Jon,
The presupposition in your question(s)you do not take up is the
presupposition that all signs can and may be (easily) classified. - If
you look up some detailed versions of Peirces classifications of signs,
and you'll see what kinds of problems I mean.
"Our existing universe" does not go hand in hand with "laws of nature".
The nature of laws is to predict what is to come, what will happen (if
so and so...). So they are about the future, just as well.
It seems to me that you are trying to get a short way out of the Kantian
question about "Das Ding an sich", the thing in itself. - There is no
short and simple way!
That much is shown beyond doubt by today.
Best, Kirsti Määttänen
Jon Alan Schmidt kirjoitti 7.4.2017 00:51:
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."
Thanks,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[2]
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 4:35 PM, John F Sowa <[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
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
-----------------------------
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 .
