Hi Kirsti, Clark:
From the exchange:
Mathematical dimensionality, in its traditional form bridges plane
and
solid geometry - 1,2,3,..,N.
Did CSP ever use traditional mathematical dimensionality in
describing
logic?
No, CSP did not use traditional mathematical divisions into plane
and solid geometry, except as something to criticize.
Most modern logicians operate off of first order logical premise which
roughly translate that logic is an algebra and algebra is a logic.
Universality of meaning is, somehow or other, exchanged between
algebraic symbols (signs) and logical symbols (signs).
Do you believe this is possible?
Do you find a method, a way, a path, a plausible conjecture that
creates a bridge between algebra and logic?
Many scholars (in many different fields) just assume that such a
bridge exists, including CSP himself.
No such bridge is known in chemistry, as far as I am aware.
Of course, I agree with your assertion that
Whithin the realm of topology any plane or solid may be folded,
streched and shrunk (ect) ad infinitum. But without breaking the
continuity of operations. Thus a coffeecup and a doughnut appear as
parts of SAME (as a process).
(Although I would modify it slightly.)
One logical consequence of the chemical symbol system is that atoms
have volumes (Van der Waal’s constants in thermodynamics.)
No generalized “folding, stretching, and shrinking” of these
chemical symbols.
Nor of chemical bonds.
CHEMICAL SYMBOLS REPRESENT A SPECIAL FORM OF LOGICAL CONSTANTS THAT
ARE SUBJECT TO LOGICAL OPERATIONS OF OTHER LOGICAL CONSTANTS UNDER THE
CONSTRAINTS OF ELECTRICAL ATTRACTORS AND REPELLERS. THAT IS WHAT
ATOMISM IS ALL ABOUT TODAY.
One of the conundrum that CSP’s logic (including his diagrams)
brings to my mind is that the role of numbers is obscure and vague.
How does anyone do science without numbers?
Or, am I missing the point?
Of course, to introduce numbers into his logic would effectively
modify his notions about the role of continuity in logic and his view
of the nature of chemical radicals.
Tarski’s approach avoids this conundrum. See M. Malatesta, Primary
Logic, 1997, Gracewing, for a detailed discussion of the history of
logical forms, logical notations and Tarski’s linguistic
consequences.
Clark:
These is a vast literature computational chemistry and it role in both
stationary and transitional states. In fact my son had a paper in
Science on such computations for the catalyst by gold of Carbon
monoxide oxidation. Very sophisticated programs with beautiful
graphics for showing molecular biological bindings are commercially
available.
Cheers
Jerry
On Apr 6, 2016, at 3:07 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
Jerry, You wrote to me:
JLRC:"My purpose is mainly to align the logics in terms of
Tarski’s
meta-languages, but I will not address that here."
KiM: If and when Tarski is your object of thought, my note is
completely irrelevant.
JLRC: The meta-languages of interest here geometry, matter,
number, space
and time.
First, geometry.
Plane geometry terms: point, line, plane, closed surfaces,
(triangles,
squares, pentagons,…)
Solid geometry - spheres, tetrahedrons, irregular forms (soccer
balls
and the like).
Mathematical dimensionality, in its traditional form bridges plane
and
solid geometry - 1,2,3,..,N.
Did CSP ever use traditional mathematical dimensionality in
describing
logic?
No, CSP did not use traditional mathematical divisions into plane
and solid geometry, except as something to criticize. He did
re-arrange fundamental geometry into three grades, first topology,
second, perspectiv geometry, and only after those comes
meaasurement, etc. - The relation between topological geometry and
perspectival geometry are needed in order to make sensible,
meaningful and useful measurements. - This is how I have interpreted
CSP. CSP was not modern, he was definitely post-modern.
Whithin the realm of topology any plane or solid may be folded,
streched and shrunk (ect) ad infinitum. But without breaking the
continuity of operations. Thus a coffeecup and a doughnut appear as
parts of SAME (as a process).
Tarski's metalanguages, on the other hand, appear to me definitely
modern.
In places, where you use the word "style", I would use "kind".
Difference in kinds has a different meaning than difference in
styles, to my mind. But apparently not to your mind?
I was only talking of how to understand the graphical diagram from
the ground CSP had developed.( Nothing about Tarski.)
Just dismiss my note, if it has no appeal to you!
Cheers, Kirsti
Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 5.4.2016 18:13:
Jon, John, Kirsti, List:
First, Ok, I found the passages. My source was Roberts, Existential
Graphs of CSP, p.26. Roberts cites 3.469 and 4.561.
Now to the philosophical issues and the perplexity of number theory
as
matter. This post should be contrasted with FS views of the role of
diagrams in CSP’s writings.
John:
Since ammonia is a very small molecule with a small number of
electrical parts, 14 to be exact, it has been deeply studied from a
physical-mechanical perspective. The usual chemical representation
is
as a planar figure,as a representation of empirical measurements.
Approximations from both quantum theory and molecular mechanics
suggest a ‘flattened” TETRAHEDRAL structure, not a plane. In gas
phase, the spectra data suggests that NH3 molecule flips back and
forth, above and below the plane of the nitrogen nucleus, much like
an
umbrella flipping by strong wind.
Electrically, the 14 particles are distinguished as 4 nuclei and 10
electrons. The polar opposites (nuclei and electrons) are arranged
in
a lattice like pattern to form an electro-neutral lattice like
object.
Thus, from a modern chemical perspective, NH3 is more perplex than
the
simple structure of introductory textbooks,.
But, CSP did not have access to such data and could not have taken
it
into consideration. Nevertheless, the underlying concept of
representation of chemical structures as stationary objects remains
the same today, the same since Dalton’s precedence of 1806. It is
this stationary image of whole-part relations that give chemistry
its
scientific identity and CSP’s logic of the particular.
This stationarity of representation of numbers is, of course, one of
the critical mathematical and philosophical separations of CSP’s
logic from modern physical thought, where “to be is to be a
variable”.
Kirsti:
May I re-align your wording a bit?
My purpose is mainly to align the logics in terms of Tarski’s
meta-languages, but I will not address that here.
The meta-languages of interest here geometry, matter, number, space
and time.
First, geometry.
Plane geometry terms: point, line, plane, closed surfaces,
(triangles,
squares, pentagons,…)
Solid geometry - spheres, tetrahedrons, irregular forms (soccer
balls
and the like).
Mathematical dimensionality, in its traditional form bridges plane
and
solid geometry - 1,2,3,..,N.
Did CSP ever use traditional mathematical dimensionality in
describing
logic?
A three dimensional tetrahedron plays a critical role in the
extension
of chemical thought as a mode of "filling space”. (This concept
has
deep inferences and deeper implications!)
Compare, ammonia (NH3) with methane (CH4). The latter has five
nuclei
and ten electrons. The five nuclei and eight of the ten electrons
can
be arranged in a regular lattice-like perplex structure. The other
two
electrons appear to be irregular in this geometric representation.
AS a consequence of these formula and similar formula, Nitrogen is
assigned a valence of three and carbon a valence of four. (It is
that
simple!)
Methane is spatially represented as a tetrahedron with the carbon
atom
IN THE GEOMETRIC SPATIAL CENTER. It is symmetric around the center
point of the carbon nucleus.
(The potential for planar asymmetry is intrinsic to the valence of
four of carbon and introduces the concept of “handedness" into
chemical thought. Again, this is another major distinction between
the
conceptualization of physical and chemical thought as a consequence
of
valence.)
CSP’s diagram, as shown by Roberts, is a diagram on a surface with
a
central nitrogen and the three attached hydrogens as “spokes”,
forming a unity. It is not a directed graph (not a graph of
mathematical category theory.)
The intent of this brief post was to shed some light on why I found
the passage cited by Roberts of great interest and why I questioned
Jon’s enhancements to CSP’s artwork. I hope I succeeded.
Some of my generalizations in relation to certain weaknesses of
CSP’s style.
The philosophical conjecture is that CSP used number theory in many
ways, not just the simple arithmetic of addition, subtraction,
multiplication, division, roots and exponents. He sought to include
CHEMICAL number theory within his mathematical logic. As well as
chemical memory. His general approach to logic is characterized by
his
efforts to do so. Latter, Lesniewski followed the percepts of CSP,
but
Tarski rejected this logical style of thought and separated formal
logical terms into meta-languages (see: Malatesta, The Primary
Logic,
199. Modern chemical and biological logic follow both the Poles. The
notation of the perplex number system captures the Lesniewski -
Tarski
duality.
This is the "difference that makes a difference” and separates
CSP's
metaphysics of logic from other formal logics, other systems of
beliefs about the nature of thought, such as those proposed by FS.
Cheers
Jerry
By the way, these remarks are a further example of my simplistic
metaphysics:
_THE UNION OF UNITS UNIFIES THE UNIT_y.
On Apr 5, 2016, at 3:50 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
John & al
I have a suggestion for what is missing. By mistake, I sent my
suggestion only to Jerry. But perhaps you and Jon are interested in
it, as well. - So I'll copy my note below:
Jerry,
I have not studied this particular triad CSP has presented. - BUT
two-dimensional diagrams never present triadicity to completion.
Tree dimensions are needed. And even then TIME is needed as the
fourth dimension, IF any reaction is to be grasped as a process.
Try imagining the diagram in a three-dimensional space. - Triadicity
is not about triangles (as defined in plane geometry) ). - Then you
will end up with a tetraed.
Any tetraed has FOUR turning points, four edges, as well as four
triangular planes. Projective geometry is thus needed in order to
present a diagram showing the hidden one, too.
And then the dimension of TIME. - Phillip J. Davis & Reuben Hersh
(1980) in 'Mathematical Experience' deal with some of the
mathematical problems involved. (They do not understand triadicity,
unfortunately).
Best wishes,
Kirsti
John Collier kirjoitti 5.4.2016 07:41:
Thanks for the context, Jerry. I am not familiar with the passage,
but
it does seem, by your account, to be peculiar at best. I would agree
that the standard representation of NH3 puts all of the nodes (the
endpoints, or perhaps the branches, representing hydrogen atoms and
the centre the nitrogen atom). This is a structure of relations, and
I
see no reason why it would need to be interpreted as a third. That
is
quite unlike the triple relation of the sign, unless we are missing
something here, I have no idea what it might be. Your explanation
seems plausible to me, given Peirce's (near) obsession with threes,
but it is also such an obvious error that I can't help but wonder if
we are missing something.
John Collier
Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Associate
University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier [1] [1]
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 05 April 2016 6:24 AM
To: Peirce List
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Systems Of Interpretation
Jon, John:
Thanks, Jon.
The question I raised was in order to seek alternative
interpretations of CSP’s
diagram of a chemical structure, ammonia. (NH3)
He showed it as a triad. The nitrogen atom was in the middle of the
three
hydrogens, each at the end of a spoke. NOT a triangle.
But, the chemical atoms are all of the nature and co-exist as
relatives. So,
four atoms but only a triad.
Why?
My feeling is that CSP wanted a triad so that he made one.
This is not a satisfactory inquiry into a diagrammatic assertion.
Cheers
Jerry
On Apr 3, 2016, at 5:04 PM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote:
Peircers,
Questions about the meaning of the “central hub” in the
“three-spoked”
picture of an elementary sign relation have often come up, just
recently among Jerry Chandler's questions and a question Mary
Libertin
asked on my blog.
Maybe the answer I gave there can help to clear that up:
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/31/systems-of-interpretation-%E2
[4]
[2]
%80%A2-5/#comment-32800
The central “spot”, as Peirce called it [in his logical
graphs], is
located on a different logical plane, since it is really a
place-holder for the whole sign relation or possibly for the
individual triple. Normally I would have labeled it with a letter
to
indicate the whole sign relation, say L, or else the individual
triple, say ℓ = (o, s, i).
Regards,
Jon
On 3/31/2016 1:24 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Post : Systems Of Interpretation • 5
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/31/systems-of-interpretation-%e
[5]
[3]
2%80%a2-5/
Date : March 31, 2016 at 10:24 am
Subthread:
MB:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18534
[6]
[4]
EVD:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18540
[7]
[5]
JLRC:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18552
[8]
[6]
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18553
[9]
[7]
JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18554
[10]
[8]
Mike, Val, Jerry, List,
Here is the revised edition of my last comment on the order
issue.
(I am hoping I can get to the rest of Jerry's questions
eventually.)
Figure 2. An Elementary Sign Relation (and see attached)
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/awbrey-awbrey-
[11]
[9]
1999-elementary-sign-relation.gif
An elementary sign relation is an ordered triple (o, s, i).
It is called ''elementary'' because it is one element of a sign
relation L ⊆ O × S × I, where O is a set of objects, S is a
set of
signs, and I is a set of interpretant signs that are collectively
called the ''domains'' of the relation.
But what is the significance of that ordering?
In any presentation of subject matter we have to distinguish the
natural order of things from the order of consideration or
presentation in which things are taken up on a given occasion.
The natural order of things comes to light through the discovery
of
invariants over a variety of presentations and representations.
That type of order tends to take a considerable effort to reveal.
The order of consideration or presentation is often more
arbitrary,
making some aspects of the subject matter more salient than
others
depending on the paradigm or perspective one has chosen.
In the case of sign relations, the order in which we take up the
domains O, S, I or the components of a triple (o, s, i) is wholly
arbitrary so long as we maintain the same order throughout the
course
of discussion.
Regards,
Jon
--
academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey [2] [10]
my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ [3] [11]
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to
REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu
. To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu
with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message.
More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [12] [12] .
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON
PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to
peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to
PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe
PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [12] [12] .
Links:
------
[1] http://web.ncf.ca/collier [1]
[2]
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/31/systems-of-interpretation-%E2
[4]
[3]
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/31/systems-of-interpretation-%e
[5]
[4] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18534
[6]
[5] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18540
[7]
[6] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18552
[8]
[7] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18553
[9]
[8] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18554
[10]
[9]
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/awbrey-awbrey-
[11]
[10] http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey [2]
[11] http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ [3]
[12] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm [12]
Links:
------
[1] http://web.ncf.ca/collier
[2] http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
[3] http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
[4]
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/31/systems-of-interpretation-%E2
[5]
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2016/03/31/systems-of-interpretation-%e
[6] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18534
[7] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18540
[8] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18552
[9] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18553
[10] http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/18554
[11]
https://inquiryintoinquiry.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/awbrey-awbrey-
[12] http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
