List, John:
> On Mar 3, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am having a hard time following your thought process here, Yes, you certainly do. And, I can identify several conjectures why this is the case. At the top of the list of conjectures are the modes of explanation of abstract symbols. Several symbolic competencies are reflected in CSP’s rumination, not just the usual literacy of alphabetic and perhaps mathematical symbols. These multiple competencies and rule systems (legi-signs?) become entangled at the level of Bocovichian points. At some point, one “must fish or cut bait” - that is, the mathematics of the continuous can not be the same as the mathematics of the discrete. Nor can the mathematics of the discrete become the mathematics of the continuous. The challenge to “modes of description” and “modes of explanation” that is common to all disciplines (including theology, metaphysics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, medicine, the cognitive sciences and logic) must take this distinction into account. CSP refers to this as “representamen”. Unfortunately, he omitted (as far as I am aware) the case where the sin-signs generated multiple symbol systems with different logics for each. (For a review of recent advances in logic, see; http://www.jyb-logic.org/Universallogic13-bsl-sept.pdf, 13 QUESTIONS ABOUT UNIVERSAL LOGIC. In other words, I am simply saying that the thought processes of the scientific community (and my thought processes) did not stop on April 19, 1914. 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 .
