To:* John Collier >> *Cc:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8162] Re: Article on origina >> of the universe >> >> >> >> Yes, I understood all this going in. Seth Lloyd, whom I like very much, >> is more less grounded than I'd like. Muller's thesis, with all respect, did >> not impress me. Where, exactly, was the error I supposedly made? :-) >> >> >> >> Characterizing black hole behavior is an evolving dynamic, far from >> resolved. It is an assumption on the part of theorists that information >> cannot be lost, but the evidence appears to the contrary. I'm not even sure >> that the discussion has a consistent reference. >> >> >> >> What they mean, from my point of view, when they say information cannot >> be lost is that processes are reversible, but there is, in fact, no >> evidence at all that processes should be reversible in the way described - >> Susskind's wishful thinking of "wait forever and it must happen" aside. >> There is a failure here to understand the nature and scale of >> combinortorics. >> >> >> >> Steven >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:12 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Steven, >> >> >> >> I I suggest the work by the physicists I have mentioned, and also >> Scott Muller’s book on information. Shannon was brilliant in communication >> theory, but communication theory is not information theory. You can find >> the idea of distinctions making a difference in writings of Arabic >> philosophers like ibn Arabi and later in Leibniz, who Arabi indirectly >> influenced. The applications of the ideas by more recent physicists are >> designed to explain and predict things like the activity at the boundaries >> of black holes (information cannot disappear is a basic tenet of the >> problem they are investigating – obviously this is not Shannon information, >> which certainly can disappear). Seth Lloyd goes a step further and >> hypothesizes the world is a quantum computer. Information, of course, is a >> distinction that makes a difference. Shannon’s work is an application of >> the basic idea of information. But it is a relatively restricted >> (nongeneric) application, though within the restrictions there are a lot of >> cases. >> >> >> >> Mathematically Shannon's formalism has been shown to be >> equivalent to algorithmic information theory and some other formats that >> don’t presuppose either probability or combinatorics (Chaitin, Kolmogorov, >> Ingarden). But of course common mathematical models don’t imply sameness of >> kind in the real world. So it is possible to use the combinatoric version >> of Shannon’s approach and apply it (via group theory) to intrinsic >> information (Muller) and to the information flows at the boundaries of >> black holes (though “boundary” is a bit misleading). Lloyd discusses this >> case in his book Programming the Universe - Random House, which is a >> semi-popular introduction. His PhD thesis was *Black Holes, Demons and >> the Loss of Coherence: How complex systems get information, and what they >> do with it.* <http://meche.mit.edu/documents/slloyd_thesis.pdf> (Ph.D. >> thesis). The Rockefeller University >> <https://www.wikiwand.com/en/The_Rockefeller_University>. >> >> >> >> I In any case, as you say, this has little to do with biological >> information or biosemiotics, which does involve things like coding >> (transfer RNA encodes information in DNA, for example, which eventually >> decoded in ribosomes to make proteins, though the code is certainly not >> 1-1). I gave an account of biological information flow that does not invoke >> Shannon, but does deal with semantic aspects (I have previously recommended >> the work on distributed information flow this is based on to Sung). In fact >> one of the more slippery problems for the people who work on information >> flow (mostly at Stanford) is how to incorporate Shannon information. >> Intuitively it seems obvious, but it is mathematically tricky. Conceptually >> tricky is how to integrate information flow through a channel with >> biosemiotics. A group of us have one paper that addresses the issue, with >> some examples. It can be found on my web page if anyone is interested >> (published in Biosemiotics). I think a lot more work is required. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith >> *Sent:* April 1, 2015 3:50 PM >> *To:* John Collier; [email protected]; [email protected] >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8162] Re: Article on origina >> of the universe >> >> >> >> I remain unclear on what you are referring to with respect to the >> empirical results. I have long been involved with information theory. Where >> is my error, exactly? How do physicists, as you appear to claim, speak >> about information in a way that is not consistent with Shannon? >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Steven >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:43 AM, John Collier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Steven, >> >> >> >> I am not just asserting it, I am pointing to research traditions with >> empirical results. The researchers involved are not idealists in any sense >> I can see. You are stubbornly holding on to your idea of information and it >> is blinding you to how the idea has been used by physicists for several >> decades now. >> >> >> >> I don’t expect you to follow the work, but I take exception to you >> dissing it when you clearly do not understand its basis, as evidenced by >> your attributing incorrect attributes to it. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith >> *Sent:* March 30, 2015 7:55 PM >> *To:* John Collier >> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8162] Re: Article on origina >> of the universe >> >> >> >> If there is anything that I have learned at all, ever and anywhere, it is >> that because people think for a long time that it is so, it does not make >> it so. >> >> >> >> This is why humanity invented the scientific method and it is the entire >> reason for Epistemology as a discipline ... to keep us honest. You may >> persuade yourself of anything at all in its absence. >> >> >> >> The basis of this method is Empiricism, the actual measurement of motion. >> If this is what the discussion reduces to then I am happy and I do not care >> what you call it as long as we understand that there is a distinction, a >> necessary distinction, between the conception of measure, the idea, and the >> world. Because, for example, measure is discrete, it does not follow that >> the subject of the measure is, in fact, discrete. >> >> >> >> The power of assertion must stand aside. >> >> >> >> I understand the power of "information" as an IDEA, just as I understand >> the power of the notion of "communication" as an IDEA, but neither can have >> existential status unless you are a strict idealist and assert that ideas >> exist. >> >> >> >> From my point of view, Ideas must become the subject of Empirical measure >> - we must, as we have done for gravitation and electromagnetism, measure >> the motions produced by ideas. Given that ideas are necessarily measurable >> in this way, they cannot be first anywhere - denying strict Idealism as the >> basis of the world. >> >> >> >> Asserting it is otherwise makes no sense. >> >> >> >> Steven >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:30 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> “It from bit.” Information as the ground of “stuff”. >> >> >> >> Well I guess you have to have a modicum of understanding of the physics >> (my original field). To understand what is meant by the slogan it helps to >> study the writings on the topic of Wheeler, Gell-Mann and Seth Lloyd, and >> the literature on Hawking radiation helps (I’d stay away from Paul Davies’ >> work, which is too idealistic for my taste and probably yours). I have been >> thinking of information as “stuff” since I was an undergraduate, and I have >> also talked with a number of these people or their students, and was able >> to match the idea up with my understanding of physics. I suppose these >> interactions were important to my understanding in the way that Kuhn argues >> that membership in a research group is required to fully understand how a >> research program can be carried forward. >> >> >> >> I’ve been asked on occasion what entropy is in job interviews and I have >> to say that you can’t understand it in a few words. You need to work with >> it, dealing with real problems. Some very smart people I know got it wrong >> in their undergraduate physics and physical chemistry course. It is not an >> easy concept. The relationship between entropy and information (as stuff) >> is at least as difficult, but opens the door to understanding information >> as stuff. BY the way, one of my students, Scott Muller, took my ideas of >> intrinsic information and origin of information through symmetry breaking >> much further than I did in his PhD thesis, published as Asymmetry: The >> Foundation of Information >> https://books.google.com.br/books?id=oMFsko4E9FQC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=asymmetry+principle+of+information+muller&source=bl&ots=lO024N84sa&sig=1LDiHZu1Jyet8ABBpTPZ3NJ-UUc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9LsZVdn8C8P3yQS-4YDQAQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=asymmetry%20principle%20of%20information%20muller&f=false >> >> Scott uses group theory to show that information content is not a >> relative quantity, as Jaynes thought, but is specific to the asymmetries in >> a structure. He gives a number of simple examples, but the argument is >> fairly abstract. But as I was suggesting above, the meat is really in the >> applications to real cases and the capacity to extend them to other cases. >> Scott’s background is in physical chemistry (PhD), philosophy (PhD) and >> programming (his occupation). >> >> >> >> That said, so far the article I initiated this discussion with is a step >> too far for me. But it does illustrate, right or wrong, that time needn’t >> exist prior to the universe, and that there is another, logical, sense of >> priority. If we accept Rosen’s idea of logic mirroring causal connection, >> then this latter is a form of causal priority. The problem I see is not the >> use of the information concept, but the basis of the distinction space and >> what determines it. The paper gives nothing but existence and >> non-existence, which is pretty spare. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Steven Ericsson-Zenith >> *Sent:* March 30, 2015 5:50 PM >> *To:* John Collier >> *Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected] >> *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8162] Re: Article on origina of the universe >> >> >> >> Here's my problem with this. Simply stating that information is "stuff" >> is insufficient. "It from Bit" is a cute slogan but nowhere (and I mean >> NOWHERE) near good enough. >> >> >> >> Steven >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:20 PM, John Collier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Yeh, the sort of information talked about in the article is “stuff”. It >> from bit. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* Edwina Taborsky [mailto:[email protected]] >> *Sent:* March 30, 2015 5:18 PM >> *To:* Biosemiotics; [email protected] >> *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8156] Re: Article on origina of the universe >> >> >> >> Steven - I'd agree that information is, as it exists, an action. In my >> view, matter only exists as 'organized' and thus is in a differentiated >> form, which is to say, it is 'in-formation'. BUT this organization operates >> within networked interactions; in other words - there is no such thing as, >> for example, an isolate 'bit' of matter unconnected to other matter. >> Everything is interactive, is networked, is in that sense, 'in action' and >> in interaction. So, I would say that this is an 'active description of >> information'. Not a passive definition. >> >> >> >> i don't think that energy or matter exist per se. They exist only as >> in-formed, as organized into a particular differentiated unit - i.e, as >> information. As we know, energy exists in our universe only as matter >> (Einstein)...and I'm agreeing that this matter isn't unorganized but is >> organized into a differentiation from other matter. >> >> >> >> However, you and I disagree on the meaning of information. You seem to >> say that it is 'ideas'; while I am defining information as organized >> matter. The analytic outline of this organized matter, the conscious sign >> of this organized matter - is an 'idea'. But that is secondary to the basic >> ontological reality that is information..i.e., that organized unit of >> matter. >> >> >> >> I'm not saying that ideas have a physical basis - for they may not. eg, a >> unicorn has no physical basis. I'm not talking about ideas at all. >> Information is not the same as an idea, in my view. >> >> >> >> Edwina >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> >> >> *To:* Biosemiotics <[email protected]> ; Peirce Discussion Forum >> ([email protected]) <[email protected])> >> >> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 4:05 PM >> >> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8151] Re: Article on origina of >> the universe >> >> >> >> >> >> I think this brief discussion is most instructive and it may highlight >> the source of much discontent over the years in the community discussing >> the Perigean works. >> >> >> >> Pierce put ideas first. So if we take this position then I begin to >> understand Edwina's position as Ideal. And in this sense she may be correct >> - all though I have some dispute with her passive definition of >> information. In Shannon's terms, information is an act. >> >> >> >> However, as I pointed out in the recent discussion on Peirce's definition >> of evolution, no Peirce family member ever dismissed the ontological world, >> and their long term goal was to build the bridge between pure mathematics, >> rigorous and impartial ideas, and the physical sciences, the world in which >> these ideas exist. >> >> >> >> As Einstein points out, there is no difference between energy and matter >> - but again, I am puzzled by Edwina's description. However, the hierarchy >> she describes does make some sense. Energy exists as matter (Einstein) and >> matter "exists" (and can be spoken of) as information. So energy appears >> fundamental in her model. I would not disagree with that had it not been >> for ... >> >> >> >> ... her confusing assertion that "not energy, nor matter." By asserting >> that neither matter nor energy exist, the measurable subjects of our >> experience, and that only ideas (information) exists, the world is vacuous. >> There is not basis but ideas. >> >> >> >> Ideas manifestly have a physical basis and to state otherwise, in my >> mind, is denial. It the inverse argument of those that argue that our >> feeling of ideas (often called "consciousness") is an illusion. Also, >> nonsense. >> >> >> >> Edwina may be happy with such assertions, but it does not satisfy me. >> >> >> >> Steven >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Stan- no, matter does not exist before/prior to information. >> Matter=information. Since, to be existent as matter, it must be organized. >> This means, that it is information. >> >> >> >> Information is fundamental. Not matter or energy - for they do not exist >> 'per se'. Energy exists as matter and matter exists as information. >> >> >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> *From:* Stanley N Salthe <[email protected]> >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> >> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 2:59 PM >> >> *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8150] Re: Article on origina of the universe >> >> >> >> Edwina -- Your >> >> >> >> information is 'matter-that-is-organized' >> >> >> >> suggests that matter exists before, or is prior to, information. Is that >> right? >> >> >> >> STAN >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Ah, so, to you, 'information is a way of speaking about something'. To >> me, information is 'matter-that-is-organized' such that it is >> differentiated from other matter. This matter exists because it is >> in-form-ed, i.e., organized within a particular form. Therefore, I agree >> with the outline provided by John Collier. >> >> >> >> To me, information has nothing to do with the secondary level of speaking >> about something. And of course, no requirement therefore for 'adding to >> knowledge' and 'identifying cause'. Those are secondary levels. >> >> >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> >> >> *To:* Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> >> *Cc:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> ; Biosemiotics >> <[email protected]> ; Peirce Discussion Forum >> ([email protected]) <[email protected])> >> >> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 1:35 PM >> >> *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8138] Article on origina of >> the universe relevant to some recent discussions on these lists >> >> >> >> Information is a way of speaking about that which adds to knowledge and >> identifies cause. >> >> >> >> Where I use the term "knowledge" in the general Liberal Physicalist sense >> to refer to that which determines subsequent action. >> >> >> >> Steven >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Steven - are you saying that information 'is nothing'? >> >> >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> *From:* Steven Ericsson-Zenith <[email protected]> >> >> *To:* Biosemiotics <[email protected]> >> >> *Cc:* Peirce Discussion Forum ([email protected]) >> <[email protected])> >> >> *Sent:* Monday, March 30, 2015 1:22 PM >> >> *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: [biosemiotics:8138] Article on origina of the >> universe relevant to some recent discussions on these lists >> >> >> >> Stunningly comical. Energy from information ... an unplausible >> mathematical description of something from nothing. It goes to show what >> you get from an ungrounded purely mathematical education. >> >> >> >> Steven >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 9:47 AM, John Collier <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Dear lists, >> >> >> >> The following article is relevant to issues of “What came before the Big >> Bang?”, the evolution of laws in the universe and some others. It cites, >> among others, David Layzer and myself, and generally follows the approaches >> that we have argued for. It also brings together other related material >> from other sources related to symmetry breaking (information formation, >> and, if on a cosmic scale, law formation). In particular it invokes the “no >> boundary conditions” requirement for a satisfactory cosmological theory >> (favoured by Hawking, Smolin, Layzer and many other cosmologists). The >> authors give this condition as that the universe originated in a >> singularity that is not knowable, since it contains no information. >> Information, here, is of course the physicists’ notion of “it from bit”, >> used in cosmology, the study of black holes and in some branches of Quantum >> Theory (quantum computation and quantum field theory in particular), >> according to which energy and matter are incidental, and information >> (distinctness) is fundamental. >> >> >> >> The paper is Spontaneous Creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo >> >> Maya Lincoln >> >> Electronic Address: [email protected] >> >> Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel >> >> Avi Wasser >> >> Electronic Address: [email protected] >> >> Affiliation: University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel >> >> >> >> It can be found online with a good search engine. >> >> >> >> The paper is a sketch of the theory rather than a theory (as they say “a >> first step”). I don’t think it differs all that much from David Layzer’s >> views, judging by my discussions with him about twenty years ago. But >> perhaps it is more boldly stated. I am not satisfied that it really >> resolves the issue of why there is something rather than nothing, but if it >> does, it makes the existence of the Universe necessary rather than >> contingent. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> John >> >> >> >> John Collier, Philosophy, UKZN, Durban 4041 >> >> http://web.ncf.ca/collier >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >
----------------------------- 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 .
