Jeff ,list Since this is a new thread, then, I believe that I am ‘allowed’ to comment. My comment is. Excellent. I deeply appreciate your outline of the two hypotheses - and - that of the Peircean cosmology and the role of the three categories. Your whole section III - Peircean family of hypotheses - really excellent. Thank you…and I like your references to self-organization, a key component of a CAS.
Edwina > On Oct 6, 2025, at 2:21 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected]> > wrote: > > List, > > I am interested in exploring the various ways Peirce might offer fruitful > strategies for framing questions and hypotheses about the evolution of the > cosmos. Given the shift in focus from interpreting Peirce to developing the > ideas in the context of contemporary lines of inquiry, I have given a new > name for this thread. Here is a short overview of how the issues might be > framed: > > I. What the Competing Hypotheses Seek to Explain > The first second of cosmic history is the most intensively modeled and least > directly observed interval in all of physics. Every cosmological > hypothesis—standard or alternative—attempts to answer the same deep question: > how did stable, law-governed order emerge from the primal condition of the > early universe? > Empirically, we can observe the cosmic microwave background and infer > conditions back to roughly 10⁻³⁶ s after the putative “beginning.” But beyond > that frontier, our equations lose coherence. When we attempt to wind the > clock backward, general relativity (GR) predicts an initial singularity—an > infinitesimal point of infinite density—while quantum mechanics (QM) insists > that such a point cannot exist, because uncertainty forbids precise > localization of both energy and position. The result is a conceptual fissure > at the very threshold of time. > The challenge is twofold. First, to reconcile the gravitational curvature of > spacetime (the language of GR) with the probabilistic field dynamics of > quantum theory (the language of QM). Second, to explain the apparent > emergence of regularities—space, time, fields, and forces from the initial > conditions—whatever those are presumed to be. > The standard cosmological model assumes a hot, dense quantum vacuum that > undergoes rapid inflation, cooling into particles, forces, and atomic matter > through a series of symmetry-breaking transitions. Our family of hypotheses, > following C. S. Peirce’s metaphysical principle of “habit-taking,” interprets > these same transitions not as the enforcement of pre-existing laws but as the > evolutionary crystallization of habits—stable relational patterns that become > laws through repetition and self-reinforcement. The contrast, therefore, is > not merely physical but ontological: one treats laws as given, the other as > grown. > My general strategy is to question the assumption that so much happened, so > fast, from what was initially a very small space. Instead of supposing the > cosmos was initially very small and then, in a “Big Bang” dramatically > inflated in a very short amount of time, I'd like to explore the hypothesis > that the timeframe and size of the universe was, in the very, very early > period, indeterminate. > II. The Standard Cosmological Account of the Very, Very Early Universe: The > Six Early Epochs within the First Second > Planck Era (0 – 10⁻⁴³ s) > Physics as we know it breaks down. The universe’s density exceeds 10⁹⁴ g cm⁻³ > and the temperature surpasses 10³² K. GR predicts a curvature singularity, > but quantum gravitational effects should dominate. No consistent theory yet > unites them. > Grand-Unification Era (10⁻⁴³ – 10⁻³⁶ s) > Gravity decouples from the other fundamental interactions. The strong, weak, > and electromagnetic forces remain unified under speculative grand-unified > theories (GUTs). Vacuum fluctuations drive exponential inflation. > Inflationary Epoch (≈10⁻³⁶ – 10⁻³² s) > The universe expands by a factor of ~10⁵⁰ in a tiny fraction of a second, > smoothing out inhomogeneities. Quantum fluctuations are stretched to cosmic > scales, seeding later galaxy formation. When inflation ends, latent vacuum > energy converts into matter and radiation—a process called “reheating.” > Electroweak Epoch (10⁻¹² – 10⁻⁶ s) > The strong force separates from the electroweak. The Higgs field acquires a > nonzero vacuum expectation value, giving mass to particles. W and Z bosons > and leptons acquire distinct identities. > Quark Epoch (10⁻⁶ – 10⁻⁴ s) > The universe is a hot plasma of quarks, antiquarks, and gluons. As it cools > below ~10¹² K, quarks begin to bind into hadrons (protons and neutrons). > Hadron and Lepton Epochs (10⁻⁴ – 1 s) > Matter–antimatter annihilation occurs, leaving a slight excess of baryons. > Neutrinos decouple. By ~1 s, the universe is filled with photons, neutrinos, > electrons, protons, and neutrons in near-thermal equilibrium. > 2. The Theoretical Foundations > The standard model of cosmology (ΛCDM + inflation) joins: > General Relativity, governing the dynamics of spacetime and cosmic expansion > (via Einstein’s field equations). > The Standard Model of Particle Physics, governing matter and fields via > quantum gauge theories. > Each works remarkably well in its proper domain. GR predicts large-scale > structure and gravitational lensing; quantum field theory predicts particle > behaviors confirmed to 1 part in 10¹¹. Yet their conceptual languages > conflict. > 3. The Central Tension: GR vs QM > Background independence vs. fixed background: > GR treats spacetime geometry as dynamic; quantum theory presupposes a fixed > spacetime background. > Deterministic vs. probabilistic law: > GR evolves smoothly and deterministically; quantum evolution is probabilistic > and discontinuous upon measurement. > Continuum vs. discreteness: > GR’s continuum manifolds clash with QM’s quantized fields and operators. > Attempting to merge them yields contradictions. Quantizing gravity by > standard techniques leads to non-renormalizable infinities. String theory > replaces point particles with one-dimensional objects to tame those > divergences, while loop quantum gravity discretizes space itself into spin > networks. Both remain mathematically elegant yet empirically unconfirmed. > The deeper problem is conceptual: both assume laws are fixed and > pre-existent. Time, in both frameworks, is treated as a parameter that orders > events, not as something that itself evolves. When we extrapolate back to t → > 0, these assumptions collapse. The singularity is not a physical object but a > signal that the framework itself has reached its limit. > Thus, the standard model offers a magnificent but incomplete chronicle. It > describes how the cosmos evolves from 10⁻³⁶ s onward, but not why laws > themselves appear, why symmetries break as they do, or why certain constants > take the values that make structure possible. > III. The Peircean Family of Hypotheses > 1. Philosophical Premise: Law as Evolving Habit > C. S. Peirce proposed in his 1891 essay “The Architecture of Theories” that > “the only possible way of accounting for the laws of nature and for > uniformity in general is to suppose them results of evolution.” The universe, > on this view, begins not in order but in pure spontaneity, a chaos of > ungoverned possibilities. Through repetition and reinforcement of relations > that persist, habits form; habits stabilize into laws. > 2. Ontological Ingredients: > Firstness — Pure Potentiality as Quality: The primordial condition is a field > of highly vague, undifferentiated potential having a continuum of qualities, > comparable to a pre-metric manifold. Temporal relations are not well ordered. > Spatial relations have very high degrees of freedom, approximating an > infinitude of vague topological dimensions. > Secondness — Reaction: Initially, there are no actual objects having a > substantial character of individuals that perdue over time. Rather, highly > random encounters among continuous potentials yield constraints—proto-events > analogous to quantum fluctuations. > Thirdness — Mediation/Habit: Stable patterns emerge that mediate between > possibilities and facts; these are the early ordered habits that evolve into > laws having symmetries. > This triadic cycle repeats iteratively, giving rise to more complex, > self-referential systems of law. Order grows as natural habits. In time, > these natural habits take the character of natural laws having nested levels > of necessity and contingency, woven together into an evolving system of > regularities. > 3. Cosmological Reformulation > In mathematical terms, the Peircean hypothesis treats the evolution of order > as a process of constraint accumulation in an initially unconstrained > relational manifold. Instead of assuming pre-existing spacetime, we posit > networks of relations—logical and topological—whose persistent interactions > generate the effective metric structure. > Temporal Order: Time is not a fixed metrical parameter but an emergent order > parameter expressing the persistence of relation. > Metric Emergence: As habits of relation stabilize, equivalence classes of > relational paths become metrically consistent; curvature arises from > deviations in those habits. > Quantum Indeterminacy: Rather than randomness being primitive, indeterminacy > reflects ongoing openness of the habit-formation process—what Peirce called > tychism. > 4. Physical Analogues > In practice, these ideas correspond to several contemporary research > directions. Here are a few: > Causal-set theory, which builds spacetime from ordered relations. > Process physics (Cahill, Kauffman), in which information networks > self-organize into geometry. > Relational quantum mechanics, treating states as relations rather than > substances. > The models I am developing seek to formalize these insights through iterative > mapping functions on networks of relations—analogous to topological and > projective transformations that, through self-consistency constraints, > converge toward a stable metric manifold. > 5. Epochal Reconstruction > In this framework, the first “second” is not a moment after a singularity but > a phase transition from ungoverned potential to emergent order: > Pre-habit phase (Peircean Firstness): Random relation fields without duration > or extent. > Formation of stable triads (Secondness → Thirdness): Self-consistent > relational loops persist; these become the seeds of temporal and spatial > continuity. > Emergent metrics: Statistical regularities among triads define curvature; > gravitational attraction is a large-scale manifestation of this tendency of > relations to cohere. > Law consolidation: Repeated patterns establish stable transformation > rules—analogues of conservation laws and field equations. > Thus, what the standard model describes as inflation and symmetry breaking > are interpreted as episodes of accelerated habit formation, in which local > relational networks reach new equilibria. > 6. Testable and Mathematical Implications > Variable constants: If laws evolve, coupling constants may vary slowly over > cosmic time—a testable prediction. > Self-organizing field equations: Einstein’s equations appear as late-stage > equilibria of evolving relational space/time constraints that co-evolve with > the natural habits that evolve into the laws governing strong, weak, and EM > forces. > No initial singularity: The vague highly random potential fields in which > space and time are not yet ordered are posited as kind of limiting case from > which order grows as a self-limiting process. > This metaphysical framework can be made exact by representing evolving > relational networks through categorical or topological formalisms, such as > spin networks or iterative projective geometries, providing a unified schema > that naturally bridges quantum discreteness and gravitational continuity. > IV. Comparative Evaluation > The standard cosmological model stands as one of the great triumphs of modern > science. It quantitatively predicts nucleosynthesis, cosmic microwave > background anisotropies, and large-scale structure. Its weakness lies not in > what it explains, but in what it must assume: fixed laws, fixed constants, > and a spacetime framework that pre-exists the very universe it describes. It > is operationally powerful yet ontologically incomplete. When traced back to > the first instants, its equations give rise to tensions bordering on > contradictions--singularities and unexplained initial conditions. > The Peircean family of hypotheses inverts the order of explanation. It begins > with chaos, not law; with relation, not substance; with habit formation, not > imposed rule. Its strength is conceptual coherence across scales: the same > logic of iterative habit formation that explains the emergence of atomic > stability or biological order also accounts for cosmic law. It offers a > genuinely evolutionary metaphysics of law, potentially unifying physical and > logical modes of order. > Yet it faces formidable challenges. It lacks a single, empirically confirmed > mathematical formalism equivalent to GR or quantum field theory. Its language > of “habits” and “relations” must be rigorously specified to make testable > predictions. It risks drifting toward philosophical generality if not > anchored in quantitative models. > In sum: > Criterion > Standard Model > Peircean Habit Hypothesis > Predictive Power > High (CMB, nucleosynthesis, structure) > Moderate (conceptual; testable via variable constants) > Ontological Coherence > Fragmented (QM vs GR) > Unified (laws evolve from habits) > Empirical Confirmation > Extensive > Emerging / indirect > Explanatory Depth > Assumes laws > Explains laws > Mathematical Formalism > Mature > Developing (categorical/topological) > > For those who, like me, would like to develop and apply Peirce's methods and > explanatory strategies to contemporary questions in cosmology, our work is > cut out for us. How might we move from informal diagrams and toy models (e.g. > a spot of ink on a page, a blackboard, rolling of dice, drawing from an urn, > etc.) to formal models? What mathematical frameworks should we draw on for > the sake of developing models that will enable us to make the hypotheses > about the law of mind and the growth of order more exact? > > Yours, > > Jeff > > > > > From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> on > behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2025 5:55 PM > To: Peirce-L <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] An attempt at at dialogical integration of Peirce's > early and late cosmologies, was, Peirce's semeiotic holism > > Gary R., List: > > In accordance with my label of the first cosmological "layer" as the > constitution of being, you are correct that it would apply to any possible > universe. However, as I see it, there is no reason to suspect that any other > universes exist except our own; in fact, since such a conception has no > practical bearings, it is "meaningless gibberish" (CP 5.423, EP 2:338, 1905). > Put another way, the inexhaustible continuum (3ns) of indefinite > possibilities (1ns) indeed transcends our universe, but those possibilities > that have been actualized (2ns) constitute our universe. After all, Peirce > posits multiple "Platonic worlds" but only one "actual universe of > existence," which is the one "in which we happen to be" (CP 6.208, 1898). > > My use of "complete chaos" to describe the initial state of things also comes > directly from Peirce. "The original chaos, therefore, where there was no > regularity, was in effect a state of mere indeterminacy, in which nothing > existed or really happened" (CP 1.411, EP 1:278, 1887-8). "The state of > things in the infinite past is chaos, tohu bohu, the nothingness of which > consists in the total absence of regularity" (CP 8.317, 1891). "So, that > primeval chaos in which there was no regularity was mere nothing, from a > physical aspect" (CP 6.265, EP 1:348, 1892). "In the original chaos, where > there was no regularity, there was no existence. ... This we may suppose was > in the infinitely distant past" (CP 1.175, c. 1897). > > I agree that the entire universe cannot possibly be a complex adaptive system > without existing within an environment to which it is adaptingitself, and > that 1ns encompasses not only qualities but also "Freedom, or Chance, or > Spontaneity" (CP 6.200, 1898). > > GR: Peirce’s grand semeiotic vision in which the universe itself is conceived > as a vast sign, a perfect sign, and a semiosic continuum from which facts > (and events?) are prescinded > > To clarify, Peirce explicitly describes the universe as "a vast > representamen," but he does not directly connect his remarks about a "perfect > sign" to the universe, and I am not aware of any writings where he refers to > a "semiosic continuum." That is why the subtitle of my "Semiosic Synechism" > paper is "A Peircean Argumentation," not "Peirce's Argumentation"; I believe > that my synthesis is faithful to his insights, but I recognize that he never > spelled it out that way himself. > > As for your reference to "facts (and events?)," Peirce seems to maintain that > we only prescind facts, because he defines an event as "an existential > junction of incompossible facts ... The event is the existential junction of > states (that is, of that which in existence corresponds to a statement about > a given subject in representation) whose combination in one subject would > violate the logical law of contradiction" (CP 1.492&494, c. 1896). This is > consistent with his remark a decade later, "A fact is so highly a > prescissively abstract state of things, that it can be wholly represented in > a simple proposition" (CP 5.549, EP 2:378, 1906). > > Peirce also takes exception with "the idea that a cause is an event of such a > kind as to be necessarily followed by another event which is the effect" (CP > 6.66, 1898). On the contrary, "So far as the conception of cause has any > validity ... the cause and its effect are two facts" (CP 6.67). "Now it is > the ineluctable blunder of a nominalist ... to talk of the cause of an event. > But it is not an existential event that has a cause. It is thefact, which is > the reference of the event to a general relation, that has a cause" (CP 6.93, > 1903). We prescind two different facts and recognize that the earlier one is > a cause, the later one is its effect, and the change from one state of things > to the other is an event. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > > On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 11:00 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Jon, List, > > We are clearly in agreement on one matter: that while Peirce initially > conceived the universe as beginning with 1ns (possibility, “boundless > freedom”), he later came to see 3ns (generality, continuity, habit-taking) as > primordial. Categorial involution—that is, that 3ns involves 2ns & 1ns, and > 2ns involves only 1ns—adds logical support to that later view. Additional > support comes from your arguing the cosmological integration of these three > as a continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities (1ns), only some of which > become actualized (2ns), with the sequence of events unfolding as spontaneity > (1ns), reaction (2ns), and habit (3ns). As you argue, this reinforces an > underlying evolutionary trajectory from chaos, through process, toward > regularity (ultimately, complete regularity in Peirce’s view). > > JAS: My own attempt at integrating these two accounts or phases was to > suggest that the constitution (or hierarchy) of being is an inexhaustible > continuum (3ns) of indefinite possibilities (1ns), some of which are > actualized (2ns); while thesequence of events in each case when this happens > consists of spontaneity (1ns) followed by reaction (2ns) and then > habit-taking (3ns). The resulting overall evolution of states is from > complete chaos (1ns) in the infinite past, through this ongoing process (3ns) > at any assignable date, toward complete regularity (2ns) in the infinite > future. These three "layers" conform respectively to your categorial vectors > of representation, order, and process. (Emphasis added, GR) > > You seem to be arguing that your three layers (italicized above): the > constitution of being, the sequence of events, and the overall evolution of > states all apply to our existing universe. I don't agree. As I've been > arguing, the blackboard metaphor suggests to me that your first layer, the > constitution of being, does not apply only to our universe, but to any > possible universe that might come into existence. Indeed, in my view 'being' > is not 'constituted' in the proto-universe represented by the blackboard at > all -- that's why I refer to it as a proto-universe. There is, no doubt, a > reality moving towards existence; but in my reading of the lecture in which > the blackboard analogy appears, out of the infinite number of 'Platonic > ideas' any number of different ones might have been 'selected' so that some > other universe different from ours might have come into existence (who knows? > has come into existence). > > I would also not call the proto-world foreshadowing our existent cosmos > "complete chaos". The ur-continuity of the blackboard already suggests that > there is something in the cosmic schema that has the capacity and > intelligence to select just those Platonic ideas which can be and will be > realized in an actual, existential, evolutionary cosmos such as ours. What > seems at all 'chaotic' to me is that infinite number of Platonic 'ideas' > (characters, qualities, dimensions, categories, etc.) But do those > possibilities actually represent chaos? > > But to return for a moment to a different cosmological disagreement, it has > been pointed out before by several on the List including both of us, that the > universe as a whole cannot qualify as a complex adaptive system because it > does not exist within a larger environment to which it must constantly adapt. > For example, in Peirce's cosmology 1ns corresponds not essentially to > qualities but to pure possibility and “boundless freedom.” In his 1898 > blackboard analogy Peirce explicitly does not confine these categories to the > spatiotemporal universe; instead, he refers to “Platonic worlds” of infinite > possibilities, some of which become the characters of a universe which will > come into being. He is clear that this particular universe in which we live > and breathe and have our being came out of one such Platonic world, which may > even suggest, as I and others have noted, an early multi-universe model. > > The two later developments in Peirce’s thought which you say shaped your own > synthesis, Jon: (1) the topical conception of continuity which sees a > continuum as an undivided whole of indefinite parts, and (2) Peirce’s grand > semeiotic vision in which the universe itself is conceived as a vast sign, a > perfect sign, and a semiosic continuum from which facts (and events?) are > prescinded—further explicates and extends Peirce’s cosmology. > > Best, > > Gary R > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> . > ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> > . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, > then go to > https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . > ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and > co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
