Gary F., List: As I have already stated, I do not see how Peirce's synechistic and hyperbolic cosmology is compatible with the hypothesis of a singularity (discontinuity) at the beginning of the universe, especially since he affirmed more than once that time began "infinitely long ago" as whatever preceded it--whatever that could mean--"gradually and continuously developed into time" (NEM 4:149; 1898). Moreover, the Big Bang theory is *not *testable by means of physical observations, since it rests on an untestable *assumption *that the laws of nature have remained essentially unchanged ever since almost immediately after the beginning of the universe--which, again, Peirce *denied *in accordance with his "thorough-going evolutionism."
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:29 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, John, List, > > I don’t see how Peirce’s cosmology, which is essentially metaphysical > (i.e. based on *logical* principles), has any bearing on the Big Bang > theory, which is strictly a *physical* hypothesis testable only by means > of physical observations. I suppose Peirce as physicist would have had > something to say about the Big Bang, but I don’t think it would necessitate > a modification of his cosmology, nor would his cosmology imply a denial > that the Big Bang happened at the beginning of the physical universe as we > know it. > > Gary f. >
----------------------------- 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 .
