John,
I found it very interesting that you took up metaphor in connection with
"laws of nature". I once got across with a study on metaphors in science
with a side note by the researchers that natural scientist often got
angry on any hint that they may have been using such. - It was just
something unthinkable for them.
I assume something like that is still going on within computer science.
Artificial Intelligence being notoriously unable to handle anything like
that. - To the detriment of all of us.
You used the term in a very, vary vague sense. - The quote you were
commenting on, nothing metaphorical was intended. You presented your
point very nicely, by taking up a language game "gone on a holiday".
Have you given any thought on the difference between unintended and
intended metaphors? And on kinds of metaphors which work, do the job,
and kinds which fail?
I also thank you for the papers you have shared in the List. Truly
admiradle, truly clear.
Best,
Kirsti Määttänen
John F Sowa kirjoitti 7.4.2017 00:35:
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 .
