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

[Jon Awbrey]

James, all ...

Among the subtle shifts in scientific thinking that occurred during
the 19th Century, Boole gave us a functional interpretation of logic,
associating with every propositional expression — in the field we now
plow with boolean algebras, boolean functions, propositional calculus,
or Peirce's alpha graphs — a function from a universe of discourse X to
a domain of logical values, say B = {0, 1}, normally interpreted as the
values false and true, respectively.  This may seem like a small change
so far as conceptual revolutions go but it made a big difference in the
future development, growth, and power of our logical systems.

Among other things, the functional interpretation of logic enables the
construction of a bridge from propositional logic, whose subject matter
now consists of functions of the form f : X → B, to probability theory,
that deals with probability distributions or probability densities of
the form p : X → [0, 1], whose values lie in the unit interval [0, 1]
of the real number line R.  This allows us to view propositional logic
as a special case within the frame of a more general statistical theory.
This turns out to be a very useful perspective in real-world research
when it comes to moving back and forth between qualitative observations
and the data given by quantitative measurement.  It is a bridge further,
connecting deductive and inductive reasoning, as Boole well envisioned.

Regards,

Jon

On 5/30/2017 3:39 PM, James Albrecht wrote:

This always struck me as being, at least, a parallel articulation of
quantum mechanics. Peirce knew that macro-scale knowledge was beset by
limits, and that these limitations became more problematic as precision
increased.

59. (2) By thus admitting pure spontaneity or life as a character of the
universe, acting always and everywhere though restrained within narrow
bounds by law, producing infinitesimal departures from law continually, and
great ones with infinite infrequency, I account for all the variety and
diversity of the universe, in the only sense in which the really *sui
generis* and new can be said to be accounted for.

Also, in the same work on chance, Peirce references Boltzmann, whose gas
laws helped lead Planck to the quantum nature of radiation.

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Mike Bergman  wrote:


I just encountered this assertion:

"In the present work we have indicated that a form of logic, relational
logic developed by C. S. Peirce, may serve as the foundation of both
quantum mechanics and string theory." [1]
Does the list have any comments, further references or criticisms on this
pretty bold statement?

Thanks, Mike

[1] A. Nicolaidis, 2008. "Categorical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics and
String Theory," arXiv:0812.1946, 10 Dec 2008. See
https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.1946.pdf



--

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 .

[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_lr_chand...@me.com>

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,

Kirs

[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_lr_chand...@me.com>

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 

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 .

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

[Mike Bergman]

  
  
Jon, List,
I dunno. I'm increasingly coming to feel that Peirce's
architectonic of the universal categories is the lens by which
to view him. 
  
"I have begun by showing that tychism must
give birth to an evolutionary cosmology, in which all the
regularities of nature and of mind are regarded as products of
growth, and to a Schelling-fashioned idealism which holds matter
to be mere specialized and partially deadened mind." (CP 6.103)
In light of the more developed science of quantum mechanics
and relativity that emerged at the end of his life, my guess is
that Peirce himself would want to test and (perhaps) refine his
architectonic. What I am really trying to probe is whether his
cosmology a) holds up in light of these developments; and b) was
already anticipatory of them. 
  
Mike


On 5/17/2017 8:12 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:

Gary,
  Mike, List ...
  
  
  When I think back to the conceptual changes my first university
  
  physics courses put me through, a single unifying theme emerges.
  
  Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics had a way of making the
  
  observer an active participant in the action observed, having a
  
  local habitation, a frame of reference, and a bounded sphere of
  
  influence within the universe, no longer an outsider looking in.
  
  As I soon discovered in my wanderings through the libraries and
  
  bookstores of my local habitation, this very theme was long ago
  
  prefigured in the corpus of C.S. Peirce's work, most strikingly
  
  in his Logic of Relatives and Pragmatic Maxim, taken as a basis
  
  for his relational theories of information, inquiry, and signs.
  
  
  It is more this level of underground conceptual revolution that
  
  comes to mind when I think of Peirce's impact on the development
  
  of physical theory, needless to say science in general, more than
  
  any particular doctrines about continua, especially since continua
  
  posed no novelty to classical mechanics, indeed, if anything, were
  
  more catholic within its realm, while quantum mechanics introduced
  
  an irreducible aspect of discreteness to physics.
  
  
  Regards,
  
  
  Jon
  
  
  On 5/15/2017 12:24 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
  
  > Mike, Jon, List,
  
  >
  
  > I asked Fernando Zalamea — my go-to scholar for questions
  
  > regarding mathematical continuity — and, while he noted
  
  > that physics is not at all his field, he responded by
  
  > writing (in part):
  
  >
  
  > FZ: I imagine that the Proceedings of the Harvard
  
  > Sesquicentennial dedicated to Peirce's Physics
  
  > may have clues.
  
  >
  
  > [note: for the Proceedings, see;
  
  >
  
  >
http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/search~S8?/aCharles+S.+Peirce+Sesquicentennial+International+Congress+%281989+%3A+Harvard+University%29/acharles+s+peirce+sesquicentennial+international+congress+1989+harvard+university/-3,-1,0,B/browse
  >
  
  > for the contents of papers selected by Matthew Moore
  
  > from the Proceedings see,
  
  > http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/record=b1023422
  
  >
  
  > One paper in that collection by D. Sfendoni-Mentzou
  
  > has the intriguing title, The role of potentiality
  
  > in Peirce's tychism and in contemporary discussions
  
  > in quantum mechanics and microphysics ; see:
  
  >
  
  >
http://www.academia.edu/20431455/THE_ROLE_OF_POTENTIALITY_IN_PEIRCES_TYCHISM_AND_IN_CONTEMPORARY_DISCUSSIONS_IN_QUANTUM_MECHANICS_AND_MICROPHYSICS
  > GR]
  
  >
  
  > FZ: On the other hand, *as far as I know, relational logic
  
  > is far from quantum logic.  This second trend originates with
  
  > von Neumann's Continuous Geometries and orthomodular
  lattices,
  
  > something that, I think, Peirce could not envision.*
  
  > (emphasis added)
  
  >
  
  > I have not yet read the paper you pointed to, Mike, (I intend
  to),
  
  > but although I have sometimes thought otherwise (based
  principally
  
  > on a reading of the 1898 lecture series, published as
  *Reasoning
  
  > and the Logic of Things)*, I would at present tend to agree
  with
  
  > Zalamea here.
  
  >
  
  > And I agree with the whole of Jon Awbrey's post
  
  > leading to his conclusion:
  
  >
  
  > JA: I think the full import of [Peirce's]
  information-theoretic and
  
  > pragmatic-semiotic approaches to 

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

[John F Sowa]

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 .

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

[Mike Bergman]

 as having the same properties at the same
  time--but in different places. The conception of time and the
  experience of temporality, on the other hand, allow us to
  represent one and the same object as taking different
  properties--but at different times. This seemingly simple set
  of logical ideas involve rather large ideas about the possible
  metaphysical relations that might hold between space and time.


--Jeff







  
Jeffrey Downard
  Associate Professor
  Department of Philosophy
  Northern Arizona University
  (o) 928 523-8354
  




  
  From:
  Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
  Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 9:24 AM
  To: Peirce-L
          Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate
  the Space-Time Continuum?
 
  
  
Mike, Jon, List, 
  
  
  I asked Fernando Zalamea--my go-to scholar for
questions regarding mathematical continutiy--and, while
he noted that physics is not at all his field, he
responded by writing (in part):
  
  
  

  FZ: I
imagine that the Proceedings of the Harvard
Sesquicentennial dedicated to Peirce’s Physics may
have clues.
  
  

  
  [note:
  for the Proceedings, see;
  
http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/search~S8?/aCharles+S.+Peirce+Sesquicentennial+International+Congress+%281989+%3A+Harvard+University%29/acharles+s+peirce+sesquicentennial+international+congress+1989+harvard+university/-3,-1,0,B/browse
  
  
  for
the contents of papers selected by Matthew Moore
from the Proceedings see,  http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/record=b1023422 
  
  
  One
paper in that collection by D. Sfendoni-Mentzou has the
intriguing title, The role of potentiality in Peirce's
tychism and in contemporary discussions in quantum
mechanics and microphysics ; see:
  http://www.academia.edu/20431455/THE_ROLE_OF_POTENTIALITY_IN_PEIRCES_TYCHISM_AND_IN_CONTEMPORARY_DISCUSSIONS_IN_QUANTUM_MECHANICS_AND_MICROPHYSICS GR]
  

  


  
  
FZ:
  On the other hand, as far as I know,
relational logic is far from quantum logic. This
second trend originates with von Neumann's Continuous
  Geometries and orthomodular lattices,
something that, I think, Peirce could not
envision. (emphasis added)
  



I have not yet read the paper you pointed to Mike
  (I intend to), but although I have sometimes thought
  otherwise (based principally on a readong of the 1898
  lecture series, published as
  Reasoning and the Logic of Things), I would at
  present  temd tp agree with Zalamea here.



And I  agree with the whole of Jon Awbrey's post
  leading to his conclusion:
  


  JA:  I think
  the full import of [Peirce's] on-theoretic and
  pragmatic-semiotic
approaches to scientific inquiry is a task for the
future to
  work out.
  

  
  Best,
  
  
  Gary R
  
  
  

  

  

  

  

  Gary Richmond
  Philosophy and Critical Thinking
  Communication Studies
  LaGuardia College of the City
  University of New York
  C 745
  

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

[Mike Bergman]

  
  
Gary, List,

Please thank Fernando for his suggestion. The entire volume seems to
have some unique perspectives on Peirce; I will try to obtain a copy
of the entire book.

I found the Sfendoni-Mentzou piece very thought provoking. I note he
thanks Nicolaidis (spelled Nikolaidis), the source of the original
paper that started this thread, who was a colleague at the same
institution. I'm still wondering how widely these views were held.

Thanks!

Mike

On 5/15/2017 11:24 AM, Gary Richmond
  wrote:


  Mike, Jon, List, 


I asked Fernando Zalamea--my go-to scholar for questions
  regarding mathematical continutiy--and, while he noted that
  physics is not at all his field, he responded by writing (in
  part):



  
FZ: I imagine
  that the Proceedings of the Harvard Sesquicentennial
  dedicated to Peirce’s Physics may have clues.


  

[note: for
the Proceedings, see; http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/search~S8?/aCharles+S.+Peirce+Sesquicentennial+International+Congress+%281989+%3A+Harvard+University%29/acharles+s+peirce+sesquicentennial+international+congress+1989+harvard+university/-3,-1,0,B/browse


for the
  contents of papers selected by Matthew Moore from the
  Proceedings see,  http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/record=b1023422 


One
  paper in that collection by D. Sfendoni-Mentzou has the
  intriguing title, The
  role of potentiality in Peirce's tychism and in
  contemporary discussions in quantum mechanics and
  microphysics ; see: http://www.academia.edu/20431455/THE_ROLE_OF_POTENTIALITY_IN_PEIRCES_TYCHISM_AND_IN_CONTEMPORARY_DISCUSSIONS_IN_QUANTUM_MECHANICS_AND_MICROPHYSICS GR]

  

  
  


  FZ: On the
other hand, as far as I know, relational logic is
  far from quantum logic. This second trend originates
  with von Neumann's Continuous Geometries and
  orthomodular lattices, something that, I think, Peirce
  could not envision. (emphasis added)

  
  
  
  I have not yet read the paper you pointed to Mike (I
intend to), but although I have sometimes thought otherwise
(based principally on a readong of the 1898 lecture series,
published as Reasoning and the Logic of Things), I
would at present  temd tp agree with Zalamea here.
  
  
  
  And I  agree with the whole of Jon Awbrey's post leading
to his conclusion:

  
  
JA:  I think the
full import of [Peirce's] on-theoretic and
pragmatic-semiotic
  approaches to scientific inquiry is a task for the future
  to
work
  out.

  

Best,


Gary R



  

  

  

  

  
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of
New York
C 745
718 482-5690
  

  

  
  
  On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Jon
Awbrey 
wrote:
Mike, List,
  
  The mathematical perspectives and theories that made
  modern physics possible,
  perhaps even inevitable, were developed by many
  mathematicians, both abstract
  and applied, all throughout the 19th Century.  There was a
  definite sea change
  in the way scientists began to view the relationship
  between mathematical models
  and the physical world, passing from a monolithic concept
  to variational choices
  among multiple approaches, models, perspectives, and
  theories.
  
  Peirce was an astute observer and active participant in
  this transformation but
  it has always been difficult to trace his true impact on
  its course — so much of
  what he contributed operated underground, rhizome like,
  and without 

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

[Jon Awbrey]

Gary, Mike, List ...

When I think back to the conceptual changes my first university
physics courses put me through, a single unifying theme emerges.
Relativity Theory and Quantum Mechanics had a way of making the
observer an active participant in the action observed, having a
local habitation, a frame of reference, and a bounded sphere of
influence within the universe, no longer an outsider looking in.
As I soon discovered in my wanderings through the libraries and
bookstores of my local habitation, this very theme was long ago
prefigured in the corpus of C.S. Peirce's work, most strikingly
in his Logic of Relatives and Pragmatic Maxim, taken as a basis
for his relational theories of information, inquiry, and signs.

It is more this level of underground conceptual revolution that
comes to mind when I think of Peirce's impact on the development
of physical theory, needless to say science in general, more than
any particular doctrines about continua, especially since continua
posed no novelty to classical mechanics, indeed, if anything, were
more catholic within its realm, while quantum mechanics introduced
an irreducible aspect of discreteness to physics.

Regards,

Jon

On 5/15/2017 12:24 PM, Gary Richmond wrote:
> Mike, Jon, List,
>
> I asked Fernando Zalamea — my go-to scholar for questions
> regarding mathematical continuity — and, while he noted
> that physics is not at all his field, he responded by
> writing (in part):
>
> FZ: I imagine that the Proceedings of the Harvard
> Sesquicentennial dedicated to Peirce's Physics
> may have clues.
>
> [note: for the Proceedings, see;
>
> 
http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/search~S8?/aCharles+S.+Peirce+Sesquicentennial+International+Congress+%281989+%3A+Harvard+University%29/acharles+s+peirce+sesquicentennial+international+congress+1989+harvard+university/-3,-1,0,B/browse

>
> for the contents of papers selected by Matthew Moore
> from the Proceedings see,
> http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/record=b1023422
>
> One paper in that collection by D. Sfendoni-Mentzou
> has the intriguing title, The role of potentiality
> in Peirce's tychism and in contemporary discussions
> in quantum mechanics and microphysics ; see:
>
> 
http://www.academia.edu/20431455/THE_ROLE_OF_POTENTIALITY_IN_PEIRCES_TYCHISM_AND_IN_CONTEMPORARY_DISCUSSIONS_IN_QUANTUM_MECHANICS_AND_MICROPHYSICS

> GR]
>
> FZ: On the other hand, *as far as I know, relational logic
> is far from quantum logic.  This second trend originates with
> von Neumann's Continuous Geometries and orthomodular lattices,
> something that, I think, Peirce could not envision.*
> (emphasis added)
>
> I have not yet read the paper you pointed to, Mike, (I intend to),
> but although I have sometimes thought otherwise (based principally
> on a reading of the 1898 lecture series, published as *Reasoning
> and the Logic of Things)*, I would at present tend to agree with
> Zalamea here.
>
> And I agree with the whole of Jon Awbrey's post
> leading to his conclusion:
>
> JA: I think the full import of [Peirce's] information-theoretic and
> pragmatic-semiotic approaches to scientific inquiry is a task for
> the future to work out.
>
> Best,
>
> Gary R
>
>
> [image: Gary Richmond]
>
> Gary Richmond
> Philosophy and Critical Thinking
> Communication Studies
> LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
> C 745
> 718 482-5690
>
> On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:
>
>> Mike, List,
>>
>> The mathematical perspectives and theories that made modern
>> physics possible, perhaps even inevitable, were developed by
>> many mathematicians, both abstract and applied, all throughout
>> the 19th Century.  There was a definite sea change in the way
>> scientists began to view the relationship between mathematical
>> models and the physical world, passing from a monolithic concept
>> to variational choices among multiple approaches, models,
>> perspectives, and theories.
>>
>> Peirce was an astute observer and active participant in this
>> transformation but it has always been difficult to trace his
>> true impact on its course — so much of what he contributed
>> operated underground, rhizome like, and without recognition.
>> But I think it's fair to say that Peirce articulated the
>> springs and catches of the workings of science better than
>> any other reflective practitioner in his or> subsequent times.
>> And I think the full import of his information-theoretic and
>> pragmatic-semiotic approaches to scientific inquiry is a task
>> for the future to work out.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On 5/14/2017 1:34 AM, Mike Bergman wrote:
>>
>>> I just encountered this assertion:
>>>
>>> "In the present work we have indicated that a form of logic,
>>> relational logic developed by C. S. Peirce, may serve as the
>>> foundation of both quantum mechanics and string theory." [1]
>>>
>>> Does the list have any comments, further references or
>>> criticisms on this pretty bold statement?
>>>
>>> 

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

[Jerry LR Chandler]

List:

> On May 15, 2017, at 7:03 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard  
> wrote:
> 
> 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.

 Several of my friends in mathematics and physics have argued that the 
quaterion approach to the space-time problem is a satisfactory mathematical 
framework for the problem

But, the logical problem remains.  The time variable is fundamentally distinct 
from the three variables of space because the signs of time are semiotically 
singular allowing for the grammar of past, present and future. Realistically, 
what justifies the substitution of these “semiotic” terms for one another?

BTW, I am not aware of any argument that indicates that the nature of the 
mathematical continuity of time is fundamentally different from the nature of 
the mathematical continuity of space. A geometric line is a geometric line is a 
geometric line is a geometric line.  Or otherwise?

Cheers

Jerry

 
-
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?

[Jeffrey Brian Downard]

Gary R, Jon A, Mike B, List,


Let's distinguish between (1) the experience of space and time, (2) various 
mathematical systems that represent possible spatial and temporal frameworks, 
and (3) the metaphysical questions that we seem to be asking about the real 
character of space and time--and our attempt to theorizing about such things in 
physics and cosmology. My assumption is that you are asking about (3).


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.


For a bit of the context of the 19th century discussion of time as a fourth 
dimension of a single space-time framework, see:  Bork, Alfred M. "The fourth 
dimension in nineteenth-century physics." Isis 55, no. 3 (1964): 326-338.


Turning for a moment to (2), it is clear that Peirce was keenly aware of the 
major developments in the mathematical conceptions of space and time by 
Riemann, Cayley, Klein--and that Einstein was drawing on these same sets of 
mathematical ideas in his development of the cosmological and physical theories 
of general and special relativity. What is more, Peirce was keenly aware that 
Newton's notion of an absolute for time--as he had argued for space--contained 
a number of difficult logical and metaphysical issues that needed sorting. 
Einstein was fixing his attention on the same issues--but looking at them 
mainly from the vantage point of the physicist and not that of the logician.


In addition to understanding the metaphysical implications of Hamilton's 
applications of quaternions, Peirce used the logic of relations to articulate a 
broader framework in which space and time might be conceived as evolving from a 
larger number of qualitative dimensions. As such, he anticipated Smolin's idea 
that the dimensions of space and time have evolved. After all, on Peirce's 
account, all qualities can be conceived of as part of a larger continuum of 
possible qualities (Lecture 8, RLT). As such, it is reasonable to suppose that 
the separation between the dimensions of space and time evolved by a processes 
of specification and differentiation--as did all of the dimensions of possible 
qualities.


With respect to (1) above, I think that Peirce's remarks about the logical 
character of our conceptions of space and time contain a number of pregnant 
ideas that are worth sorting out. On the one hand, the conception of space and 
the experience of spatiality serve the function of allowing us to represent 
different objects as having the same properties at the same time--but in 
different places. The conception of time and the experience of temporality, on 
the other hand, allow us to represent one and the same object as taking 
different properties--but at different times. This seemingly simple set of 
logical ideas involve rather large ideas about the possible metaphysical 
relations that might hold between space and time.


--Jeff




Jeffrey Downard
Associate Professor
Department of Philosophy
Northern Arizona University
(o) 928 523-8354



From: Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 9:24 AM
To: Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate the Space-Time Continuum?

Mike, Jon, List,

I asked Fernando Zalamea--my go-to scholar for questions regarding mathematical 
continutiy--and, while he noted that physics is not at all his field, he 
responded by writing (in part):

FZ: I imagine that the Proceedings of the Harvard Sesquicentennial dedicated to 
Peirce’s Physics may have clues.

[note: for the Proceedings, see; 
http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/search~S8?/aCharles+S.+Peirce+Sesquicentennial+International+Congress+%281989+%3A+Harvard+University%29/acharles+s+peirce+sesquicentennial+international+congress+1989+harvard+university/-3,-1,0,B/browse

for the contents of papers selected by Matthew Moore from the Proceedings see,  
http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/record=b1023422

One paper in that collection by D. Sfendoni-Mentzou has the intriguing title, 
The role of potentiality in Peirce's tychism and in contemporary discussions in 
quantum mechanics and microphysics ; see: 
http://www.academia.edu/20431455/THE_ROLE_OF_POTENTIALITY_IN_PEIRCES_TYCHISM_AND_IN_CONTEMPORARY_DISCUSSIONS_IN_QUANTUM_MECHANICS_AND_MICROPHYSICS
 GR]

FZ: On the other hand, as far as I know, relational logic is far from quantum 
logic. This second trend originates with von Neumann's Continuous Geometries 
and orthomodular lattices, something that, I think, Peirce could not envision. 
(emphasis added)

I have not yet read the paper you pointed to Mike (I intend to), but although I 
have sometimes thought otherwise (based principally on a readong of the 1898 
lecture series, publis

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

[Gary Richmond]

Mike, Jon, List,

I asked Fernando Zalamea--my go-to scholar for questions regarding
mathematical continutiy--and, while he noted that physics is not at all his
field, he responded by writing (in part):

FZ: I imagine that the Proceedings of the Harvard Sesquicentennial
dedicated to Peirce’s Physics may have clues.

*[note: for the Proceedings, see;
http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/search~S8?/aCharles+S.+Peirce+Sesquicentennial+International+Congress+%281989+%3A+Harvard+University%29/acharles+s+peirce+sesquicentennial+international+congress+1989+harvard+university/-3,-1,0,B/browse
*

*for the contents of papers selected by Matthew Moore from the Proceedings
see,  http://catalogue.wellcomelibrary.org/record=b1023422
 *

*One paper in that collection by D. Sfendoni-Mentzou has the intriguing
title, The role of potentiality in Peirce's tychism and in contemporary
discussions in quantum mechanics and microphysics ; see:
http://www.academia.edu/20431455/THE_ROLE_OF_POTENTIALITY_IN_PEIRCES_TYCHISM_AND_IN_CONTEMPORARY_DISCUSSIONS_IN_QUANTUM_MECHANICS_AND_MICROPHYSICS

GR]*


FZ: On the other hand, *as far as I know, relational logic is far from
quantum logic. This second trend originates with von Neumann's Continuous
Geometries and orthomodular lattices, something that, I think, Peirce could
not envision.* (emphasis added)


I have not yet read the paper you pointed to Mike (I intend to), but
although I have sometimes thought otherwise (based principally on a readong
of the 1898 lecture series, published as *Reasoning and the Logic of
Things), *I would at present  temd tp agree with Zalamea here.

And I  agree with the whole of Jon Awbrey's post leading to his conclusion:

JA:  I think the full import of [Peirce's] on-theoretic and
pragmatic-semiotic approaches to scientific inquiry is a task for the
future to
work out.


Best,

Gary R


[image: Gary Richmond]

*Gary Richmond*
*Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
*Communication Studies*
*LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
*C 745*
*718 482-5690 <(718)%20482-5690>*

On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Jon Awbrey  wrote:

> Mike, List,
>
> The mathematical perspectives and theories that made modern physics
> possible,
> perhaps even inevitable, were developed by many mathematicians, both
> abstract
> and applied, all throughout the 19th Century.  There was a definite sea
> change
> in the way scientists began to view the relationship between mathematical
> models
> and the physical world, passing from a monolithic concept to variational
> choices
> among multiple approaches, models, perspectives, and theories.
>
> Peirce was an astute observer and active participant in this
> transformation but
> it has always been difficult to trace his true impact on its course — so
> much of
> what he contributed operated underground, rhizome like, and without
> recognition.
> But I think it's fair to say that Peirce articulated the springs and
> catches of
> the workings of science better than any other reflective practitioner in
> his or
> subsequent times.  And I think the full import of his
> information-theoretic and
> pragmatic-semiotic approaches to scientific inquiry is a task for the
> future to
> work out.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
>
> On 5/14/2017 1:34 AM, Mike Bergman wrote:
>
>> I just encountered this assertion:
>>
>> "In the present work we have indicated that a form of logic, relational
>> logic
>> developed by C. S. Peirce, may serve as the foundation of both quantum
>> mechanics
>> and string theory." [1]
>>
>> Does the list have any comments, further references or criticisms on this
>> pretty
>> bold statement?
>>
>> Thanks, Mike
>>
>> [1] A. Nicolaidis, 2008. "Categorical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics and
>> String
>> Theory," arXiv:0812.1946, 10 Dec 2008. See https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.194
>> 6.pdf
>>
>>
> --
>
> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

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

[Jon Awbrey]

Mike, List,

The mathematical perspectives and theories that made modern physics possible,
perhaps even inevitable, were developed by many mathematicians, both abstract
and applied, all throughout the 19th Century.  There was a definite sea change
in the way scientists began to view the relationship between mathematical models
and the physical world, passing from a monolithic concept to variational choices
among multiple approaches, models, perspectives, and theories.

Peirce was an astute observer and active participant in this transformation but
it has always been difficult to trace his true impact on its course — so much of
what he contributed operated underground, rhizome like, and without recognition.
But I think it's fair to say that Peirce articulated the springs and catches of
the workings of science better than any other reflective practitioner in his or
subsequent times.  And I think the full import of his information-theoretic and
pragmatic-semiotic approaches to scientific inquiry is a task for the future to
work out.

Regards,

Jon

On 5/14/2017 1:34 AM, Mike Bergman wrote:

I just encountered this assertion:

"In the present work we have indicated that a form of logic, relational logic
developed by C. S. Peirce, may serve as the foundation of both quantum mechanics
and string theory." [1]

Does the list have any comments, further references or criticisms on this pretty
bold statement?

Thanks, Mike

[1] A. Nicolaidis, 2008. "Categorical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics and String
Theory," arXiv:0812.1946, 10 Dec 2008. See https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.1946.pdf



--

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 .