John, List: Thanks for the further information, John, in the private email, posted below.
I now understand your position more fully. My understanding is now clarified. The meaning of the term "degeneracy" is ambiguous, even though the mathematical usage is crisp. It's meaning depends on the initial perspective/intent of the author when removed from the mathematical context. Thanks, John. Cheers Jerry On Dec 17, 2015, at 5:32 AM, John Collier wrote: > Jerry, > > I here give more justification of what I said. > > John Collier > Professor Emeritus, UKZN > http://web.ncf.ca/collier > > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@me.com] > Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2015 13:10 > To: John Collier > Cc: Peirce-L; Clark Goble; Jeffrey Brian Downard > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations > > John: > > If you find your arguments below to be compelling, then the issue is no > longer a issue for you. > > These arguments are not compelling to me. See comment in text. > > > On Dec 16, 2015, at 11:32 PM, John Collier wrote: > > > Jerry, > > I think you are making this seem more mysterious than it is. > > Mysterious? Strange choice of words. > > [John Collier] What is strange? You seem to me to be making something fairly > straight forward. I see this as mystericism. It is always possible, but > seldom productive. > > My understanding is that degeneracy means that there is a restriction from > the general case (generate) to a less than general case. This is how Robert > Rosen, e.g., uses the notion, and I don’t see any good reason to think that > Peirce is using it any differently. > > Huh? I do not understand why the usage of another author a century later is > relevant to another's usage a century earlier. > > [John Collier] Both are getting their usage from usages in mathematics and > physics. I thought it might help you. > > Basically, something is degenerate if it obscures generic differences in the > way it can be produced. > > Huh? CSP's usage start with the generative operation of crossing two lines. > > [John Collier] And you are stuck there, it seems, and haven’t got any > further. You need to pay more attention to what he says about the relations > between the various types of curves. > > If we treat the degenerate as general, then we will be likely to make bad > inferential extensions to general cases by overlooking crucial differences in > the general cases. > > In the passage from Peirce that you quote below, by way of Clark, I think the > distinction is that the degenerate seconds consider them in terms of their > form alone, which degenerates our understanding of them to firsts associated > with them, making our understanding of something that is internal. The > alternative is to regard them in terms of their true causes, which are > external or extrinsic, and may be multiple for the same (indistinguishable > internally) cases. > > A couple of examples are 1) spectral lines that can be produced by more than > one transition that nonetheless indicate the same energy levels, and 2) > isomers of compounds when they are regarded just in terms of stoichiometric > relations, ignoring their chirality. > > Both examples are of interest as generative logical operations, not > degenerative operations. > In the case of genesis of isomers, I see no reason to separate out optical > isomers as a special case. > Every form of isomerization in the notation of chemisty is of a different > sort or kind with respect to a given molecular formula. > > [John Collier] Again, you are making things more difficult than they need be. > Degeneracy is relative, after all. > > John, the following question comes to mind: > > As you are probably aware, bacteria (such as E, coli) can generate their > internal carbon structures from many, many different carbon sources. > Furthermore, they have a "pecking order" for selecting one exterion carbon > source before another for internal constructions. For example, one isomer of > hexose before a different isomers.. > > Is this generacy or degeneracy? > [John Collier] More generate than if they just used, say, stoichocemic values. > > A second question is similar. If a biological specie emerges as a > consequence of loss of functionality, would you consider this generacy or > degeneracy? > > [John Collier] Deeneracy.
----------------------------- 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 .
