> On Nov 3, 2016, at 12:23 PM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote: > > Quantum filed theory seems to have arrived at such a foundational > ur-continuity.
I’m not sure that’s right. There’s certainly a type of continuity in quantum field theory but it’s unlike Peirce’s ur-continutiy because QFT pretty well assumes space/time are in some sense well defined. As soon as you start trying to deal with space/time more critically you end up having problems which is of course why string theory and other models like loop quantum gravity arose. Peirce’s ur-continuity largely is following a platonic emanation model and thus is logically before space and time. (Even space in the Timaeus is a much more abstract notion of receptacle even if it clearly is metaphorically tied to our experience of space) I think it’s therefore misleading to apply QFT to Peirce here. > What fascinates me with this interpretation is that it changes the conception > of God from the person creator we are used in standard Christianity and > many other religions to a general process ontology… I’m not sure the creator in standard Christianity is a person-creator. At least as I understand most of the theology. I think the typical lay belief about creation is much more a bearded man making everything but that’s simply not what you encounter in Augustine, Aquinas, Duns Scotus or others. This gets into my comment last week between God as Being or source of Being versus God as intervening being. The process view that I think comes closest to Peirce is a kind of halfway point between the two views in traditional Christianity. It’s not really being or ground but neither is it really an intervening being. (That’s especially true in Peirce’s real but not existing view) An other way of putting this is to look at the various forms of Christian/Platonism that were less traditional. So gnosticism had the Platonic One as God and also had Jesus but had Plato’s demiurge as a kind of evil in between being. (Often associated by them with the God of the Old Testament for various reasons) You get similar ideas in a more positive way in Kabbalism with the En Sof as the platonic One and Adam Kadmon being similar to the demiurge. The logic of God that Peirce seems focused on is the demiurge even though he breaks it into three components. Although again that’s not without precedence. The various gnostic groups often got complicated in their emanation theories. The 12th century Kabbalisms tied Adam Kadmon to the Sefiroth or a set of 10 complicated emanations. > building on phenomenology in its metaphysics and thus allows for the > qualitative sciences in a sort of non-reductive view of all the sciences that > is not fundamentally opposing as spiritual world view and it makes a lot of > theory of meditation plausible, which we have not between able to handle > physiologically or psychologically so far. Not quite sure what you mean here. > Thus it allows a dialog between science and spirituality and leaves the > theist religions to faith, as I think they should. The subjective relation > with the divine should in my view be a personal thing. The possibility of > it not. I’m not sure I agree here. I think faith has a complicated role in Peirce. I think Peirce’s view of the theistic religions, especially Christianity, was that it shouldn’t be left to faith typically. That is there’s a functional faith tied to inquiry and evolution Peirce saw as valuable. There’s an other type of faith that cuts off inquiry that Peirce would see as closer to accepting dogmatism and far from praiseworthy.
----------------------------- 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 .
