John: If you find your arguments below to be compelling, then the issue is no longer a issue for you.
These arguments are not compelling to me. See comment in text. On Dec 16, 2015, at 11:32 PM, John Collier wrote: > Jerry, > > I think you are making this seem more mysterious than it is. Mysterious? Strange choice of words. > My understanding is that degeneracy means that there is a restriction from > the general case (generate) to a less than general case. This is how Robert > Rosen, e.g., uses the notion, and I don’t see any good reason to think that > Peirce is using it any differently. Huh? I do not understand why the usage of another author a century later is relevant to another's usage a century earlier. > Basically, something is degenerate if it obscures generic differences in the > way it can be produced. Huh? CSP's usage start with the generative operation of crossing two lines. > If we treat the degenerate as general, then we will be likely to make bad > inferential extensions to general cases by overlooking crucial differences in > the general cases. > > In the passage from Peirce that you quote below, by way of Clark, I think the > distinction is that the degenerate seconds consider them in terms of their > form alone, which degenerates our understanding of them to firsts associated > with them, making our understanding of something that is internal. The > alternative is to regard them in terms of their true causes, which are > external or extrinsic, and may be multiple for the same (indistinguishable > internally) cases. > > A couple of examples are 1) spectral lines that can be produced by more than > one transition that nonetheless indicate the same energy levels, and 2) > isomers of compounds when they are regarded just in terms of stoichiometric > relations, ignoring their chirality. > Both examples are of interest as generative logical operations, not degenerative operations. In the case of genesis of isomers, I see no reason to separate out optical isomers as a special case. Every form of isomerization in the notation of chemisty is of a different sort or kind with respect to a given molecular formula. John, the following question comes to mind: As you are probably aware, bacteria (such as E, coli) can generate their internal carbon structures from many, many different carbon sources. Furthermore, they have a "pecking order" for selecting one exterion carbon source before another for internal constructions. For example, one isomer of hexose before a different isomers.. Is this generacy or degeneracy? A second question is similar. If a biological specie emerges as a consequence of loss of functionality, would you consider this generacy or degeneracy? Cheers Jerry > John Collier > Professor Emeritus, UKZN > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2015 01:52 > To: Peirce-L > Cc: Clark Goble; Jeffrey Brian Downard > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > Clark, Jeffrey, List: > > Allow me to expand on the nature of my ignorance of the meaning of degeneracy. > > Clearly, CSP's usage of this term with respect to mathematical objects, that > is conic sections, is crisp and meaningful within the Pythagorean-Cartesian > perspective of relations. Jeff's reference is crisp and, of course, well > known within the scientific community. > > In this case, the generacy, which must be antecedent to the degeneracy, is > also clear. The two lines cross or they do not cross. If they cross, then a > new object is generated, a cone and it mirror image. And this diagram plays > a critical role in the physics of the Minkowski's "space-time" debacle. > > My feeling is that this notion of "degeneracy" is difficult, if not > intractable, when applied to ordinary linguistic terms which do not imply a > "crossing" or parallelism. > Another example is, of course, chemical atoms or molecules. > > I feel a different notion for generating functions is necessary both > chemistry and biology.. > > However, from: > On Dec 16, 2015, at 4:01 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > > But the relations of > reason and these self-relations are alike in this, that they arise from the > mind setting one part of a notion into relation to another. All degenerate > seconds may be conveniently termed internal, in contrast to external > seconds, which are constituted by external fact, and are true actions of one > thing upon another. (CP 1.365 (1890)) > > one get's a better notion of the concept I was missing. > > Here, CSP brings the concepts of internal and external, also known as > intrinsic and extrinsic properties in physical-chemical textbooks. > > As I understand this quote, CSP is contrasting the relations of reason > (logic?) with the relation that everything has with itself, namely, it > identity. In other words, the "intrinsic properties" in physical - chemical > terms. > > A curious conjecture emerges from CSP's views. > Thus, one could conjecture that the relations of reason and external > properties are percepts of thermodynamics. Further, that the self-relations > of identity are the antecepts of quantum mechanics. > > Amusing to think about. Any other conjectures of interest? > > A bit of light has been cast on whatever CSP may have intended. > > 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
