On 11/4/2016 12:00 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
JFS: But at the instant of the Big Bang and for some time thereafter,
there were no minds or quasi-minds that could perceive and interpret
that existence. But there was a physical kind of monadic and dyadic
pre-semiosis.
ET: I don't know that analytic perception/interpretation is necessary
for Thirdness. As Mike Bergman just pointed out, 'Mind' operates in
physico-chemical matter. Therefore, I'd claim that Thirdness, which I'll
define as the process of generating and using habits, i.e., habits of
morphology - emerges at the same time as Firstness and Secondness.
The potential for Thirdness would emerge at the instant of the
Big Bang. But nothing could interpret that potential Thirdness
as Thirdness until some mind or quasi-mind came into existence.
For a collection of articles on "protosemiosis" and related issues,
http://www.uni-kassel.de/upress/online/frei/978-3-933146-63-2.volltext.frei.pdf
General consensus: It's debatable -- and they debated it.
JFS: [The line called supertime] exists only in our 100-D hypothesis.
ET: Interesting - and I wish we could get into the analysis of
time in more detail.
Peirce understood the notion of spaces of arbitrarily many dimensions,
since he had edited his father's book on linear algebra -- and he had
discovered and added new theorems about them in the new edition.
He also understood the issues of relating different coordinate systems,
and he considered it likely that our universe is not Euclidean.
Does anyone know if he had written anything about embedding our
universe in a hypothetical space of higher dimension?
John
-----------------------------
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 .
