Hi all,
Just a friendly public service announcement: If your interest is in genotype/phenotype mapping (i.e., relation between mutation and change in organism), talk of atoms, molecules and valences is considered bizarre. I say this as a biologist and because talk of such things is antithetical to what’s expected of a good hypothesis (a good relation between C and A in abduction). They’re too far apart. Even talking of mutations in individual genes and consequences on phenotype is problematic for many situations. Best, Jerry R On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Jerry LR Chandler < [email protected]> wrote: > List, Kirsti: > > > On Apr 7, 2016, at 3:15 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > But let me first ask you some questions, to help me formulate my answer. > > 1) You concentrate on chemical symbols. - How about chemical reactions? > > > JLRC: My interest for several decades has been on the > antecedent-consequent relation between a mutation and the change in an > organism. How does it happen? > Chemical symbols and chemical reactions (as biochemical processes) are > necessary connections between the antecedent and the consequence. > That being said, the pre-percept of all chemical symbols, today, is the > chemical table of elements. All chemical processes, reactions, diffusion, > bindings, transfers are expressed in terms of the components (nuclei and > electrons) of the table of elements as ordinal and cardinal numbers. The > chemical elements stand in strict one-to-one correspondence with the > natural integers. This relationship gives closure on the relationship > between matter and the sub-atomic components of matter (but not the > sub-sub-atomic components of particle physics.) *The perplex number > system suffers one form of physical closure under this constraint. Valence > opens the closure by material addition of atoms to form molecules. * The > logic of chemistry consists of propositional functions on atomic numbers > with valence relations that creates new identities from atomic identities, > constrained by physical laws. Thus, CSP’s logical doctrine of individuals. > > > 2) Is geometry left out of the ways of posing the problem? > > > Geometry enters into chemical thought secondarily as a consequence of > arrangements of parts of the whole. The primary root of relations is the > chemical table of elements and valences and other forms of interaction. > That is, by secondary, I mean that one must have at least a pair of nodes > to have a distance. > And three nodes for an angle. The concept of a graph node pre-supposes > chemical particles. > > Note that QM assumes that geometric relations exist among the parts of the > whole of an atom and assign angles to relations to between orbitals on the > basis of electrical relations between nuclei and electrons. Chemists > measure angles between x-ray diffraction patterns and relate these to > angles between atoms in crystals. At the material level of molecules the > languages of chemistry, physics and mathematics use a common terminology > but the meanings of the terms vary with the discipline. > > The diagrammatic logic of chemistry is COMPOSED from relations among > ordinal and cardinal numbers as counts of electrons and nuclei. The > diagrams can be interpreted by various physical measurements. > > In terms of handedness, note that the left and right hand forms have > exactly the physical properties with respect to mass, electrical particles, > bond structures and other physical attributes. The mirror images of the > pair of optical isomers (handedness) is not predicted by physics laws per > se. The specific arrangement discovered by Pastuer requires an arrangement > of at least 5 separate and distinct “radicals” in a pattern such that the > mirror images differ. (Today, the physical origin of optical rotation of > polarized light is attributed to the rotation of the electrical field > vector of a light ray by interaction with the five different “radicals”.) > > In short, the logic of physics and the logic of chemistry start with > different pre-suppositions with regard to the nature of matter. Different > symbolic antecedents results in different symbolic consequences. Hence, the > different meta-languages of the two disciplines. In “Primary Logic”, M. > Malatesta (1997), GraceWings, derives the distinctions in terms of the > historical development of differences of logical notations. > > 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 > [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to [email protected] 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 [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
