Re: [PEIRCE-L] Entropy and the Universal Categories (was Re: The Proper Way in Logic)

[Edwina Taborsky]

List

I agree with Mike. Thirdness, in my view, does not imply or require 
intentionality. That, after all, suggests some kind of consciousness - and I 
think we find Thirdness in chemical and physical matter - and these forms of 
matter do not include consciousness.

I have a problem with the quote of “Continuity presents 3ns almost to 
perfection’ 1.337. I think that the rules of Thirdness CAN and must be, for a 
certain period of time, ‘continuous and stable.After all- we cannot live iin a 
world where a cat suddenly transforms into a dog.  BUT, since thirdness also 
includes 2ns and 1ns, then, it contains within itself, the ability to interact 
with other units of matter - as well as chance - and thus, has the capacity to 
accept more data and thus, change these ‘continuous rules’ and so, adapt and 
evolve.

Again - I consider that Peircean ‘continuity’ is not 3ns but is the continuous 
morphological semiosis formation of energy-into-matter - which is ongoing [ or 
else, as has been pointed out, entropy sneaks in]….

Edwina

> On Feb 12, 2024, at 5:19 PM, Mike Bergman  wrote:
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I categorically disagree. Intentionality may be an example of Thirdness, but 
> is not definitive of it. JAS just posted "Continuity represents 3ns almost to 
> perfection" (CP 1.337, c. 1882), which I concur best captures (with Mind) 
> Peirce's prominent view of Thirdness, and contintuity does not require 
> intentionality. You might even diagram it out.
> 
> And don't forget crystals (and atoms).
> 
> Best, Mike
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/12/2024 3:59 PM, John F Sowa wrote:
>> Mike,
>> 
>> In every example and application that Peirce wrote or cited, Thirdness 
>> involves intentionality.  But intentionality is not an anthropomorphic 
>> notion, it is biomorphic in the most fundamental sense.
>> 
>> Lynn Margulis wrote that a bacterium swimming upstream in a glucose gradient 
>> is a primitive example of intentionality, and no non-living physical system 
>> shows any kind of intentionality,  I believe that Peirce would agree, since 
>> he cited dogs, parrots, bees, and even plants at various times.
>> 
>> And by the way, viruses don't have intentions, since they're not alive.   
>> They are signs that are interpreted by living things to produce more signs 
>> of the same kind.
>> 
>> John
>>  
>> 
>> From: "Mike Bergman"  
>> Hi Edwina, Helmut, List,
>> 
>> I would like to hear you expand, Edwina, on what you mean about the 
>> 'idexicality of locality'. And, speaking of entropy, here is another 
>> possible link to the universal categories.
>> 
>> flash (of light) [1ns] - energy [2ns] - information [3ns]
>> 
>> I've been toying with this thought for quite a few years. Peirce's cosmogony 
>> begins with a flash (significantly a reference to light). I don't know if 
>> 'flash' is the right analog in Firstness, since both quantum mechanics and 
>> the nature of energy can arguably be better traced to the ideas of harmonic 
>> oscillators. Still, there is something pregnant in that nexus . . . .
>> 
>> For decades there has been confusion and controversy about entropy in the 
>> sense of thermodynamics and its relation to Shannon (information) entropy. 
>> It strikes me that recasting these in terms of Peircean Secondness (energy) 
>> and Thirdness (information) brings sense to the conundrum. Both apply; it is 
>> more a matter of contextual interpretation.
>> 
>> What say the list?
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Best, Mike
>> 
> -- 
> __
> 
> Michael K. Bergman
> 319.621.5225
> http://mkbergman.com 
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
> __ 
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu 
> . 
> ► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
> 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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Entropy and the Universal Categories (was Re: The Proper Way in Logic)

[Mike Bergman]

Hi John,

I categorically disagree. Intentionality may be an example of Thirdness, 
but is not definitive of it. JAS just posted "Continuity represents 3ns 
almost to perfection" (CP 1.337, c. 1882), which I concur best captures 
(with Mind) Peirce's prominent view of Thirdness, and contintuity does 
not require intentionality. You might even diagram it out.


And don't forget crystals (and atoms).

Best, Mike


On 2/12/2024 3:59 PM, John F Sowa wrote:

Mike,

In every example and application that Peirce wrote or cited, Thirdness 
involves intentionality.  But intentionality is not an anthropomorphic 
notion, it is biomorphic in the most fundamental sense.


Lynn Margulis wrote that a bacterium swimming upstream in a glucose 
gradient is a primitive example of intentionality, and no non-living 
physical system shows any kind of intentionality,  I believe that 
Peirce would agree, since he cited dogs, parrots, bees, and even 
plants at various times.


And by the way, viruses don't have intentions, since they're not 
alive.   They are signs that are interpreted by living things to 
produce more signs of the same kind.


John


*From*: "Mike Bergman" 

Hi Edwina, Helmut, List,

I would like to hear you expand, Edwina, on what you mean about the 
'idexicality of locality'. And, speaking of entropy, here is another 
possible link to the universal categories.


flash (of light) [1ns] - energy [2ns] - information [3ns]

I've been toying with this thought for quite a few years. Peirce's 
cosmogony begins with a flash (significantly a reference to light). I 
don't know if 'flash' is the right analog in Firstness, since both 
quantum mechanics and the nature of energy can arguably be better 
traced to the ideas of harmonic oscillators. Still, there is something 
pregnant in that nexus . . . .


For decades there has been confusion and controversy about entropy in 
the sense of thermodynamics and its relation to Shannon (information) 
entropy. It strikes me that recasting these in terms of Peircean 
Secondness (energy) and Thirdness (information) brings sense to the 
conundrum. Both apply; it is more a matter of contextual interpretation.


What say the list?

Thanks!

Best, Mike


--
__

Michael K. Bergman
319.621.5225
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Entropy and the Universal Categories (was Re: The Proper Way in Logic)

[John F Sowa]

Mike,

In every example and application that Peirce wrote or cited, Thirdness involves 
intentionality.  But intentionality is not an anthropomorphic notion, it is 
biomorphic in the most fundamental sense.

Lynn Margulis wrote that a bacterium swimming upstream in a glucose gradient is 
a primitive example of intentionality, and no non-living physical system shows 
any kind of intentionality,  I believe that Peirce would agree, since he cited 
dogs, parrots, bees, and even plants at various times.

And by the way, viruses don't have intentions, since they're not alive.   They 
are signs that are interpreted by living things to produce more signs of the 
same kind.

John


From: "Mike Bergman" 

Hi Edwina, Helmut, List,
I would like to hear you expand, Edwina, on what you mean about the 
'idexicality of locality'. And, speaking of entropy, here is another possible 
link to the universal categories.
flash (of light) [1ns] - energy [2ns] - information [3ns]
I've been toying with this thought for quite a few years. Peirce's cosmogony 
begins with a flash (significantly a reference to light). I don't know if 
'flash' is the right analog in Firstness, since both quantum mechanics and the 
nature of energy can arguably be better traced to the ideas of harmonic 
oscillators. Still, there is something pregnant in that nexus . . . .
For decades there has been confusion and controversy about entropy in the sense 
of thermodynamics and its relation to Shannon (information) entropy. It strikes 
me that recasting these in terms of Peircean Secondness (energy) and Thirdness 
(information) brings sense to the conundrum. Both apply; it is more a matter of 
contextual interpretation.
What say the list?
Thanks!
Best, Mike
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Jay Zeman's discussion of interpretants

[Ben Udell]

Hi, John.  Seeing your note, I updated Peirce-Related Papers at Arisbe with 
links to Zeman's articles now at archive.org

 * "Peirce's Theory of Signs" 

   
https://web.archive.org/web/20190302105740/http://users.clas.ufl.edu/jzeman/peirces_theory_of_signs.htm
 * "Peirce and Philo" 

   
https://web.archive.org/web/20180601095843/http://users.clas.ufl.edu/jzeman/peirce_and_philo.htm
 * "Peirce's Philosophy of Logic" 

   
https://web.archive.org/web/20190317094318/http://users.clas.ufl.edu/jzeman/csphiloflogic.htm
 * "The Graphical Logic of C. S. Peirce" 

   
https://web.archive.org/web/20180815222405/http://users.clas.ufl.edu/jzeman/graphicallogic/index.htm
 * "Peirce on Abstraction" 

   
https://web.archive.org/web/20190327103000/http://users.clas.ufl.edu/jzeman/peirce_on_abstraction.htm
 * "Gestalt Work as Adaptive Inquiry" 

   
https://web.archive.org/web/20180601095353/http://users.clas.ufl.edu/jzeman/gestaltw.htm

But there is much more - here is his home page preserved at archive.org:

https://web.archive.org/web/20180914015520/http://users.clas.ufl.edu/jzeman/

Including a link to the classic existentialgraphs.com

https://web.archive.org/web/20160303193534/http://www.existentialgraphs.com/

Now that I see it, I remember hearing that people were worried that his pages 
would disappear.  I went through everything there that I could find through his 
home page, submitting URL after URL to archive.org for their eventual 
archiving.  Some little images were already gone.

It's great that you have the whole site.  How many MBs is it? Arisbe would need 
permission from whoever owns the rights, if Arisbe is official enough for you.  
Do you know who owns the rights?

Best, Ben

On 2/12/2024 3:57 PM, John F Sowa wrote:


As we know, Peirce's writings have inspired many new theories and discoveries 
for well over a century.  But we must always distinguish his exact words from 
anybody else's interpretations and extensions.

For interpretants, I believe that an article Jay Zeman wrote in 1977 is still one of the 
best:  "Peirce's Theory of Signs", which has 70 occurrences of the word 
'interpretant',

Since CP is the only source he cites, he avoids the dubious late extensions 
that Short and others have criticized.  It provides a good foundation for 
readers to distinguish Peirce's earlier, more limited definitions from later 
extensions that Peirce himself failed to define clearly and precisely.

I have a copy of that article on my website, and I checked Google to find a 
more official site.  But the search pointed back to my own 
website:https://www.jfsowa.com/ikl/Zeman77.pdf

After Zeman died, I downloaded  a complete copy of his entire website.  I 
believe that it should be preserved somewhere more official.  If anybody knows 
of a more official place to store it, I would be happy to give them access to 
the whole thing.

John



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 topeirc...@list.iupui.edu  .
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but tol...@list.iupui.edu  
with UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the 
body.  More athttps://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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

[PEIRCE-L] Jay Zeman's discussion of interpretants

[John F Sowa]

As we know, Peirce's writings have inspired many new theories and discoveries 
for well over a century.  But we must always distinguish his exact words from 
anybody else's interpretations and extensions.

For interpretants, I believe that an article Jay Zeman wrote in 1977 is still 
one of the best:  "Peirce's Theory of Signs", which has 70 occurrences of the 
word 'interpretant',

Since CP is the only source he cites, he avoids the dubious late extensions 
that Short and others have criticized.  It provides a good foundation for 
readers to distinguish Peirce's earlier, more limited definitions from later 
extensions that Peirce himself failed to define clearly and precisely.

I have a copy of that article on my website, and I checked Google to find a 
more official site.  But the search pointed back to my own website:  
https://www.jfsowa.com/ikl/Zeman77.pdf

After Zeman died, I downloaded  a complete copy of his entire website.  I 
believe that it should be preserved somewhere more official.  If anybody knows 
of a more official place to store it, I would be happy to give them access to 
the whole thing.

John

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Helmut, List:

According to Peirce, "Continuity represents 3ns almost to perfection" (CP
1.337, c. 1882). When we prescind discreteness from continuity, we are
prescinding 2ns from 3ns, and we cannot prescind continuity from
discreteness because we cannot prescind 3ns from 2ns. Since prescission
"consists in supposing a state of things in which one element is present
without the other, the one being logically possible without the other" (EP
2:270, 1903), the upshot is that 2ns is logically possible without 3ns, but
3ns is not logically possible without 2ns. Put another way, 3ns always
*involves
*2ns as well as 1ns, and 2ns always *involves *1ns. Nevertheless, 2ns
cannot be *built up* from 1ns, and 3ns cannot be *built up* from 1ns and/or
2ns.

For example, a continuous line involves any discrete points within it, but
it cannot be built up from any multitude of such points. The continuous
whole (line) is ontologically prior to any discrete parts (points), which
are indefinite (infinitesimal "linelets") unless and until they are
deliberately marked off within it. Likewise, as I said before, the entire
universe is an inexhaustible continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities
(1ns), some of which are actualized (2ns). In Peirce's words, "The whole
universe of true and real possibilities forms a continuum, upon which this
Universe of Actual Existence is, by virtue of the essential 2ns of
Existence, a discontinuous mark--like a line figure drawn on the area of
the blackboard" (NEM 4:345, 1898; see also CP 6.203-209, 1898).

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 11:01 AM Helmut Raulien  wrote:

>
> List, I think, we can prescind discreteness from continuity, e.g. by
> supposing the formation of attractors, or coagulation, or reentry (logical
> or actual loops), but we cannot prescind continuity from discreteness. So
> everything including thirdness is at first based on continuity, even if it
> requires discreteness. I think, that thirdness requires discreteness,
> because a relation as part of structure, and a habit too, can and has to be
> prescinded (or discriminated, or dissociated) as something discrete from
> continuity, to logically handle it.
>
> Best, Helmut
>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)

[Jon Alan Schmidt]

Jerry, List:

JLRC: First, thanks to JAS for his well crafted initial post and an a
direct inquiry to him if those are the only relevant citations to the
intermingling of grammatical semantics with CSP’s notion of a copulant.


As it turns out, the passage about descriptive/designative/copulant that I
cited as EP 2:484-485 is also CP 8.350-352, and Peirce goes on in the
subsequent text to discuss why this trichotomy for the mode of presentation
of the immediate object must come *before *the one for the mode of
apprehension or presentation of the sign
itself--potisign/actisigns/famisign or tone/token/type--in the order of
determination for sign classification (EP 2:485-488, CP 8.353-361). As far
as I know, there is only one other place where he mentions copulants.

CSP: If the Immediate Object is a Possible, that is, if the Dynamoid Object
is indicated (always more or less vaguely) by means of its Qualities, etc.,
I call the Sign a *Descriptive*; if the Immediate [Object] is an
Occurrence, I call the Sign a *Designative*; and if the Immediate Object is
a Necessitant, I call the sign a *Copulant*; for in that case the Object
has to be so identified by the Interpreter that the Sign may represent a
necessitation. My name is certainly a temporary expedient. (EP 2:480, SS
84, 1908 Dec 23)


This simply lays out the same trichotomy without much elaboration. In R 795
(no date), Peirce similarly gives it as
descriptives/designatives/copulatives.

JLRC: Secondly, I ask, is everyone conflating the subtle distinctions
between CSP’s usage of continuants and mathematical continuity?


I am not sure exactly what you mean by this. Peirce describes continuants
as a subset of copulants--in fact, "the only *pure* Copulants"--and
presumably calls them that because they are signs that represent continuous
predicates. As Bellucci explains, "they are analyzable only into parts that
are homogeneous with the whole" (*Peirce's Speculative Grammar*. p. 338), a
key aspect of Peirce's late topical conception of mathematical continuity.
Bellucci then provides a nice summary of the logical principle that I
outlined upon starting this thread.

FB: When everything which can be given in a collateral observation, whether
a predicate-descriptive or a subject-designative, is hypostatically
abstracted from the proposition, what remains is a pure form of connection
of the elements so abstracted. A continuous predicate is an immediate
object of the proposition only in the sense that it is what remains when
all its immediate objects are hypostatically abstracted from it, i.e., only
in the sense that it represents the manner in which the proposition's
objects are put together. (ibid)


However, I suggest that instead of being an immediate *object *of the
proposition in this peculiar sense, the continuous predicate itself is the
immediate *interpretant *of the proposition, especially in light of
Peirce's late taxonomies where the trichotomy according to the nature or
mode of presentation of the immediate interpretant is
hypothetic/categorical/relative (e.g., EP 2:489, 1908 Dec 25; also earlier
versions in the Logic Notebook, R 339). These terms directly correspond to
the three kinds of propositions (CP 2.325, EP 2:284, 1903), which are
distinguishable by the number of lines of identity that they require in
Existential Graphs (R 481:10, no date)--none in Alpha for a hypothetical
proposition ("any proposition compounded of propositions," CP 2.271, EP
2:299, 1903), one in Beta for a categorical proposition ("not concerned
with the identity of more than one individual," ibid), and two or more in
Beta for a relative proposition ("concerned with the identity of more than
one individual," ibid)--and thus the *syntax *that diagrammatically
embodies the general logical relations between its objects as denoted by
those lines (for indefinite individuals) and the names connected to them
(for general concepts).

Incidentally, this is one reason why I argue that the logical order of
determination for the three interpretant trichotomies in sign
classification (EP 2:481, 1908 Dec 23) is final (destinate), then dynamical
(effective), then immediate (explicit). The one for the nature or mode of
being of the dynamical interpretant is sympathetic/percussive/usual (EP
2:490, 1908 Dec 25) based on whether the *actual *effect of the sign on an
interpreting quasi-mind is a feeling, an exertion, or another sign (cf. CP
4.536, 1906). The sheet of assertion is a strictly *logical *quasi-mind, so
it can *only *be determined to another sign, namely, an EG that is
explicitly scribed on it. Since all three kinds of propositions can be
represented by such an EG, the hypothetic/categorical/relative trichotomy
for the immediate interpretant must come *after *the
sympathetic/percussive/usual trichotomy for the dynamical interpretant. If
it were the other way around, as some scholars advocate, then *only *relative
propositions with at least two lines of identity could be scribed on 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Entropy and the Universal Categories (was Re: The Proper Way in Logic)

[Edwina Taborsky]

Mike, list

I’d define energy as 1ns, with matter being 2ns, and information as these units 
of 2ns defined within 3ns.

By ‘indexicality of locality, I mean that matter functions only within 
relations with other matter . That is, there is no such thing as an 
entity/unit//Sign, that is isolate. Everything is networked and in relationship 
with other enities/units//Signs - and thus, is local in real spatial and 
temporal terms. I think that is part of Stjernfelt’s argument on the Dicisign 
which rejects linguistic and psychological factors in the formation of a Sign 
[triad] and focuses on the physical, or indexical connection. 

I don’t reference my papers here, but, I can send you a recent one on ‘Peircean 
 Semiosis as the transformation of Eerngy and Matter’.  [If I can find it - I’m 
very sloppy with storing papers - both hard copies and online]. 

Edwina

> On Feb 12, 2024, at 12:53 PM, Mike Bergman  wrote:
> 
> Hi Edwina, Helmut, List,
> 
> I would like to hear you expand, Edwina, on what you mean about the 
> 'idexicality of locality'. And, speaking of entropy, here is another possible 
> link to the universal categories.
> 
> flash (of light) [1ns] - energy [2ns] - information [3ns]
> 
> I've been toying with this thought for quite a few years. Peirce's cosmogony 
> begins with a flash (significantly a reference to light). I don't know if 
> 'flash' is the right analog in Firstness, since both quantum mechanics and 
> the nature of energy can arguably be better traced to the ideas of harmonic 
> oscillators. Still, there is something pregnant in that nexus . . . .
> 
> For decades there has been confusion and controversy about entropy in the 
> sense of thermodynamics and its relation to Shannon (information) entropy. It 
> strikes me that recasting these in terms of Peircean Secondness (energy) and 
> Thirdness (information) brings sense to the conundrum. Both apply; it is more 
> a matter of contextual interpretation.
> 
> What say the list?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Best, Mike
> 
> On 2/12/2024 11:31 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
>> Helmut - I agree with your outline, where the three categories are operative 
>> within continuity. But what is continuity? 
>> 
>> I consider it as the basic ‘force’ of the universe to ‘exist as signs [ ie 
>> discrete entities]. , This force, which Peirce variously called Mind, 
>> Nature, God, means that the energy that IS the universe functions as a 
>> ‘rational action’ [ie Mind] by constantly transforming itself into ever more 
>> complex networked discreteness, operative within evolving 
>> habits-of-formation [and chance!]. There is no final perfection, because of 
>> the realities of both 2ns and 1ns which introduce freedom and variation and, 
>> importantly, the indexicality of locality. 
>> 
>> If we consider the basic identity of the universe as E=MC2 [ and I think we 
>> have to accept this!] then it can be understood that Energy is transforming 
>> into Matter — within a rational, networked, ordered manner - to prevent, as 
>> Michael pointed out, thermodynamic entropy.  It is this 
>> ‘force-of-transformation’ that I consider as the definition of ‘continuity. 
>> After all - without it - thermodynamics, as Michael pointed out, jumps 
>> in..and….
>> 
>> Edwina
>> 
>>> On Feb 12, 2024, at 12:01 PM, Helmut Raulien  
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> List, I think, we can prescind discreteness from continuity, e.g. by 
>>> supposing the formation of attractors, or coagulation, or reentry (logical 
>>> or actual loops), but we cannot prescind continuity from discreteness. So 
>>> everything including thirdness is at first based on continuity, even if it 
>>> requires discreteness. I think, that thirdness requires discreteness, 
>>> because a relation as part of structure, and a habit too, can and has to be 
>>> prescinded (or discriminated, or dissociated) as something discrete from 
>>> continuity, to logically handle it.
>>>  
>>> Best, Helmut
>>>  
>>> Gesendet: Montag, 12. Februar 2024 um 03:07 Uhr
>>> Von: "Edwina Taborsky"  
>>> An: "Peirce-L"  
>>> Cc: "Edwina Taborsky"  
>>> 
>>> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing 
>>> Semiotic Project)
>>> List-  I don’t see synergism as equivalent to Thirdness, for Thirdness is 
>>> the establishment of habits, ie, habitual ‘modes of being’ - which habits 
>>> are established by and within the universe in conjunction with the modes of 
>>> both Firstness and Secondness. . 
>>>  
>>> Instead, synergism, or continuity, seems to me, more akin to the concept of 
>>> free energy…the genuinely general, so to speak - and this free energy is 
>>> the basis of our universe> “Continuity is nothing but perfect generality of 
>>> a law of relationship” 6.170. See also his outline of ’The Logic of th 
>>> Universe 6.189, where, again, continuity is understood as ‘generality’. 
>>> This is 

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)

[Helmut Raulien]

Edwina, List, I think, continuity means a gradient without steps. By looking at the gradient with a microscope, we see steps (e.g. quantums). By looking at the inner and outer edges of the steps, we see, that they are rounded (e.g. due to the Heisenbergean blurredness), so continuous again. By looking at these roundings, we see steps again (e.g. due to superstrings), and so on. Maybe this is so, maybe not. Maybe by experimental observations like these, we cannot tell, whether continuity or discreteness is more fundamental in terms of the smallest scale. But logically, I guess, that continuity is more fundamental, because it is easier to imagine, that a sharp-seeming edge is in fact rounded, than to imagine, that a rounding in fact has steps. The latter idea is more complicated, and refuting it is solely justified as application of Ockham´s razor. A gradient, like a rounding, is one thing, but steps are many things. The idea of one thing is easier than the idea of many things. But all in all, I have talked about my head and neck, because I am not so sure anymore about what I have written in my last post: Prescission may be interpolation too??

 

Best, Helmut

 
 

Gesendet: Montag, 12. Februar 2024 um 18:31 Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky" 
An: "Helmut Raulien" 
Cc: "Peirce-L" , "Edwina Taborsky" 
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)


Helmut - I agree with your outline, where the three categories are operative within continuity. But what is continuity? 

 

I consider it as the basic ‘force’ of the universe to ‘exist as signs [ ie discrete entities]. , This force, which Peirce variously called Mind, Nature, God, means that the energy that IS the universe functions as a ‘rational action’ [ie Mind] by constantly transforming itself into ever more complex networked discreteness, operative within evolving habits-of-formation [and chance!]. There is no final perfection, because of the realities of both 2ns and 1ns which introduce freedom and variation and, importantly, the indexicality of locality. 

 

If we consider the basic identity of the universe as E=MC2 [ and I think we have to accept this!] then it can be understood that Energy is transforming into Matter — within a rational, networked, ordered manner - to prevent, as Michael pointed out, thermodynamic entropy.  It is this ‘force-of-transformation’ that I consider as the definition of ‘continuity. After all - without it - thermodynamics, as Michael pointed out, jumps in..and….

 

Edwina

 

On Feb 12, 2024, at 12:01 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
 




 


List, I think, we can prescind discreteness from continuity, e.g. by supposing the formation of attractors, or coagulation, or reentry (logical or actual loops), but we cannot prescind continuity from discreteness. So everything including thirdness is at first based on continuity, even if it requires discreteness. I think, that thirdness requires discreteness, because a relation as part of structure, and a habit too, can and has to be prescinded (or discriminated, or dissociated) as something discrete from continuity, to logically handle it.

 

Best, Helmut

 

Gesendet: Montag, 12. Februar 2024 um 03:07 Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky" 
An: "Peirce-L" 
Cc: "Edwina Taborsky" 
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)


List-  I don’t see synergism as equivalent to Thirdness, for Thirdness is the establishment of habits, ie, habitual ‘modes of being’ - which habits are established by and within the universe in conjunction with the modes of both Firstness and Secondness. . 

 

Instead, synergism, or continuity, seems to me, more akin to the concept of free energy…the genuinely general, so to speak - and this free energy is the basis of our universe> “Continuity is nothing but perfect generality of a law of relationship” 6.170. See also his outline of ’The Logic of th Universe 6.189, where, again, continuity is understood as ‘generality’. This is not the same as the general laws of Thirdness which are generated within and by the universe for the maintenance of its reality as material exiistentiality. 

 

As he writes, the universe, made up of Secondness or discrete entities, began ‘in the utter vagueness of completely undetermined and dimensionless potentiality” 6.193.  This, to me, is not Thirdness. It is free energy. ..which I see as continuity/synechism. 

 

Jerry- I’m sorry, but you’ve lost me - I’ve no idea what you are referring to .

 

Edwina

 

 

 

Again, my understanding of this is that 




On Feb 11, 2024, at 8:41 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt  wrote:
 



Mike:
 

I do not know what you mean by "penultimate" in this context. As I have said on the List many times before, as well as in my published work, my understanding of synechism as applied in metaphysics is that the entire universe is an inexhaustible continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities (1ns), some of which are actualized (2ns). Again, discrete 

[PEIRCE-L] Entropy and the Universal Categories (was Re: The Proper Way in Logic)

[Mike Bergman]

Hi Edwina, Helmut, List,

I would like to hear you expand, Edwina, on what you mean about the 
'idexicality of locality'. And, speaking of entropy, here is another 
possible link to the universal categories.


flash (of light) [1ns] - energy [2ns] - information [3ns]

I've been toying with this thought for quite a few years. Peirce's 
cosmogony begins with a flash (significantly a reference to light). I 
don't know if 'flash' is the right analog in Firstness, since both 
quantum mechanics and the nature of energy can arguably be better traced 
to the ideas of harmonic oscillators. Still, there is something pregnant 
in that nexus . . . .


For decades there has been confusion and controversy about entropy in 
the sense of thermodynamics and its relation to Shannon (information) 
entropy. It strikes me that recasting these in terms of Peircean 
Secondness (energy) and Thirdness (information) brings sense to the 
conundrum. Both apply; it is more a matter of contextual interpretation.


What say the list?

Thanks!

Best, Mike

On 2/12/2024 11:31 AM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Helmut - I agree with your outline, where the three categories are 
operative within continuity. But what is continuity?


I consider it as the basic ‘force’ of the universe to ‘exist as signs 
[ ie discrete entities]. , This force, which Peirce variously called 
Mind, Nature, God, means that the energy that IS the universe 
functions as a ‘rational action’ [ie Mind] by constantly transforming 
itself into ever more complex networked discreteness, operative within 
evolving habits-of-formation [and chance!]. There is no final 
perfection, because of the realities of both 2ns and 1ns which 
introduce freedom and variation and, importantly, the indexicality of 
locality.


If we consider the basic identity of the universe as E=MC2 [ and I 
think we have to accept this!] then it can be understood that Energy 
is transforming into Matter — within a rational, networked, ordered 
manner - to prevent, as Michael pointed out, thermodynamic entropy. 
 It is this ‘force-of-transformation’ that I consider as the 
definition of ‘continuity. After all - without it - thermodynamics, as 
Michael pointed out, jumps in..and….


Edwina


On Feb 12, 2024, at 12:01 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:

List, I think, we can prescind discreteness from continuity, e.g. by 
supposing the formation of attractors, or coagulation, or reentry 
(logical or actual loops), but we cannot prescind continuity from 
discreteness. So everything including thirdness is at first based on 
continuity, even if it requires discreteness. I think, that thirdness 
requires discreteness, because a relation as part of structure, and a 
habit too, can and has to be prescinded (or discriminated, or 
dissociated) as something discrete from continuity, to logically 
handle it.

Best, Helmut
*Gesendet:* Montag, 12. Februar 2024 um 03:07 Uhr
*Von:* "Edwina Taborsky" 
*An:* "Peirce-L" 
*Cc:* "Edwina Taborsky" 
*Betreff:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's 
Ongoing Semiotic Project)
List-  I don’t see synergism as equivalent to Thirdness, for 
Thirdness is the establishment of habits, ie, habitual ‘modes of 
being’ - which habits are established by and within the universe in 
conjunction with the modes of both Firstness and Secondness. .
Instead, synergism, or continuity, seems to me, more akin to the 
concept of free energy…the genuinely general, so to speak - and this 
free energy is the basis of our universe> “Continuity is nothing but 
perfect generality of a law of relationship” 6.170. See also his 
outline of ’The Logic of th Universe 6.189, where, again, continuity 
is understood as ‘generality’. This is not the same as the general 
_*laws *_of Thirdness which are generated within and by the universe 
for the maintenance of its reality as material exiistentiality.
As he writes, the universe, made up of Secondness or discrete 
entities, began ‘in the utter vagueness of completely undetermined 
and dimensionless potentiality” 6.193.  This, to me, is not 
Thirdness. It is free energy. ..which I see as continuity/synechism.
Jerry- I’m sorry, but you’ve lost me - I’ve no idea what you are 
referring to .

Edwina
Again, my understanding of this is that

On Feb 11, 2024, at 8:41 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt
 wrote:
Mike:
I do not know what you mean by "penultimate" in this context. As
I have said on the List many times before, as well as in my
published work, my understanding of synechism as applied in
metaphysics is that the entire universe is an inexhaustible
continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities (1ns), some of which
are actualized (2ns). Again, discrete things and their dyadic
reactions, as well as monadic qualities and their inherence in
discrete things, are degenerate outcomes of continuous and
triadic semiosis.
Regards,
Jon
On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 5:15 PM Mike Bergman 
wrote:

Hi Jon,

To quibble, I 

Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)

[Edwina Taborsky]

Helmut - I agree with your outline, where the three categories are operative 
within continuity. But what is continuity? 

I consider it as the basic ‘force’ of the universe to ‘exist as signs [ ie 
discrete entities]. , This force, which Peirce variously called Mind, Nature, 
God, means that the energy that IS the universe functions as a ‘rational 
action’ [ie Mind] by constantly transforming itself into ever more complex 
networked discreteness, operative within evolving habits-of-formation [and 
chance!]. There is no final perfection, because of the realities of both 2ns 
and 1ns which introduce freedom and variation and, importantly, the 
indexicality of locality. 

If we consider the basic identity of the universe as E=MC2 [ and I think we 
have to accept this!] then it can be understood that Energy is transforming 
into Matter — within a rational, networked, ordered manner - to prevent, as 
Michael pointed out, thermodynamic entropy.  It is this 
‘force-of-transformation’ that I consider as the definition of ‘continuity. 
After all - without it - thermodynamics, as Michael pointed out, jumps in..and….

Edwina

> On Feb 12, 2024, at 12:01 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:
> 
>  
> List, I think, we can prescind discreteness from continuity, e.g. by 
> supposing the formation of attractors, or coagulation, or reentry (logical or 
> actual loops), but we cannot prescind continuity from discreteness. So 
> everything including thirdness is at first based on continuity, even if it 
> requires discreteness. I think, that thirdness requires discreteness, because 
> a relation as part of structure, and a habit too, can and has to be 
> prescinded (or discriminated, or dissociated) as something discrete from 
> continuity, to logically handle it.
>  
> Best, Helmut
>  
> Gesendet: Montag, 12. Februar 2024 um 03:07 Uhr
> Von: "Edwina Taborsky" 
> An: "Peirce-L" 
> Cc: "Edwina Taborsky" 
> Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing 
> Semiotic Project)
> List-  I don’t see synergism as equivalent to Thirdness, for Thirdness is the 
> establishment of habits, ie, habitual ‘modes of being’ - which habits are 
> established by and within the universe in conjunction with the modes of both 
> Firstness and Secondness. . 
>  
> Instead, synergism, or continuity, seems to me, more akin to the concept of 
> free energy…the genuinely general, so to speak - and this free energy is the 
> basis of our universe> “Continuity is nothing but perfect generality of a law 
> of relationship” 6.170. See also his outline of ’The Logic of th Universe 
> 6.189, where, again, continuity is understood as ‘generality’. This is not 
> the same as the general laws of Thirdness which are generated within and by 
> the universe for the maintenance of its reality as material exiistentiality. 
>  
> As he writes, the universe, made up of Secondness or discrete entities, began 
> ‘in the utter vagueness of completely undetermined and dimensionless 
> potentiality” 6.193.  This, to me, is not Thirdness. It is free energy. 
> ..which I see as continuity/synechism. 
>  
> Jerry- I’m sorry, but you’ve lost me - I’ve no idea what you are referring to 
> .
>  
> Edwina
>  
>  
>  
> Again, my understanding of this is that 
> On Feb 11, 2024, at 8:41 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt  
> wrote:
>  
> Mike:
>  
> I do not know what you mean by "penultimate" in this context. As I have said 
> on the List many times before, as well as in my published work, my 
> understanding of synechism as applied in metaphysics is that the entire 
> universe is an inexhaustible continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities 
> (1ns), some of which are actualized (2ns). Again, discrete things and their 
> dyadic reactions, as well as monadic qualities and their inherence in 
> discrete things, are degenerate outcomes of continuous and triadic semiosis.
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Jon
>  
>  
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 5:15 PM Mike Bergman  > wrote:
>> Hi Jon,
>> 
>> To quibble, I see synechism and its great definer of continuity as the 
>> guiding principle of Thirdness (as I think Peirce did, too). It can't be 
>> elevated to the penultimate, because our operative world also requires the 
>> discrete and discontinuous. (Enter 2nd law of thermodynamics stage left.)
>> 
>> Best, Mike
>> 
>> On 2/11/2024 5:03 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:
>> Mike:
>>  
>> I am glad that we agree on that point. I also agree that it is a mistake to 
>> treat semiosis as the most fundamental aspect of Peirce's philosophy, and 
>> that his three universal categories--firmly grounded in both the 
>> hypothetical science of mathematics and the primal positive science of 
>> phaneroscopy--are even more central, especially as an organizing principle.
>>  
>> However, Peirce's preference to call his overall system of thought synechism 
>> suggests that he regarded "continuity as an idea of prime importance in 
>> philosophy" (CP 6.103, EP 1:313, 1892)--especially since he 

Aw: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)

[Helmut Raulien]

 


List, I think, we can prescind discreteness from continuity, e.g. by supposing the formation of attractors, or coagulation, or reentry (logical or actual loops), but we cannot prescind continuity from discreteness. So everything including thirdness is at first based on continuity, even if it requires discreteness. I think, that thirdness requires discreteness, because a relation as part of structure, and a habit too, can and has to be prescinded (or discriminated, or dissociated) as something discrete from continuity, to logically handle it.

 

Best, Helmut

 

Gesendet: Montag, 12. Februar 2024 um 03:07 Uhr
Von: "Edwina Taborsky" 
An: "Peirce-L" 
Cc: "Edwina Taborsky" 
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The Proper Way in Logic (was Peirce's Ongoing Semiotic Project)


List-  I don’t see synergism as equivalent to Thirdness, for Thirdness is the establishment of habits, ie, habitual ‘modes of being’ - which habits are established by and within the universe in conjunction with the modes of both Firstness and Secondness. . 

 

Instead, synergism, or continuity, seems to me, more akin to the concept of free energy…the genuinely general, so to speak - and this free energy is the basis of our universe> “Continuity is nothing but perfect generality of a law of relationship” 6.170. See also his outline of ’The Logic of th Universe 6.189, where, again, continuity is understood as ‘generality’. This is not the same as the general laws of Thirdness which are generated within and by the universe for the maintenance of its reality as material exiistentiality. 

 

As he writes, the universe, made up of Secondness or discrete entities, began ‘in the utter vagueness of completely undetermined and dimensionless potentiality” 6.193.  This, to me, is not Thirdness. It is free energy. ..which I see as continuity/synechism. 

 

Jerry- I’m sorry, but you’ve lost me - I’ve no idea what you are referring to .

 

Edwina

 

 

 

Again, my understanding of this is that 




On Feb 11, 2024, at 8:41 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt  wrote:
 



Mike:
 

I do not know what you mean by "penultimate" in this context. As I have said on the List many times before, as well as in my published work, my understanding of synechism as applied in metaphysics is that the entire universe is an inexhaustible continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities (1ns), some of which are actualized (2ns). Again, discrete things and their dyadic reactions, as well as monadic qualities and their inherence in discrete things, are degenerate outcomes of continuous and triadic semiosis.

 

Regards,

 

Jon






 






 


On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 5:15 PM Mike Bergman  wrote:



Hi Jon,

To quibble, I see synechism and its great definer of continuity as the guiding principle of Thirdness (as I think Peirce did, too). It can't be elevated to the penultimate, because our operative world also requires the discrete and discontinuous. (Enter 2nd law of thermodynamics stage left.)

Best, Mike

On 2/11/2024 5:03 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote:



Mike:
 

I am glad that we agree on that point. I also agree that it is a mistake to treat semiosis as the most fundamental aspect of Peirce's philosophy, and that his three universal categories--firmly grounded in both the hypothetical science of mathematics and the primal positive science of phaneroscopy--are even more central, especially as an organizing principle.

 

However, Peirce's preference to call his overall system of thought synechism suggests that he regarded "continuity as an idea of prime importance in philosophy" (CP 6.103, EP 1:313, 1892)--especially since he also stated, "I carry the doctrine so far as to maintain that continuity governs the whole domain of experience in every element of it" (CP 7.566, EP 2:1, 1893). This has implications for semiosis as I have already outlined, as well as the categories--1ns is prescinded from 2ns and 3ns, and 2ns is prescinded from 3ns; but 2ns cannot be built up from 1ns, and 3ns cannot be built up from 1ns and 2ns.

 

Regards,

 





Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian

www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt







 


On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 3:13 PM Mike Bergman  wrote:



Hi Jon,

Here is a point with which I have vehement agreement with you (dare I say I suspect Edwina does as well):

 

What I can say is that I obviously disagree with anyone who confines semiosis to the biological realm, since I maintain with Peirce that the entire universe is "a vast representamen" that is "perfused with signs, if it is not composed exclusively of signs."
Further keys to this assertion are found in Peirce's writings on evolution, emergence, cosmogony, and his anticipation of the quantum vs the classical. These are a focus of my current studies.

One of the bones I have to pick with many scholars of semiosis is their too literal restriction to human signs and perhaps 

[PEIRCE-L] LUW Feb 14, 4pm CET - Should We Embrace Impossible Worlds Due to the Flaws of Normal Modal Logic?

[jean-yves beziau]

Logica Universalis Webinar
February 14, 2024 at 4pm CET

Speaker: Til Eyinck
https://petrarca.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/mitarbeiterinnen/til-eyinck
Petrarca Institute, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Cologne, Germany

Title: "Should We Embrace Impossible Worlds Due to the Flaws of Normal
Modal Logic?"
Abstract  "Some philosophers advance the claim that the phenomena of
logical omniscience and of the indiscernibility of metaphysical statements,
which arise in (certain) interpretations of normal modal logic, provide
strong reasons in favour of impossible world approaches. These two specific
lines of argument will be presented and discussed in this paper. Contrary
to the recent much-held view that the characteristics of these two
phenomena provide us with strong reasons to adopt impossible world
approaches, the view defended here is that no such ‘knock-down arguments’
do emanate on those grounds. This is not to rule out that there cannot be
any other good reasons for assuming impossible world semantics. However,
the discussion of a further argument for impossible worlds will suggest
that different attempts to argue for them likely present intertwined
problems."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11787-024-00344-4

Organization to be presented before the talk:
Junior Research Group: Women in Focus. Rethinking Philosophy and History of
Mathematics and Physics
https://www.uni-siegen.de/fb6/phima/women/?lang=de
presented by Jasmin Özel
https://jasminozel.com/

Chair : Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen
https://rel.hkbu.edu.hk/people/pietarinen-ahti-veikko
Hong Kong Baptist University
Editorial Board LU

Everybody is welcome to join, register here:
https://cassyni.com/s/logica-universalis/seminars
JYB
Editor-in-Chief LU and  LUW Organizer
https://www.jyb-logic.org/
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
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 peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . 
► To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message NOT to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu 
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.