Gary, list:
First- the quotes you provided to the list from Peirce on evolution, (6.13-14),
and from Smolin are excellent. I think they make clear the fact that the
universe has a history. That's important; it didn't just emerge 'fully clothed'
so to speak; it has a history.
I also agree with John Collier that before the universe began- there was 'no
time'. There was nothing, so I don't know if Jerry Chandler's questions can be
answered outside of the smoke of the seminar room.
Gary, you wrote:
"Even if 'variables varying over time' has little (or almost nothing) to do
with evolutionary change, it seems strange to say that adaptive evolution has
"nothing to do with time" given that all, for one, semiosic processes involve
time. Or am I missing something here?"
Perhaps I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say that 'time' in itself, by
itself, is not a cause-of-change. That is, just because a species continues and
exists as that species through the passage of time, does not mean that this
passage of time...itself causes any changes in the rules-of-organization in the
species. What causes the species to change, adapt, evolve in its rules...is
informational networking with other matter in its envt, that will require
adaptation in the species in order to exist in that envt. Sure, time passes
during this adaptive phase, but time itself doesn't cause those adaptive
changes.
I hope that is clearer.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Richmond
To: Peirce-L
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 1:22 PM
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: A System Of Analytic Mechanics
Edwina, Soren, Jon, list,
I agree with you, Edwina, that a topic having been addressed on peirce-l in
the past might very well be fruitfully taken up at a later time since any
number of list members may not have followed that earlier discussion or even
joined the list after said discussion, while those who have followed it or who
even participated in it may have modified their understandings (for example,
having been exposed to some of the contemporary literature relating to it such
as, for example, that which Soren recently pointed to).
I also tend to strongly agree with you and disagree with Jon that the matter
of the evolution of laws is a "pseudo-issue," and I don't recall our arriving
at anything like a consensus that it's a "pseudo-issue" in that earlier
discussion. Also it seems clear from the Peirce and Smolin texts that they
both see the evolution of laws as such and not as merely our better, more
clearly understanding them. For Peirce and Smolin laws themselves evolve over
perhaps vast periods of time. And I would even maintain that Peirce's notion of
laws evolving includes not only biological laws relating to the evolution on
the earth, but involves 'cosmological' ones as well (this, I think, is Smolin's
position as well). I'll try to hunt up a few Peirce excepts supporting that
position in the next few days, but at the moment I'm exceedingly busy, so any
help here would be appreciated.
The idea of evolution occurring "over perhaps vast periods of time" leads me
to one question I have regarding your conclusion, Edwina. While I do agree with
you that the present question (the evolution of laws) "has little to do with
'variables varying over time' - which removes those variables from a causality
due to interaction with the environment and reduces them to merely a causality
due to the linear passage of time. The theory of adaptive evolution on the
other hand inserts an informational networking of organisms with other
organisms/envt...and suggests a freedom, a spontaneous and informed change to
adapt to the requirements of the environment".
But you conclude "Nothing to do with time.
Even if 'variables varying over time' has little (or almost nothing) to do
with evolutionary change, it seems strange to say that adaptive evolution has
"nothing to do with time" given that all, for one, semiosic processes involve
time. Or am I missing something here?
Best,
Gary
xxx
Gary Richmond
Philosophy and Critical Thinking
Communication Studies
LaGuardia College of the City University of New York
C 745
718 482-5690
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Jerry LR Chandler
<jerry_lr_chand...@me.com> wrote:
List, Jon, Soren, Steven:
Let's go a full step deeper into the inquiry of time.
Start with the presumption that an event initiated the becoming into
existence of concept of matter.
(Alternatively, one can start with the Eastern view of the universe cycling
and re-cycling itself which forces even more difficult conundrums into
metaphysical discourse.)
What existed before matter?
Mind? If so, what sort of mind?
Time? If so, when was time initiated? And what were its origins?
Mathematics? If so, when was mathematics initiated? Did mathematics
initiate time? Matter? If so, how?
Intertwined with these conundrums are the questions on the nature of
mathematics itself.
Was mathematics initiated by the mind of man? (as a part of the emergence
of man's mind?)
Or, does mathematics pre-exist the existence of humans?
If mathematics pre-exists human constructionism, when was it initiated?
Or, is mathematics a consequence of natural events, such as the atomic
numbers?
Or, did the ordinals exist before the cardinal?
Or, did the cardinals exist before the ordinals?
And, what motivated the (illicit?) constructions of the complex numbers?
Electricity?
Just a few of the conundrums that come to mind when thinking of the
physical representation of time.
Whatever one decides about physical time, both chemical time and biological
time and mental time are far more difficult problems BECAUSE the unbounded
irregularities of time "flow" (that is, change) in these disciplines.
A simple example of these irregularities are the concatenation of
enzyme-catalysed reactions in creating the feedback and feed forward "flows" of
time in living systems. (Origin of logic of Biosemiotics?)
If you can afford the efforts, play with these assertions in terms of the
small set of "connectives" of propositional logics.
Your conclusions, if logically sound and complete, would be keenly
evaluated by the scientific community.
Cheers
Jerry
On Mar 20, 2015, at 9:40 AM, Jon Awbrey wrote:
> Thread:
> SB:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15878
> JA:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15879
> SB:http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15880
>
> Søren, List,
>
> Oh, of course, it was nice to be reminded, and that inspired me
> to scan through a sample of what had been said before, plus I'm
> really fond of that particular quote I featured on my blog, and
> I thought the glancing review from NPR was kind of interesting:
>
> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/06/01/wherefore-aught/
> http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/05/02/180037757/is-time-real
>
> To my way of thinking, the whole thing is really a pseudo-issue.
> Saying that "the laws of physics evolve" means nothing more than
> "the laws of physics are not what we used to think they were",
> which historically speaking is just the usual case.
>
> To say that "the laws of physics evolve" is just to say
> that the laws of physics we know contain parameters that
> we used to believe were constants but now we believe are
> variables, and all that does is initiate an inquiry into
> the laws that rule the time evolution of those variables.
> Which is again just another variation on the usual theme.
> The form of inquiry itself persists.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon
>
> On 3/20/2015 5:46 AM, Søren Brier wrote:
>> Jon
>>
>> Thanks. I just wanted to remind Steven that an eminent modern physicist
found it possible to uphold his position while having a view close to Peirce's.
>>
>> Søren
>>
>> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>> Fra: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawb...@att.net]
>> Sendt: 19. marts 2015 15:32
>> Til: Søren Brier; Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Edwina Taborsky
>> Cc: Jerry LR Chandler; Peirce List
>> Emne: Re: A System Of Analytic Mechanics
>>
>> Re: Søren Brier
>> At: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.science.philosophy.peirce/15878
>>
>> Søren, List,
>>
>> Smolin's 'Time Reborn' was the subject, or at least the instigation, of
much discussion here and there around the web a couple years ago.
>> From a cursory search, I think it was Michael Shapiro who broached the
topic on the Peirce List, inciting discussions that went on for the rest of the
summer:
>>
>> https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2013-05/msg00028.html
>>
>> I recall blogging on it and adding a quote from Peirce in connection
with a discussion on a blog devoted to computational complexity and the theory
of computation:
>>
>> http://inquiryintoinquiry.com/2013/06/01/wherefore-aught/
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Jon
>>
>> On 3/19/2015 2:13 AM, Søren Brier wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
> --
>
> 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 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 .
>
>
>
>
-----------------------------
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 .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
