Gary F., List: GF: Right now the only suggestion I can contribute is that a concept of time as a true topological continuum would be independent of scale, while any concept of *historical *time does have a fixed scale, which assigns the origin of the earth to around 5 billion years ago, the Big Bang to about 13.8 billion years ago, etc.
*One* particular concept of historical time assigns those particular dates--again, based on the (untestable) *assumption* that the laws of nature have remained unchanged over all that time. There are other concepts of historical time that assign different dates, based on different assumptions. Again, Peirce declined to assign *any *date to the "beginning" *at all*, based on his assumption of "thorough-going evolutionism." GF: You can’t have a scale in a temporal continuum without marking events in it and comparing the length of time between events, and those marks appear as discontinuities. Indeed, but any such "marking off" of a continuum is an arbitrary and artificial "operation of thought." The definite and discontinuous parts that are thus created are not *real *constituents of the continuum *in itself*. CSP: In the next place, I conceive that a Continuum has, IN ITSELF, no definite parts, although to endow it with definite parts of no matter what multitude, and even parts of lesser dimensionality down to absolute simplicity, it is only necessary that these should be marked off, and although even the operation of thought suffices to impart an approach to definiteness of parts of any multitude we please.* *This indubitably proves that the possession of parts by a continuum is not a real character of it. For the real is that whose being one way or another does not depend upon how individual persons may imagine it to be. (R S-30 [Copy T:6]; c. 1906) Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 6:48 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > Jeff, Jon, List, > > It’s true that my suggestion of a radical split between the universes of > discourse of physics and metaphysics oversimplifies the issues, as it tends > to ignore not only the variety of metaphysical assumptions among physicists > but also the variety and tentativity of Peirce’s own cosmological > hypotheses. I’m looking forward to further inquiry along the lines Jeff has > proposed. > > Right now the only suggestion I can contribute is that a concept of time > as a true topological continuum would be independent of scale, while any > concept of *historical* time does have a fixed scale, which assigns the > origin of the earth to around 5 billion years ago, the Big Bang to about > 13.8 billion years ago, etc. You can’t have a scale in a temporal continuum > without marking events in it and comparing the length of time between > events, and those marks appear as discontinuities. To visualize an > explanation of why we can’t locate the origin of “the universe” in > *continuous* time, I sometimes use the analogy of “zooming in” on a > representation of the Mandelbrot set: you can zoom in on any region forever > (or you could if you had infinite computing power) without reaching an > (“innermost”) end. (I wonder how the possibility of fractal dimensions > would affect Jeff’s idea about the reduction of dimensions over time.) > > I haven’t read the Quanta article yet and have a busy weekend ahead so > this very rough sketch is all I can offer for awhile. > > 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 .
