Helmut,
My earlier message may have been unclear, but what i meant was pretty
much equivalent to what you say here:
[[ In a general sense, Peirce did indeed anticipate the possibility of
non-equilibrium thermodynamics. The possibility of new types of order in
far-from-the-equilibrium situations
Arnold:
On Apr 29, 2006, at 1:06 AM, Peirce Discussion Forum digest wrote:
In Vol IV
of the Collected Papers (and, I would guess, throughout the New
Elements of
Mathematics, a copy of Eisele's edition of which I would dearly
love to
get!) he goes to considerable lengths in exploring the
To everybody interested in the Prigogine / Peirce issue:
in 1981 I visited Prigogine at the universite libre in
Bruxelles. I told about some similarities between his approach in
non-equilibrium thermodynamics esp. the order-creating power of
dissipative structures and Peirce's ideas
Jerry, List
JC: Jerry Chandler
AS: Arnold Shepperson
On 4/22/06, Jerry Chandler wrote:
JC: Ipresuppose that most readers of this list will find these statements to clash with their philosophy of physics, the philosophy of genera. I can merely add that the symbol system of physics is not the
List,
Just wanted to note that I'm having second thoughts about the idea that decay
is not an end!
But I'll keep it at least somewhat short because Jerry LR Chandler's post looks
interesting. (I read some things at http://www.hyle.org/ (philosophy of
chemistry) a few years ago, including
Ben, Victoria, Jerry,
I may not be responding properly to your messages for a few days because
i have a deadline to deal with first. But in the meantime --
For Victoria (and anyone else who cares to look), i've excerpted some
pieces from my work in progress that develop a concept of
On Apr 20, 2006, at 10:15 AM, gnusystems wrote:
Victoria,
[[ I believe the reduction of the gradient may be one of the mechanisms
employed by final cause. But I believe that it is the instances of
emergence or upgrades, to use Ben's term, which exemplify the
workings
of final cause. The
Ben,
Yes, i was taking too much for granted when i started using the term
here. Especially as the name dissipative structure is not especially
well-chosen -- partly for the reasons you mention, and partly because
it's really about systems (and thus involves processes) and not merely
structures. I
Ben:
Someone back in the dark ages of cybernetics and system theory remarked that
there was no way of knowing whether entropy was a feature of the universe or
of our information regarding the universe. And about the same time Colin
Cherry wrote, Mind is real; matter is mystery. I decided
@lyris.ttu.edu
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Peirce and Prigogine
Ben,
Yes, i was taking too much for granted when i started using the term here.
Especially as the name dissipative structure is not especially well-chosen --
partly for the reasons you mention
of the universe as a single
argument (not a multiplicity of them) also resists any metaphysical
reductionism. Thoughts?
-Original Message-
From: Victoria N. Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Apr 19, 2006 5:56 AM
To: Peirce Discussion Forum peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Peirce
Kirsti and Gary, i'll have to get back to you later -- i've decided to
limit myself to one post a day here.
Victoria N. Alexander writes,
[[ Eric Schneider and Dorian Sagan recently published a book with this
idea as the thesis, _Into the Cool_. ]]
Yes, i read _Into the Cool_ last year, and
Ben,
I liked your post. In any analysis of process, cause-effect relationships
are created by our puctuations--which in turn inevitably result from our
local (space and time) interests. Time slices can be so misleading.
Watzlawick, Beavin and Jackson (Pragmatics of Human Communication) wrote
Apologies to Jerry and to the list -- i marked my message offlist
and then stupidly sent it to the list! (So now i've broken my own role
twice today ... *sigh*)
But as long as i'm here, let me insert a couple of remarks that might
clear up or head off certain confusions. First, Victoria wrote
Ben,
[[ I wonder what you mean by thermodynamically isolated. I've taken it
to mean a system with no matter or energy interaction with an outside
system. ]]
That's pretty much it. All organisms are open in that sense -- they
require inputs and outputs of energy/matter -- and all organisms are
, 2006 4:41 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: Peirce and Prigogine
Ben,
I liked your post. In any analysis of process, cause-effect relationships are
created by our puctuations--which in turn inevitably result from our local
(space and time) interests. Time slices can be so misleading. Watzlawick
Jaime, thanks for this!
I got the impression that it must be his co-author
Isabelle Stengers who had drawn his attention to
Peirce
That sounds plausible to me; and perhaps she was interested enough in
Peirce studies to have come across the quote somewhere even though it
hadn't yet been
Dear Gary,
I was quite delighted in reading what you wrote:
The second law, as i understand it, says that any actual use of energy
degrades it, i.e. reduces its quality or usefulness. In the jargon of
thermodynamics, any reduction of an energy gradient produces entropy.
This means that in a
18 matches
Mail list logo
