List: This is a conjecture about an example from CSP that could be example of what CSP meant by organic chemistry as the logical bedrock for his notions of graph theory. It is also meant to show HOW CSP’s occult usage of lexical fields obscures the meaning of logical chemical bedrocks. It also is relevant to separating phenomenology from concepts related by individual identities.
> On Apr 1, 2019, at 11:28 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > The recto is appropriated to the representation of existential, or actual, > facts, or what we choose to make believe are such. The verso is appropriated > to the representation of possibilities of different kinds according to its > tint, but usually to that of subjective possibilities, or subjectively > possible truths. The special kind of possibility here called subjective is > that which consists in ignorance. [CP] 4.573-584. Background knowledge necessary to interpret the Fundamental to chemistry is the description of a molecule by it’s predicates. These predicates include the molecule weight of the material form and the molecule formula. Both of these predicates are quali-signs of the sin-sign of the name (legisign) of form of the identity of the chemical object. Both these predicates are physical properties of the chemical object that are determined by physical measurements. Both the molecular weight and the molecular formula numerical values, that is scientific descriptions of predicates, and, of course, they are also semes in and of themselves. The molecular formula is the index of the types of atoms in the molecule and the counts of each. In other words, these two predicates are scientific facts that are both actual and existential and hence meet the definition of the recto side given by 4.573. The subjective possibilities are determined by the recto predicates, that is, the adductive logical possibilities are the possible arrangements of the molecular formula. That is, all possible pairing among the parts of the whole could exist and the abduction is simple. Count the possible pairs. The quantity of possible pairs for a formula with N atoms is simply N x (N-1). The abductive possibilities (on the verso side) are countable: N N-1 N x (N-1) 1 0 0 2 1 2 3 2 6 4 3 12 5 4 20 6 5 30 7 6 42 8 7 56 9 8 72 10 9 90 and so forth Clearly, this abductive argument can be extended to any integer value of a molecular formula. The logical truth of the number of possible pairings is a mathematical fact. But, the mathematical calculations do not allow any conclusion about the chemical symbols and which symbols are paired with other symbols. Further facts are needed to assign the chemical symbols to pairs of atoms. Thus, "The special kind of possibility here called subjective is that which consists in ignorance.” refers to three forms of ignorance: 1. The ignorance of which mathematical pairs exist. 2. The ignorance of which chemical pairs exist. 3. The ignorance of the molecular structure that was the “sin-sign” that generated the index that was physically measured. Loosely speaking, the theoretical chemical proposition is: If atoms are compounded to form molecules, then every atom must be paired (attached) to at least one other atom. In other words, A molecule is formed by connecting the atoms to one another, forming a contiguous whole. A contiguous whole could be loosely called a continuous whole. A CSP "existential graph" could be thought of as a continuous whole composed from pairs of spots (or whatever other mark that denoted an individual object.) Finally, a relation to the vague logical concept of a medad is intrinsic to fact that at least one possible pairing exists, completing the organization of the chemical sentence (proposition of existence.) The product values, refer to possible compounds, with the exception of the first case, which refers to the inert gases which were not known to form compounds at that time. This “fact" for inert gases is no longer true. Literally hundreds of compounds are formed from inert gases because we now understand acid-base chemistry at a deeper level. Edwina: this is exactly the form of practical example that CSP recognized and sought to describe in non-chemical terms. The term “chemical atom” is perhaps the most important bedrock term because it is a subject term of generalizes over many possible predicate terms. Jon: An atom is an atom is an atom. It is logical subject that satisfies Leibniz’s definition of subject-predicate coherently and with simple pragmatic propositions from CSP’s bedrocks and without long and questionable strings of semantic judgments. (Sorry, a very long post. The arguments followed so naturally from one another…) Cheers Jerry
----------------------------- 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 .
