Edwina, John, List: ET: 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.
I appreciate the admission that this is a bare *assertion*, unsupported by any quotations from Peirce. On the contrary ... CSP: You certainly opine that there is such a thing as Truth. Otherwise, reasoning and thought would be without a purpose. (CP 2.135; 1902). CSP: Every man is fully satisfied that there is such a thing as truth, or he would not ask any question. *That *truth consists in a conformity to something *independent of his thinking it to be so*, or of any man's opinion on that subject. But for the man who holds this second opinion, the only reality there could be would be conformity to the ultimate result of inquiry. (CP 5.211, EP 2:240; 1903) As discussed at length by Lane in his book, Peirce's considered view was that "ultimate Truth" is whatever *would *become permanently settled belief upon infinite inquiry by an infinite community--a regulative hope, the *telos *of all semeiosis (Final Interpretant), which may or may not correspond to any *actual *effect (Dynamic Interpretant). JFS: 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. Yes, but Peirce ultimately *rejected *Cantor's "pseudo-continuum" (CP 6.176; 1908). I have been suggesting recently that the entire Universe as a vast Argument is instead a "true continuum" (CP 6.170; 1902) and a "perfect continuum" (CP 4.642 & 7.535n6; both 1908) in accordance with Peirce's late definitions. This would entail that it is not "built up" of *discrete *elements at all, but rather "contains no definite parts" (CP 6.168; 1903) in itself, only "material parts" (CP 6.174; 1908)--i.e., *potential *parts, which we can "mark off" from the whole and from each other as we please (cf. R S30 [Copy T:6-7]; c. 1906). JFS: 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? It implies that if, as Peirce professed to believe, God is "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience" (CP 6.452, EP 2:434; 1908), then He is *not *"any intelligent being *in *that universe." As I have pointed out many times before, Peirce explicitly affirmed in several manuscript drafts for "A Neglected Argument" that by "God" he meant "the Being whose attributes are, in the main, those usually ascribed to Him, omniscience, omnipotence, infinite benignity, and a Being *not *immanent in the Universes of Matter, Mind, and Ideas, but the Sole Creator of every content of them without exception" (R 843:15[1]; 1908). In accordance with my interpretation of Peirce's blackboard diagram (CP 6.203-208, RLT 261-263; 1898), "the particular actual universe of existence in which we happen to be" consists of the possibilities that God freely chooses to "mark off" within the semeiosic continuum. CSP: The *zero* collection is bare, abstract, germinal possibility. The continuum is concrete, developed possibility. The whole universe of true and real possibilities forms a continuum, upon which this Universe of Actual Existence is, by virtue of the essential Secondness of Existence, a discontinuous mark--like a line figure drawn on the area of the blackboard. There is room in the world of possibility for any multitude of such universes of Existence. Even in this transitory life, the only value of all the arbitrary arrangements which mark actuality, whether they were introduced once for all "at the end of the sixth day of creation" or whether as I believe, they spring out on every hand and all the time, as the act of creation goes on, their only value is to be shaped into a continuous delineation under the creative hand, and at any rate their only use for us is to hold us down to learning one lesson at a time, so that we may make generalizations of intellect and the more important generalizations of sentiment which make the value of this world. (RLT 162-163; 1898) CSP: The generalization of sentiment can take place on different sides. Poetry is one sort of generalization of sentiment, and in so far is the regenerative metamorphosis of sentiment. But poetry remains on one side ungeneralized, and to that is due its emptiness. The complete generalization, the complete regeneration of sentiment is religion, which is poetry, but poetry completed. (CP 1.676; 1898) CSP: I hear you say: "All that is not *fact*; it is poetry." Nonsense! Bad poetry is false, I grant; but nothing is truer than true poetry ... the universe is a vast representamen, a great symbol of God's purpose, working out its conclusions in living realities … The Universe as an argument is necessarily a great work of art, a great poem,--for every fine argument is a poem and a symphony,--just as every true poem is a sound argument. (CP 1.315 & 5.119, EP 2:193-194; 1903) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 9:42 AM John F Sowa <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 .
