John, Jerry, lists,

(1) Can we identify time with change ? With process ?
(2) Are there two aspects to time - the knowable and the unknowable ?
(3) The knowable (COGNITION) aspect of time is death with in natural
sciences and the unknowable aspect in  art (EMOTION)  and religion (BELIEF)?

Any comments or suggestions ?

Sung
(from a restaurant in Vienna, a city full of art and history/time)



On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 6:25 PM, John Collier <colli...@ukzn.ac.za> wrote:

> There are two senses of 'before' that are relevant here. There is before
> in time and there is 'before' in cause. On my understanding of the standard
> view of cosmology in contemporary physics (there are many alternatives, but
> this is the main one today), there is no before in time, since time began
> with the universe. On the causal sense of before, I don't think that
> physics has dealt with it. Aristotle (and St Thomas after him) argued that
> there must be a Prime Mover (that is sometimes identified with God).
> Bertrand Russell argued that this was no explanation at all, since if we
> need a cause for the universe, than we should be able to ask what that
> cause's cause is -- what caused God, or what caused the Prime Mover. I
> won't be drawn into making any conclusions or hypotheses here, but the
> distinction is important, since the temporal question has an answer in
> current cosmology -- nothing was before because there was no before.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com]
> Sent: March 20, 2015 1:36 PM
> To: Peirce List
> Cc: Søren Brier; Steven Ericsson-Zenith; Jon Awbrey
> Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: A System Of Analytic Mechanics
>
> 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
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.

Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701

www.conformon.net
-----------------------------
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 .




Reply via email to