Jon,
Thanks for your prompt response. I've read your mails, I do know you see
the problem.
Kirsti
Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 29.5.2017 18:36:
Kirsti, List,
I know what you mean about the title but decided to take it
more as a reference to the revolution in physics that began
with relativity and quantum mechanics in the last century
than any particular issue about the nature of continua.
Anyway, I tried to focus on the underlying conceptual
transformation in my previous posts on this thread.
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-05/msg00019.html
https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-05/msg00023.html
As it happens, this whole ball of wax falls in line with
some sporadic reflections I've been writing up on my blog,
so I lumped the above thoughts in with that series of posts:
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/05/14/the-difference-that-makes-a-difference-that-peirce-makes-4/
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/05/17/the-difference-that-makes-a-difference-that-peirce-makes-5/
Regards,
Jon
On 5/29/2017 10:05 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Dear listers,
I do not think the title of this thread is well-thought. There is
nothing such as a "Space-Time Continuum" which could
be reasonably discussed about. Even though it is often repeated chain
of words.
For the first: Continuity does not mean the same as does 'continuum'.
- and this is not a trifle issue. Within
philosopy one should mind one's wordings.
For the second: Take into true consideration the quote provided:
MB
One of my favorite Peirce quotes... "space does for different
subjects
of one predicate precisely what time does for different predicates
of
the same subject." (CP 1.501)
Here CSP is clearly talking about conceptual issues & philosophizing.
The key point being the relation between 'subject'
and 'predicate'.
CSP differentiates between considerations of space and time. At least
he does so in separating the issues for a specific
approach &consideration each approach needs.
What CSP is saying, is to my mind, that continuity in time and
continuity in space need to be fully grasped BEFORE
taking them both as an issue to be tackled. Especially by such a
concept as a continuum.
A continuum has a beginning and an end. It is presupposed in the very
concept. The very idea of a big (or little) bang
as a start or an end just illustrates current minds, current common
sense. The still dominating nominalistic world-view.
What is non-Eucleidean geometry about? It is about radically changing
the scale. Any line which appeared to previous
imagination as a straight one, and necessarily so, does not appear so
after the fact that the earth is round had been
fully digested.
This is not assumed to play any part in the invention of non-Euclidean
geometry. And it does not in the stories and
histories told about it.
The earth does appear flat, in the experiential world of all human
beings. And goes on to appear so untill
interplanetary tourism becomes commonplace. Flat, although somewhat
bumby.
I am curious about possible responses. Do wish I'll get some.
Kirsti
-----------------------------
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 .
