Jerry As I understand it, this is where the concept of information in self-organizing systems has its relevance in modern physics . But for Peirce it would be Thirdness, but where the habits comes from evolutionary in a metaphysics that does not believe in Platonic ideas or even Aristotelian forms I do not know. And I do not know any relevant Peirce text. Søren
-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] Sendt: 28. juni 2014 21:44 Til: Søren Brier Cc: Evgenii Rudnyi; peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The second law of thermodynamics Soren, List: Does the concept of heat embody the concept of form? If so, how? Entropy, as a component of the logic of thermodynamics, lacks form. What gives entropy form? Cheers jerry On Jun 28, 2014, at 6:54 AM, Søren Brier wrote: > Dear Evgenii and list > > That fact is - as Schrödinger and Prigogine points out - that more and more > complicated self-organized systems develop feeding on the general growth of > entropy in the universe. These systems order more and more of their > surroundings in order to support and prolong their own existence. We are > already influencing the whole of our planet and is beginning to explore other > planets in the solar system in order to use them for our own purpose. So, > Peirce is right that our rationality is influencing the universe. Who can say > if order or chaos will win in the end? > > Best > Søren > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Evgenii Rudnyi [mailto:use...@rudnyi.ru] > Sendt: 28. juni 2014 09:44 > Til: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] The second law of thermodynamics > > There is a nice historical book > > Helge Kragh, Entropic Creation: Religious Contexts of Thermodynamics > and Cosmology, 2008 > > where the author discusses the heat death debates in 1850-1920. Peirce is > mentioned there and a quote from the book is below. > > p. 187-188 "In 1891 he [Peirce] described his hypothesis as follows: > > 'The state of things in the infinite past is chaos ... the nothingness of > which consists in the total absence of regularity. The state of things in the > infinite future is death, the nothingness of which consists in the complete > triumph of law and absence of all spontaneity. > Between these, we have on our side a state of things in which there is some > absolute spontaneity counter to all law, and some degree of conformity to > law, ...' > > This picture, starting from chaos and ending in an ordered and symmetrical > system, turns the ordinary interpretation of the second law on its head. Some > years earlier, in a 1884 lecture on 'Design and Chance', he declared that the > heat death - in which 'there shall be no force but heat and the temperature > everywhere the same' - was unavoidable. Confusingly, the next year he > rejected the global heat death scenario, retracting to a position similar to > that of many other evolutionary progressivists of the Victorian era: 'But, on > the other hand, we may take it as certain that other intellectual races exist > on other planets, - if not of our solar system, then of others; and also that > innumerable new intellectual races have yet to be developed; so that on the > whole, it may be regarded as most certain that intellectual life in the > universe will never finally cease.' Perhaps he thought, such as he said in > his 'Design and Chance', that the living universe would be saved by what he > called 'chance', an influence he considered to be opposite to dissipative > forces, of what some later authors referred to as 'entropy'." > > Evgenii > -- > http://blog.rudnyi.ru > > On 27.06.2014 17:15 Stephen C. Rose said the following: >> How fixed is the scientific argument for this law? Certainly in this >> century there have been some who have chipped away at the idea of >> entropy as a fixed star in an otherwise fallible (subject to >> revision) scientific universe. And I am unaware of where Peirce stood >> on this matter. Were his notions of continuity and logic uneasy in >> the shadow of the assertion that everything falls apart? >> >> *@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* >> > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu > with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at > http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
