Dear Steven
Are you aware of the work of Unger and Smolin where they argue for the
evolution of laws?
The Singular Universe….THE SINGULAR UNIVERSE AND THE REALITY OF TIME
Cambridge University Press, November 30, 2014.
Synopsis
This is a book on the nature of time and the basic laws of nature. We argue
for the inclusive reality of time as well as for the mutability of the laws of
nature. We seek to breathe new life and meaning into natural philosophy –- a
form of reasoning that crosses the boundaries between science and philosophy.
The work should appeal to a broad educated readership as well as to scientists
and philosophers. It is not a popularization, but neither does it use a
technical vocabulary that would restrict it to specialized readers. The
subjects that it addresses are of paramount interest to people in many
disciplines outside cosmology and physics.
In the twentieth century, physics and cosmology overturned the idea of an
unchanging background of time and space. In so doing, however, they maintained
the idea of an immutable framework of laws of nature. This second idea must now
also be attacked and replaced. What results is a new picture of the agenda of
physics and cosmology as well as of the methods of fundamental science.
The book develops four inter-related themes:
1) There is only one universe at a time. Our universe is not one of many
worlds. It has no copy or complete model, even in mathematics. The current
interest in multiverse cosmologies is based on fallacious reasoning.
2) Time is real, and indeed the only aspect of our description of nature which
is not emergent or approximate. The inclusive reality of time has revolutionary
implications for many of our conventional beliefs.
3) Everything evolves in this real time including laws of nature. There is
only a relative distinction between laws and the states of affairs that they
govern..
4) Mathematics deals with the one real world. We need not imagine it to be a
shortcut to timeless truth about an immaterial reality (Platonism) in order to
make sense of its “unreasonable effectiveness” in science.
We argue by systematic philosophical and scientific reasoning , as well as by
detailed examples, that these principles are the only way theoretical cosmology
can break out of its current crisis in a manner that is scientific, i.e.
results in falsifiable predictions for doable experiments.
And Smolin’s Time Reborn
“What is time?
It’s the sort of question we rarely ask because it seems so obvious. And yet,
to a physicist, time is simply a human construct and an illusion. If you could
somehow get outside the universe and observe it from there, you would see that
every moment has always existed and always will. Lee Smolin disagrees, and in
Time Reborn he lays out the case why.
Recent developments in physics and cosmology point toward the reality of time
and the openness of the future. Smolin’s groundbreaking theory postulates that
physical laws can evolve over time and the future is not yet determined.
Newton’s fundamental laws may not remain so fundamental.”
Smolin quotes Peirce several times in this book for the view that different
laws emerging in the course of the development of the universe over time.
Søren
Fra: stevenzen...@gmail.com [mailto:stevenzen...@gmail.com] På vegne af Steven
Ericsson-Zenith
Sendt: 18. marts 2015 22:54
Til: Edwina Taborsky
Cc: Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Jerry LR Chandler; Peirce List
Emne: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A System Of Analytic Mechanics
Let's see if I can do better :-)
1. and 2. I understand your point. However, I have argued that the elder
Peirce's "re-conceive" religion as science. It is certainly the case that Comte
rails against religion but Benjamin says "wait" science needs to explain
*everything* as one universe including the many of the things traditionally
considered by religion (esp. "the mind," "spirituality," and "social order"),
so obviously much can go but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Science as a religion is certainly a re-conception in this sense since it
brings in a new epistemology. This seems to me to be more desirable than
actually throwing the baby out (per modern atheism).
3. Benjamin Peirce saw "universal will" as a manifest force, and all force as
having a "spiritual" source. So his view was, as I said earlier, one of
"general covariance" (although the term was not yet invented) rather like
gravitation and matter in GR - and he took this view from his own experience. I
think this is correct in essence but I see the basis as characterized in a
unity of bound shapes in structure (flexible closed structure). It (feeling) is
not a distinct force in the sense of electro-magnetism or gravitation (that are
one with it) sense and response are a binding in structure that enables its
unified action and across structure decisions (also cell division). There is no
"outside" force.
5. I understand Charles Peirce to say that his "spontaneity" is the product of
no precedence, no law. I am suggesting simply that he may have been misread and
that he means this only in the context of fallibility (i.e., discovery) - So, a
black swan, for example, would be a spontaneous event, "fresh," and "new" as he
says. I understand that many, you and Smolin included, have interpreted Peirce
to speak in existential terms on this matter - but for me this is less clear.
I much prefer this interpretation then Charles is redeemed in my eyes - but
while I have found much that is suggestive of it, I have not found anything
definitive. So, if you say it is existential, I'll accept that, but this
necessarily means that science is undermined.
Regards,
Steven
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Edwina Taborsky
<tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:
Thanks for your reply - which raise more questions.
1-2)You state that points 1 and 2 -'are deliberately ambiguous to allow
inclusion of existing religions'. But this doesn't answer my question which was
that you seem to have merged the nature of religion (and religious knowledge)
with science (and scientific knowledge). I was differentiating them.
Then - you added, in this most recent post: " Obviously, not all religions are
scientific". I thought that was the point of religion - that it rests on faith
- not objectivity and empirical evidence! I have no knowledge of a religion
that is also 'scientific'!
How do you differentiate the two types of knowledge - assuming that both types
have their functionality among the human societal order?
3) This also doesn't seem to answer my concern about the kinetics of sense and
response, which ignores the reality of a force outside of kinetics.
4) Again- you are just repeating the definition which is, in my view, a
circular one. I don't know what 'naivete' has to do with it.
5) With regard to your comment: "If the laws of nature are subject to small
and sustainable (and universal) arbitrary changes as Charles suggests then
necessity is dead (and, therefore, so is science)." But Peirce didn't say
this; his evolutionary capacity is spontaneous not random and arbitrary. As
I've said before - spontaneous freedom is not equivalent to randomness!
And necessity is not dead, but provides ONE force of the triad: Thirdness is
habits, which constrain and confine - but, the reality of Firstness introduces
novelty, and the informed capacity to change (that's spontaneity not mechanical
randomness). BOTH forces are operative in life.
You wrote: "lacked the religious and scientific sophistication of his brother
and father. He certainly appears to lack the same deep sensitivity." I
consider this statement 'ad hominem' since it is trying to persuade us of the
unacceptability of Ch. Peirce's analysis by declaring that aspects of his
personality (unsophisticated, lacks deep sensitivity) form part of that
analysis. I think there is no evidence of these assertions about Peirce.
6) My reading of Peirce is that, indeed, Laws DO CHANGE. That's their power,
that the habits of Thirdness can be affected by the spontaneous 'knocks' of the
freedom of Firstness and thus, can change. Thus, we have seen the biological
evolution of organisms from simple forms to complex forms. No - there is no
adherence to a law until it is absolute. Certainly, Thirdness or the
habits-of-formation can become 'hidebound' so to speak and immune to
interaction with other forces - but I think that the basic existence of
freedom, of spontaneity, of freedom - goes far to prevent such a doom-laden
scenario.
I don't think that spontaneity is discovery, for that suggests that all it
refers to is finding something already existent. Spontaneity is freedom, the
ability to create novel forms and novel interactions - yes, constrained by the
already existent Thirdness/habits of formation - but still, possible. And, in
the more complex networks (CAS or complex adaptive systems), this flexibility
and dynamism is basic to the robust health of the CAS.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith<mailto:ste...@iase.us>
To: Edwina Taborsky<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>
Cc: Steven Ericsson-Zenith<mailto:ste...@iase.us> ; Jerry LR
Chandler<mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> ; Peirce
List<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A System Of Analytic Mechanics
1. and 2. are deliberately ambiguous to allow inclusion of existing religions.
Obviously, not all religions are scientific.
3. The definition is mine and I include the universal "basis of experience"
(per my work) whose effects are unity in structure; i.e., the causal reason
sense and response form, how they are unified and act together and across
structure decisions are made.
4. Neither Benjamin nor James, see what I referred to as "the mind of God" in
naive terms. Take what I said as a simple definition: "the mind of God is means
no more or less than whatever science argues, where science includes the
explanation of what Benjamin refers to as "spirituality" or "universal will."
5. This is really very simple. If the laws of nature are subject to small and
sustainable (and universal) arbitrary changes as Charles suggests then
necessity is dead (and, therefore, so is science). I certainly mean this as no
"ad hominem" remark. This is what Charles argued, is it not? And, if it has an
existential basis, it undermines necessity.
I do, in fact, require necessity and I allow degrees of freedom in terms of
"directional" forces.
And this necessity is indeed the basis of Benjamin and James (mathematical)
philosophy.
It is also a principal part of much of Charles (philosophical) work. But
Charles is concerned with Logic. Spontaneity and evolution of law appear to be
an open speculation by Charles and related to his doctrine of fallibilism. I
have not read enough to draw real conclusions. However, I do wonder if he has
not been read wrongly and by it he means only to imply the progress of science,
not that laws change in fact but only in science. Whenever he speaks of
spontaneity is he simply be speaking of discovery. He argues, for example,
that, as law (science?) progresses and is naturally refined, there is a
movement toward a greater adherence to law until a point at which law is
absolute. This suggests that spontaneity in his view is "merely" epistemic.
This would certainly be redeeming and I hope that this is in fact the case,
because I can make sense of that.
Regards,
Steven
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Edwina Taborsky
<tabor...@primus.ca<mailto:tabor...@primus.ca>> wrote:
Steven - I have a few questions:
1) You wrote: "religion as science or science as religion". With this rejection
of the differentiation between religion and science - how do you define this
new approach? My understanding of religion is that it rests on a priori axioms
that are outside of the realm of objective experience and empirical proof. My
understanding of science is that its axioms are fallible, and must rest on
objective experience and empirical proof. How do you deal with this conflict?
2) You wrote: "religion as simply that set of ideas such that we cannot look
upon the world without their consideration. But this is, in my view, a weak
description, for it does not define the source of the validity of this 'set of
ideas'. After all, the idea that the sun goes around the earth, the idea that
disease is caused by the anger of the recently dead - may indeed be religious
ideas, and are claimed as valid by 'the Will of God' but can they also be
scientific?
3) You wrote: "universal will. I have taken this to imply, in modern terms,
that we must scientifically consider the biophysics of sensation and response."
I find this an odd definition of 'universal will' - i.e., the biophysics of
sensation and response. What do these two kinetic and mechanical forces (in
Firstness and Secondness) have to do with Universal Will which would have to
include some element of a force beyond kinetics?
4) You wrote: "We must view science as "reading the mind of God" where "God"
means no more or less than whatever this full science offers". Again, to equate
'mind' with 'whatever this full science offers' is a circular and ambiguous
definition. This 'full science' which seems to me from your definitions, to be
focused around mechanical forces doesn't seem to have a thing to do with
'Mind'. Or have you defined Mind as mechanics? Your tactic of defining
something, eg, God, as X (as full science) doesn't validate either science or
the notion of God; it's a circular and thus fallacious argument.
5) Then, your rather ad hominem argument for rejecting Charles Peirce's view,
is, by definition, invalid. You wrote: "It seems reasonable to argue that
Charles lacked the religious and scientific sophistication of his brother and
father. He certainly appears to lack the same deep sensitivity." This is a
conclusion without your providing any reasons. Reasonable to whom? And what are
those reasons? So far, your above argument doesn't provide any such evidence.
And 'religious and scientific sophistication' and 'lacks the same deep
sensitivity' are open and thus empty assertions - for they also lack evidence.
6) You wrote: "I argue that Charles undermines science by arguing for
spontaneity and evolution of laws. I do not really see how this can be in
dispute, but I am happy to listen to arguments"
The above seems to include your definition of science, one of its axioms being
a rejection of sponteneity and evolution of laws. As has been pointed out
before, this suggests that your view of 'science' accepts a deterministic,
necessitarian and mechanical view of the world. This seems to me at least, to
be a rejection of Universal Will. And again, since your definition of science
(and you provide us with several - and not all are equivalent) excludes
spontaneity and evolution, then, it is beyond argumentation. It is, not a fact,
but a dogma for you.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Ericsson-Zenith<mailto:ste...@iase.us>
To: Jerry LR Chandler<mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com>
Cc: Peirce List<mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> ; Steven
Ericsson-Zenith<mailto:ste...@iase.us>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2015 12:01 AM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] A System Of Analytic Mechanics
Thank you for these comments Jerry. When I first came upon these works, they
also answered many questions for me.
Of particular note is the strong undercurrent of what would later be known as
positivism, written at the time of Comte and in full awareness of Comte's
ideas. Yet they, Benjamin and James, by putting science first, and in a more
forgiving context perhaps than Comte, did not bring on the Existential crisis
but rather they re-conceived of religion as science or science as religion. I
argue that this is a unique circumstance in the United States where the
reconnection of religion was already underway (although this movement seems to
have reversed during the twentieth century).
If we accept religion as simply that set of ideas such that we cannot look upon
the world without their consideration, then we begin to understand the
approach. Benjamin, in his "Ideality of the physical sciences" goes to some
length to argue that science must consider the whole. It is he, in this text,
that first argues that science must not merely consider the easy.
He intended this to mean that we must consider the notion of universal will. I
have taken this to imply, in modern terms, that we must scientifically consider
the biophysics of sensation and response. I will accept challenges on this
point because I understand that this may come over as self-serving. I will note
that there is more to be said on this point in the light of the disruption of
logical incompleteness.
It seems reasonable to argue that Charles lacked the religious and scientific
sophistication of his brother and father. He certainly appears to lack the same
deep sensitivity. We may also note that in his Neglected Argument he echoes his
semeiotic triad in the context of the family's beliefs. He is echoing his
father's view of "God" and creation in Neglected Argument. The "neglect" I now
assume is, in fact, the neglect of his father's argument.
No scholar should consider my remarks to be "against" Charles. I accept that we
may differ in scholarly interpretations but I do not accept that we may deny
the facts.
I argue that Charles undermines science by arguing for spontaneity and
evolution of laws. I do not really see how this can be in dispute, but I am
happy to listen to arguments.
Regards,
Steven
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Jerry LR Chandler
<jerry_lr_chand...@me.com<mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com>> wrote:
Dear Steven, List:
Thank you for posting these files prepared by CSP's brother and father.
These files very definitely add support to your assertions concerning the
familial logic entailments that are often reflected in CSP texts.
It is most unfortunate that logicians and philosophers fail to consider or even
acknowledge the magnitude of these familial entailments on CSP's texts. These
entailments are readily apparent from a chemist's perspective.
Perhaps I will comment a bit on these these texts at a later time after I have
digested them a bit further.
Cheers
Jerry
On Mar 13, 2015, at 4:50 PM, Steven Ericsson-Zenith wrote:
I am posting these files to enable the wider Peirce community to appreciate the
environment and influences upon Charles. This is also an OCR'd searchable
version of A System Of Analytic Mechanics - a treatise by Charles' father,
Benjamin Peirce, and taught at Harvard. Prepared by me in the past few years.
You will note in this text many of the ideas that you have come to attribute to
Charles and you will note, while Peirce does not use the term "covariance" that
this is precisely what he describes, anticipating Einstein's claims for the
epistemic power of general covariance.
The context of the work is Newtonian mechanics and recall that Peirce spent a
good deal of time with the Celestial Mechanics of LaPlace, playing a major role
in the translation by his mentor Nathaniel Bowditch.
[https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png] Benjamin
Peirce - 1855 - A System Of Analytic
Mechanics.pdf<https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-c2CVg9ZQsANld4b1JhQnNBQlE/edit?usp=drive_web>
Regards,
Steven
-----------------------------
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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send
a message not to PEIRCE-L but to
l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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 .
