[PEIRCE-L] Re: Jay Zeman's existentialgraphs.com

[Jon Awbrey]

Peircers,

In our “Inquiry as Action : Risk of Inquiry” paper, originally
presented at a conference whose theme was “Hermeneutics and the
Human Sciences”, Susan and I sought to trace the interminglings
of signs and inquiry and the theories thereof.  We pursued their
trajectory through three points of reference, Aristotle, Peirce,
and Dewey.  We noted both convergences and divergences, and the
the course of true signs never did run smooth, as everyone knows.

We characterized Aristotle's treatment “On Interpretation”, where the
implied relationship between a sign and its object is a 2-step linkage
that pivots on what Peirce would call an interpretant sign, as “in part
a reasonable approximation and in part a suggestive metaphor, suitable
as a first approach to a complex subject”.  It makes for a good start,
but ultimately falls short of grasping the triadicity of sign relations.

Regards,

Jon

On 5/29/2017 5:52 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:

Peircers,

Just to get the ball rolling, or ping-pong-ing as the case may be,
let me refer to a couple of points from Sue's and my Inquiry paper
that came first to mind as I skimmed the Rhematics page -- I had
some trouble telling who was saying what at times so I will give
it another go later on.

I see there remains a persistent desire to parse symbols into
simpler signs like icons and indices, or to say that genuine
triadicity has its genesis in some kind of coitus between
degenerate species.  I suppose bi-o-logical metaphors are
just bound to lead folks down that path, and I guess we
all fall into the sinns of simile from time to time,
but due care of our semiotic souls should keep us
from turning that error into doctrine, if we wit
what's good for us.

To be continued ...
very scattered time
and mind today ...

Regards,

Jon

On 5/29/2017 5:00 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote:

Gary, List ...

Re: http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/05/rhematics/

I hope to comment more fully, eventually, but the uses
to which Susan Awbrey and I turned Aristotle's passage
from De Interp can be found in our paper from 1992/1995:

* Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (Autumn 1995),
“Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”,
''Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines''
15(1), pp. 40–52.

Archive
https://web.archive.org/web/19970626071826/http://chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html

Journal
https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052

Online
https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry

* Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (June 1992),
“Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”,
''The Eleventh International Human Science Research
Conference'', Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.

Regards,

Jon

On 5/29/2017 4:38 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:

John and list,

Peirce’s “Improvement on the Gamma Graphs” (CP 4.573-84) in indeed a 
fascinating read; Frederik Stjernfelt comments on
it extensively in Chapter 8 of Natural Propositions. But according to Don 
Roberts (1973, p.89), it’s from the spring
of 1906, and preceded the drafts of the “Prolegomena”, which was published 
later in that year. You seem to be
reversing that chronology by including it with “further developments” in the 
EGs after the Prolegomena. Anyway, what
happened to EGs after 1906 is not at all clear to me, although I’ve worked my 
way through the relevant papers on your
site. Given the central role Peirce wanted them to play in his “apology for 
pragmaticism,” I’m still trying to
understand this, and your list doesn’t give me many clues.

Roberts (p.92) describes the “Prolegomena” as “Peirce’s last full scale 
revision of EG,” and notes that the
“tinctures” did not really solve the problems with representing modal logic 
that Peirce thought he had solved in the
spring of 1906. Some of his later comments on the “Prolegomena” (included in
http://www.gnusystems.ca/ProlegomPrag.htm) are quite critical of it — one even 
refers to the “tinctures” and
“heraldry” as “nonsensical” — but they don’t really say how these problems can 
be solved diagrammatically. Are you
saying that his later manuscripts did solve these problems, or that Peirce 
“simplified” his system of EGs by
abandoning further development of the Gamma graphs and reverting to a version 
of the Beta?

For me, these questions have large implications for Peirce’s late semiotics, 
phaneroscopy, Synechism, pragmaticism and
metaphysics (as he suggested at the end of his “Improvement on the Gamma 
Graphs” talk (CP 4.584). I have to confess
that for me, the mapping back and forth between EGs and other diagrammatic or 
algebraic systems doesn’t throw any
light on those implications. I’d appreciate any help you (or anyone) can give 
toward clarifying them.

I’m also curious as to what people think of my “Rhematics” post 
(http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/05/rhematics/) and Gary
Richmond’s comment on it, as I have a follow-up in mind …

Gary f.



--

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Jay Zeman's existentialgraphs.com

[Jon Awbrey]

Gary, List ...

Re: http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/05/rhematics/

I hope to comment more fully, eventually, but the uses
to which Susan Awbrey and I turned Aristotle's passage
from De Interp can be found in our paper from 1992/1995:

* Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (Autumn 1995),
“Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”,
''Inquiry : Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines''
15(1), pp. 40–52.

Archive
https://web.archive.org/web/19970626071826/http://chss.montclair.edu/inquiry/fall95/awbrey.html

Journal
https://www.pdcnet.org/inquiryct/content/inquiryct_1995_0015_0001_0040_0052

Online
https://www.academia.edu/1266493/Interpretation_as_Action_The_Risk_of_Inquiry

* Awbrey, J.L., and Awbrey, S.M. (June 1992),
“Interpretation as Action : The Risk of Inquiry”,
''The Eleventh International Human Science Research
Conference'', Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan.

Regards,

Jon

On 5/29/2017 4:38 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:

John and list,



Peirce’s “Improvement on the Gamma Graphs” (CP 4.573-84) in indeed a 
fascinating read; Frederik Stjernfelt comments on it extensively in Chapter 8 
of Natural Propositions. But according to Don Roberts (1973, p.89), it’s from 
the spring of 1906, and preceded the drafts of the “Prolegomena”, which was 
published later in that year. You seem to be reversing that chronology by 
including it with “further developments” in the EGs after the Prolegomena. 
Anyway, what happened to EGs after 1906 is not at all clear to me, although 
I’ve worked my way through the relevant papers on your site. Given the central 
role Peirce wanted them to play in his “apology for pragmaticism,” I’m still 
trying to understand this, and your list doesn’t give me many clues.



Roberts (p.92) describes the “Prolegomena” as “Peirce’s last full scale 
revision of EG,” and notes that the “tinctures” did not really solve the 
problems with representing modal logic that Peirce thought he had solved in the 
spring of 1906. Some of his later comments on the “Prolegomena” (included in 
http://www.gnusystems.ca/ProlegomPrag.htm) are quite critical of it — one even 
refers to the “tinctures” and “heraldry” as “nonsensical” — but they don’t 
really say how these problems can be solved diagrammatically. Are you saying 
that his later manuscripts did solve these problems, or that Peirce 
“simplified” his system of EGs by abandoning further development of the Gamma 
graphs and reverting to a version of the Beta?



For me, these questions have large implications for Peirce’s late semiotics, 
phaneroscopy, Synechism, pragmaticism and metaphysics (as he suggested at the 
end of his “Improvement on the Gamma Graphs” talk (CP 4.584). I have to confess 
that for me, the mapping back and forth between EGs and other diagrammatic or 
algebraic systems doesn’t throw any light on those implications. I’d appreciate 
any help you (or anyone) can give toward clarifying them.



I’m also curious as to what people think of my “Rhematics” post 
(http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/05/rhematics/) and Gary Richmond’s comment on it, 
as I have a follow-up in mind …



Gary f.



-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net]
Sent: 27-May-17 22:00
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Jay Zeman's existentialgraphs.com



On 5/26/2017 8:49 AM,   g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:


my own site,   
http://www.gnusystems.ca/ProlegomPrag.htm, which I think



improves on Zeman’s version in some respects, even correcting a few



errors.




Yes, that looks good.




your contribution to the “Five Questions” collection,



  
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/5qsigns.htm — which i highly recommend




Thanks.



For the further development of EGs, I recommend Peirce's later MSS and his 
"Improvement on the Gamma Graphs", which Jay posted on his site.  (See below 
for an excerpt.)



The later MSS (around 1909) simplified the foundation of EGs, the rules of 
inference, and the mapping to and from algebraic notations and natural 
languages.  Basic innovations:



  1. Major simplification in the treatment of lines of identity,

 ligatures, and teridentity.  (See the excerpt below.)



  2. Elimination of talk about cuts, recto, and verso.  Instead, he

 introduced shaded (negative) and unshaded (positive) areas.



  3. Simplification and generalization of the rules of inference to

 three pairs of rules:  each pair has an insertion rule and an

 erasure rule, each of which is an exact inverse of the other.



  4. The same rules apply to both Alpha and Beta: therefore, there

 is no need to distinguish Alpha and Beta.  Any proposition in

 Alpha may be treated as a medad (0-adic relation) in  Beta.



  5. The above innovations make Peirce's proof procedure an extension

 and generalization of *both* Gentzen's natural deduction *and*

 Alan Robinson's widely used 

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Jay Zeman's existentialgraphs.com

[gnox]

John and list,

 

Peirce’s “Improvement on the Gamma Graphs” (CP 4.573-84) in indeed a 
fascinating read; Frederik Stjernfelt comments on it extensively in Chapter 8 
of Natural Propositions. But according to Don Roberts (1973, p.89), it’s from 
the spring of 1906, and preceded the drafts of the “Prolegomena”, which was 
published later in that year. You seem to be reversing that chronology by 
including it with “further developments” in the EGs after the Prolegomena. 
Anyway, what happened to EGs after 1906 is not at all clear to me, although 
I’ve worked my way through the relevant papers on your site. Given the central 
role Peirce wanted them to play in his “apology for pragmaticism,” I’m still 
trying to understand this, and your list doesn’t give me many clues.

 

Roberts (p.92) describes the “Prolegomena” as “Peirce’s last full scale 
revision of EG,” and notes that the “tinctures” did not really solve the 
problems with representing modal logic that Peirce thought he had solved in the 
spring of 1906. Some of his later comments on the “Prolegomena” (included in 
http://www.gnusystems.ca/ProlegomPrag.htm) are quite critical of it — one even 
refers to the “tinctures” and “heraldry” as “nonsensical” — but they don’t 
really say how these problems can be solved diagrammatically. Are you saying 
that his later manuscripts did solve these problems, or that Peirce 
“simplified” his system of EGs by abandoning further development of the Gamma 
graphs and reverting to a version of the Beta?

 

For me, these questions have large implications for Peirce’s late semiotics, 
phaneroscopy, Synechism, pragmaticism and metaphysics (as he suggested at the 
end of his “Improvement on the Gamma Graphs” talk (CP 4.584). I have to confess 
that for me, the mapping back and forth between EGs and other diagrammatic or 
algebraic systems doesn’t throw any light on those implications. I’d appreciate 
any help you (or anyone) can give toward clarifying them.

 

I’m also curious as to what people think of my “Rhematics” post 
(http://gnusystems.ca/wp/2017/05/rhematics/) and Gary Richmond’s comment on it, 
as I have a follow-up in mind …

 

Gary f.

 

-Original Message-
From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] 
Sent: 27-May-17 22:00
To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Jay Zeman's existentialgraphs.com

 

On 5/26/2017 8:49 AM,   g...@gnusystems.ca wrote:

> my own site,   
> http://www.gnusystems.ca/ProlegomPrag.htm, which I think 

> improves on Zeman’s version in some respects, even correcting a few 

> errors.

 

Yes, that looks good.

 

> your contribution to the “Five Questions” collection, 

>   
> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/5qsigns.htm — which i highly recommend

 

Thanks.

 

For the further development of EGs, I recommend Peirce's later MSS and his 
"Improvement on the Gamma Graphs", which Jay posted on his site.  (See below 
for an excerpt.)

 

The later MSS (around 1909) simplified the foundation of EGs, the rules of 
inference, and the mapping to and from algebraic notations and natural 
languages.  Basic innovations:

 

  1. Major simplification in the treatment of lines of identity,

 ligatures, and teridentity.  (See the excerpt below.)

 

  2. Elimination of talk about cuts, recto, and verso.  Instead, he

 introduced shaded (negative) and unshaded (positive) areas.

 

  3. Simplification and generalization of the rules of inference to

 three pairs of rules:  each pair has an insertion rule and an

 erasure rule, each of which is an exact inverse of the other.

 

  4. The same rules apply to both Alpha and Beta: therefore, there

 is no need to distinguish Alpha and Beta.  Any proposition in

 Alpha may be treated as a medad (0-adic relation) in  Beta.

 

  5. The above innovations make Peirce's proof procedure an extension

 and generalization of *both* Gentzen's natural deduction *and*

 Alan Robinson's widely used method of resolution theorem proving.

 

  6. Theorem:  Every proof by resolution (in any notation for first-

 order logic) can be converted to a proof by resolution with

 Peirce's rules.  Then by negating each step of the proof and

 reversing the order, it becomes a proof by Peirce's version of

 natural deduction.  Finally, that proof can be systematically

 converted to a proof by Gentzen's version of natural deduction.

 

  7. Peirce's rules can be stated in a notation-independent way.

 With a minor generalization, they can be applied to Peirce-

 Peano notation, to Kamp's discourse representation structures,

 and to any statement in English that has an exact translation

 to and from Kamp's DRS.

 

For the details of points #1 to #6, see

  http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/egtut.pdf

 

For the slides of an introduction to EGs that use 

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate the Space-Time Continuum?

[kirstima]

Jon,

Thanks for your prompt response. I've read your mails, I do know you see 
the problem.

Kirsti

Jon Awbrey kirjoitti 29.5.2017 18:36:

Kirsti, List,

I know what you mean about the title but decided to take it
more as a reference to the revolution in physics that began
with relativity and quantum mechanics in the last century
than any particular issue about the nature of continua.
Anyway, I tried to focus on the underlying conceptual
transformation in my previous posts on this thread.

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-05/msg00019.html

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-05/msg00023.html

As it happens, this whole ball of wax falls in line with
some sporadic reflections I've been writing up on my blog,
so I lumped the above thoughts in with that series of posts:

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/05/14/the-difference-that-makes-a-difference-that-peirce-makes-4/

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/05/17/the-difference-that-makes-a-difference-that-peirce-makes-5/

Regards,

Jon

On 5/29/2017 10:05 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:

Dear listers,

I do not think the title of this thread is well-thought. There is 
nothing such as a "Space-Time Continuum" which could
be reasonably discussed about. Even though it is often repeated chain 
of words.


For the first: Continuity does not mean the same as does 'continuum'. 
-  and this is not a trifle issue. Within

philosopy one should mind one's wordings.

For the second: Take into true consideration the quote provided:

MB
One of my favorite Peirce quotes... "space does for different 
subjects
of one predicate precisely what time does for different predicates 
of

the same subject." (CP 1.501)


Here CSP is clearly talking about conceptual issues & philosophizing. 
The key point being the relation between 'subject'

and 'predicate'.

CSP differentiates between considerations of space and time. At least 
he does so in separating the issues for a specific

approach  each approach needs.

What CSP is saying, is to my mind, that continuity in time and 
continuity in space need to be fully grasped BEFORE
taking them both as an issue to be tackled. Especially by such a 
concept as a continuum.


A continuum has a beginning and an end. It is presupposed in the very 
concept. The very idea of a big (or little) bang
as a start or an end just illustrates current minds, current common 
sense. The still dominating nominalistic world-view.


What is non-Eucleidean geometry about? It is about radically changing 
the scale. Any line which appeared to previous
imagination as a straight one, and necessarily so, does not appear so 
after the fact that the earth is round had been

fully digested.

This is not assumed to play any part in the invention of non-Euclidean 
geometry. And it does not in the stories and

histories told about it.

The earth does appear flat, in the experiential world of all human 
beings. And goes on to appear so untill
interplanetary tourism becomes commonplace. Flat, although somewhat 
bumby.


I am curious about possible responses. Do wish I'll get some.

Kirsti



-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate the Space-Time Continuum?

[kirstima]

Jerry, list,

In my view (with no access to the latest writings of CSP) did not just 
anticipate continuity, but grasped it, both in respect of space and 
time. But he did not solve the new kinds of problems arising with those.


One essential issue, to my mind, is that he advised not to mix them 
BEFORE both are given due attention, with adequate results.


His experimental work on gravitation gave him a global view on space and 
spatiality. Not just the by then triviality that "the earth is round".


Continuity and change belong together. Even gravity does not work 
exactly the same way on all points of the earth. An often neglegted 
point in his works is the concepts of residue. It has been mistaken as 
only an error of measurement. To CSP it was not.


To him it was just as well in the nature of nature. To bend, just a 
little, now and then. Giving rise to question in the nature of: What 
if...


We all know that in any kind of graphical presentation in a global scale 
the picturing must curve. The meridians do bend towards the poles. Our 
flat pictures on the globe do not present our globe 'as it really is'.


How about genetics, then? We know, or should know, that just a little 
bending, small changes do work, but major changes tend to end in 
disasters.


Well. well. I truly do not know why I am writing this to you lot. All I 
say is just common sense (or wished for common sense). - Always, and 
always 'continuum' is taken as a synonym for continuity.


In the history of mathematics, a major change occurred with the 
amalgamation of Arabic and European math. (Not the first time, mind 
you).


The idea of Zero (as well as nothingness) entered Western math. With 
zero entered many things. Not just its counterpoint, infinity. But also 
equations, for instance.


With the arithmetics taught in primary schools, equation marks (=) are 
used. In ancient Greece, there were no such marks, no such idea.


Grattan-Guinness is the only writer on history of mahtematics I know, 
who has taken this up. The modern idea of identity was both unknow and 
unimaginable for the Greeks by then.


Well, then. The modern idea oof identitity has many facets. Modern logic 
has taken it as one of the tree basic logical rules, in the form that 
any 'thing' is identical to itself. A= A and B=B.  - Many disputes 
followed between mathematician and logicians.


CSP takes as an example of identifying a characterization of any magpie 
that it is 'stealish'. Fact or fancy?


But that is not the issue.

Chemical identities are the field Jerry is working on. But I see the 
problems coming on with the concept 'identity'. Two different lines of 
thinking on and about it tend to mix in the wrong way.  - One is 
identifying, the other is identicality as equation.


Identification relies on implications, not equation. The true difference 
between toso two come to the fore (only) with time.


With any equation, your mind may go bacwards and forwards as you wish. 
Not so with implications.


Empirical evidence is always about implications (with grounds). Never 
about  = ,


or <=>.

And by the way, the digital world is an always-already-put-to-pieces 
world. Which never can tell about the world we live in. And live on.


Kirsti

















kirst...@saunalahti.fi kirjoitti 29.5.2017 18:16:

 Alkuperäinen viesti 
Aihe: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate the Space-Time 
Continuum?

Päiväys: 29.5.2017 18:13
Lähettäjä: kirst...@saunalahti.fi
Vastaanottaja: Jerry LR Chandler 

Jerry,

Well,  stricly speaking you are not taking up a triad, but three
interconnected propositions.

Anyway, you asked about MY views .

- Euclidean geometric line does not even exist outside Euclidean
geometry. It is an abstraction, a part of results of systematic human
imagination. Thus there is no sense in assumiming it has any
properties outside the geometry in question. Continuity was assumed,
that is true. But as it turned out, Euclidean geometry could only deal
with issues of limited scale. - Continuity demands unlimited scale.

- Any Euclidean geometric line is treated as(and assumed to be)
continuous. But so is the case with non-Euclidean geometry just as
well. - It was only the (pre)supposition that a geometric line is and
will be forever straight, not bend, that was put into question. With
the very good results. - Thus became modern topology into being!

- It makes no sense to ask whether a continuum is continuous or not.
Of course any continuum is continuous, It is presupposed. But within
its own limits. So no answer to this question can provide any answet
to the question of continuity per se.

Here comes functional geometry and differential and integral calculus
to the fore. SCP handled them like water in his tab.  - Euclid did not
have any inkling of these issues.

Infinity became something mathematicians could and did handle. - Or
could they, really?

Just provisional answers,

Kirsti


Jerry LR Chandler 

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate the Space-Time Continuum?

[Jon Awbrey]

Kirsti, List,

I know what you mean about the title but decided to take it
more as a reference to the revolution in physics that began
with relativity and quantum mechanics in the last century
than any particular issue about the nature of continua.
Anyway, I tried to focus on the underlying conceptual
transformation in my previous posts on this thread.

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-05/msg00019.html

https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2017-05/msg00023.html

As it happens, this whole ball of wax falls in line with
some sporadic reflections I've been writing up on my blog,
so I lumped the above thoughts in with that series of posts:

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/05/14/the-difference-that-makes-a-difference-that-peirce-makes-4/

https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2017/05/17/the-difference-that-makes-a-difference-that-peirce-makes-5/

Regards,

Jon

On 5/29/2017 10:05 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:

Dear listers,

I do not think the title of this thread is well-thought. There is nothing such as a 
"Space-Time Continuum" which could
be reasonably discussed about. Even though it is often repeated chain of words.

For the first: Continuity does not mean the same as does 'continuum'. -  and 
this is not a trifle issue. Within
philosopy one should mind one's wordings.

For the second: Take into true consideration the quote provided:

MB

One of my favorite Peirce quotes... "space does for different subjects
of one predicate precisely what time does for different predicates of
the same subject." (CP 1.501)


Here CSP is clearly talking about conceptual issues & philosophizing. The key 
point being the relation between 'subject'
and 'predicate'.

CSP differentiates between considerations of space and time. At least he does 
so in separating the issues for a specific
approach  each approach needs.

What CSP is saying, is to my mind, that continuity in time and continuity in 
space need to be fully grasped BEFORE
taking them both as an issue to be tackled. Especially by such a concept as a 
continuum.

A continuum has a beginning and an end. It is presupposed in the very concept. 
The very idea of a big (or little) bang
as a start or an end just illustrates current minds, current common sense. The 
still dominating nominalistic world-view.

What is non-Eucleidean geometry about? It is about radically changing the 
scale. Any line which appeared to previous
imagination as a straight one, and necessarily so, does not appear so after the 
fact that the earth is round had been
fully digested.

This is not assumed to play any part in the invention of non-Euclidean 
geometry. And it does not in the stories and
histories told about it.

The earth does appear flat, in the experiential world of all human beings. And 
goes on to appear so untill
interplanetary tourism becomes commonplace. Flat, although somewhat bumby.

I am curious about possible responses. Do wish I'll get some.

Kirsti


--

inquiry into inquiry: https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
academia: https://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey
oeiswiki: https://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA
facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache

-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Fwd: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate the Space-Time Continuum?

[kirstima]

 Alkuperäinen viesti 
Aihe: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate the Space-Time Continuum?
Päiväys: 29.5.2017 18:13
Lähettäjä: kirst...@saunalahti.fi
Vastaanottaja: Jerry LR Chandler 

Jerry,

Well,  stricly speaking you are not taking up a triad, but three 
interconnected propositions.


Anyway, you asked about MY views .

- Euclidean geometric line does not even exist outside Euclidean 
geometry. It is an abstraction, a part of results of systematic human 
imagination. Thus there is no sense in assumiming it has any properties 
outside the geometry in question. Continuity was assumed, that is true. 
But as it turned out, Euclidean geometry could only deal with issues of 
limited scale. - Continuity demands unlimited scale.


- Any Euclidean geometric line is treated as(and assumed to be) 
continuous. But so is the case with non-Euclidean geometry just as well. 
- It was only the (pre)supposition that a geometric line is and will be 
forever straight, not bend, that was put into question. With the very 
good results. - Thus became modern topology into being!


- It makes no sense to ask whether a continuum is continuous or not. Of 
course any continuum is continuous, It is presupposed. But within its 
own limits. So no answer to this question can provide any answet to the 
question of continuity per se.


Here comes functional geometry and differential and integral calculus to 
the fore. SCP handled them like water in his tab.  - Euclid did not have 
any inkling of these issues.


Infinity became something mathematicians could and did handle. - Or 
could they, really?


Just provisional answers,

Kirsti


Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 29.5.2017 17:42:

Kirsti, List:

Could you expand your intervention to give some examples of how YOU
assign tangible meaning to CP 1.501?

Other comments will have to wait, but for one.

A Euclidian geometric line has continuity.
A Euclidian geometric line is continuous.
A Continuum is continuous.

Do you agree with this triad?   :-)

Cheers

jerry




On May 29, 2017, at 9:05 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:

Dear listers,

I do not think the title of this thread is well-thought. There is 
nothing such as a "Space-Time Continuum" which could be reasonably 
discussed about. Even though it is often repeated chain of words.


For the first: Continuity does not mean the same as does 'continuum'. 
-  and this is not a trifle issue. Within philosopy one should mind 
one's wordings.


For the second: Take into true consideration the quote provided:

MB
One of my favorite Peirce quotes... "space does for different 
subjects
of one predicate precisely what time does for different predicates 
of

the same subject." (CP 1.501)


Here CSP is clearly talking about conceptual issues & philosophizing. 
The key point being the relation between 'subject' and 'predicate'.


CSP differentiates between considerations of space and time. At least 
he does so in separating the issues for a specific approach 
 each approach needs.


What CSP is saying, is to my mind, that continuity in time and 
continuity in space need to be fully grasped BEFORE taking them both 
as an issue to be tackled. Especially by such a concept as a 
continuum.


A continuum has a beginning and an end. It is presupposed in the very 
concept. The very idea of a big (or little) bang as a start or an end 
just illustrates current minds, current common sense. The still 
dominating nominalistic world-view.


What is non-Eucleidean geometry about? It is about radically changing 
the scale. Any line which appeared to previous imagination as a 
straight one, and necessarily so, does not appear so after the fact 
that the earth is round had been fully digested.


This is not assumed to play any part in the invention of non-Euclidean 
geometry. And it does not in the stories and histories told about it.


The earth does appear flat, in the experiential world of all human 
beings. And goes on to appear so untill interplanetary tourism becomes 
commonplace. Flat, although somewhat bumby.


I am curious about possible responses. Do wish I'll get some.

Kirsti








John F Sowa kirjoitti 20.5.2017 00:28:

Jeff and Mike,
Those are important points.
JBD

In a broad sense, Sir William Rowan Hamilton anticipated Einstein's
idea that space and time can be conceived as parts of a four 
dimensional
continuum. In fact, he used the algebra of quaternions to articulate 
a
formal framework for conceiving of such physical relations as part 
of a

four dimensional field.

Peirce was familiar with Hamilton's work.  And when he was editing
the second edition of his father's book _Linear Algebra_, he added
some important theorems to it.  In particular, he proved that the
only N-dimensional algebras that had division were the real line
(1D), the complex field (2D), quaternions (4D), and octonions (8D).
MB
One of my favorite Peirce quotes... "space does for different 
subjects
of one predicate precisely 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate the Space-Time Continuum?

[Jerry LR Chandler]

Kirsti, List:

Could you expand your intervention to give some examples of how YOU assign 
tangible meaning to CP 1.501?

Other comments will have to wait, but for one.

A Euclidian geometric line has continuity.
A Euclidian geometric line is continuous.
A Continuum is continuous.

Do you agree with this triad?   :-)  

Cheers

jerry



> On May 29, 2017, at 9:05 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote:
> 
> Dear listers,
> 
> I do not think the title of this thread is well-thought. There is nothing 
> such as a "Space-Time Continuum" which could be reasonably discussed about. 
> Even though it is often repeated chain of words.
> 
> For the first: Continuity does not mean the same as does 'continuum'. -  and 
> this is not a trifle issue. Within philosopy one should mind one's wordings.
> 
> For the second: Take into true consideration the quote provided:
> 
> MB
>>> One of my favorite Peirce quotes... "space does for different subjects
>>> of one predicate precisely what time does for different predicates of
>>> the same subject." (CP 1.501)
> 
> Here CSP is clearly talking about conceptual issues & philosophizing. The key 
> point being the relation between 'subject' and 'predicate'.
> 
> CSP differentiates between considerations of space and time. At least he does 
> so in separating the issues for a specific approach  each 
> approach needs.
> 
> What CSP is saying, is to my mind, that continuity in time and continuity in 
> space need to be fully grasped BEFORE taking them both as an issue to be 
> tackled. Especially by such a concept as a continuum.
> 
> A continuum has a beginning and an end. It is presupposed in the very 
> concept. The very idea of a big (or little) bang as a start or an end just 
> illustrates current minds, current common sense. The still dominating 
> nominalistic world-view.
> 
> What is non-Eucleidean geometry about? It is about radically changing the 
> scale. Any line which appeared to previous imagination as a straight one, and 
> necessarily so, does not appear so after the fact that the earth is round had 
> been fully digested.
> 
> This is not assumed to play any part in the invention of non-Euclidean 
> geometry. And it does not in the stories and histories told about it.
> 
> The earth does appear flat, in the experiential world of all human beings. 
> And goes on to appear so untill interplanetary tourism becomes commonplace. 
> Flat, although somewhat bumby.
> 
> I am curious about possible responses. Do wish I'll get some.
> 
> Kirsti
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John F Sowa kirjoitti 20.5.2017 00:28:
>> Jeff and Mike,
>> Those are important points.
>> JBD
>>> In a broad sense, Sir William Rowan Hamilton anticipated Einstein's
>>> idea that space and time can be conceived as parts of a four dimensional
>>> continuum. In fact, he used the algebra of quaternions to articulate a
>>> formal framework for conceiving of such physical relations as part of a
>>> four dimensional field.
>> Peirce was familiar with Hamilton's work.  And when he was editing
>> the second edition of his father's book _Linear Algebra_, he added
>> some important theorems to it.  In particular, he proved that the
>> only N-dimensional algebras that had division were the real line
>> (1D), the complex field (2D), quaternions (4D), and octonions (8D).
>> MB
>>> One of my favorite Peirce quotes... "space does for different subjects
>>> of one predicate precisely what time does for different predicates of
>>> the same subject." (CP 1.501)
>> He also discussed non-Euclidean geometry.  While he was still at the
>> US C, he proposed a project to determine whether the sum of the
>> angles of triangles at astronomical distances was exactly 180 degrees.
>> Simon Newcomb rejected that project.
>> John
> 
> 
> -
> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON 
> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
> 
> 
> 
> 


-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate the Space-Time Continuum?

[kirstima]

Dear listers,

I do not think the title of this thread is well-thought. There is 
nothing such as a "Space-Time Continuum" which could be reasonably 
discussed about. Even though it is often repeated chain of words.


For the first: Continuity does not mean the same as does 'continuum'. -  
and this is not a trifle issue. Within philosopy one should mind one's 
wordings.


For the second: Take into true consideration the quote provided:

MB

One of my favorite Peirce quotes... "space does for different subjects
of one predicate precisely what time does for different predicates of
the same subject." (CP 1.501)


Here CSP is clearly talking about conceptual issues & philosophizing. 
The key point being the relation between 'subject' and 'predicate'.


CSP differentiates between considerations of space and time. At least he 
does so in separating the issues for a specific approach  
each approach needs.


What CSP is saying, is to my mind, that continuity in time and 
continuity in space need to be fully grasped BEFORE taking them both as 
an issue to be tackled. Especially by such a concept as a continuum.


A continuum has a beginning and an end. It is presupposed in the very 
concept. The very idea of a big (or little) bang as a start or an end 
just illustrates current minds, current common sense. The still 
dominating nominalistic world-view.


What is non-Eucleidean geometry about? It is about radically changing 
the scale. Any line which appeared to previous imagination as a straight 
one, and necessarily so, does not appear so after the fact that the 
earth is round had been fully digested.


This is not assumed to play any part in the invention of non-Euclidean 
geometry. And it does not in the stories and histories told about it.


The earth does appear flat, in the experiential world of all human 
beings. And goes on to appear so untill interplanetary tourism becomes 
commonplace. Flat, although somewhat bumby.


I am curious about possible responses. Do wish I'll get some.

Kirsti








John F Sowa kirjoitti 20.5.2017 00:28:

Jeff and Mike,

Those are important points.

JBD

In a broad sense, Sir William Rowan Hamilton anticipated Einstein's
idea that space and time can be conceived as parts of a four 
dimensional

continuum. In fact, he used the algebra of quaternions to articulate a
formal framework for conceiving of such physical relations as part of 
a

four dimensional field.


Peirce was familiar with Hamilton's work.  And when he was editing
the second edition of his father's book _Linear Algebra_, he added
some important theorems to it.  In particular, he proved that the
only N-dimensional algebras that had division were the real line
(1D), the complex field (2D), quaternions (4D), and octonions (8D).

MB

One of my favorite Peirce quotes... "space does for different subjects
of one predicate precisely what time does for different predicates of
the same subject." (CP 1.501)


He also discussed non-Euclidean geometry.  While he was still at the
US C, he proposed a project to determine whether the sum of the
angles of triangles at astronomical distances was exactly 180 degrees.
Simon Newcomb rejected that project.

John



-
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L 
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To 
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .