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
<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]> 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.
