Kirsti, John, List: I was stunned by your response!
> On Dec 31, 2017, at 9:56 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Jerry, list, > > JERRY: > "Exactly what CSP means by "corpuscular philosophy" is a mystery to me. > Was he arguing for the Boscowitz atoms derived from vortices?" > > > No mystery to me what CSP meant with "corpuscular philosphy". - The problem > with your question lies in "Exactly what..." - It (logically ) demands some > kind of an exact (verbal) definition. Such cannot be given. > > Definitely it was not (just) about Boscowitz. > > Still, I find it silly to ponder what CSP may have or not have known at his > time. - What are theories for? They are for reaching beyond available > information. Philosophical theories especially are (or should be) for making > clear what must be, what may be, and what cannot be. > > Why was I stunned? Because consistency lies at the very essence of… 1. the ur-ground of theories. 2. the ur-ground of mathematics 3. the ur-ground of logic usw. I wrote > "Exactly what CSP means by "corpuscular philosophy" is a mystery to me. because as a consequence of his training in chemistry, his understanding of the meaning of "corpuscular philosophy” is, in my opinion, one of the basic questions that motivates his life’s work, from his earliest writings (W1:xvii-xviii) to among his latest work (1911)? Thus, the question of "corpuscular philosophy” was one of the deepest and most profound questions he addressed in the entire body of his writings, approaching it from numerous different angles during his lifespan. Retrospectively, following the work of Rutherford and Moseley (1913), the development of the atomic numbers and mathematical valence theory (quantum chemistry), it is now clear why his approaches reached mysterious boundaries. John S., BTW, note that he wrote a “History of Chemistry” before he read his brother’s book on Logic. (W1:2, 1847, 1850 entries.) Cheers Jerry > > Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 22.12.2017 18:03: >> List, John: >>> On Dec 19, 2017, at 10:10 PM, John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Jerry, >>> Your discussion and references about chirality are convincing. >>> But they go beyond issues that Peirce would have known in his day. >>> I think that he was using issues about chirality as examples >>> for making a stronger claim: >>>> For example, in his lecture on phenomenology, (EP2, 159), ends >>>> with a discussion of chirality and the laws of motion >>>> (Right—handed and Left-handed screws) >>>> “There, then, is a physical phenomenon absolute inexplicable by >>>> mechanical action. This single instance suffices to overthrow the >>>> corpuscular philosophy.” >>> By the end of the 19th century, the general consensus in physics >>> was that all the major problems had been solved. But the first >>> decade of the 20th c. shattered their complacency. >>> If Peirce had access to a university library with the latest >>> journals, he might have found stronger arguments to "overthrow >>> the corpuscular philosophy." >>> John >> Your response deserves a longer reply. >> But, for the moment, one brief comment. >> Here is a recent reference from the the Royal Society journal: >> Review article: Spontaneous mirror symmetry breaking and origin of >> biological homochirality >> Josep M. Ribó, David Hochberg, Joaquim Crusats, Zoubir El-Hachemi and >> Albert Moyano >> J. R. Soc. Interface 14:20170699; doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0699 >> (published December 13, 2017) >> http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/14/137/20170699 >> <http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/14/137/20170699> [1] >> It discusses the central role of the development of chirality in >> emergence of life. >> CSP concerns were well founded and remain a profound research problem >> to this day. >> The issue of chirality effectively blocks the mathematization of >> natural sorts and kinds using physical laws alone. >> Exactly what CSP means by "corpuscular philosophy” is a mystery to >> me. >> Was he arguing for the Boscowitz atoms derived from vortices? >> At a minimum, CSP was arguing against a universal law of mechanics. >> Or, was he merely arguing against the putatively universality of the >> newly-defined laws of thermodynamics (entropy?) >> Whatever he was arguing for or against, the chiral tetrahedral carbon >> atom, as a well-defined natural geometrical object that was >> irreducible to a triad, posed a major conundrum for him (and all >> others) who seek to construct a universe in simpler terms. >> Cheer >> Jerry >> Links: >> ------ >> [1] http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/14/137/20170699?etoc >> <http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/14/137/20170699?etoc>
----------------------------- 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 .
