On 7/22/2019 8:13 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
That's why I assert that there can be no 'Final Interpretant' and no ultimate Truth - not from ignorance but from the complexity of the interactions and data.
Yes indeed. I used an argument based on Cantor's set theory, which Peirce knew very well: as the number of elements in a set grows, the number of ways of combining them grows exponentially. Assumption: No brain, set of brains, or set of supercomputers in any universe can ever be as big as the universe itself. Implication: The complexity of the universe will always be exponentially bigger and more complex than any intelligent being in that universe. No such being can ever represent, much less understand all the complexity of the universe it occupies. Question: What does that imply about God? Answer: Whitehead claimed that God created the universe in order to understand what would happen. This is a very rough summary, which Whitehead and others, such as Hartshorne explored in detail. Conclusion: I believe that Hartshorne had a good reason for finding Whitehead's process philosophy persuasive. 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 .
