BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}John, list
Agreed, the entities of pure mathematics do not exist in the
universe of actuality.
Now, with regard to the universe of necessity, i.e., Laws/Thirdness
- which you say are outside of the universe of actuality - I'll
quibble with the wording.
The laws, per se, do not 'exist' on their own because they are
laws/generals. They are only operable when they function as the
habits/organization of actuality.
So- they can certainly never be 'outside the universe of actually'
[i.e., as Platonic Forms]; they are embedded within actuality
[Aristotle].
Edwina
On Wed 22/08/18 2:22 PM , John F Sowa [email protected] sent:
On 8/22/2018 2:11 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
> "I defined actuality as anything that ever was, is, or will be
> anywhere in the universe. Most of us know more about the past
> and present than we do about the future, but our knowledge is
> irrelevant to its existence. "
>
> What's the difference, then, between your definition of actuality
and
> the definition of possibility?
I was using Peirce's three disjoint universes. The entities
of pure mathematics do not exist in the universe of actuality.
The entities in the universe of necessity, such as laws,
are also outside the universe of actuality.
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 .
