Kirsti,
Thanks for the notice.
Of course that setup is barely a beginning.
It is only the grounds out of which understanding must grow,
IF our understanding is to proceed on these two conditions:
MAT. We take the methods and tools that C.S. Peirce gave us seriously.
COR. We take the context of research in scientific inquiry seriously.
In practice, of course, we do not take the whole actual universe U
as our starting point, but begin by constructing concrete examples
of systems, say, a system defined by its state space X, and we try
to determine what sort of conditions X must satisfy in order for X
to possess any sort of representation at all of its own structure.
That is the sort of thing has been investigated a lot when it comes
to ordinary sorts of axiom systems and computational systems, where
people speak of the system having a “reflective property” but there
needs to be much more work done with reflection in semiotic systems.
Regards,
Jon
On 4/10/2017 9:25 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
Jon A.
Seems valid to me. But it does not answer the quest for understanding. - If you
see my point.
Kirsti
Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 7.4.2017 02:02:
Jon, List ...
I've mentioned the following possibility several times before, but
maybe not too recently.
A sign relation L is a subset of a cartesian product O×S×I, where O,
S, I are the object, sign, interpretant domains, respectively. In a
systems-theoretic framework we may think of these domains as dynamical
systems.
We often work with sign relations where S = I but it is entirely
possible to consider sign relations where all three domains are one
and the same. Indeed, we could have O=S=I=U, where the system U is the
entire universe. This would make the entire universe a sign of itself
to itself.
A very general way to understand a system-theoretic law is in terms of
a constraint — the fact that not everything that might happen
actually does. And that is nothing but a subset relation.
So the law embodying how the universe represents itself to itself
could be nothing other than a sign relation L ⊆ U×U×U.
Regards,
Jon
http://inquiryintoinquiry.com [3]
On Apr 6, 2017, at 3:36 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
<jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:
List:
With the discussions going on in a couple of threads about semeiosis
in the physico-chemical and biological realms, a question occurred
to me. 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.
As a law, it presumably has to be a Legisign. What is its Dynamic
Object--the inexhaustible continuum of its _potential_
instantiations, perhaps? How should we characterize its S-O
relation? It is not conventional (Symbol), so is it an existential
connection (Index)? What is its Dynamic Interpretant--any given
_actual _instantiation, perhaps? How should we characterize its S-I
relation--Dicent, like a proposition, or Rheme, like a term?
Regards,
Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt [1] - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[2]
Links:
------
[1] http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt
[2] http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt
[3] http://inquiryintoinquiry.com
--
inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache
-----------------------------
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 .
