John, List > On Mar 16, 2017, at 1:49 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > But if we use some language with a finite alphabet and limit > the theories to a finite specification, there are at most > a countable number of theories. > > But there are two ways for a theory expressed in discrete signs > to describe a continuous aspect of the world:
Yes, there are two ways, so your assertion is reasonable. But, is this assertion logically complete pragmatically? Can you relate either of your theoretical ways to modes of description or modes of explanation of genetic material or cellular metabolism, both of which express discrete signs? The number of ways to express discrete signs is limited by the pre-suppositions about the foundations of mathematics and the illations to modes of description and modes of explanation. Thus, in my mind, the question arises , “How do the two ways you list relate to categorial modes of description and functorial modes of explanation?” CSP’s “nine-fold way” of creating cyclic arguments to generate legisigns succeeds in this challenge, does it not? I would further suggest that CSP’s nine-fold way succeeds because of the constraints it places on the meaning of symbols. Cheers Jerry > 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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
