On 4/10/2017 11:46 AM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
The unique role of the chemical elements in the composition of chemical
sentences serve as an excellent model for the logical structures of
other sentences in other symbol systems.
I agree that the system of chemical elements is more tractable
than most systems in nature, but that is only a matter of degree.
Every element that occurs in nature occurs as a mixture of isotopes.
Every chemical reaction depends on quantum mechanical effects, and
the different masses of various isotopes shift the probabilities
of side effects for different isotopes.
When you add the uncertainty principle as a fundamental limit
on measurements, chemical sentences have nothing special to
offer "as an excellent model for the logical structures of
other sentences in other symbol systems."
I agree with Wittgenstein that natural languages are a better
model for communication than any artificial notation -- including
chemical notation. I also believe that Frank Ramsey, whom LW
credited with the insights that led him to develop his later
philosophy, had conveyed some Peircean insights in the discussions
they had in the late 1920s.
I also believe that Peirce himself would have approved of the
general direction that LW pursued in his debates with Alan Turing
in the late 1930s. (But I'm sure that CSP would have added much
more to that debate, if he could have been present.)
My claim (which I believe is compatible with the writings of
both LW and CSP):
1. Every artificial notation that anyone has ever invented
is a language game (Sprachspiel) whose symbols may be
interpreted as abbreviations for words or phrases in
at least one natural language.
2. The moves (syntactic and semantic transformations) in
any such language game may be explained and taught by
the same methods as those used to describe any NL.
3. Because of points #1 and #2, any statement in any
artificial notation can be translated to a statement
in a natural language that is just as precise as the
version in the artificial notation -- however, the NL
translation is likely to be much more verbose.
4. Because of points #1, #2, and #3, I believe that any
artificial language may be viewed as a specialized
language game whose rules and symbols are a stylized
(abbreviated and rigidified) version of a natural language.
I believe that the notation of chemistry is a fine example
that could be used to illustrate these principles. But there
are many other notations that would also be good examples.
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 .
