Clark-list; I'm not saying that biology is reducible to physics!!!!
Physics doesn't have that self-organization or 'negentropy that
biology has.
I don't see how or where I am rejecting Peirce's views. I don't see
that chance 'enables habit'; it breaks up some habits and allows for
different habits to develop. As Peirce writes.."non-habitual
reactions take place; and these tend to weaken the habit" 6.264. I
see the non-habitual as Firstness/chance - which 'tend to weaken the
habit'.
I think that a decrease in entropy, DOES matter, for it means that a
particular ecosystem is losing its capacity for diversity and novelty.
A peat bog, for instance, has a very low 'diversity-count', while a
meadow has a huge range of diversity of plant and insect/animal life.
Edwina
--
This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
largest alternative telecommunications provider.
http://www.primus.ca
On Wed 05/04/17 4:25 PM , Clark Goble cl...@lextek.com sent:
On Apr 5, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Clark- but isn't the reality of the biological realm, which
introduces the non-isolation of a system and self-organization and
thus, works against entropy - a natural action? After all, the basic
mode of action of semiosis is its non-isolation - and the
transformation of energy from one to another mode.
Is the universe growing more reasonable according to Peirce? Or
more complex? I don't see how the universe is growing more ordered IF
that same universe maintains its three categories: Firstness rejects
order. Secondness fights against similarities. Thirdness inserts
order.
Again- I might be missing something in your outline
Let me start by saying not all biologists accept physicalism,
materialism or other range of views which I think most assume it
ought take. If we take biology to be in some sense reducible to
physics, then the fact biology isn’t isolated (and can’t be) then
local entropy decrease doesn’t matter. Put simply the earth isn’t
a closed system so there is no global second law for that system.
This is important since of course Creationists often bring up the
second law relative to biology but that’s simply because they
don’t understand how it works.
As for the universe, more or less you’re just rejecting Peirce’s
view there. Which again is fine. The reason Peirce saw the universe as
getting more complex is precisely because he saw chance both enabling
habit and varying from habit. So how you are using firstness and
chance is just not the same as Peirce, although it may well make
perfect sense in the particular arena you’re applying it.
Links:
------
[1]
http://webmail.primus.ca/javascript:top.opencompose(\'tabor...@primus.ca\',\'\',\'\',\'\')
-----------------------------
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 .
