List
> On Apr 27, 2020, at 9:55 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> Whenever logicians talk about anything x that exists in any universe of
> discourse, they write ∃x in their logic.
This assertion is not true for the chemical symbol system.
The formal and informal logic of chemistry use the symbol
Jon,
De Morgan introduced the term 'universe of discourse', and
Peirce adopted it for his three universes. Every logician since then,
both Platonists and non-Platonists, have related logic to whatever they
call a universe of discourse in the same way as Peirce. They all use an
existential
Jon, List
I always thought that the most peircean of the classifications of
sciences was this one :
*Mathematics* the study of ideal constructions without reference to their
real existence,
-Empirics, the study of phenomena with the purpose of identifying their
forms with those *mathematics*
John, List:
We are indeed on the same page here, and my emphasis on *exist* was quite
intentional. I believe that it is precisely because Plato--or at least,
the philosophy that bears his name--advocates the *existence *of forms that
Peirce considers him to be a nominalist.
Mathematical/logical
John, List:
JFS: I have never initiated any criticisms of your notes.
I cannot help doubting that this is true, but will let it pass rather than
taking the time to find and quote counterexamples.
JFS: No amount of charity can correct a mistake in logic or mathematics.
Perhaps not, but we
List,
Some of us might recall my previous posts last year on the relationship
between imitation and pragmatism. I have further evidence in support of my
thesis regarding imitation as a fundamental principle that extends also to
the level of matter (atoms and molecules). Two recent references that
List--Stephen Jarosek is at the moment unable to post messages directly
through the IUPUI server. While we're working on resolving the problem he
asked that I post his message from my email address. GR
-- Forwarded message -
From: Stephen Jarosek
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 2:31
Helmut - the paper is:
Salthe, S. 'Hierarchical Structures. Axiomathes. 2012. 23; p
355-383.
I've known Stan for many years; his focus is on dissipative
structures operating as informational systems in biological systems,
[which he calls infodynamics]; evolutionary
Helmut, List
I spent a lot of time addressing you an argumentative answer (because I
only do answers of this type, and I almost never start a post with "In my
opinion ..." or "I think that ..." Etc... unless I am asked, which I must
admit is quite rare). I have shown using the basic concepts of
Supplement: Stanley N. Salthe´s paper´s name is something with "Axiomathes". "Re-entry" and the "missing link" have not only to do with complexity, I guess, but also with time, whether as a function of time, or a source of its, by providing dynamiciy, or both.
Edwina, Jon, List,
Edwina, Jon, List,
I guess the contradictions base partly on terms. That you, Jon, said, that "these three are distinct correlates", I would agree, in your (and maybe Peirce´s) use of terms. They are distinct, because they are not spatiotemporally composed. A dynamic object can be light years
Jon, List
I'd like to point out that sometimes I agree with one
of Jon's notes. I believe that Peirce's three "universes of
discourse" constitute the best resolution of the debates between
Plato and Aristotle: the universe of pure possibilities (mathematics);
the universe of actuality
Jerry,
The short quotation from that book showed that the author is
a mathematician. There is no way that she would disagree with my
point.
JFS> I am certain that the issues in that book you
cited are unrelated to what I was doing.
JLRC> To draw a
conclusion without reading the
BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;
}Perhaps I shouldn't reply to this - since it's a discussion that
will go nowhere, since both JAS and I have our own interpretations of
Peirce!
But- I personally find it misleading to assert that the Dynamic
14 matches
Mail list logo
