Howard,
So you don't believe that the real world, "nature" as it is beyond our models, places any constraints on abduction? or on any kind of inference? gary f. From: Howard Pattee [mailto:hpat...@roadrunner.com] Sent: 31-Jan-15 11:06 AM To: biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee; Peirce List; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee Subject: [biosemiotics:8056] Re: Triadic Relations At 09:44 AM 1/31/2015, Gary Fuhrman wrote: What you [John] are saying is essentially that we may not use this [Peirce's] language, nor may we use the term determine to signify the relation between objects in the real world (including generals) and the propositions about them, the signs which express "fact". So by your lights, we can't say that a sign is determined by its object to determine an interpretant even if we can say that a dropped rock is determined by gravitation to fall in a specific direction. HP: I think John is correct. I can say that according to the (symbolically expressed) law of gravity this law predicts that a rock is determined to fall. I cannot correctly say that the above expression of the law of gravity is determined. Like all creative models it was discovered using abduction. 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 .
