Stan, you wrote
(8119-1)
" -- I have suggested (Salthe, 1993 book) that we distinguish 'evolution',
E from 'development', D. D is change following, or influenced by, a
script, as in ontogeny, while E is just any old, willy-nilly alteration as
a result of fortuitous encounters -- it is synonymous with 'individuation'.
in systems that persist, Both E and D are kinds, or modes, of change, and
both can be used to register time if they are synchronized with some
measuring device. "
Just as you distinguished E from D, can we not distinguish E-time from
D-time ? In other words, why can't we accept that there are more than one
kind of time, just as there are more than one kind of changes and more than
one kind of processes ?
You also wrote:
"Time is biologically constructed via learning and aging . . . "
(8119-2)
If timer is biologically constructed via learning and aging, what are the
mechanisms responsible for such construction ?
Can we avoid being forced to answer such a difficult question by simply
accepting that the processes of learning (L) and aging (A) have
alternative names called L-time and A-time ?
All the best.
Sung
and, in the cultures of some humans it is a socially constructed measure
imagined initially from observing those biological processes. So time
depends upon D and/or E, and is not synonymous with either. Tey are
spontaneous, while time is a construct.
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Stanley N Salthe <ssal...@binghamton.edu>
wrote:
> Sung -- I have suggested (Salthe, 1993 book) that we distinguish
> 'evolution', E from 'development', D. D is change following, or
> influenced by, a script, as in ontogeny, while E is just any old,
> willy-nilly alteration as a result of fortuitous encounters -- it is
> synonymous with 'individuation'. in systems that persist, Both E and D are
> kinds, or modes, of change, and both can be used to register time if they
> are synchronized with some measuring device. In science, time is crucial to
> thermodynamics, which subsumes all other phenomena. Religions involving
> eschatology invoke a future, therefore, time, and many cite previous eras
> of generativity.
>
> Time is biologically constructed via learning and aging -- and, in the
> cultures of some humans it is a socially constructed measure imagined
> initially from observing those biological processes. So time depends upon D
> and/or E, and is not synonymous with either. Tey are spontaneous, while
> time is a construct.
>
> STAN
>
> STAN
>
> On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
>> Edwina, John, Jerry, lists,
>>
>> If "time" is another name for (or synonymous with) "change" and if
>> "beginning" is a species of "change", it would follow that there would have
>> been no time before the Universe began, in agreement with John and Edwina.
>> But this may be only a scientific view of time, which may not represent
>> "time" completely. Can there be non-scientific representations of time as
>> well, such as the artistic and religious representations ? I am asking
>> this question because I am a firm believer in the universality of
>> complementarity, which, when applied to the question of time, would suggest
>> that "time" may be a complementary union of irreconcilably opposite
>> aspects which I identify as the scientific and the nonscientific aspects of
>> time.
>>
>> All the best.
>>
>> Sung
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 <gary.richm...@gmail.com>
>>> *To:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
>>> *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
>>>
>>> [image: Gary Richmond]
>>>
>>> *Gary Richmond*
>>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking*
>>> *Communication Studies*
>>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York*
>>> *C 745*
>>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>*
>>>
>>> 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 .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
>
--
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 .
