Gary F., List: Thank you for this helpful clarification. We seem to agree that Peirce's cosmology and contemporary Big Bang cosmology rest on different metaphysical assumptions, which is what I have been trying to emphasize all along. I also agree with you that Peirce's cosmology cannot be reduced to physics or any other special science.
That said, I think that it would be a mistake to draw too sharp a distinction between what you called "the logical universe"--i.e., what I would call the semeiotic or psychical universe--and the physical universe. In accordance with Peirce's synechism, it is a difference in degree, rather than kind; and in accordance with his (objective) idealism, the physical universe is derived and special, while the psychical universe is primordial. Hence the principles of the logical/semeiotic/psychical universe are *more basic* than those of the physical universe, such that matter in motion *evolves *from mind in thought as inveterate habits become physical laws. Regards, Jon S. On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 11:34 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Jon, > > All theories in physics, indeed all theories in “special sciences,” rest > on metaphysical assumptions; that’s what makes them *special sciences*. > Peirce’s cosmology is not a special science, certainly not a physical > science. According to Peirce’s metaphysics, based on logical principles (as > he always said that a scientific metaphysics must be), a discontinuity at > the “beginning” of the logical universe (whatever that could mean) is a > contradiction in terms. The Big Bang is a theory about the origin of the > *physical* universe which rests on the core metaphysical assumptions of > physics — which Peirce’s cosmology does *not *assume. Hence the > “universe” of Peirce’s cosmology is not in the same universe of discourse > as the physical “universe” that putatively began with the Big Bang. I don’t > think you can logically argue for or against a hypothesis in one universe > of discourse by drawing on principles belonging to a different universe of > discourse. That was my point. The implication, as I see it, is that > Peirce’s cosmology can’t be reduced to physics or any other special science. > > Gary f > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > *Sent:* 23-Aug-19 11:43 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang > > > > 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 .
