Sung, List, http://intersci.ss.uci.edu/wiki/index.php/Differential_Logic_and_Dynamic_Systems_2.0#A_One-Dimensional_Universe
Regards, Jon http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > On Mar 21, 2015, at 2:50 AM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote: > > 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 .
