### Re: [peirce-l] C.S. Peirce • A Guess at the Riddle

Re: Benjamin Udell At: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/8026 Re: Terry Bristol At: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/8029 In the passage I quoted, Peirce is describing a critical juncture in the evolution of our physical understanding. One of the things we can see in the formula F = ma is the transition from an intuitive, dualistic, cause-effect conception of force to a geometric description of change in differential, relative terms. To observe all that in the physics of his day was not only perceptive but downright prescient. But my present interest is more directed to this question: “Is there a similar transition to be expected in the evolution of semiotics, the theory of signs, or the theory of inquiry itself?” Developing a conceptual framework that allows us to consider that question in any productive way will require us to pursue the matter of “Thirdness as it naturally arises … more generally in systems theory.” Regards, Jon -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/ word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ - You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

### Re: [peirce-l] C.S. Peirce • A Guess at the Riddle

TB = Terry Bristol TB: I like it up to this statement that I find obscure. CSP: Now an acceleration, instead of being like a velocity a relation between two successive positions, is a relation between three; so that the new doctrine has consisted in the suitable introduction of the conception of Threeness. On this idea, the whole of modern physics is built. TB: I very much look forward to your comments on the overall passage. Terry, This just says that we estimate the velocity of a particle moving through a space by taking two points on its trajectory and dividing the distance traveled between them by the time it takes to do so. To get the instantaneous velocity at a point on the trajectory we take the limit of this quotient as pairs of points are chosen ever closer to the point of interest. We estimate acceleration by taking three points, taking the velocity between the first two, taking the velocity between the last two, then taking the rate of change in the velocities as an estimate of the acceleration. We get the instantaneous acceleration by choosing the three points ever closer and taking the limit. By the way ... This is probably a good time to mention an objection that is bound to arise in regard to Peirce's use of the series of quantities, Position, Velocity, Acceleration, to illustrate his 3 categories. There is nothing about that series, which can of course be extended indefinitely, to suggest that the categories of monadic, dyadic, and triadic relations are universal, necessary, and sufficient. Not so far as I can see, not right off, at least. So making that case for Peirce's Triple Threat will probably have to be mounted at a different level of abstraction. Regards, Jon -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/ word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ - You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

### Re: [peirce-l] C.S. Peirce • A Guess at the Riddle

Jon, Terry, list, I've seen it suggested in a thread somewhere on the Web that the reason that the position-velocity-acceleration trichotomy is a good one is that that there are universal laws of acceleration and velocity (and position?) but not of the third or higher derivatives. (The third derivative of position is informally known as jerk, also, jolt, surge, and lurch.) I don't know why there shouldn't be a universal law of jerk, becoming very salient when two strongly gravitating masses drift toward each other. But I'm no physicist. In fact, a two-ton truck does put on a few pounds as it moves from mountain top to sea level. The weight difference wouldn't make it fall faster, but I think that the difference in the strength of the gravitational field would. Otherwise one should be falling earthward at 32ft per sec. per sec. no matter how far from Earth one is. Also toward everything else in the universe. Then they'd all cancel each other out and there'd be no gravitation. I'd better stop before I drift too far out into space myself. Best, Ben - Original Message - From: Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] C.S. Peirce • A Guess at the Riddle TB = Terry Bristol TB: I like it up to this statement that I find obscure. CSP: Now an acceleration, instead of being like a velocity a relation between two successive positions, is a relation between three; so that the new doctrine has consisted in the suitable introduction of the conception of Threeness. On this idea, the whole of modern physics is built. TB: I very much look forward to your comments on the overall passage. Terry, This just says that we estimate the velocity of a particle moving through a space by taking two points on its trajectory and dividing the distance traveled between them by the time it takes to do so. To get the instantaneous velocity at a point on the trajectory we take the limit of this quotient as pairs of points are chosen ever closer to the point of interest. We estimate acceleration by taking three points, taking the velocity between the first two, taking the velocity between the last two, then taking the rate of change in the velocities as an estimate of the acceleration. We get the instantaneous acceleration by choosing the three points ever closer and taking the limit. By the way ... This is probably a good time to mention an objection that is bound to arise in regard to Peirce's use of the series of quantities, Position, Velocity, Acceleration, to illustrate his 3 categories. There is nothing about that series, which can of course be extended indefinitely, to suggest that the categories of monadic, dyadic, and triadic relations are universal, necessary, and sufficient. Not so far as I can see, not right off, at least. So making that case for Peirce's Triple Threat will probably have to be mounted at a different level of abstraction. Regards, Jon -- academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ mwb: http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey word press blog 1: http://jonawbrey.wordpress.com/ word press blog 2: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ - You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the PEIRCE-L listserv. To remove yourself from this list, send a message to lists...@listserv.iupui.edu with the line SIGNOFF PEIRCE-L in the body of the message. To post a message to the list, send it to PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU

### Re: [peirce-l] C.S. Peirce • A Guess at the Riddle

Jon, Ben et al. – Bypassing the triad theme for a moment – I think Peirce makes a crucial point that classical mechanics had a problem with acceleration. Modern physics is based in the new 'acceleration paradigm' – but this is far from being unproblematic. If one starts with the Cartesian notion of a sort of billiard ball universe with inelastic collisions (viz no deceleration/acceleration as atoms bounce off each other), then it is rather surprising that we have phenomena of deceleration/acceleration. This and the calculus enter with Galileo and Kepler, then Huygens points out inertial when you go around a corner, and Newton proposes 'gravity' to account for the circular motions of planets etc. For Pragmatism, what is crucial is that deceleration/acceleration requires 'work' to be performed. Enter the language of forces. The transition Peirce is pointing to is from the classical Mechanical Philosophy – where causes are just prior states that 'naturally change' into subsequent effects-states – to a Pragmatic Universe where change requires the performance of work (deceleration/acceleration). Much of modern physics – in my opinion – accepts this and then tries to make sense of it while still remaining in the Mechanical Philosophy. You see this particularly in the presumptions about 'isolated systems' and conservation laws – both closely linked to Symmetry presumptions. In the Mechanical universe things just 'happen' whereas in the Pragmatist's developmental model the universe arises and evolves from 'doings' – the performance of work. Work here might be understood along the lines of what engineers do. In the Mechanical Philosophy's universes there is 'no net work.' Whatever 'happens' is energetically balanced by an equal and opposite 'happening' – net change is always zero always retaining symmetry (cf John Barrow's The Book of Nothing). Terry On Mar 22, 2012, at 3:06 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: Jon, Terry, list, I've seen it suggested in a thread somewhere on the Web that the reason that the position-velocity-acceleration trichotomy is a good one is that that there are universal laws of acceleration and velocity (and position?) but not of the third or higher derivatives. (The third derivative of position is informally known as jerk, also, jolt, surge, and lurch.) I don't know why there shouldn't be a universal law of jerk, becoming very salient when two strongly gravitating masses drift toward each other. But I'm no physicist. In fact, a two-ton truck does put on a few pounds as it moves from mountain top to sea level. The weight difference wouldn't make it fall faster, but I think that the difference in the strength of the gravitational field would. Otherwise one should be falling earthward at 32ft per sec. per sec. no matter how far from Earth one is. Also toward everything else in the universe. Then they'd all cancel each other out and there'd be no gravitation. I'd better stop before I drift too far out into space myself. Best, Ben - Original Message - From: Jon Awbrey jawb...@att.net To: PEIRCE-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [peirce-l] C.S. Peirce • A Guess at the Riddle TB = Terry Bristol TB: I like it up to this statement that I find obscure. CSP: Now an acceleration, instead of being like a velocity a relation between two successive positions, is a relation between three; so that the new doctrine has consisted in the suitable introduction of the conception of Threeness. On this idea, the whole of modern physics is built. TB: I very much look forward to your comments on the overall passage. Terry, This just says that we estimate the velocity of a particle moving through a space by taking two points on its trajectory and dividing the distance traveled between them by the time it takes to do so. To get the instantaneous velocity at a point on the trajectory we take the limit of this quotient as pairs of points are chosen ever closer to the point of interest. We estimate acceleration by taking three points, taking the velocity between the first two, taking the velocity between the last two, then taking the rate of change in the velocities as an estimate of the acceleration. We get the instantaneous acceleration by choosing the three points ever closer and taking the limit. By the way ... This is probably a good time to mention an objection that is bound to arise in regard to Peirce's use of the series of quantities, Position, Velocity, Acceleration, to illustrate his 3 categories. There is nothing about that series, which can of course be extended indefinitely, to suggest that the categories of monadic, dyadic, and triadic relations are universal, necessary, and sufficient. Not so far as I can see, not right off, at least. So making that case for Peirce's Triple Threat will probably have to be mounted at a different level of abstraction. Regards