|
Jon, List,
I dunno. I'm increasingly coming to feel that Peirce's
architectonic of the universal categories is the lens by which
to view him.
"I have begun by showing that tychism must
give birth to an evolutionary cosmology, in which all the
regularities of nature and of mind are regarded as products of
growth, and to a Schelling-fashioned idealism which holds matter
to be mere specialized and partially deadened mind." (CP 6.103)
In light of the more developed science of quantum mechanics
and relativity that emerged at the end of his life, my guess is
that Peirce himself would want to test and (perhaps) refine his
architectonic. What I am really trying to probe is whether his
cosmology a) holds up in light of these developments; and b) was
already anticipatory of them.
Mike
On 5/17/2017 8:12 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
Gary,
Mike, List ...
When I think back to the conceptual changes my first university
physics courses put me through, a single unifying theme emerges.
Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics had a way of making the
observer an active participant in the action observed, having a
local habitation, a frame of reference, and a bounded sphere of
influence within the universe, no longer an outsider looking in.
As I soon discovered in my wanderings through the libraries and
bookstores of my local habitation, this very theme was long ago
prefigured in the corpus of C.S. Peirce's work, most strikingly
in his Logic of Relatives and Pragmatic Maxim, taken as a basis
for his relational theories of information, inquiry, and signs.
It is more this level of underground conceptual revolution that
comes to mind when I think of Peirce's impact on the development
of physical theory, needless to say science in general, more than
any particular doctrines about continua, especially since continua
posed no novelty to classical mechanics, indeed, if anything, were
more catholic within its realm, while quantum mechanics introduced
an irreducible aspect of discreteness to physics.
Regards,
Jon
On 5/15/2017 12:24 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
> Mike, Jon, List,
>
> I asked Fernando Zalamea — my go-to scholar for questions
> regarding mathematical continuity — and, while he noted
> that physics is not at all his field, he responded by
> writing (in part):
>
> FZ: I imagine that the Proceedings of the Harvard
> Sesquicentennial dedicated to Peirce's Physics
> may have clues.
>
> [note: for the Proceedings, see;
>
>
http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/search~S8?/aCharles+S.+Peirce+Sesquicentennial+International+Congress+%281989+%3A+Harvard+University%29/acharles+s+peirce+sesquicentennial+international+congress+++++1989+harvard+university/-3,-1,0,B/browse
>
> for the contents of papers selected by Matthew Moore
> from the Proceedings see,
> http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/record=b1023422
>
> One paper in that collection by D. Sfendoni-Mentzou
> has the intriguing title, The role of potentiality
> in Peirce's tychism and in contemporary discussions
> in quantum mechanics and microphysics ; see:
>
>
http://www.academia.edu/20431455/THE_ROLE_OF_POTENTIALITY_IN_PEIRCES_TYCHISM_AND_IN_CONTEMPORARY_DISCUSSIONS_IN_QUANTUM_MECHANICS_AND_MICROPHYSICS
> GR]
>
> FZ: On the other hand, *as far as I know, relational logic
> is far from quantum logic. This second trend originates with
> von Neumann's Continuous Geometries and orthomodular
lattices,
> something that, I think, Peirce could not envision.*
> (emphasis added)
>
> I have not yet read the paper you pointed to, Mike, (I intend
to),
> but although I have sometimes thought otherwise (based
principally
> on a reading of the 1898 lecture series, published as
*Reasoning
> and the Logic of Things)*, I would at present tend to agree
with
> Zalamea here.
>
> And I agree with the whole of Jon Awbrey's post
> leading to his conclusion:
>
> JA: I think the full import of [Peirce's]
information-theoretic and
> pragmatic-semiotic approaches to scientific inquiry is a task
for
> the future to work out.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
>
> [image: Gary Richmond]
>
> Gary Richmond
> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
> Communication Studies
> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
> C 745
> 718 482-5690
>
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Jon Awbrey
<jawb...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> Mike, List,
>>
>> The mathematical perspectives and theories that made
modern
>> physics possible, perhaps even inevitable, were developed
by
>> many mathematicians, both abstract and applied, all
throughout
>> the 19th Century. There was a definite sea change in the
way
>> scientists began to view the relationship between
mathematical
>> models and the physical world, passing from a monolithic
concept
>> to variational choices among multiple approaches, models,
>> perspectives, and theories.
>>
>> Peirce was an astute observer and active participant in
this
>> transformation but it has always been difficult to trace
his
>> true impact on its course — so much of what he
contributed
>> operated underground, rhizome like, and without
recognition.
>> But I think it's fair to say that Peirce articulated the
>> springs and catches of the workings of science better
than
>> any other reflective practitioner in his or>
subsequent times.
>> And I think the full import of his information-theoretic
and
>> pragmatic-semiotic approaches to scientific inquiry is a
task
>> for the future to work out.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On 5/14/2017 1:34 AM, Mike Bergman wrote:
>>
>>> I just encountered this assertion:
>>>
>>> "In the present work we have indicated that a form of
logic,
>>> relational logic developed by C. S. Peirce, may serve
as the
>>> foundation of both quantum mechanics and string
theory." [1]
>>>
>>> Does the list have any comments, further references
or
>>> criticisms on this pretty bold statement?
>>>
>>> Thanks, Mike
>>>
>>> [1] A. Nicolaidis, 2008. "Categorical Foundation of
>>> Quantum Mechanics and String Theory,"
arXiv:0812.1946,
>>> 10 Dec 2008. See https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.1946.pdf
>>>
--
__________________________________________
Michael K. Bergman
Cognonto Corporation
319.621.5225
skype:michaelkbergman
http://cognonto.com
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________
|
