Hi Ed, I wonder if what Peirce calls "habits" can be divided into at least two groups -- (i) human habits, and (ii) natural habits. If so, the former is obviously reversible as someone recently pointed out in PEIRCE-L but the latter may not in general, although there may be exceptions, depending on how one defines "natural habits".
All the best. Sung On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Ed Dellian <ed.dell...@t-online.de> wrote: > Sung, Jon – > > > > Peirce, as he has been quoted, is speaking of “every physical process”, > and of the allegedly all-explaining “laws of mechanics” which he believes > to be time-reversible without exception. He was not aware of the > time-irreversible second law of thermodynamics. He was also not aware of > the evident fact that Newton’s authentic second law of mechanics states a > geometric proportionality of “force” and “change in motion”. Force and > motion are heterogeneous entities here, and therefore they are not > equivalent, but geometrically proportional. The case is different in > classical mechanics, where we have F = ṗ, which asserted equivalence of > homogeneous entities is certainly time-reversible. Note that “classical > mechanics” based on F = ṗ is “analytical mechanics”; none of the principles > of that mechanics, which was conceived by Leonhard Euler and others in the > first half of the 18th century in Berlin, can be found in Newton’s > “Principia”. Classical mechanics is not Newton’s mechanics! It was and is > certainly a most momentuous mistake of theoretical physicists to make > Newton responsible for an absurd “law of motion” which due to its > mathematical reversibility has nothing to do with time-irreversible > reality. > > > > Ed. > ------------------------------ > > *Von:* sji.confor...@gmail.com [mailto:sji.confor...@gmail.com] *Im > Auftrag von *Sungchul Ji > *Gesendet:* Montag, 23. November 2015 18:22 > *An:* Jon Awbrey > *Betreff:* Re: Terms, Propositions, Arguments > > > > Hi Jon, > > > > Even then, according to Ed Dellian (see my previous PEIRCE-L post), Peirce > would be wrong, since Newton's Second Law of motion is not time-reversible. > > > > Sung > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:30 AM, Jon Awbrey <jawb...@att.net> wrote: > > Sung, > > > > Peirce is using “mechanics” advisedly there to refer to classical > mechanics as distinguished from thermodynamics. > > > > Regards, > > Jon > > http://inquiryintoinquiry.com > > > On Nov 23, 2015, at 7:05 AM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote: > > Clark, Søren, lists, > > > > Peirce said: > > > > " . . . While every physical process can be reverse without violation of > the law of mechanics, (112315-1) > the law of habit forbids such reversal. ' (CP 8.318) > > > > I am glad you quoted this statement because I wanted to make a comment on > it when I first read it about a year ago somewhere in CP but could not find > it again. > > > > It seems to me that the first sentence of this this statement is false > even based on our common experience: Evaporated perfume cannot be put back > into a bottle. As we all now know the physical law forbidding the reversal > of evaporated perfume is called the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and there > developed a whole field of scientific studies during the 20th Century on > such processes called IRREVERSIBLE thermodynamics, for the contribution to > the establishment of which I. Prigogine (1917-2003) was awarded a Nobel > Prize in 1977. > > > > If this interpretation is correct, the validity of the second sentence in > (112315-1) seems weakened considerably, although not totally removed, since > it can stand on its own as an assertion with or without any supporting > scientific evidence. > > > > All the best. > > > > Sung > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:18 PM, CLARK GOBLE <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 20, 2015, at 1:01 PM, Søren Brier <sb....@cbs.dk> wrote: > > > > I agree but Peirce is integrating it with an emptiness ontology inspired > by Buddhism. Hartshorne describes it as his Buddhisto-Christianism. Bishop > writes a paper on Peirce and Eastern Thought. See my > > Pure Zero paper attached. > > > > I just finished it. Very interesting. I hadn’t known that Peirce was > connected with Suzuki before. (Again as I said I know just enough Buddhism > to be dangerous but not enough to really be able to say much) > > > > One tangental comment that came to mind in one of your quotes. You have > Peirce commenting on his famous relationship of mind and matter. > > > > I believe the law of habit to be purely psychical. But then I suppose > matter is merely mind deadened by the development of habit. While every > physical process can be reverse without violation of the law of mechanics, > the law of habit forbids such reversal. (CP 8.318) > > > > I assume here meaning we can’t lose a habit once developed. Does Peirce > ever defend this position? I confess it seems a dubious position to hold > although I understand why his ontology requires it. > > > > On much else I’ve taken Peirce, contra say the scientific realists, to > reject any kind of convergence. That is there can be periods of rapid > development and then because of fallibilism falling away or change. To use > the metaphors James Burke famously did in the 70’s and 80’s about science, > it is less convergence than pinball process. > > > > That’s always seemed more persuasive as a view of habit-forming too. Yet > the reversibility is something that in at least a few places Peirce denies. > > > > Of course Peirce is inconsistent on this in certain ways. After all he > conceives of belief as habit yet the ability to change belief entails the > ability to reverse habit. So I’m never quite sure how to take this. In > practice it seems sufficient to merely accept that some habits are more > ingrained than others. Habits as laws are much less reversible. With > Peirce’s conception of substance (at least in his early period) as > extremely congealed habit. > > > > At the end of your paper you say, > > > > Like the Buddhists, Peirce sees this order as no-thing. Niemoczynsk (2011) > shows that both Eckhart and Böhme posited a pre-personal ground within > God’s own being, where this ground was called “the godhead” or “the abyss”. > It contains infinite potential, the absolute freedom to be, and even the > will or desire to be. > > > > Which order are you speaking of here? Plotinus, among the neoplatonists > has two classes of absolute otherness. On the one is the One which is pure > potency and the origin of all the emanations. Yet somewhat following > Aristotle he has matter as pure privation which is also absolutely Other. > Peirce makes a similar move in his early works with pure Being to pure > Substance and his three categories in between. In the quote you have in > your paper what he compares to the Hebrew *tohu bohu* is the infinite > past with pure chaotic emptiness. > > > > Within Hebrew mysticism, especially certain forms of Kabbalism, there’s a > notion of Tzimtzum. (I tend to follow the traditional interpretation that > the Jewish mystics got this from gnosticism and neoplatonism but there’s a > strain that argues for the influence going the other way or at least > co-evolution. In any case the major form is Lurianic Kabbalism which is a > 16th century phenomena) This is the idea of God withdrawing to create a > space within himself that creation can take place. In other words a primal > nothing creates a secondary nothing. This enables finitude to take place. > The reason to see connection to platonism is the parallel to the creation > of the elements from the forms and place or khora in the Timaeus. The khora > is receptical or empty space and the origin of the forms would be the One > of Plotinus. > > > > Getting back to Peirce and your paper you say that Eckhart and Bohme have > a pre-personal ground within God’s being called the godhead or abyss. This > seems similar. And of course Duns Scotus who also was a big influence on > Peirce has some writings on the ground of the Godhead that makes a similar > move. I’ve studied this more in connection to Heidegger but it seems like > there are some similar moves with Peirce. > > > > Within Peirce how do you see this notion of the Nothing as source and > Nothing as end as well as the distinction between God’s being and this > space within God’s being (or even its ground)? I confess it’s not > something I’ve studied in the least. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 > -- 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 .
