Jerry, your reply makes no sense. It makes no cogent criticism of what I said. Read the book and then maybe we can talk about this, but so far you are putting words together that have no relevance to my position. Frankly, In resent this.
John From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] Sent: April 27, 2015 11:25 AM To: Peirce-L Cc: John Collier Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8468] Re: Natural Propositions, John: you write: I limit myself to dynamic structures. then: . I use it in the physical, not the mathematical sense. Your "very simple answer" is precisely why I find your thinking to be superficial. Your usage is NOT in the PHYSICAL sense. Your ignore the deep and fundamental conundrum that exists in physical thought and representation of nature and the concept of force. It is not a unitary concept. Force is at least a triadic concept, and perhaps a fouth or fifth order concepts. The multiple concepts of force are a consequence of physical measurements. Your views of physical representation of force are more than two centuries out of date. This conundrum is the profound dynamical difference origins in the difference between Newton's Law and Coulomb's law. Your response is not good physics, not good science, not persuasive and certainly not compelling. IMNSHO Cheers Jerry On Apr 27, 2015, at 9:02 AM, John Collier wrote: The answer is very simple, Jerry. We can interact only with dynamical structures (at least obeying Newton's third law), so they are the only things that could conceivably make a difference to experience (pragmatic maxim). Perhaps we mean something different by "dynamical". I use it in the physical, not the mathematical sense. John From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] Sent: April 27, 2015 10:58 AM To: Peirce-L Cc: John Collier Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8468] Re: Natural Propositions, John: On Apr 27, 2015, at 8:24 AM, John Collier wrote: I limit myself to dynamic structures. Why? Such an assertion indicates to me that your thinking is superficial. As I have noted before, it is attempting to work a cross-word puzzle by using only the "across" clues. Why does the puzzle writer give you the "down" clues? Or, on a mathematical plane, attempting to solve partial differential equations without defining the variables. Or, studying human physiology without a knowledge of anatomy. Or, studying evolutionary theory without DNA. Cheers Jerry ----------------------------- 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<mailto:peirce-L@list.iupui.edu> . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu<mailto: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 .
