Jon, List,
You quoted a snippet from my previous email and responded:
GR: Your view would seem to imply that there is only one possible universe
for all time and in all space.
JAS: How so? I simply noted that the Big Bang theory is based on the
assumption that the physical laws of *our
Gary R., List:
GR: Your view would seem to imply that there is only one possible universe
for all time and in all space.
How so? I simply noted that the Big Bang theory is based on the assumption
that the physical laws of *our *actual universe have been unchanging for
billions of years, while
Jon, List,
JAS: It seems clear to me that Champagne wrote his article "from a more
general and abstract semeiotic perspective," which is why I have sought to
address it accordingly. However, I have also commented on some of its
cosmological implications and will do so again now.
GR: I agree
Gary R., List:
GR: I have been reflecting on Champagne's article critically from a
cosmological standpoint, perhaps especially that of the early cosmos, while
you seem to have been looking at it from a more general and abstract
semeiotic perspective.
It seems clear to me that Champagne wrote
Gary F., List:
GF: Jon, you’ve obviously thought this through very carefully, but your
final paragraph is too much of a stretch for me.
I am not surprised, and some pushback is understandable, even welcome. It
comes down to whether one explains the intelligibility of the universe by
taking it
List, This just published study may have some bearing on the topic of this
thread. GR
*ScienceAlert* summarizes a new cosmological theory:
Our Universe Is Finely Tuned For Life, And There's an Explanation For Why
That Is So
Gary F, Jon, Helmut, List,
GF: "Perhaps Peirce’s cosmological theory implies a more inclusive
definition of “life,” but I don’t think that justifies reducing an
“interpretant” to one end of a dydadic relation, no matter how long the
chain of efficient causations that precede it in time."
GR: I,
Jon, you’ve obviously thought this through very carefully, but your final
paragraph is too much of a stretch for me.
JAS: … my own current view is that "purely material interactions" are
degenerate triadic relations, reducible to their constituent dyadic relations …
Accordingly, a series of
Helmut, Gary R., List:
HR: I think, that abiotic semiosis follows efficient causation, which is
deductive necessity, the O-R-I follows rule-case-result ...
I am inclined to agree, in accordance with what I posted earlier about
physicosemiosis being *degenerate *semiosis, the result of
Gary R., List:
GR: But why limit the meaning of 'bio-' here, that is, in consideration of
the near certainly that, for Peirce, it has a much broader and deeper
meaning than its modern biological one?
I agree that Peirce often advocates a much broader and deeper conception of
"life" and
Helmut, Jon, List,
You asked: "Is this far-fetching to press it into a table?"
Whatever may be the case for biotic semiosis/biosemiosis (I'd suggest that
'nervous semiosis' is a form of the former), since semiosis has come to be
seen by many researchers as always-already rather clearly in effect
Jon, List,
Jon quoted me, then commented:
GR: A theist might argue that this aboriginal semiosis is *not *strictly 'a
*bio*tic', that it comes from the 'action' (so to speak) of a "*living *
God."
JAS: Champagne presumably uses the term "abiotic" because he is referring
specifically to the
Phyllis wrote: "I just have a vague sense of the connection."
There may very well be a connection -- it even seems likely to me. Perhaps
others here might have some insights as to the nature/structure of that
possible connection.
Best,
Gary R
“Let everything happen to you
Beauty and terror
Phyllis, List,
Rovelli is a brilliant storyteller mixing reflections on quantum science
and Eastern thought in both insightful and entertaining ways.
As one reviewer put it, the essence of his argument is "that every entity
in the universe, from protons to humans, exists only in relation to
Abioticsemiosis seems a lot like what is Happening in quantum physics.
Especially Carlo Rovelli's relational theory as described in Helgoland.
On Sat, Nov 20, 2021, 11:07 AM Gary Richmond
wrote:
> List,
>
> I recently came upon this quite short article, "A necessary condition for
> proof of
15 matches
Mail list logo
