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 .