Hi Ed, What I am claiming is that there may be three types of times --
'real', 'physical', and 'formal' that are mutually connected through ITR (irreducible triadic relation). As an example of 'formal time', also called 'reversible time', I cited the time appearing in Newton's second law of motion, F = md^2s/dt^2, which is invariant with respect to time reversal, i.e., F does not change when t is replaced by -t. You objected that I used the wrongly interpreted version of the Newton's second law, and, if I used your version of the law, my argument would not hold, since then F would not be time-reversal invariant. I accept that, but this would not affect my argument, since I am sure there are other physical laws, if not Newton's second law, that would exhibit the time-reversal invariance, thus supporting the concept of 'formal time' in contrast to 'physical time' which is always irreversible. Your version of Newton's second law may contain absolute and formal times, but not physical time, while Peircean triadic metaphysics (as I understand it) would predict absolute (or 'real' as I call it), physical, and formal times. All the best. Sung On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Ed Dellian <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Sung, > > my impression is that you're conflating Newton's irreversible geometric > law of motion "impressed force is proportional to change in motion" with > Leonhard Euler's reversible formula, the analytical arithmetic-algebraic > "force equals mass-acceleration" law (for the first discovery of this law > in Berlin on Sept. 3, 1750 see L. Euler, Découverte d'un nouveau principe > de Mécanique, Mem. Acad. Roy. Sci. Berlin, vol. 6 , 1750 (1752), pp. > 185-217). In order to avoid such a conflation, please note (1) that "to be > proportional" is not the same as "to be equal", (2) that a finite "change > in motion" is not the same as a continuous "acceleration". Wouldn't you > admit, then, that an irreversible "second law of Newton" should make some > difference for your line of resoning? As I said it before: It makes no > sense to proceed with your studies on the presupposition of > misinterpretations. And, a misinterpretation remains a misinterpretation, > no matter for how many years or centuries how many scientists, including > big shots and Nobel prize winners, have believed in it. > > Let me, by the way, declare here that I do not "interprete" Newton, nor do > I propose "my" personal theory of motion, rather I do what many other > scientists most regrettably have refused and still are refusing to do, > namely, *read Newton's laws and take the author at his words* (maybe > because they do not read Latin). Moreover, it is not my point here to say > that Newton's authentic laws *are true* with respect to nature, rather I > ask you to admit: Whether or not these laws are true *can only be decided > on the basis of what Newton has actually written. *Finally, I think that > Newton, as a colleague, simply deserves that you quote him correctly. > > Best wishes, > Ed. > > Am 28.07.2015 um 21:49 schrieb Sungchul Ji: > > Hi, > > I am wondering if "time" is irreducibly triadic in the following three > senses: > > > (*1*) As a Peircean sign, i.e., "time" as a name or a representamen > referring to a process and interpreted by a mind as such: > > > f g > Process -------> Time as a name -------> Time as theorized > (object) (representamen) (interpretant) > | > ^ > | > | > |____________________________________| > h > > Figure 1. Time as an irreducible triadic sign. As always, the arrows > can be read as "determines" or "constrains" in a broadest sense. f = > encoding; g = decoding; h = grounding, correspondence or information flow > > > (*2*) As a mechanism or a process: > > > f g > Past -------> Present -------> Future > | ^ > | | > |______________________| > h > > Figure 2. Time as an irreducible triadic process. f = natural > law-governed; g = natural law- and human intention-governed; h = > information flow > > > > (*3*) Figure 1 seems to reflect the formal aspect of time (or 'formal > time'), while Figure 2 reflects the material/physical aspect of time (or > 'physical time'). These two types of times together may constitute the > 'real time', suggesting the following triadic diagram: > > > > > f g > Real Time -------> Physical Time -------> Formal Time > | > ^ > | > | > |________________________________| > h > > > Figure 3. The postulate that there are three irreducible aspects to > time. f = natural process; g = mental process; h = information flow, or > correspondence > > > It seems to me that 'physical time' is irreversible (as in irreversible > thermodynamics) while 'formal time' can be reversed (as in Newtons' second > law of motion). Thus it may be convenient to refer to the former as > 'irreversible time' and the latter as 'reversible time'. My impression is > that some physicists, including Einstein, may have conflated these two > types of times. > > > If you have any questions, comments, or corrections, please let me know. > > > All the best. > > Sung > > > > > -- > 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 > > > -- 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 .
