Hi Ed,
*(1) On what real grounds does it make sense to "claim that there may be
three types of times"? *
"Time" is a sign, and all signs are relations among three entities -- sign
itself (or representamen), the object the sign is referring to and the
effect the sign has on the mind of the interpreter of the sign, called the
interpretant, which can be represented diagrammatically thus:
f g
Object -------> Representamen -------> Interpretant
|
^
|
|
|_________________________________|
h
Figure 1. A diagrammatic representation of the Peircean sign. f = sign
production; g = sign interpretation; h = information flow. grounding, or
correspondence.
Since there is no doubt that "time" is a sign, it must possess three
irreducible aspects which I identified as "real time", "physical time", and
"formal time". Furthermore, I suggest that "real time" can be identified
with "processes" occurring in nature, and "physical time" is identical with
measured time, and "formal time" is a theoretical model of the real time.
*(2) As you speak of the "real" and the "physical": Is "physical time" not
"real" for you? Why not?*
To me, "physical time" is measured or lived time, whereas "real time" is
something present even before measurement and acting as the source of
"physical time".
*(3) If you just admit that somebody, for example Isaac Newton, may already
have solved the enigma of "time": Would it not make sense to explore this
solution, instead of continuing to consider alternative hypotheses? Why not
ask your students if they have ever read Newton, and what they would think
of the reversibility or irreversibility of a "second law" that reads "a
change in motion is proportional to the motive force impressed"? *
I am interested in exploring the concept of time based on the principle of
irreducible triadic relation (ITR) that Peirce formulated that seems to
apply universally, far more universally than any physical laws, including
Newtonian laws of motion (NLM). For example, ITR applies to linguistics
and self-organizing chemical reactions, but NLM does not.
*(4) The simple fact that you again and again quote "Newton's second law of
motion" (while actually referring to Euler's law) as a time-reversible
example demonstrates the importance of this example for your argument. Of
course, if there should be an irreversible law of motion at the very basis
of science, your considerations would prove at least superfluous.*
Remember that my argument is based on ITR, not NLM. Even if NLM is
time-irreversible as you claim, that would not affect my argument, as long
as there are other laws of physics that are time-reverse invariant.
*(5) Please will you finally see that it is not "my version of the second
law" which I ask you to respect but Newton's. If you would read him, you
would learn that there is no dualism of "absolute" and "formal" time but
of "absolute time " and "relative times": the absolute and infinite time
serving as the invariant standard of measurement of the finite times of
physical experience, which relative times then are evidently the real
"physical times" which you're missing in "Newton's law" as you're insisting
to misread it. What sense does it make to impute to Newton a concept of
time-reversibility that (as everybody knows) proves totally absurd and
nonsensical with respect to reality? Do you not think that this means to
make dubious the reputation of a colleague, and should therefore be
considered very carefully before doing so?*
It may be that NLM requires only two types of time, whereas ITR predicts
three types of time. Perhaps NLM times are a reduced version of the ITR
times, just as the Saussurean DYADIC sign can be viewed as a reduced
version of the Peircean TRIADIC sign ?
*(6) Perhaps your object of study is not reality but "Peircean
metaphysics". In this case, we would be speaking about different things. My
object of study is reality, the reality of time, which is physical and
real insofar as it is measurable, and which, in order to be measurable,
requires absolute invariant standards for determining the measurable things
relative to that standards, as it happens in every real process of
measurement (not only of "times"). So there are in reality two (not three)
types of "time": (1) the absolute standard, and (2) the times measured
relative to that standard. You have both types before your eyes should
you use a traditional analogue watch with a face and hands to show you the
actual time. There is the scaled round of 24 hours on the face,
representing the standard of measurement, or the "absolute time"; and there
are the real "physical" times that you are measuring relative to that
standard, as they are given through the position of the watch's hands
relative to the said standard of measurement. That's it. And that's all
you can learn about the types of "time" so long as you respect reality and
Nature.*
You assume that the measured time directly refers to the absolute time,
which is reminiscent of the Saussrean theory of signs (where signifier
directly refers to its signified without any mediation), but I am assuming
that the measured time is a part of an irreducible triadic relation so that
it is determined by the absolute time and determines its interpretant (or a
mental model) in such a way that the interpretant is related to the
absolute time. In other words, your concept of time is DYADIC, whereas
mine is TRIADIC.
All the best.
Sung
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Ed Dellian <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sung,
>
> (1) On what real grounds does it make sense to "claim that there may be
> three types of times"?
>
> (2) As you speak of the "real" and the "physical": Is "physical time" not
> "real" for you? Why not?
>
> (3) If you just admit that somebody, for example Isaac Newton, may already
> have solved the enigma of "time": Would it not make sense to explore this
> solution, instead of continuing to
> consider alternative hypotheses? Why not ask your students if they
> have ever read Newton, and what they would think of the reversibility or
> irreversibility of a "second law" that reads
> "a change in motion is proportional to the motive force impressed"?
>
> (4) The simple fact that you again and again quote "Newton's second law of
> motion" (while actually referring to Euler's law) as a time-reversible
> example demonstrates the importance of this
> example for your argument. Of course, if there should be an
> irreversible law of motion at the very basis of science, your
> considerations would prove at least superfluous.
>
> (5) Please will you finally see that it is *not "**my** version of the
> second law"* which I ask you to respect* but Newton's*. If you would read
> him, you would learn that there is no dualism of "absolute"
> and "formal" time but of "absolute time " and "relative times": the
> absolute and infinite time serving as the invariant standard of measurement
> of the finite times of physical experience,
> which relative times then are evidently the real "physical times"
> which you're missing in "Newton's law" as you're insisting to misread it.
> What sense does it make to impute to Newton a
> concept of time-reversibility that (as everybody knows) proves
> totally absurd and nonsensical with respect to reality? Do you not think
> that this means to make dubious the reputation of a
> colleague, and should therefore be considered very carefully before
> doing so?
>
> (6) Perhaps your object of study is not reality but "Peircean
> metaphysics". In this case, we would be speaking about different things. My
> object of study is reality, the reality of time, which is
> physical and real insofar as it is measurable, and which, in order
> to be measurable, requires absolute invariant standards for determining the
> measurable things relative to that standards,
> *as * *it* *happens in every real process of measurement* (not only
> of "times"). So there are in reality two (not three) types of "time": (1)
> the absolute standard, and (2) the times measured relative to
> that standard. You have both types before youre eyes should you use
> a traditional analogue watch with a face and hands to show you the actual
> time. There is the scaled round of 24 hours
> on the face, representing the standard of measurement, or the
> "absolute time"; and there are the real "physical" times that you are
> measuring relative to that standard, as they are given
> through the position of the watch's hands relative to the said
> standard of measurement. That's it. And that's all you can learn about the
> types of "time" so long as you respect reality and
> Nature.
>
> Ed.
>
> Am 29.07.2015 um 00:19 schrieb Sungchul Ji:
>
> 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
>
>
>
--
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 .
