List, Jon: The notion of “two-ness” has many forms.
Cheers jerry > On Mar 3, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jerry C., List: > > I am having a hard time following your thought process here, but I suspect > that you may be confusing dualism with dichotomy; Peirce rejected the former, > but not the latter. Dualism is the view that there are two different kinds > of substances in the universe, usually identified (at least roughly) as mind > and matter. It has nothing to do with the dichotomy of positive and negative > charge in atoms. > > Regards, > > Jon S. > > On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Jon, List: >> On Mar 2, 2017, at 7:36 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Jerry C., LIst: >> >> Peirce makes it very clear elsewhere (and repeatedly) that a true continuum >> does not contain any points or other definite, indivisible parts. He >> defines it as that which has indefinite parts, all of which have parts of >> the same kind, such that it is undivided yet infinitely divisible--e.g., >> into infinitesimal lines rather than points. Does that help at all? > Jon: You are right in that this is CSP's view of continuity (which is nicely > framed in the book by Moore.) > > At the same time, this is exactly the origin of problem. > Each chemical atom is an independent physical object such that the sum of the > microscopic property of mass gives rise to a mass that we can experience as a > unique form or type. > > At the same time, each chemical element is a microscopic object that is > physically independent of all other chemical elements in that its physical > properties (attributes, signs, qualisign) are unique to its identity. > > At the same time, the table of chemical elements is complete and each element > is independent of all other elements, YET the TABLE of ELEMENTS is ordered by > the integers, the atomic numbers. > > My question >> Is it possible that a “regulatory principle of logic” is a continuity in the >> sense of excluding Boscovichian points? > > is related directly to the notion of synechism which CSP defines: > > EP 2:1 The word synechism is the English form of the Greek {synechismos}, > from {synechés}, continuous. For two centuries we have been affixing -ist and > -ism to words, in order to note sects which exalt the importance of those > elements which the stem-words signify. Thus, materialism is the doctrine that > matter is everything, idealism the doctrine that ideas are everything, > dualism the philosophy which splits everything in two. In like manner, I have > proposed to make synechism mean the tendency to regard everything as > continuous. > > (EP 2 2:3) There is a famous saying of Parmenides {esti gar einai, méden d’ > ouk einai}, “being is, and not-being is nothing.” This sounds plausible; yet > synechism flatly denies it, declaring that being is a matter of more or less, > so as to merge insensibly into nothing. [—] > Synechism, even in its less stalwart forms, can never abide dualism, properly > so called. [—] > > At the same time, the realism of physics demonstrates the dualism and > equi-numeracity of positive and negative charges of all chemical atoms. > > Is it conceivable that anyone can propose a resolution of these conundrums? > > How does Ben’s notion of singularities fit into this picture? > How do Jeff’s questions fit into this picture? > > From the perspective of the philosophy of mathematics, how do these > conundrums relate to the simplicity of set theory (and the nonsense?) of the > “Laws of Form”? > > Cheers > > Jerry >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> >> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 5:59 PM, Jerry LR Chandler >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> List, Ben: >> >> Your recent posts contribute to a rather curious insight into CSP’s beliefs >> about the relationships between mathematics, chemistry and logic of >> scientific hypotheses. >>> On Mar 2, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> from MS 647 (1910) which appeared in Sandra B. Rosenthal's 1994 book >>> _Charles Peirce's Pragmatic Pluralism_: >>> >>> An Occurrence, which Thought analyzes into Things and Happenings, is >>> necessarily Real; but it can never be known or even imagined in all its >>> infinite detail. A Fact, on the other hand[,] is so much of the real >>> Universe as can be represented in a Proposition, and instead of being, like >>> an Occurrence, a slice of the Universe, it is rather to be compared to a >>> chemical principle extracted therefrom by the power of Thought; and though >>> it is, or may be Real, yet, in its Real existence it is inseparably >>> combined with an infinite swarm of circumstances, which make no part of the >>> Fact itself. It is impossible to thread our way through the Logical >>> intricacies of being unless we keep these two things, the Occurrence and >>> the Real Fact, sharply separate in our Thoughts. [Peirce, MS 647 (1910)] >>> >>> In that quote Peirce very clearly holds that not all will be known or can >>> even be imagined. >>> >> In MS 647, he compares a fact with "a chemical principle extracted therefrom >> by the power of Thought;” That is, the notion of a fact is in the past >> tense. It is completed and has an identity. It is no longer is question >> about the nature of what happened during the occurrence. Thus the separation >> from: "in its Real existence it is inseparably combined with an infinite >> swarm of circumstances, which make no part of the Fact itself.” >> >> Now, compare this logical view of a chemical principle with the mathematical >> relation with the realism of matter in the synechism (EP1, 312-333.): >> >> The things of this world, that seem so transitory to philosophers, are not >> continuous. They are composed of discrete atoms, no doubt Boscovichian >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Joseph_Boscovich> points (my emphasis). >> The really continuous things, Space, and Time, and Law, are eternal.” >> >> Do you believe that CSP is asseerting that there exist two clear and >> distinctly different notions of mathematical points? >> That is, the Boscovichian points of discrete atoms as contrasted with the >> points of ”really continuous things, space, time and Law"? >> >> What would be an alternative hypothesis? That true continuity does not >> contain points? >> Would it be necessary for a legi-sign be something other than space and time >> because they would not be points?? >> >> Any ideas on the ontological status of Boscovichian points from your >> perspective of singularities? >> >> More precisely, what is the meaning of >> >> Synechism … it is a regulative principle of logic, prescribing what sort of >> hypothesis is fit to be entertained and examined.?? >> >> Is it possible that a “regulatory principle of logic” is a continuity in the >> sense of excluding Boscovichian points? >> >> Very confusing, to say the least. >> >> 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 .
