Jon A.S., John S.,
I agree with John on this point — but see further my insertion below. Gary F. From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 6-Apr-17 17:52 John S., List: JFS: In summary, I believe that the term 'law of nature' is a metaphor for aspects of nature that we can only describe. Again, I am asking about those aspects of nature themselves, not our linguistic or mathematical descriptions of them. What class of Signs are they? Obviously, in posing this question I am presupposing that general laws of nature are real, and that our existing universe consists of Signs all the way down; i.e., "all this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs." [GF: ] This quote is very often taken out of the context which specifies what Peirce is referring to as “this universe”: “It seems a strange thing, when one comes to ponder over it, that a sign should leave its interpreter to supply a part of its meaning; but the explanation of the phenomenon lies in the fact that the entire universe,— not merely the universe of existents, but all that wider universe, embracing the universe of existents as a part, the universe which we are all accustomed to refer to as ‘the truth,’— that all this universe is perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs” (EP2:394). Now, “that Universe being precisely an argument” (EP2:194), the laws of nature would have to be the “leading principles” which are “working out its conclusions in living realities” (EP2:193). These are clearly symbols, though not conventional, and (as constituents of an argument) take the form of propositions. I think John is right to call them metaphorical, as our primary experience of these symbols is anthropomorphic (EP2:193). We ascribe these forms to the greater Universe just as we do with “facts”: “What we call a ‘fact’ is something having the structure of a proposition, but supposed to be an element of the very universe itself. The purpose of every sign is to express “fact,” and by being joined with other signs, to approach as nearly as possible to determining an interpretant which would be the perfect Truth, the absolute Truth, and as such (at least, we may use this language) would be the very Universe” (EP2:304). To me, this implies the most straightforward answer to your question, although it may not use the language you are looking for. Gary f. Thanks, 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, Apr 6, 2017 at 4:35 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Jon and Edwina, Jon What class of Sign is a law of nature? I am not referring to how we /describe/ a law of nature in human language, an equation, or other /representation/ of it; I am talking about the law of nature /itself/, the real general that governs actual occurrences. Edwina But a symbol is not merely convention; ... could it be a reference to the general laws held within the Dynamic Object such that a 'shared reality' could be developed. That phrase "general laws held within the Dynamic Object" is strange. Wittgenstein would call it a fragment of a language game that "has gone on a holiday". It takes a phrase "general laws" from a language game of science, mixes it with a phrase "Dynamic Object" from Peirce's language game of semiotic, combines it with a physical language game of "holding something", and applies it to something "really real" for which we have no words for describing. In short, it's a metaphor. To analyze that metaphor, consider some examples: Galileo's law of falling bodies on earth: If you drop something in a vacuum, the distance x that it falls in time t is proportional to t squared: x = ½ gt² Kepler's law of planetary orbits: Planets in the solar system travel in elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus of each ellipse. Newton's law of gravity: A generalization that explains the laws of Galileo and Kepler plus many related phenomena. Einstein's general relativity: A generalization that explains all the above plus many more phenomena. Note that each of these laws makes true predictions within its domain of applicability. The more general laws, which cover a broader range of phenomena, are closer approximations to reality -- but each one is still a law of science. In summary, I believe that the term 'law of nature' is a metaphor for aspects of nature that we can only describe. The ultimate laws that science might discover in the far, far distant future might be very accurate. But when stated, they would be signs expressed in the same ways as other laws of science. 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 [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 .
