Typos: (1) Please replace "they thought that the same form of a mathematical equation, i.e., DPD, applies to both" with "they thought that it was impossible for the same form of a mathematical equation, i.e., DPD, to apply to both."
(2) "Burgin [1]" with "Burgin [4]". Sorry for the confusion. S. Ji On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote: > Edwina, Gary R, John, lists, > > Edwina wrote: > > "Because Peirce's three categories don't correlate to the three worlds of > Burgin and Popper (120315-a) > [both of whom are excellent scholars] , doesn't mean that Peircean > theory doesn't have > anything to do with modern natural sciences or with information science." > > > I agree. But this does not conflict with what I said in the post you are > responding to. > In that post I said, in effect: > > "If your statement that "Burgin's and Popper's three worlds . . . do not have > anything to do with (120315-b) > the Peircean categories" is right, then *Peirce *(as *represented by E. > Taborsky*) would have nothing > to do with modern *natural sciences* (*as represented by Popper and * > *Penrose*) or with > *information science* (*as represented by Burgin*),. . . ." > > You misunderstood this statement, thus wrongly equating it with the > following: > > "If your statement that "Burgin's and Popper's three worlds . . . do not have > anything to do with (120315-c) > the Peircean categories" is right, then *Peirce *would have nothing to > do with modern *natural sciences* > or with *information science*, . . . ." > > Do you see the difference between (120315-b) and (120315-c) ? The former > is correct (which was what I said), > and the latter is not (which is not what I said but you wrongly attributed > it to me). > > Your conflation between (120315-b) and (12035-c) may have arisen from your > conflating "types" and "tokens". > I came to this conclusion based on the following analysis. > > (*2*) For convenience, I will use the notations given below: > > *PS(T)* = *Peircean semiotics *(as *represented by E. Taborsky*) > > (120315-d) > *NS(PP)* = modern *natural sciences* (*as represented by Popper and > Penrose*) (120315-e) > *IS(B*) = *information science* (*as represented by Burgin*) > > (120315-f) > > To me (120315-d), (120315-e), and (120315-f) are the *tokens* of *types* > *PS* (Peircean semiotics), *N*S (Natural sciences), and *IS* (Information > sciences), respectively, as summarized in *Table 1*. > > ___________________________________________________________ > > *Table 1.* Tokes are not types. > The symbol "_" represents a "placeholder" which can be occupied by any > element of a set; T = Taborsky; P = Popper or Penrose; B = Burgin. > ___________________________________________________________ > > Different Disciplines *Tokens > Types* > ___________________________________________________________ > > *Peircean semiotics* *PS(T) > PS( _ )* > ___________________________________________________________ > > *Natural sciences * *NS(PP) > NS( _ )* > ___________________________________________________________ > > *Information science * *IS(B) > IS ( _ )* > ___________________________________________________________ > > > Using the symbols defined in *Table 1*, we can re-write (120315-b) as > (120315-g) for a clearer comparison with (120315-c) re-written as > (120315-i): > > "If your statement that "Burgin's and Popper's three worlds . . . do not have > anything to do with (120315-b) > the Peircean categories" is right, then *Peirce *(as *represented by E. > Taborsky*) would have nothing > to do with modern *natural sciences* (*as represented by Popper and * > *Penrose*) or with > *information science* (*as represented by Burgin*), . . . ." > > "If your statement that IS(B) and NS(PP) . . . do not have anything to > do with PS(T)" is right, (120315-g) > then PS(T) would have nothing to do with modern NS (PP) or IS(B), . . . " > > which is equivalent to saying that > > "If IS(B) and NS(PP) are not PS(T), then PS(T) is not IS(B) or NS(PP)" > (120315-h) > > > This statement must be valid, since logic is reversible: "If A is not B, > then B is not A." > > > Now (120315-c) can be re-written as (120315-i): > > "If your statement that "Burgin's and Popper's three worlds . . . do not have > anything to do with (120315-c) > the Peircean categories" is right, then *Peirce *would have nothing to > do with modern > *natural sciences* or with *information science*, . . . ." > > > "If your statement IS(B) and NS(PP) . . . do not have anything to do with > PS(T) is right, (120315-i) > then PS( _ ) would have nothing to do with NS( _ ) or IS( _ ) . . . ." > > I repeat, (120315-g) is true but (120315-i) is not. In other words, > > > "Even if PS(T) does not correlate with NS(PP) or IS(B), it does not follow > that (120315-j) > PS( _) would not correlate with NS( _ ) or IS( _ )." > > In other words, Edwina's misunderstanding of my statement (120315-b), I > believe, has resulted from what may be called the "type-token confusion > (TTC)" > > (*3*) Another example of TTC is provided by the universal applicability > of PDE (Planckian distribution equation), Equation (120315-k), > to the long tailed histograms generated from a wide variety of natural and > human sciences [1, 2, 3], including > > i) atomic physics (i.e., the blackbody radiation spectra themselves), > ii) protein folding, > iii) enzyme catalysis, > iv) cell metabolism, > v) T-cell receptor diversity, > vi) fMIR (functional magnetic imaging), > vii) decision making in humans, > viii) word-length frequency analysis of texts and speeches, > ix) music, > x) econometric, and > xi) Big Bang cosmology. > > PDE is a 3-parameter equation that was derived from Planck's radiation > equation by replacing the unviersla constants and temperatre T with free > parameters, A, B and C: > > * PDE (A, B, C)*: y = A/(x + B)^5/(Exp(C/(x + > B)) - 1) > (120315-k) > > where y is the frequency and x is the bin numbers of a long tailed > histogram. > > Each fitting requires determining the *numerical values* of *A,* *B* and > *C, *using the computer software called *Solver* available in *Excel. * > I won't bother you with the actual numerical values that we have > published, but the point is that PDE's as applied to each of the above > field are NOT THE SAME, although they all obey the original equation, *PDE(A, > B, C)*. We can designate such individualized PDE's as follows. > > i) atomic physics = *PDE(1, 2 , 3)*, > > (120315-l) > ii) protein folding =* PDE(4, 5, 6)* > iii) enzyme catalysis = *PDE (7, 8, 9)*, > iv) cell metabolism = *PDE(10, 11, 12)* > v) T-cell receptor diversity = *PDE (13, 14, 15)* > vi) fMIR (functional magnetic imaging) = *PDE(16, 17, 18)* > vii) decision making in humans = *PDE(19, 20, 21)* > viii) word-length frequency analysis of texts and speeches =* PDE(22, 23, > 24)* > ix) music = *PDE(25, 26, 27)* > x) econometric = *PDE(28, 29. 30)*, and > xi) Big Bang cosmology = *PDE(31, 32, 33)* > > We may view the original equation, PDE(A, B, C), as a 'type' and the > individualized equations as 'tokens', following Peirce. > > *PDE(A, B, C)* = type > > (120315-m) > > *PDE(1, 2, 3)* = token. > > (120315-n) > > What was puzzling to many statistical mechanicians and mathematicians to > whom I showed in PDE and its applicability to so many different histograms, > including the blackbody radiation spectra, was the fact that Planck's > radiation equation (PRE), Eq. (120315-o), applies to atomic systems heated > to thousands of degrees K whereas the PDE which was derived from PRE > applies to single-molecule enzyme kinetic data measured at about 300 > degrees K. > > > Planck's radiation equation: U(lambda, T) = > 2pi*hc^2/lambda^5/(Exp(hc/lambda kT) - 1) (120315-o) > > Since these two processes, blackbody radiation and enzyme catalysis, are > so different, they thought that the same form of a mathematical equation, > i.e., DPD, applies to both. This puzzlement about and the reluctance to > accept PDE by physicists and mathematicians would be ameliorated if we > admit that there are two kinds of PDE --- (i) PDE( A, B, C) as a type, and > (ii) PDE (1, 2, 3) as a token, as indicated in Equations (120315-m) and > (120315-n), the former involves "free parameters" and the latter "fixed > parameters". > > (*4*) The field of information science may benefit from recognizing two > kinds of Informations -- (i) token-informations, I, with *fixed > parameters*, e.g., I(Shannon), I(Harteley), I(Fisher), I(von Neurmann), > I(Renyi), I(Peirce), etc., and (ii) type-information with "*free > parameters*" as recently proposed by Burgin [1] which may be denoted as > I( _, _, _, . . . _), or more briefly as I( _ ), where the symbol "_, _, _, > . . ., _" indicates placeholders. > > (*5*) Finally, the field of physics and biology may benefit from > recognizing two kinds of PDEs -- (i) token-PDEs, each with a set of fixed > parameters, e.g., Planckian radiation equation, Eq. (120315-o), and (ii) > type-PDE with a set of "free parameters", i.e., Eq. (1201315-k). > > All the best. > > Sung > > > References: > [1] Ji, S. (2015a) Planckian distributions in molecular machines, > living cells, and brains: > The wave-particle duality in biomedical sciences, *Proceedings of the > International Conference on * > *Biology and Biomedical Engineering.* Vienna, March 15-17, 2015. Pp. > 115-137. > [2] Ji, S. (2015b) Planckian information (IP): A new measure of order > in atoms, enzymes, cells, > brains, human societies, and the cosmos. In: *Unified Field Mechanics: > Natural Science * > *beyond the Veil of Spacetime* (R. Amoroso, P. Rowlands, and L. Kauffman, > eds.) > World Scientific, New Jersey, pp. 579-589. > [3] Ji, S. (2012a) Isomorphism between Blackbody Radiation and Enzymic > Catalysis, in: *Molecular * > *Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and > Biomedical * > * Applications*, New York: Springer, 2012, pp. 343-368. PDF at > http://www.conformon.net > undr Publicaitons > Book Chapters. > [4] Burgin, M. (2010). Theory of Information: Fundamentality, > Diversity,and Unification. World Scientific, New Jersey. Pp. 129-134. > > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:28 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> > wrote: > >> Sung, your comment doesn't make any sense. Because Peirce's three >> categories don't correlate to the three worlds of Burgin and Popper [both >> of whom are excellent scholars] , doesn't mean that Peircean theory doesn't >> have anything to do with modern natural sciences or with information >> science!!!! >> >> Edwina >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> >> *To:* PEIRCE-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 02, 2015 8:35 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and >> triadic relations >> >> Edwina, Clark, John, lists >> >> You wrote: >> >> "Burgin's three worlds seem remarkably similar to Popper's three worlds >> - and neither, (120215-1) >> in my view, have anything to do with the Peircean categories." >> >> If Statement (120215-1) is right, then Peirce (as represneted by E. >> Taborsky) would have nothing to do with modern natural sciences (as >> represented by Popper and Penrose) or with information science (as >> represented by Burgin), which is hard to believe. >> >> All the best. >> >> Sung >> >> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 8:22 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> >> wrote: >> >>> I guess I must be 'nobody', since I don't see any way at all to >>> 'distribute the Peircean categories of Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness >>> over the three worlds of Burgin". >>> >>> Burgin's three worlds seem remarkably similar to Popper's three worlds - >>> and neither, in my view, have anything to do with the Peircean categories. >>> It takes a huge stretch to make such a claim, and if one does so, the >>> essential identity of the Peircean categories and their full semiosic >>> interactive operation, is totally lost and one is reduced to such >>> psychological nominals as 'subjective, objective and general' - and these >>> are not valid outlines of the three categories. >>> >>> Edwina >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> >>> *To:* PEIRCE-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 02, 2015 5:29 PM >>> *Subject:* [biosemiotics:8992] Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and >>> triadic relations >>> >>> Hi Clark, lists, >>> >>> You wrote: >>> >>> "I’m not quite sure why you are applying firstness to structure where >>> structures (120215-1) >>> are inherently relations and firstness is inherently a thing in itself >>> without relations." >>> >>> (*1*) It seems that everybody, including you, John (and myself until >>> recently), assumes that *there is only one way to distribute the >>> Peircean categories of Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness over the three >>> worlds of Burgin, denoted as S (World of Structures), P (Physical >>> world),and M (Mental world). * Let me designate such a view as the *1-to-1 >>> view, *according to which only one of the 6 possibilities shown in *Table >>> 1* is true and the rest are not. The alternative view would be that >>> more than one of the 6 possibilities listed in Table 1 can be true, >>> depending on context. I will refer to this view as the "*1-to-many*" >>> view. >>> >>> >>> *Table 1*. Non-deterministic relation between triadic model of the >>> worlds and Peircean categories. >>> >>> Possibilities >>> >>> *Firstness* >>> >>> *Secondness* >>> >>> *Thirdness* >>> >>> Context or Field of Studies >>> >>> *1* >>> >>> S* >>> >>> P >>> >>> M >>> >>> ? >>> >>> *2* >>> >>> S >>> >>> M >>> >>> P >>> >>> ? >>> >>> *3* >>> >>> P >>> >>> S >>> >>> M >>> >>> ? >>> >>> *4* >>> >>> P >>> >>> M >>> >>> S >>> >>> ? >>> >>> *5* >>> >>> M >>> >>> S >>> >>> P >>> >>> ? >>> >>> *6* >>> >>> M >>> >>> P >>> >>> S >>> >>> ? >>> >>> *S = World of structures >>> P = Physical world >>> M = Mental world >>> >>> (*2*) It may be necessary to invoke at least two kinds of "structures" >>> -- (i) "mental structures", i.e, those structures in the world whose >>> existence depends on the human mind (through discovery, creativity, and >>> production), and (ii) "real structures" that can exist independent of human >>> mind. The S in Possibility 1 and 2 above are of the first kind (i.e., real >>> structures) and the S in Possibilities 4 and 6 are of the second kind >>> (i.e., mental structures). >>> >>> (*3*) Even with my very limited reading of Peirce, I can recognize >>> that Table 1 is consistent with the basic tenet of the Peircean semiotics >>> that all signs (including S, P and M in Table 1) have in each the three >>> basic aspects of Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness, although each of the >>> 6 possibilites shown in Table 1 PRESCINDS different aspect of each sign. >>> For example, Possibility 1 rescinds the Firstness aspect of S, the >>> Secondness aspect of P, and the Thirdness aspect of M. In contrast, >>> Possibility 6 prescinds the Firstness aspect of M, the Secondness aspect of >>> P and the Thirdness aspect of S, etc. >>> >>> >>> If (*2*) and (*3*) are right, the *1-to-many view* described in (*1*) >>> would be validated. >>> >>> >>> All the best. >>> >>> Sung >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 1, 2015, at 7:16 PM, Sungchul Ji <s...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> (*1*) I agree with you on the definition of these categories of >>>> Peirce. >>>> We seem to disagree on how to assign these categories to the three >>>> worlds of Burgin and the three roses of Scotus. >>>> >>>> >>>> I’m not quite sure why you are applying firstness to structure where >>>> structures are inherently relations and firstness is inherently a thing in >>>> itself without relations. >>>> >>>> You seem to be using firstness due to invariant and thus structures. >>>> But I don’t see how that works. Being invariant is not the same as being >>>> unrelated. >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------- >>>> 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 . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 . >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > 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 .
