Edwina: ????
Facts are facts. Scientific realism is what it is. Cheers Jerry > On May 28, 2019, at 1:46 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Jerry, list > > The statement is true, if one considers that the map is not just a collection > of atoms, not just a collection of chemical molecules - despite your > predilection for so defining the world - but is instead a semiosic entity, > composed of a triadic set of correlations/relations which relate and provide > meaning to the physical components; i.e., semiosically define these 'moles' > as 'a map. > > Edwina > > > > On Tue 28/05/19 1:59 PM , Jerry LR Chandler [email protected] sent: > > Jon, List: > > A bit of nit-picking below, particularly in light of the organic chemistry > /bedrock claim. > >> On May 27, 2019, at 4:20 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt < [email protected] >> <javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','')>> wrote: >> >> Suppose, then, that an absolutely correct and infinitely detailed map of >> Governor's Island in New York Harbour be laid down on the ground there. >> Then since the map represents the topography and all the features at the >> time the map is lying there, the map must show the map itself lying there; >> and must so show that map that, in the map of the map, may be seen the map >> lying upon it, and on that map of the map of the map may again be seen the >> map, with a sufficient microscope and so on, ad infinitum , that is, down >> to a mathematical point which will be nothing but the map of itself and the >> same will be true with every map of its own environment, unless it be >> ring-shaped; and it is much the same with any book whose last word is >> Finis. > > The phrase >> "with a sufficient microscope and so on, ad infinitum, that is, down to a >> mathematical point " > is false if one considers that the map is a physical object, composed from > atoms of finite scale. The individual molecules of the physical map are > finite in scale and thus the extension can be extended below the atomic > scale. In this instance, it appears that CSP failed to consider the meaning > of Avogadro’s number. > > 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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
