Helmut, list
1] I'm not sure what a 'universally valid law' means. After all,
'laws' in themselves, are evolved habits, both in the natural world
and in the conceptual world. Therefore, a conceptual belief, whether
operative in a sect, religion, or myth, is as much a 'law' or
> Op 1 februari 2021 om 17:03 schreef Helmut Raulien :
>
> Auke, Jon, John, Edwina, All,
>
> I don´t see, that a transparent universe is the critical point: Jon A.S.´
> example is valid in a transparent universe too:
>
Helmut,
The point is not if Jon's example is valid in a
Supplement: With "law" I was meaning "universally valid law", not a law stated by a sect, religion, or myth. These would not concern the difference between the NOT- operator and the EXIST- operator, as both are universal, none of them is particularistic. Particularistic "laws" I would not
Edwina,
I find it interesting, that you think, that the semiosic process begins with 1ns, I originally think so too. That is, because in my opinion, the object does not exist before it is denoted. The sign/representamen makes something (a subject?) an object. I only wrote "2-1-3" to not raise a
Helmut - a few comments:
1] I think the semiosic process begins with 1ns, a sensation...and
moves into awareness [2ns]..
2] With regard to your statement 'There is no unicorn that is not
pink' - I think that this is what is known as an 'E' or negative
form. Essentially
Auke, Jon, John, Edwina, All,
I don´t see, that a transparent universe is the critical point: Jon A.S.´ example is valid in a transparent universe too: From "There is no unicorn that is not pink" , which is true, does not follow "Every unicorn is pink", which is not true, even or especially
John, my interest in the article wasn’t about the symbols used to refer to
logical processes but about the processes of the triadic sign, ie, that it is
an asymmetrical and generative process, not a representative process. And I was
pleased to see a scholar in both philosophy and Peirce refer
John,
This part of the article Edwina send is relevant:
It follows that logic, in Peirce’s illative, ecstatic sense, is better
understood as an
inductive rather than a deductive science, for the ampliative work of inductive
inference
better exemplifies, in a richer, fuller sense, the
