Gary R, List Again, my comments on your post, with your claim of certainty about several concepts, are...I think one has to be careful in setting up ‘final conclusions’ about Peirce’s analyses as if all questions were completely settled.
I continue to suggest that Peirce’s cosmology does include consideration of the nature of physics; [see his outline in Man’s Glassy Essence] and, with regard to the categories, that all three are foundational and basic elements rather than linear developments. I am aware that JAS has provided a reference to another researcher, N. Guardiano, who shares the views of JAS and Gary R, and sees Thirdness as primary – and of course, he is not alone in this view. However, the opposite is just as prevalent. I refer for one example, to Philip Rose’s paper on Emergent Cosmology …. C.S. Peirce’s Cosmogonic Philosophy of Emergent Evolution... SCIO. Revista de Filosofía, n.º 12, Noviembre de 2016, 123-142, ISSN: 1887-9853 He writes in the introduction: “One of the earliest proponents of the idea of emergent evolution in its strong ontological sense is C.S. Peirce. Peirce was among the first to extend the general principles of evolution to an ontological level, taking both the spontaneity of chance and a general principle of growth to be real, irreducible ingredients of the general order of Nature." Rose writes: “Central to Peirce’s account is the radical claim that both the conditions of mechanism (which fall under the dyadic Category of Secondness) and law-like generality (which fall under the triadic Category of Thirdness) are actually emergent conditions that arise from the more basic or base condition of chance (or Firstness). ‘ As Peirce writes in Man’s Glassy Essence EP I :347, “At any rate it is clear that nothing but a principle of habit, itself due to the growth of habit of in infinitesimal chance tendency toward habit-taking is the only bridge that can span the chasm between the chance medley of chaos and the cosmos of order and law”. My point? We are all interpreting Peirce and can’t declare out views as ‘the correct ones’. Edwina > On Oct 7, 2025, at 12:54 AM, Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > > List, > > Before we plunge (hopefully) into exploring Peircean cosmology in relation to > contemporary cosmological views (and vice versa), I would like to make three > general remarks about Peirce's late cosmology which, whatever yet is > unresolved in our different views (although his most recent post answers the > most important questions I've put to him), I believe both Jon and I agree > upon the following points, principally because they come with considerable > textual support. > > 1. Peirce's cosmology does not concern the fundamental laws of physics. > Rather, he is offering a hypothesis as to how those very laws came about in > the first place. That is metaphysics, not physics. As I earlier noted, Jeff > has already pointed to this essential point near the end of his post > introducing this thread. > > 2. Peirce explicitly makes clear that 3ns does not result from 1ns and 2ns. > In fact he argues that this is impossible, that 3ns cannot be built up from > 1ns and 2ns. Quotations to that effect have been repeatedly offered on the > List. Rather, as has been noted here (again, repeatedly for decades), 3ns > involves 2ns and 1ns. Peirce's category theory is (wherever it may be applied > including, of course, to metaphysics) top-down, not bottom-up. > > 3. Peirce makes clear that continuity is "original" and "inherent in > potentiality" (his words), i.e., generality (3ns) precedes both possibility > (1ns) and actuality (2ns) -- cf. 2. above. Again, many quotations have been > offered in support of this principle. > > I would also encourage those interested in Peirce's late cosmology to read > the concluding lecture in the Cambridge Conference Lectures of 1898 published > in paperback as Reasoning and the Logic of Things. The blackboard diagram > discussion begins on the bottom of page 261 (I don't believe an online > version of this lecture is available). > > In my view, nowhere is Peirce's extraordinary creative genius revealed more > fully than in this lecture series, and especially the concluding lecture > wherein I see him anticipating any number of 20th century scientific advances. > > Best, > > Gary R > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 4:25 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Jeff, List, >> >> It will take me some time to mentally assimilate your post, but it is most >> impressive, and I believe that it contributes mightily to the discussion of >> cosmology we've been having. I sincerely hope that everyone here interested >> in Peirce's cosmology in relation to contemporary versions reads it closely >> and critically. >> >> One thing I will say for now is it is helpful that you make the distinction >> between Peirce's metaphysics and the physics of current cosmological models. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R >> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 2:21 PM Jeffrey Brian Downard <[email protected] >> <mailto:[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 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] >>> <mailto:[email protected]> . >>> ► <a href="mailto:[email protected] >>> <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.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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.
