jerry: I do not understand your post.
Can you clarify your meaning? Hopefully in terms of of syllogisms or propositional functions or numeric relations. Nevertheless I agree with with you our assertion that : > Even talking of mutations in individual genes and consequences on phenotype > is problematic for many situations. > > perhaps the reality of nature is more perplex than your imagination allows for. Cheers Jerry > On Apr 7, 2016, at 10:35 PM, Jerry Rhee <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > Just a friendly public service announcement: > > > If your interest is in genotype/phenotype mapping (i.e., relation between > mutation and change in organism), talk of atoms, molecules and valences is > considered bizarre. > > > I say this as a biologist and because talk of such things is antithetical to > what’s expected of a good hypothesis (a good relation between C and A in > abduction). They’re too far apart. Even talking of mutations in individual > genes and consequences on phenotype is problematic for many situations. > > > Best, > Jerry R > > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > List, Kirsti: > > >> On Apr 7, 2016, at 3:15 AM, [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: >> >> But let me first ask you some questions, to help me formulate my answer. >> >> 1) You concentrate on chemical symbols. - How about chemical reactions? > > JLRC: My interest for several decades has been on the antecedent-consequent > relation between a mutation and the change in an organism. How does it happen? > Chemical symbols and chemical reactions (as biochemical processes) are > necessary connections between the antecedent and the consequence. > That being said, the pre-percept of all chemical symbols, today, is the > chemical table of elements. All chemical processes, reactions, diffusion, > bindings, transfers are expressed in terms of the components (nuclei and > electrons) of the table of elements as ordinal and cardinal numbers. The > chemical elements stand in strict one-to-one correspondence with the natural > integers. This relationship gives closure on the relationship between matter > and the sub-atomic components of matter (but not the sub-sub-atomic > components of particle physics.) The perplex number system suffers one form > of physical closure under this constraint. Valence opens the closure by > material addition of atoms to form molecules. The logic of chemistry > consists of propositional functions on atomic numbers with valence relations > that creates new identities from atomic identities, constrained by physical > laws. Thus, CSP’s logical doctrine of individuals. >> >> 2) Is geometry left out of the ways of posing the problem? > > Geometry enters into chemical thought secondarily as a consequence of > arrangements of parts of the whole. The primary root of relations is the > chemical table of elements and valences and other forms of interaction. > That is, by secondary, I mean that one must have at least a pair of nodes to > have a distance. > And three nodes for an angle. The concept of a graph node pre-supposes > chemical particles. > > Note that QM assumes that geometric relations exist among the parts of the > whole of an atom and assign angles to relations to between orbitals on the > basis of electrical relations between nuclei and electrons. Chemists measure > angles between x-ray diffraction patterns and relate these to angles between > atoms in crystals. At the material level of molecules the languages of > chemistry, physics and mathematics use a common terminology but the meanings > of the terms vary with the discipline. > > The diagrammatic logic of chemistry is COMPOSED from relations among ordinal > and cardinal numbers as counts of electrons and nuclei. The diagrams can be > interpreted by various physical measurements. > > In terms of handedness, note that the left and right hand forms have exactly > the physical properties with respect to mass, electrical particles, bond > structures and other physical attributes. The mirror images of the pair of > optical isomers (handedness) is not predicted by physics laws per se. The > specific arrangement discovered by Pastuer requires an arrangement of at > least 5 separate and distinct “radicals” in a pattern such that the mirror > images differ. (Today, the physical origin of optical rotation of polarized > light is attributed to the rotation of the electrical field vector of a light > ray by interaction with the five different “radicals”.) > > In short, the logic of physics and the logic of chemistry start with > different pre-suppositions with regard to the nature of matter. Different > symbolic antecedents results in different symbolic consequences. Hence, the > different meta-languages of the two disciplines. In “Primary Logic”, M. > Malatesta (1997), GraceWings, derives the distinctions in terms of the > historical development of differences of logical notations. > > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to > PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] <mailto:[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 > <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 .
