but Howard, saying this, you assume natural selection to be a real process - and not just a linguistic convention …
F Den 17/01/2015 kl. 21.28 skrev Howard Pattee <hpat...@roadrunner.com<mailto:hpat...@roadrunner.com>>: Thank you Ben for a clear answer. I would say, then, that in thinking about formal mathematics Peirce was to some extent nominalistic, which of course leaves him free to be realistic about diagrams and physics. The basis for considering logic to be realistic is still mysterious to me. Of course there is still a great epistemic variety among today's mathematicians and physicists, largely because of great mysteries. Natural selection has made sure we begin life as naive realists which is necessary for immediate survival. However, as physics has had to rely more and more on creative imagination for models of events, which are way beyond natural senses and common sense, it is only reasonable that the models become more nominalistic. Howard
----------------------------- 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 .
