Ben wrote: " . . . some people think that the chiral asymmetry in fundamental particles and forces may give rise to observed chiral asymmetry in organic molecules in biochemistry."
One of the pioneers in this field is Dilip Kondepudi, a student of the late Prigogine, of the Wakeforest University Department of Chemistry. I am sure he would be happy to answer any question you may have on this topic. di...@wfu.edu. With all the best. > Gary R., Gary F., lists, > > Thanks for the reminder, Gary R. about renaming tangential threads. I > should have done that a while ago with some threads that I've been on. > > Regarding conservation of energy: My understanding is that, in general > relativity it's considered not to be conserved in an expanding or > contracting universe, although it's still regardable as conserved in > normal situations with some assumptions beyond those in special > relativity. > > Just about anybody's guess is probably better than mine as to how that > relates to what Peirce said about energy conservation and tychism. > > There is a left-right asymmetry in fundamental forces and particles, > which I had thought seems 'less' of an asymmetry if one takes > anti-matter into account, but I'm no expert. (And then there is the > observed matter-antimatter asymmetry itself.) Anyway, some people think > that the chiral asymmetry in fundamental particles and forces may give > rise to observed chiral asymmetry in organic molecules in biochemistry. > But who knows. > > Best, Ben > > On 9/30/2014 2:44 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > >> Gary F., Lists, >> >> Although I found came upon the quotation below in searching for texts >> on "genuineness" in Peirce, I've decided to give this post a new >> subject line as it seems only tangentially related to dicisigns. >> >> The passage (copied below) has interested me for years, so much so >> that at one point I made extensive notes on it and some related >> passages in preparation for writing a paper having the working title, >> "Peirce and Chirality," but I got distracted by life and never >> finished it. Yet I remain as interested in "handedness" as ever and, >> in truth, have been ever since, in my twenties I believe, I read a >> marvelous piece of popular science by Martin Gardner titled /The >> Ambidextrous Universe,/ which in it latest updated version has been >> re-titled /The/ New /Ambidextrous Universe: Symmetry and Assymmetry >> from Mirror Reflections to Superstrings. / I would like to get into >> Peirce and chirality at some point after the NP seminar if there's >> interest in that topic and will then refer to some of the sources the >> Gardner book took me to. >> >> The Peirce passage, a long paragraph which I've broken up into several >> smaller ones, is of some interest in relation not only to chirality >> but to several topics which have recently been discussed on these >> lists,and especially to the problem of the origin of life. >> >> In segment (a). Peirce writes that he has not found a single "genuine >> triadic relation" which is not "an intellectual relation" or one >> concerned with the "phenomena of life." This would seem to argue >> against a pre-biological semiosis /if/ genuine triadic relations are >> considered sine qua non for semiosis (but are they?) >> >> But then he offers by way of "brute, inorganic" example, chirality, >> and argues that L- R-handedness (d) "could not be caused by the >> inorganic action of dynamical law": >> >> (e) . . . the only way in which the laws of dynamics involve >> triadic relations is by their reference to second differentials of >> positions. But though a second differential generally involves a >> triadic relation, yet owing to the law of the conservation of >> energy [. . .] which has been sufficiently proved for purely >> inorganic phenomena, the dynamic laws for such phenomena are >> expressible in terms of first differentials. It is, therefore, a >> non-genuine, or, as I phrase it, a "degenerate" form of triadic >> relationship. >> >> So, given that the pervasive holochirality in the universe seems >> inexplicable unless 'chance' be offered as its explanation, while (d) >> "it is a question whether absolute chance -- pure tychism -- ought not >> to be regarded as a product of freedom, and therefore of life," Peirce >> concludes that in consideration of "the problem of how life first came >> about" that >> >> (e). . the problem of how genuine triadic relationships first >> arose in the world is a better, because more definite, formulation >> of the problem of how life first came about; and no explanation >> has ever been offered except that of pure chance, which we must >> suspect to be no explanation, owing to the suspicion that pure >> chance may itself be a vital phenomenon. >> >> Of course since his time there have been other explanations offered. >> What interests me for now is that in that earlier comment in (d) as to >> whether absolute chance "ought not to be regarded as a product of >> freedom, and therefore of life" Peirce adds a remarkable phrase >> modifying 'life', namely, "not necessarily physiological." Thus, the >> complete snippet reads: >> >> . . . it is a question whether absolute chance -- pure tychism -- >> ought not to be regarded as /a product of freedom, and therefore >> of life, not necessarily physiological/ . (emphasis added) >> >> But what can that phrase "not necessarily physiological" be pointing >> to? Still, and mainly, Peirce offers "the problem of how genuine >> triadic relationships first arose in the world" as being "a better, >> because more definite, formulation of the problem of how life first >> came about." >> >> It would appear that this matter of "genuineness" really might be a >> key to resolving a number of issues currently under discussion, and >> I'm glad you brought it up Gary. >> >> Here's the complete passage referred to: >> >> a. For forty years, that is, since the beginning of the year 1867, I >> have been constantly on the alert to find a genuine triadic relation >> -- that is, one that does not consist in a mere collocation of dyadic >> relations [. . . ] which is not either an intellectual relation or a >> relation concerned with the less comprehensible phenomena of life. I >> have not met with one which could not reasonably be supposed to belong >> to one or other of these two classes. >> >> b. As a case as nearly brute and inorganic as any, I may mention the >> form of relationship involved in any screw-form which is definitely of >> the right-hand, or occidental, mode, or is definitely of the Japanese, >> or left-handed, mode. Such a relation exists in every carbon-atom >> whose four valencies are saturated by combination with four atoms of >> as many different kinds. But where the action of chance determines >> whether the screw be a right-handed or a left-handed one, the two >> forms will, in the long run, be produced in equal proportions, and the >> general result will not be definitely, or decisively, of either kind. >> >> c. We know no case of a definitely right-handed or left-handed >> screw-phenomenon, where the decision is not certainly due to the >> intervention of a definitely one-sided screw in the conditions of that >> decision, except in cases where the choice of a living being >> determines it; as when Pasteur picked out under the microscope the two >> kinds of crystals of a tartrate, and shoved those of one kind to the >> right and those of the other kind to the left. >> >> d. We do not know the mechanism of such choice, and cannot say whether >> it be determined by an antecedent separation of left-handed screws >> from right-handed screws or not. No doubt, all that chance is >> competent to destroy, it may, once in a long, long time, produce; but >> it is a question whether absolute chance -- pure tychism -- ought not >> to be regarded as a product of freedom, and therefore of life, not >> necessarily physiological. It could not be caused, apparently, by the >> inorganic action of dynamical law. >> >> e. For the only way in which the laws of dynamics involve triadic >> relations is by their reference to second differentials of >> positions. But though a second differential generally involves a >> triadic relation, yet owing to the law of the conservation of energy, >> which has been sufficiently proved for purely inorganic phenomena, the >> dynamic laws for such phenomena are expressible in terms of first >> differentials. It is, therefore, a non-genuine, or, as I phrase it, a >> "degenerate" form of triadic relationship which is involved in such >> case. In short, the problem of how genuine triadic relationships first >> arose in the world is a better, because more definite, formulation of >> the problem of how life first came about; and no explanation has ever >> been offered except that of pure chance, which we must suspect to be >> no explanation, owing to the suspicion that pure chance may itself be >> a vital phenomenon. In that case, life in the physiological sense >> would be due to life in the metaphysical sense. . . . CP 6.322 >> >> Best, >> >> Gary R. >> > Sungchul Ji, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy Rutgers University Piscataway, N.J. 08855 732-445-4701 www.conformon.net
----------------------------- 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 .
