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 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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.” 4. 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. 5. 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). 6. 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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: 1. Pre-habit phase (Peircean Firstness): Random relation fields without duration or extent. 2. Formation of stable triads (Secondness → Thirdness): Self-consistent relational loops persist; these become the seeds of temporal and spatial continuity. 3. Emergent metrics: Statistical regularities among triads define curvature; gravitational attraction is a large-scale manifestation of this tendency of relations to cohere. 4. 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] <[email protected]> on behalf of Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 5, 2025 5:55 PM To: Peirce-L <[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 adapting itself, 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 the fact, 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 the sequence 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] . ► <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.
