Helmut, List, I think most all of your concerns regarding space and time dissolve once one considers that everything that Peirce comments on in the last lecture of RLT expresses 'conditions' holding 'before' the alleged Big Bang (however, there's no way to get around the language of time and space, like 'conditions' and 'before', when discussing the possible ultimate origins of the Universe). All you write of in your message concerns that which is post that which many physicists refer to as the Big Bang singularity.
But, was there such a singularity? You might be interested to learn, that not every astrophysicist is convinced that there was such a singularity. Some see it as a way of thinking about the cosmos which is dated by at least 40 or so years. See, for example, this fascinating article, "There Was No Big Bang Singularity," by the astrophysicist, Ethan Siegel. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/27/there-was-no-big-bang-singularity/#6115d83a7d81 Pertinent excerpt: There is a theorem, famous among cosmologists <https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012>, showing that an inflationary state is past-timelike-incomplete. What this means, explicitly, is that if you have any particles that exist in an inflating Universe, they will eventually meet if you extrapolate back in time. This doesn't, however, mean that there must have been a singularity, but rather that *inflation doesn't describe everything that occurred in the history of the Universe, like its birth. We also know, for example, that inflation cannot arise from a singular state, because an inflating region must always begin from a finite size. *(emphasis added) Conclusion: Every time you see a diagram, an article, or a story talking about the "big bang singularity" or any sort of big bang/singularity existing before inflation, know that you're dealing with an outdated method of thinking. The idea of a Big Bang singularity went out the window as soon as we realized we had a different state — that of cosmic inflation — preceding and setting up the early, hot-and-dense state of the Big Bang. *There may have been a singularity at the very beginning of space and time, with inflation arising after that, but there's no guarantee. In science, there are the things we can test, measure, predict, and confirm or refute, like an inflationary state giving rise to a hot Big Bang. Everything else? It's nothing more than speculation.* (Emphasis added) [image: Starts With A Bang] <http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/> Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:48 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > Gary, list > > I agree to you and the quotations, except literally to "emergence of > time", because "emergence", I guess, is something that is commonly > understood as an event in an existing unidirectional time continuum. > > Time, after Einstein, is connected with space in the > "time-space-continuum". While time is unidirectional, and has one > dimension, space is not, and has three. Time and space can however be > transformed into each other, if high speeds close to light velocity play a > role. > > Einstein supposed a fourth space dimension, in which the other three are > bent, bending radius being or representing gravitation. > > On the other hand, gravitation is supposed to be a force like the three > others (electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear), and, like them, is done > by messenger particles, in this case gravitons. > > Anyway, this situation might seem like something quite special, this > special case enabling that what we call existence and things, entities, > events, whatever, everything that we know from our experiences. > > Maybe, time as we know it, unidirectional, is a special case of time, so > "time" (as we know it) "did" emerge according to its own point of view, but > is just (accidentially? volitionally?) existing in its unidirectional order > from the point of view of chaotic time as a special case. As chaotic time > is not unidirectional, from its standpoint there is no date of creation of > this special case our universe is. The evolution of our universe is only > happening in it (our universe), but in the chaos it is a side-effect that > is always there. I guess, in the chaos, due to multidimensional time, there > are no things and events for necessarily identifyable targets, but all is > superposition of other things and events. This also works as secondness, > though not in the way we know it. This default radical otherness, > dependence on, and reference to something other, may poetically be called > unconditional love, a divine secondness, but chaos from our point of view. > It is not in contradiction to our world, as our world is a marginal > side-effect taking place in it. > > That was just some experimental megalomaniac complete bullshit, but why > not, as long as no harm is done, best, > Helmut > > > > 16. August 2019 um 21:20 Uhr > "Gary Richmond" <[email protected]> > wrote: > Helmut, Jon, List, > > I had meant to post this earlier, but then forgot to when I got caught up > in a number of other things. Perhaps it still has some relevance. In the > post to which Helmut was responding, Jon had quoted N. Guardiano (adding, > in brackets, references to 1ns and 3ns). > > > NG: The blackboard when blank describes a spatial continuum [3ns] open to > all kinds of possible figures that may be drawn [1ns]. Contemplating this > ontological inclusiveness of the origin of the universe, I note here that > Peirce’s description of the origin as "pure zero" and "nothing" is intended > only in the sense that it consists in "no individual thing, no compulsion, > outward nor inward, no law. [Nevertheless, i]t is the germinal nothing, in > which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed." [CP 6.217; 1898] It > is hardly nothing in the common sense, then; or, as Peirce says, it is not > "[t]he nothing of negation [that] is the nothing of death, which comes > *second *to, or after, everything." [*ibid*] Rather, the "pure zero" is > the possibility of *everything*: "the whole universe" or every particular > existent universe in potential. (p. 321) > > > He then commented on this passage: > > > JAS: The "nothing" of "pure zero" corresponds to "the clean blackboard" > (CP 6.203; 1898), as well as the blank Sheet of Assertion--a vast > *continuum *that is utterly indeterminate and always has room for further > determination, no matter how much the Graphist scribes upon it. This is > confirmed, finally, in Peirce's own brief commentary on the initial verses > of Genesis. > > > Jon then went on to suggest that this would seem to reflect Peirce's > analysis of the first chapter of *Genesis* (see my translation of the > Latin just below this quotation). > > > CSP: It is remarkable that though subconsciously yet he [the author] has > perceived the need of every element which was needed for the first day. His > tohu wabohu, terra inanis et vacua is the indeterminate germinal Nothing. > His Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas is consciousness. His Lux is the > world of quality. His fiat lux is an arbitrary reaction. His divisit lucem > a tenebris is the recognition of the necessary duality. His vidit Deus > lucem quod esset bona is the waking consciousness. Finally, his factumque > est vespere et mane, dies unus is the emergence of Time. (NEM 4:138; 1898) > > > > I thought then that it might be helpful to add a translation of the > (mostly) Latin above. It's a bit rusty; but perhaps someone here can > provide an even better translation. I've put my translations of phrases > into Italics. > > > CSP: It is remarkable that though subconsciously yet he [the author] has > perceived the need of every element which was needed for the first day. > After Tohu wabohu (which Hebrew phrase Peirce elsewhere translates as *Chaos), > void and empty land* is the uncommitted germinal Nothing. His* the spirit > of God moved upon the waters *is consciousness. His *Light* is the world > of quality. His *let there be light*, is an arbitrary reaction. His *divided > the light from darkness* is the recognition of the necessary duality. His *He > saw the light that it was good* the waking consciousness. Finally, his *And > the evening and the morning were the first day* is the emergence of Time. > (NEM 4: 138; 1898) > > > I tend to agree with Peirce's, Guardiano's, and Jon's analyses. > > Best, > > Gary > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:27 PM Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Helmut, List: >> >> >> HR: I guess "random chaos" would be the correct translation of >> "tohuvabohu" in the Bible (Genesis, is it, "In the begining God created >> heaven and earth, and the earth was ...(tohuvabohu)"), other than the >> sometimes incorrect translations such as "vast and empty". But, if the >> earth was chaotic, this chaos should have implied matter, "earth". >> >> >> Fortunately, we do not have to speculate about Peirce's understanding of >> that Hebrew expression, which I have usually seen translated as "formless >> and void." There are at least three places where he employed it himself. >> >> >> CSP: I may mention that my chief avocation in the last ten years has >> been to develop my cosmology. This theory is that the evolution of the >> world is hyperbolic, that is, proceeds from one state of things in the >> infinite past, to a different state of things in the infinite future. The >> state of things in the infinite past is chaos, tohu bohu, the nothingness >> of which consists in the total absence of regularity. The state of things >> in the infinite future is death, the nothingness of which consists in the >> complete triumph of law and absence of all spontaneity. Between these, we >> have on our side a state of things in which there is some absolute >> spontaneity counter to all law, and some degree of conformity to law, which >> is constantly on the increase owing to the growth of habit. (CP 8.316; 1891 >> Aug 29) >> >> >> This clearly describes what Guardiano identified as the *evolution of >> states* in Peirce's complex cosmological scheme. The ideal limit "in >> the infinite past" is "nothingness" as "the total absence of regularity." >> >> >> CSP: In that state of absolute nility, in or out of time, that is, >> before or after the evolution of time, there must then have been a tohu >> bohu of which nothing whatever affirmative or negative was true >> universally. There must have been, therefore, a little of everything >> conceivable. (CP 6.490; 1908) >> >> >> This reflects what I have pointed out about Peirce's concept of the >> "nothing" at the beginning of the universe as *indeterminacy *(3ns) in >> accordance with EP 2:322 (1904). Guardiano cites that passage in an >> endnote referenced from the following paragraph. >> >> >> NG: The blackboard when blank describes a spatial continuum [3ns] open >> to all kinds of possible figures that may be drawn [1ns]. Contemplating >> this ontological inclusiveness of the origin of the universe, I note here >> that Peirce’s description of the origin as "pure zero" and "nothing" is >> intended only in the sense that it consists in "no individual thing, no >> compulsion, outward nor inward, no law. [Nevertheless, i]t is the germinal >> nothing, in which the whole universe is involved or foreshadowed." [CP >> 6.217; 1898] It is hardly nothing in the common sense, then; or, as Peirce >> says, it is not "[t]he nothing of negation [that] is the nothing of death, >> which comes *second *to, or after, everything." [*ibid*] Rather, the >> "pure zero" is the possibility of *everything*: "the whole universe" or >> every particular existent universe in potential. (p. 321) >> >> >> The "nothing" of "pure zero" corresponds to "the clean blackboard" (CP >> 6.203; 1898), as well as the blank Sheet of Assertion--a vast *continuum >> *that is utterly indeterminate and always has room for further >> determination, no matter how much the Graphist scribes upon it. This is >> confirmed, finally, in Peirce's own brief commentary on the initial verses >> of Genesis. >> >> >> CSP: It is remarkable that though subconsciously yet he [the author] has >> perceived the need of every element which was needed for the first day. His >> *tohu >> wabohu*, *terra inanis et vacua* is the indeterminate germinal Nothing. >> His *Spiritus Dei ferebatur super aquas* is consciousness. His *Lux *is >> the world of quality. His *fiat lux* is an arbitrary reaction. His *divisit >> lucem a tenebris* is the recognition of the necessary duality. His *vidit >> Deus lucem quod esset bona* is the waking consciousness. Finally, his >> *factumque >> est vespere et mane, dies unus* is the emergence of Time. (NEM 4:138; >> 1898) >> >> >> Andrew Robinson has offered some fascinating suggestions for >> understanding the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity in terms of >> Peirce's Categories, citing a lecture by Martin Luther on these same >> verses; but that is obviously a topic for another thread at another time. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA >> Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman >> www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >> >> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 3:30 PM Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Jon, list, >>> >>> refering to: >>> >>> NG: The primordial soup of Peircean cosmogony, although so remote as >>> to be on the fringe of existence and comprehensibility, is best understood >>> as a pure state of feeling, that is, of psychic firstness, spontaneously >>> sporting in random chaos. For Peirce, such spontaneity is the essence of >>> mind, which is the principle of life or catalyst of cosmic development and >>> order as we know it. (p. 196) >>> >>> >>> I guess "random chaos" would be the correct translation of "tohuvabohu" >>> in the Bible (Genesis, is it, "In the begining God created heaven and >>> earth, and the earth was ...(tohuvabohu)"), other than the sometimes >>> incorrect translations such as "vast and empty". But, if the earth was >>> chaotic, this chaos should have implied matter, "earth". If mind is >>> primordial is impossible to say, not knowing the nature of God: Is He pure >>> mind, or material too? >>> >>> Different it is in Greek mythology (according to Wikipedia): Here >>> "chaos" means abyss, or emptiness, or nothingness, the state before heaven >>> and earth had been separated. In this case, "chaos" does not imply matter. >>> >>> In Greek mythology, heaven, earth, and the gods "emerged" from the >>> chaos. This sounds like Hegel or so, it is an atheistic creation concept. >>> Nevertheless, this self-organized emergence might be interpreted like >>> primordial mind, with mind being just a seed, a tautological necessity, or >>> a big bang-singularity. But this interpretation is somehow far-fetched, or >>> just one option out of two: You might as well, or even more reasonably, >>> interpret it the way like that mind and matter did co-emerge out of "the" >>> nothing. >>> >>> And Guardiano and Peirce? What do they mean by "chaos"? A primordial >>> soup sounds like containing matter. A primordial feeling sounds like not, >>> but who feels the feeling, if not a material being, and what could be able >>> to arouse a feeling, if not something material? >>> >>> Best, >>> Helmut >>> >> ----------------------------- 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 .
