List:
> On May 28, 2019, at 3:33 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote > Jerry ???? > > Exactly. Facts are facts - and the facts of scientific realism acknowledges > that atoms and molecules don't 'exist' randomly all on their own, even in > their microscopic existences, but exist as such and function as such - > within synchronic, repeatable, patterns of organization that set up complex > networks of interaction... Some of us refer to this method of 'organization' > as semeiosis - and examine how the whole systems operates in an adaptive, > evolving and complex manner. Not that hard to understand! > > Edwina > > The assortment of terms collected into the above paragraph all have some meaning in one way or another. So, I think I grasp the motivations behind the sentences. Nevertheless, I do not understand the relationships between these assertions and the distinctions that I was seeking to express between topology and scientific reality and the stationarity of the size of atoms. If you would like to explore my argument further, please look at the meaning of “ascending chains” and "descending chains” in mathematics. One meaningful comment I might make is that CSP studied chemistry decades before he recognized that the science of chemistry is directly related to the centuries-earlier studies of semiosis in medicine. AFTER he recognized that semiosis lies beneath ALL interpretations of chemical data, he attempted to construct a logic of organization. Apparently, he wanted to use recent discoveries in chemistry and then, later, in organic chemistry, as the bedrock for generalized logical interpretations of nouns, copula and predicates and many, many many other purposes constrained by propositional logic. Did he succeed? Cheers Jerry BTW, what do you think of the logical homologies among the propositional terms: organic, organ, and organization? I discussed the intertwined meanings of these terms in a published paper about twenty years ago so that I am sympathetic toward your concerns about the linkages between semiosis and the life sciences. > > On Tue 28/05/19 2:54 PM , Jerry LR Chandler [email protected] sent: > > Edwina: > > ???? > > Facts are facts. > Scientific realism is what it is. > > > Cheers > > Jerry > >> On May 28, 2019, at 1:46 PM, Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] >> <javascript:top.opencompose('[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] >> <javascript:top.opencompose('[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(>> 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] >> <javascript:top.opencompose('[email protected]','','','')> . To >> UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] >> <javascript:top.opencompose('[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>http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm >> <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 . > > > >
----------------------------- 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 .
