Helmut, list Yes- I’d say the universe is a system - a CAS, complex adaptive system. Adn my view of its goal is to prevent the dissipation of its energy. Period. No perfect final state! To achieve this energy-retention, I consider that the universe becomes more diverse and complex.
I also consider the universe ‘rational’ which means logical and focused on enveloping habits of organization of matter [via Mind] and networking with other forms of matter. All- to prevent entropy. As such - I refer to Peirce’s analysis of the universe as rational, and the role of Mind-as-Matter.. As for whether or not there is a ‘god’ aka, an agential force - since that’s a belief and totally unprovable, then, as you say - one can either believe it - or not. It can certainly be discussed - but I find such discussions also irrelevant. ..and all the various scholarly and esteemed arguments for ’the reality of god ‘ - interesting but ultimately circular and empty. Edwina > On Aug 30, 2024, at 10:54 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, List, > > in my last post I was trying to not anthropomorphise: I wrote, that the > non-atheist view, that God is a person, can be justified by saying, that what > makes a person is intelligence, and the reason for everything is intelligent, > so a person. Of course, this argument is only then not anthropomorphic, if we > all agree, that "intelligence" is not an anthropomorphic concept. Is it or > not? > > About "agential, deterministic": "Deteministic" I see as too mechanical, > intending only one purpose, instead of the Talcottian system aspects "AGIL": > Adaption, goal attainment, integration, latency. These system properties can > also be explained in a Peircean way, I think, with habit formation and the > three categories. > > I´d say, everything is a system, but the more complex a system is, the more > these AGIL aspects hold. "Goal attainment" of course is agential. Luhmann too > spoke of the intention of a system. Its intention is to get bigger, more > powerful, more complex, more latent (homeostatic), and therefore more capable > of integrating all that may help to achieve all that. > > Now- Is the universe a system? I´d say, yes, but a perfectly closed one > (apart from possibly presumed divine intervention). Because of this > closedness, it doesn´t have to adapt, and it cannot integrate, at least > nothing from outside. But intention and agentiality, I´d say, yes, it has. > The question, whether the universe is God´s tool, a part of God, or God > Himself, I find irrelevant, due to this question´s non-solubility for us > humble creatures. We should rather bother with problems we can deal with, > and, apart from that, either unify or dump all religions, and praise God > (just a suggestion). > > Best regards, Helmut > > > 29. August 2024 um 20:39 Uhr > "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > wrote: > Helmut, List > > Since I follow the theory of CAS, complex adaptive systems, then, I view the > universe as a logical process of energy/matter transformation. And yes - this > doesn’t necessarily lead to theism, unless one wants to anthropomorphize the > nature of this logical adaptive process. Andn of course- to atheism, which > merely rejects the anthropomorphic or agential, deterministic Supreme > purpose—and, more often, accepts a self-organizing, self-creating process of > energy transforming to matter. As Peirce so often says ‘ matter is effete > mind’. > > Edwina. > > On Aug 29, 2024, at 2:05 PM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: > > List, > > the argument "If A then B, if B then C, so: If A then C", given, that the two > premisses are true, has a third premiss: Transitivity. Transitivity is an > axiom, because it cannot be deduced from other premisses. Logic/reason is > based on axioms. They are the reason for logic. In a universe, where in this > example "If A then C" would not be true, no intelligent life could emerge, I > am quite sure. And there would be no reason for anything. > > Given, that the axioms are the ens nessecitarium, we may say with John > (Johannes) of the bible, that God is logic. I think, this view does not > nessecarily lead to theism, it might as well lead to pantheism or > panentheism. Panentheism, because logic/reason/God may exist ouside of our > universe too. > > May it lead to atheism too? I guess, atheists say, that there is no personal > God. But may logic, reason, the reason, be impersonal, inanimate? I´d say, if > something is intelligent, it is a person. Intelligence is proved by action, > e.g. if somebody fills out well an IQ-test. The emergence of intelligent life > on our planet has a reason, because transitivity is in charge. This reason > has done an act, we may call "creation" or "evolution". So this reason is > intelligent, so it is a person, no matter, however technical, inanimate the > term "axioms" sounds, with which mathematicians name the reason. > > Best regards, Helmut > > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. August 2024 um 13:57 Uhr > Von: "Edwina Taborsky" <[email protected]> > An: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Peirce-L" <[email protected]> > Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Anselm (was "A man could not have any idea > that was not anthropomorphic") > JAS, List > > But - Peirce, in 1.412, does indeed very specifically outline how the three > categories ‘come into being’ from Nothing. So, contrary to your > interpretation, I think it’s quite proper to ‘ascribe this belief’ to him. > > As for your arguments about ponens and tollens [both are modus] - if your > premises are false due to circularity or ambiguity or.., then the logical > validity is totally irrelevant. > > You can hardly want to ‘prove’ an assertion by its logical format alone; your > premises must have value of truth. Otherwise, I could ‘prove’ anything - such > as the existence of unicorns and .. > > If horses exist, then unicorns exist. > Horses exist > Therefore, unicorns exist. > > Finally - The ambiguity comes from the merger of ‘possible’ and > ’necessary’…which makes the ‘god' argument false. > > Edwina > > On Aug 28, 2024, at 10:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > List: > > Regarding #1 below, my point is simply that we can properly ascribe beliefs > to Peirce that he explicitly endorses, such as God being Ens necessarium, > "Really creator of all three Universes of Experience"; and we cannot properly > ascribe contradictory beliefs to him, such as the three universes (and > corresponding categories) being eternal or somehow coming into being from > absolutely nothing. > > Regarding #2 below, the following argument is deductively valid--if both > premisses are true, then the conclusion must also be true. > > P1. If God is not actually real, then God is not possibly real. > P2. God is possibly real. > C1. Therefore, God is actually real. > > It is neither circular (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning) nor > question-begging (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question), > because C1 is not already assumed in P1 or P2. Denying the antecedent after > denying the consequent is not a fallacy, it is (as I said) the classical > inference rule called modus tollens > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens). Accordingly, the following > argument is also deductively valid. > > If it does not rain then my car will not be wet. > My car is wet > Therefore it did rain. > > If my car is wet because the sprinkler was on, not because it rained, then > the first premiss is false--the argument is still valid, but unsound. > Likewise, the only way that C1 could be false is if either P1 or P2 is false. > > Regarding #3 below, the following argument is also deductively valid. > > P2. God is possibly real. > P3. If God is possibly real, then God is necessarily real. > C2. Therefore, God is necessarily real. > > This is (as I said) the classical inference rule called modus ponens > (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens). There is no ambiguity here > because "possibly" has exactly the same meaning in P2 and P3, and > "necessarily" has exactly the same meaning in P3 and C2. Again, the only way > that C2 could be false is if either P2 or P3 is false. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 6:56 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> List >> >> 1]First - I think you should follow your own advice - about Dynamic >> Interpretants and Immediate Interpretants.I did NOT say that "every >> "individual and current personal reading of Peirce" is equally valid”. >> >> I said that each of us interprets Peirce’s writings, within a semiosic >> triad, particular to their own knowledge base. As to which of these >> interpretations is ‘valid’ - that’s for the ‘community of scholars to >> affirm. Not the individual author of that interpretation. >> >> 2] You wrote this example: >> P1. If God is not actually real, then God is not possibly real. >> P2. God is possibly real. >> C1. Therefore, God is actually real. >> This is called the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning, where the conclusion [god >> is actually real] is used as a premise. And also - a version of the Fallacy >> of denying the antecedent. >> >> An example would be: >> If it does not rain then my car will not be wet. >> My car is wet >> Therefore it did rain. [No, the sprinkler was on]. >> >> 3] You wrote this example: >> P3. If God is possibly real, then God is necessarily real. >> C2. Therefore, God is necessarily real. >> This is in my view, fallacious due to ambiguity, since it merges the two >> terms of ‘possibly’ and ’necessarily’. >> >> Again - these are your BELIEFS- about the universe, god, etc- and no-one is >> going to discuss your beliefs with you… The problem is, I feel, that you >> seem to want to pull Peirce into being a supporter of these beliefs - and >> this mightn’t be warranted. >> >> Edwina > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at > https://cspeirce.com <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at > https://www.cspeirce.com <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while to > repair / update all the links! > ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in > the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com > <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com > <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of > the message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by > THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben > Udell. > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com > <https://cspeirce.com/> and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com > <https://www.cspeirce.com/> . It'll take a while to repair / update all the > links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of > the message and nothing in the body. More at > https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by > THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben > Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
