List, Jon: A few comments about the relationship between these comments on synechism and modern chemistry.
CSP cited Boscovich with regard to possible structures of atoms and his views on interpenetrability of atoms. See below. The assertion "Synechism is not an ultimate and absolute metaphysical doctrine;" is a negation. Almost completely meaningless. The assertion "it is a regulative principle of logic, prescribing what sort of hypothesis is fit to be entertained and examined." merely states that it is open question. "For that would be to attempt to explain the phenomena by means of an absolute inexplicability." I agree. This is why the CSP's theory of synechism is not cited by modern authors of theoretical physics or chemistry. Cheers Jerry From: http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Boscovich.html In [19] Manara writes about Boscovich's work on continuity and the nature of space:- In our opinion the great genius, versatile intelligence, and originality of this Dalmatian physicist and mathematician warrant the remembrance and the study of his works and thought. ... In a treatise [held in the Catholic University at Brescia] Boscovich presents his own ideas concerning continuity, which is seen as a property of what is usually called geometric space. Earlier we analysed his treatise from this point of view in an attempt to cast light upon Boscovich's ideas concerning the question, much debated at the time, of what one might call 'the nature and constitution of the geometric continuum', a problem associated with the question of geometric indivisibles, which originated with the works of Bonaventura Cavalieri and was debated at length. Let us briefly summarize what we feel to be the fundamental points of Boscovich's thoughts concerning these topics: Boscovich accepts the Aristotelian definition of continuous quantity; according to that definition, the continuum is characterized by the fact that the parts have a common end. In this conception, the point is considered an 'end' of the line, and is therefore indivisible and of a nature different from that of the segment. The geometric continuum is infinitely divisible; segments, no matter how small or how large, can arise. There do not exist true infinitesimal segments. The law of continuity holds in all cases for geometric curves, which cannot have stopping points or discontinuities. Boscovich was therefore able to conceive of matter as made up of nonextensive material points acted upon by forces that not only are attractive, as determined byNewton's law of gravitation, but can also become repulsive at short distances; this explains the phenomenon of cohesion no less than that of the impenetrability and solidity of matter. On Nov 9, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14919 > HP:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/14920 > > Thanks, Howard, I have a jumble of responses to your questions that I will > try to organize later, but in casting about the web for e-lightenment I found > the following passage from CP 6.173 to be very much to the point: > > 1902 | Synechism | CP 6.173 > ---------------------------- > > Synechism is not an ultimate and absolute metaphysical doctrine; it is a > regulative principle of logic, prescribing what sort of hypothesis is fit to > be entertained and examined. The synechist, for example, would never be > satisfied with the hypothesis that matter is composed of atoms, all spherical > and exactly alike. If this is the only hypothesis that the mathematicians > are as yet in condition to handle, it may be supposed that it may have > features of resemblance with the truth. But neither the eternity of the > atoms nor their precise resemblance is, in the synechist's view, an element > of the hypothesis that is even admissible hypothetically. For that would be > to attempt to explain the phenomena by means of an absolute inexplicability. > > ☞ http://www.commens.org/dictionary/term/synechism > > Regards, > > Jon > > Howard Pattee wrote: >> At 11:04 PM 11/8/2014, Jon Awbrey wrote: >>> It is necessary to distinguish the mathematical concepts of continuity and >>> infinity from the question of their physical realization. The mathematical >>> concepts retain their practical utility for modeling empirical phenomena >>> quite independently of the (meta-)physical question of whether these >>> continua and cardinalities are literally realized in the physical universe. >> HP: Yes! To reduce confusion this necessity should always be kept in mind. >> Consequently, so should the >> <https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22symbol-matter+problem%22>symbol-matter >> problem it must entail. The mathematical concepts are rule-governed symbols >> and the physical universe is law-governed matter. The relation between >> symbolic rules and natural laws is both "occult and mysterious" (Peirce) and >> "unreasonably effective" (Wigner). >> Peirce: "What is a law, then? It is a formula to which real events truly >> conform. By ' conform,' I mean that, taking the formula as a general >> principle, if experience shows that the formula applies to a given event, >> then the result will be confirmed by experience. But that such a general >> formula is a symbol, and more particularly, an asserted symbolical >> proposition, is evident." (cf. Hertz) >> Max Planck: "It is not therefore the case, as is sometimes stated, that the >> physical world image [in brains] can or should contain only directly >> observable magnitudes. The contrary is the fact. The world image contains no >> observable magnitudes at all; all that it contains is symbols." The >> Philosophy of Physics. New York: W. W. Norton, 1936, p.55. >> Herman Weyl: However, the only decisive feature of all measurements is, it >> seems, symbolic representation." Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural >> Science, Princeton Univ. Press, 1949, p.144. >> Max Born: "All knowledge is subjective, without exception." . . . "Symbols >> are the carriers of communication between individuals and thus decisive for >> the possibility of objective knowledge." (Symbol and Reality) >> In my opinion the need for additional epistemological models (realist, >> nominalist, idealist, constructivist, etc.) is motivated by our desire to >> reduce the mystery and unreasonableness of the symbol-matter relation. But >> no epistemology can alter this basic necessity of symbolic representation. >> I think there is evidence that most epistemologies reflect largely >> unconscious psychological, cultural, aesthetic and religious influences, >> because they have proven historically to be logically and empirically >> undecidable. >> Howard > > -- > > academia: http://independent.academia.edu/JonAwbrey > my word press blog: http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/ > inquiry list: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/ > isw: http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/JLA > oeiswiki: http://www.oeis.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey > facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/JonnyCache > > ----------------------------- > 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] > . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] > 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
