Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

[Helmut Raulien]

Jon, list,

Yes, that is what I suspect too: It is not about chronologic: Creation, God, necessity, causality. Due to our limited human experience we cannot see these things other than in time flow, chronologically, so likely with a beginning. But maybe causation and time flow are not so strictly connected with each other as we think! Maybe they are two different things, that merely happen to occur parallelly just for us, but not necessarily for, like, God, or whoever.

Best,

Helmut

 

Freitag, 04. November 2016 um 21:42 Uhr
 "Jon Alan Schmidt"  wrote:
 


Helmut, List:
 

The Big Bang is called a "singularity" because it is the point in the past when the mathematical equations that scientists currently take as governing our existing universe break down; i.e., the event when those laws of nature came into being, assuming that they have remained essentially unchanged since then.  (Peirce, of course, held that they have evolved, and are still subject to minute spontaneous variations.)  Consequently, as Gary R. has been highlighting by quoting CP 6.208, if the Big Bang has a place in Peirce's cosmology at all, it can only correspond to the beginning of our existing universe.  Everything that comes before that in Peirce's blackboard narrative--the blackboard itself, the initial chalk mark, the aggregation of multiple marks into reacting systems, and the merging of those systems into larger Platonic worlds--must precede the Big Bang.  Now, granted, since the Big Bang corresponds to the beginning of time, "precede" has to be taken in some way other than strictly chronologically; but as Clark Goble has affirmed, this problem of language arises no matter what words we use when trying to discuss things "before" time began.  The only way to avoid the kind of circularity that you describe below is to recognize the necessity of necessary Being--Ens necessarium--which Peirce explicitly identified as God in "A Neglected Argument."

 

Regards,

 







Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman

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





 

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:





Edwina, list,

I my humble (being a layman about all these things) opinion, I agree with Edwina, because the big bang is said to have been a singularity, and I guess, that "singularity" is not only a matter of physics, but of everything, such as philosophy, black boards, metaphysical meanings of metaphors, whatever. So there can not be a "pre" of it, the less as the big bang is said to be not only the origin of space, but of time too. Lest you suggest a meta-time, in a meta-universe, but then the problem of beginning is merely postponed to that: Did the meta-universe come from a meta-big-bang? I only have two possible explanations for this problem of origin/beginning: Either there was no beginning/creation, and no big bang (I had supposed a multi-bubble-universe some weeks ago) , or there is a circle of creation, like: A creates B, B creates C, C creates A. But this would mean, that creation is atemporal, otherwise it would not work. But I like it, and maybe it is good for some quite funny science-fiction story. But perhaps it is not far fetched: Creation is everywhere, is "God", and it forms circular attractors of recreation. Stop! This is getting weird, I have to think some more about it first.

Best,

Helmut












-
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 .

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

[Helmut Raulien]

Jon, Edwina, list,

I guess that the question whether there is God or not leads to the assumtion that there is God: Given that there is no God, everything has evolved by itself, but this self-creation requires a mechanism, which is intelligent, i.e. may be called "person", and the term "self" too implies a person, so what more do we need to assume a personal God? But the problem whith the assumption of nothing is, that if at the beginning there was nothing, then either there was not only nothing, but nothing and God, or the nothing has the capability to evolve into something, but then there was not nothing alone, but nothing and its capability, which may be called God. So, either way you look at it, a sole nothing at the beginning is not possible. So, if we want to stick with a beginning, this beginning state cannot be nothing, but eg. Tohu Va Bohu, which in the german edition of the bible is falsely translated with "oed und leer" (barren and empty), but more likely means some creative chaos. But why should, at any time, there have been only this Tohu Va Bohu, and not only at some places, while at other places something regular has yet evolved? I do not see a necessity to suggest a temporally singular beginning everywhere. And why should God have started with nothing? That would mean, that He has a curriculum vitae, finished His apprenticeship and works on His journeyman piece of art. But if God has a currivulum vitae, he has a vita, a life, is mortal, and not God. So I guess, that there is no beginning, and no nothing. But Tohu Va Bohu ok. My mother has detected it in my room when I was young. That is where I know the term from.

Best,

Helmut

 

 26. Oktober 2016 um 22:19 Uhr
"Jon Alan Schmidt"  wrote:
 


Edwina, List:
 


ET:  ... if you object and question why I used the phrase 'almost impossible' versus 'just plain impossible' ...


 

It was not an objection, it was a sincere question, purely out of curiosity.  I tried to make that clear, but apparently failed.  "Almost impossible" implies that there is some way "to discover what 'existed' before this physico-chemical existentiality"; so I was simply asking what that might be, in your view.

 


ET:  Just because there is a 'long history of philosophical arguments for the existence/reality of god' - is no proof or evidence for his existence/reality.


 

I neither said nor implied that this history is "proof or evidence for [God's] existence/reality," which would indeed be fallacious; rather, I suggested that it indicates that such reasoning is not merely "pure rhetoric," as you alleged.  Surely Peirce did not view it as such.

 


ET:  Your reasons - are beliefs.


 

Is this supposed to be some kind of knock-down argument against theism?  Can you identify any reasons for believing something that are not beliefs, as well?

 


ET:  There is no empirical or logical evidence.


 

On the contrary--I think that there is abundant empirical and logical evidence for the reality of God, and Peirce discussed some of both kinds in "A Neglected Argument."  Like him, I observe the beauty and order of nature, as well as humanity's instinctive disposition to "guess" viable hypotheses about it, and sometimes wonder how anyone can deny the reality of God.  Ultimately, it is not a matter of the evidence itself, but of how one interprets it.  Of course, you and I have experienced this firsthand in our very different "readings" of Peirce.

 


ET:  And, as Peirce continued - which you left out in your quote from 6.460, "That human reason can comprehend some causes is past denial, and once we are forced to recognize a given element in experience, it is reasonable to await positive evidence before we complicate our acknowledgment with qualifications'. [my emphasis].


 

Indeed.  Then he went on further ...

 


CSP:  Otherwise, why venture beyond direct observation?  Illustrations of this principle abound in physical science.  Since, then, it is certain that man is able to understand the laws and the causes of some phenomena, it is reasonable to assume, in regard to any given problem, that it would get rightly solved by man, if a sufficiency of time and attention were devoted to it.  Moreover, those problems that at first blush appear utterly insoluble receive, in that very circumstance, as Edgar Poe remarked in his "The Murders in the Rue Morgue," their smoothly-fitting keys.  This particularly adapts them to the Play of Musement. (CP 6.460, emphasis added)


 

Peirce refused to rule out the solution of any given problem by human beings, including the origin of "this physico-chemical existentiality."  After all, doing so would amount to blocking the way of inquiry.  He added that the Play of Musement is especially well-suited to tackling such problems, the kind "that at first blush appear utterly insoluble"; and what did he subsequently say is the result in this particular case?

 


CSP:  ... in the Pure Play of Musement the idea of 

Aw: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

[Helmut Raulien]

Jon, list,

So my hypothesis should not become a dogma. Could it at least serve for counter-hypothesis, preventing the hypothesis of a nothing from becoming a dogma? Though we are not in a courtroom, where the best method, if you are sued, is to sue back somehow. Oops, I might have gone on a path of not-good discussion style here, sorry. I guess this happens when people talk about fundamental things... Dangerous!

Best,

Helmut

 

 26. Oktober 2016 um 18:21 Uhr
 "Jon Alan Schmidt"  wrote:
 


Helmut, List:
 

My guess is that Peirce would say that the existence of the universe is a matter of fact, and thus calls for an explanation; so we should not block the way of inquiry by ruling this out on a priori grounds, as you seem to be suggesting.  However, he also would say that we should not be dogmatic about whatever explanation we devise, since he did not think that we should be dogmatic about anything.

 

Regards,

 





Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA

Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman

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





 

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Helmut Raulien  wrote:





List,

I am wondering, whether it is helpful at all to ponder about "nothing", because I doubt that it can be more than a myth. Same with beginning, creation, tychism, and platonic ideas. I have the hypothesis, that reverse-engineering is not possible if you only have the status quo, and no symbolic second documentary. You can reverse-engineer the derivation of species, because  you have the DNA of existing ones for symbolic documentary. But in the physicochemical realm there is no such documentary, not even the background radiation, which is not symbolic, but indexical. So, this is merely a hypothesis: Myths cannot be falsified or verified (demythicized) merely with indices and icons. Is that so??

Best,

Helmut







- 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 .