Ben, ,list I don’t think that any of your comments , have any relevance to HOW energy functions. Whether the universe is finite or infinite; whether energy is conserved or not in a system - again, doesn’t deal with HOW energy functions. And I maintain my analysis is that it functions as a CAS, using the Peircean semiotic triad and the three categories.
I disagree with you that the Pericean analytic framework can’t be used to analyse the functions of mass within the physics-chemical, biological and . ‘human’ realms. I disagree with you that Peirce confined his analysis of reality to only ‘cenoscopic philosophy’. He was a chemist. And his outline of the emergence of the universe [1.412] his insistence that thought functions throughout the entire world mass [4.551] i - even in crystals..and protoplasm]…to me at least, means that his semiosic and categorical analytic frame is an entirely valid and functional means of examining the universe. And Perice was quite specific that the whole universe is ‘composed of signs’ As for energy - my understanding is that the ’total energy of he universe is constant and not infinite’ but, its transformation into mass changes. I don’t see your point about signal speeds… Again. - thanks for your points but I don’t understand the relevance. Edwina > On Sep 1, 2024, at 7:56 AM, Ben Udell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Edwina, list, > > Some technical notes. You wrote: > > The universe, as a system without perimeters has no capacity to increase [or > decrease] its energy content…As you note - all the energy and matter that > exist are contained within the universe. The question then moves to HOW is > this energy/matter organized? The Answer - as a CAS - a complex organized > system. > > In General Relativity the universe's energy increases while the universe > expands and decreases while it contracts. There's plenty online about > non-conservation of energy in GR. Conservation of energy (i.e., mass-energy) > abides by a time symmetry, such that one sees energy called a "time > quantity". When the universe changes in size, the time symmetry is broken > and so energy conservation is broken. This is implied by the application, to > GR, of (Emily) Noether's Theorem. That theorem shows that every conservation > law of mechanical quantities reflects an underlying symmetry of spacetime. > Of course, I'm no expert on this stuff. Peirce regarded energy conservation > (at least kinetic & potential energy, Peirce didn't have the chance to study > ideas of mass-energy equivalence) as a question for special sciences, not > cenoscopic philosophy. So, GR, not to mention special relativity and > Newtonian mechanics, are outside of Peircean pure cenoscopic philosophy. Of > course, one can opt to _apply_ cenoscopy in special sciences such as physics. > So cenoscopy can get into general physics one way or another. > > Another consideration is that the universe may be infinite. Thus, if it is > infinite, is the universe _not_ a closed system or an isolated system in any > practical sense? Traditionally some philosophers rule out _actual_ > infinities. Anyway, with a finite signal speed limit, an infinite universe > cannot interact with itself in a finite length of time. So, such an infinite > universe is, it seems, never fully actual during any finite duration. > > I point now toward more technical matters, in case anybody is interested. > What about a finite signal speed limit? The principle of special relativity > affirms the equivalence of inertial frames of reference, in cases where > gravitation makes no significant difference, in both Newtonian and > Einsteinian mechanics. I.e. physics looks the same in every inertial > reference frame (outside of gravitation), no matter how differently moving. > Is the principle of special relativity cenoscopically philosophical in > Peirce's sense, i.e., like Archimedean mechanics? I don't know. But if > cenoscopy can affirm the principle of special relativity, then mathematical > group theory offers exactly two options: Galilean transformations (which do > not imply a finite signal speed limit) and Lorentz transformations (which > imply a finite signal speed limit and are incorporated into Einsteinian > relativity, not to mention electromagnetic theory going back to Maxwell). > Only the Lorentz transformations require a signal speed limit (and thereby > allow the theoretical unification by quantification of space and time in the > same units). Again, I'm no expert, but here's a quote from a textbook, with > a link directly to the textbook's Page 1 containing the quote. QUOTE: > > 1 Relativity based on symmetry > > In this chapter, we will derive the Lorentz transformations without assuming > the constancy of the speed of light. We will use only the principle of > special relativity and the symmetry associated with it. We will see that this > principle allows only Galilean or Lorentz space-time transformations between > two inertial systems. In this case of the Lorentz transformations, we obtain > the conservation of an interval and a certain speed. From known experiments, > this speed is c, the speed of light in a vacuum. > > [END QUOTE] > > — Yaakov Friedman, Physical Applications of Homogeneous Balls, Progress in > Mathematical Physics 40 Birkhäuser, Boston, 2004, page 1. > > See at > https://books.google.com/books?id=fa9CAAAAQBAJ&ppis=_c&lpg=PP1&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false > > Best, Ben > > On 8/30/2024 3:59 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: >> Gary R , List >> Yet another disagreement! Yes, a CAS relies on “ the exchange of >> energy/matter/information within its environment to function, adapt, >> evolve…” and so the universe, which has no external environments - as a >> system in itself, operates as a CAS, wherein its energy content is >> constantly adapting, evolving moving from simple to complex organization. >> >> . ..There is no need for a CAS to require external energy input…which would >> make it a mechanical and complicated system, which requires external energy >> input - not a CAS. Again, a CAS does not require external energy input to >> function; it is the way that it organizes its energy content in itself - >> that defines it as a CAS. >> >> A CAS is not something that only exists when it is open to external energy! >> Its energy content, in itself, operates in an operational format as a CAS. >> >> The universe, as a system without perimeters has no capacity to increase [or >> decrease] its energy content…As you note - all the energy and matter that >> exist are contained within the universe. The question then moves to HOW is >> this energy/matter organized? The Answer - as a CAS - a complex organized >> system. >> >> Edwina >> >>> On Aug 30, 2024, at 3:45 PM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> >>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote: > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > 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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 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.
