Howard, Frederik, Ben, lists,
The following set of terms often appears more or less together in many
discussions on 'measurement' in physics and 'semiosis' in informatics:
1. subject
2. object
3. measurement
4. records
5. interpretation
6. observer
7. mind
I wonder if all these terms and concepts can be inter-related and
integrated, either explicitly or implicitly (see the words written in bold
letters in Figure 1) under the rubric of what may be called the
'communication category', i.e., the mathematical category underlying
communication in the real world:
f g
Phenomena ---------> RECORDS ----------> Model/Theory
(OBJECT) (Sign)
(Interpretant)
|
^
|
|
|____________________________________|
h
Figure 1. Integrating 'measurement' as a part of semiosis or a
mathematical category.
f = MEASUREMENT done by OBSERVER/SUBJECT/MIND
g = model or theory building by OBSERVER/SUBJECT/MIND
h = empirical support (or pragmatism ?)
I am sure there are other ways of "satisfying" or "filling" the 6
placeholders or blanks constituting the commutative triangle shown above
(consisting of three nodes, often designated as A, B and C, and three edges
denoted as f, g and h). This so-called 'ur-category' (i.e., the category
to which all other mathematical categories belong) may be similar to an
algebraic equation with 6 free parameters whose numerical values are
determined by the initial and boundary conditions of the system and its
environment under consideration. One such example is provided by the
3-parameter equation called the "Planckian distribution equation (PDE)", y
= (A/(x + B)^5)/(Exp (C/(x + B)) - ), discovered at Rutgers in 2008-9 that
fits almost any long-tailed histograms generated in both natural and human
sciences [1,2,3].
All the best.
Sung
References:
[1] Ji, S. (2012). Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts,
Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications. Springer, New York.
Chapter 11. Downloadable from http://www.conformon.net under Pubilications
> Book Chapters.
[2] Ji, S. (2015). Planckian distributions in molecual rmahcines,
living cells, and human brains: The wave-particle duality in biomedical
sciences. Proceedings of the Internatiional Conference on Biology and
Biomedical Engineering. Vienna, March 15-17, pp. 115-137. Uploaded to
ResearchGate in March, 2015.
[3] Ji, S. (2015). Planckian Informqiton (I_P): A new measure of order
in atoms, enzymes, cells, brains, human societies, and the cosmos. In:
Unified field Mechanics: NaturalScience beyodn the Veil of Spacetime
(Amoroso, R., Rowlands, P., and Kauffman, L., eds.) World Scientific, New
Jersey (to appear).
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:26 PM, Howard Pattee <[email protected]>
wrote:
> At 09:21 AM 5/1/2015, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
>
> I've got my own book to finish, so I for one need to get off this detour.
> My apologies for taking it in the first place.
>
>
> I accept your apology. It may be a detour from your book, but I don't
> think that my discussion of the *subject-object distinction* is a
> "detour" from Frederik's book. Like John Bell ( Against Measurement
> <http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/Against_Measurement.pdf>)
> Frederik believes that the "received subject-object dichotomies" are a
> "quagmire" (p' 307). A common issue in the book (e.g., p. 6 and p. 307) is
> that Peircean signs and semiotics can avoid the subject-object distinction.
>
> The nature of the subject-object distinction should be as important to
> phenomenologists as it is for physicists. In physics, the subject-object
> distinction is at the foundation of *empiricism*. This distinction must
> be made clearly, "if the method is not to proceed vacuously, i.e., if a
> comparison with experiment is to be possible" [von Neumann].
> .
> Does Peirce claim explicitly that his semiotics and signs eliminate the
> epistemic subject-object distinction? Or is this only an interpretation by
> some of his followers? All I have read is Peirce's comment that pretty well
> matches Hertz's epistemology that clearly distinguishes subject and object.
>
> Peirce: “The result that the chemist *observes* is brought about by*
> nature*, the result that the mathematician observes is brought about by
> the associations of the* mind*. . . the power that connects the
> conditions of the mathematicians diagram with the relations he *observes*
> in it is just as occult and mysterious to us as the power of Nature that
> brings about the results of the chemical experiment." .
>
> Could someone explain or even suggest how signs and semiosis make the
> subject-object distinction less occult and mysterious?
>
> Howard
>
>
> -----------------------------
> 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 .
