Jeff, Stephen R., List: For the record, I was not *bemoaning *Peirce's unawareness of Einstein's insights or seeking to compare the greatness of the two men. On the contrary, I was simply pointing out that Peirce did not *need *Einstein in order to recognize the more fundamental reality of *motion *through continuous space-time vs. discrete *positions *in space at discrete *instants *in time, which are *entia rationis*. In the other thread, I intend to explore further the analogy that he drew between this and continuous semeiosis vs. definite Propositions, which amount to instantaneous snapshots of Arguments as captured by EGs on a Sheet of Assertion.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:20 PM Stephen Curtiss Rose <[email protected]> wrote: > You are on the mark. Peirce had it and your summary points to the pillars > of his understanding. Quantum science is still iffy at bottom and the > reason if that it cannot be encompassed by existing scientific method. But > I do not think Peirce would have batted an eyelash. He was waiting for just > such a proof of chance and his semiotics seems to be clearly to suggest the > vague underpinnings of things now being batted about about the prevalence > of information. Peirce is largely ignored by theologians save perhaps the > late Daniel Day Williams with whom I studied anon. Glad to see this post. I > do not think Jon's gist really is that far off but your points are girders > in the basic structure of Peirce's thought. > amazon.com/author/stephenrose > > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:07 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Jon S, List, >> >> Let me start here: "As Peirce recognized, despite not having the >> benefit of Einstein's insights, Zeno's famous paradoxes are dissolved by >> understanding *continuous *motion through space-time as a more >> fundamental reality than *discrete *positions in space and/or moments in >> time." >> >> Over the years, several of my colleagues have expressed a similar >> sentiment: if only Peirce had been around to see Einstein's great >> discoveries concerning the special and general theories of relativity, then >> he would have been in a much better position to understand the nature of >> these things. >> >> My initial reaction to such expressions is that Peirce's fundamental >> hypotheses concerning the nature of time and space--and the relations >> between them--may very well run deeper and look further towards the >> future than what Einstein had to offer. Taking the discussion in lecture 8 >> of RLT as a starting point for a discussion, consider the following: >> >> >> 1. As far as we are able to glean from his writings, Einstein does >> not appear to accept the reality of chance. In fact, he argues >> against it. Peirce, on the other hand, holds that an appeal to the reality >> of chance along with a tendency for relations between qualities and >> habitual patterns of order to grow can explain how space, time and >> the laws that govern them might have evolved. >> 2. Einstein does not appear to offer an adequate explanatory >> hypothesis concerning the origins of the spatial and temporal relations >> that hold between the kinetic energy that is initially distributed through >> space shortly after the big bang. Peirce does offer a hypothesis, and I >> find it somewhat plausible. More to the point, it seems especially >> productive as compared to other competing hypotheses. The hypothesis is >> that, from an initial condition of homogeneous possibility, the infinitude >> of spatial and temporal dimensions differentiated and unfolded by a >> process of the vague becoming more determinate. Homogeneity grows into >> heterogeneity. From chance, order grows. >> 3. From an initial condition of enormous potential (e.g., much >> concentrated potential energy), how did particles, nuclei, stars, atoms, >> molecules, etc. come to be as natural kinds? Starting with the >> explosion of the initial relatively mass-less force "particles" >> radiating as distributed fields (e.g., photons and gluons), more stable >> configurations of particle-like configurations of energy having >> qualities of spin and charge were attracted to one another based on >> the complementary character of their respective qualities. What law is at >> work? Call it the law of mind, if you will. Or, call it the law governing >> the association of the different qualities that energy may take based >> on their respective relations of attractability and affectability. >> >> >> While Peirce's grand hypotheses concerning the nature of time, space and >> the initial spread of kinetic energy are more vague than the explanations >> Einstein was able to offer, I think there may be principled limits to kinds >> of mathematical relations that may be fruitfully applied to the explanation >> of such basic laws as principles in our theories. In the study of the >> continuity of spatial and temporal relations, we move back from metrical >> geometries, to projective (as Einstein did), and focus our attention on the >> methods used in the study of topology. If we are trying to explain how >> space comes to have the metrical characters that it does (locally or >> globally), then Peirce appears to be on the right track in pointing out >> that the question of "why four dimensions, or 6, 12, or 16?" is the prior >> question. What is more, it doesn't look like the answer to that question >> can be given separately from explaining how the qualities of what is in >> space (e.g., the fields, particles, waves, or what have you) come to stand >> in stable relations to each other. In turn, we can ask: does Peirce's >> hypotheses concerning the dimensionality of space and time help to explain >> the laws articulated in the general theory of relativity. If they do, then >> that would be a remarkable thing. What is more, do they help to correct >> what might be some possible errors in the expression of those laws in the >> general theory? Cosmologists working today on the relation between time and >> space (e.g., Lee Smolin) seem to suggest that the answer to both questions >> is "Yes." >> >> In effect, what is the grand hypothesis that Peirce offers as the guess >> at the riddle? Let me state the question and the answer simply. >> Question: what are fundamental laws governing all growth of order in the >> cosmos >> ranging from physical, to chemical, biological and human social systems? >> Answer: the grand laws governing the evolution of all things are the laws >> of logic, together with the law of chance and the law of continuity. As >> human beings, we are fallible in our understanding of those laws. Our >> representations of the laws of logic function as guiding principles that >> govern our inquiry--and our conceptions of those principles involve error, >> vagueness and the like. Among the laws of logic, which are really >> primordial? It is the law of abduction that governs the attraction that >> holds between things having similar or complementary qualities. It is the >> law of induction that governs the tendency for patterns that do occur that >> have a higher likelihood of occurring again. This, together with chance and >> continuity, is what is needed to explain the growth of order from its >> inception. >> >> As far as I can see, Peirce had certain the advantages in being a truly >> great logician as well as a practicing scientist who was remarkably well >> versed in a wide range of sciences and mathematics when it comes to tacking >> the hardest questions. Having such advantages, he was able to see both >> (1) more deeply and (2) further than Einstein was able to see with respect >> to the deepest and hardest questions as they arise in metaphysics and >> the special sciences generally. Getting a handle on these sorts of deep >> connections is, at root, what is needed to explain the *evolution* of >> the real nature of space, time and the stuff found in it. In the end, >> only an evolutionary explanation is likely to be satisfactory. All other >> forms of explanation leave too much unexplained. >> >> In making this comparison, I don't put much stock in the question of "Who >> was greater, Einstein or Peirce?" They were both really great. Einstein in >> physics. Peirce in logic, metaphysics and the proper use the two sorts >> of theories for the sake of framing remarkably productive hypotheses that >> serve all of the special sciences. What is more, he put those hypotheses to >> work in actually explaining how the laws governing time, space, energy and >> various configurations of massy sorts of things might have evolved. >> >> Yours, >> >> Jeff >> Jeffrey Downard >> Associate Professor >> Department of Philosophy >> Northern Arizona University >> (o) 928 523-8354 >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
