List, esp. dear cosmologists,
I have got an idea about the universe, of which I do not know, if it makes sense. It is based on the assumption that there was no beginning, no big bang too, and on what I had read, that the energy represented mainly by matter, heat, and kinetic energy is equal the potential energy (a function mainly of matter and the distances between the stars). So if you would write a "minus" before eg. the potential energy, the sum of energy in the universe is zero. That would mean, that, as in an expanding universe the potential energy increases with the distances between masses, so as a counterweight, also the other energy forms, esp. matter, should permanently increase (virtual particles becoming real ones). The density and temperature should remain the same. Now my idea was, that if the universe becomes too big, perhaps it cannot keep its spherical shape, and splits, like a soap bubble splitting in two or more. In each universe bubble now it looks, as if there had been a big bang, but there has not. This hypothesis though requires a mechanism that keeps the ratio of heavy and light elements as it is: Trans-iron-elements are being made by fusion in supernovae, but they also are split again to hydrogen, eg. in evaporating black holes. I wonder, if this might make sense.
Best,
Helmut
22. Oktober 2016 um 19:15 Uhr
"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
"Edwina Taborsky" <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:
Gary R, list:
Exactly. You wrote:
"For those who are unwilling to accept Ens Necessarium as anything but "Mind-like Reasonableness in Nature" (which appears to be Edwina's position, although I'm not as certain as to where Jeff stands on this), then there is no God, no need for God, and exactly nothing 'preceeds' the odd self-creation of the Universe, presumably at the moment of the most singular and peculiar of singularities, the putative Big Bang. So, I don't expect there will be anything approaching a rapprochement in these fundamentally opposed positions any time soon."
That was also my point. The two paradigms are not, either one of them, empirically, provable. That is, whether the universe is self-generated/created as well as self-organized, or, requires an non-immanent agential creator. Both are logical, but, both rely totally on belief. So, there can't be any 'rapprochement'. You either believe in one or the other. And therefore, there's not much use arguing about them!
Edwina
----------------------------- 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 .----- Original Message -----From: Gary RichmondTo: Peirce-LSent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 1:03 PMSubject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce's Logical Universes and CategoriesJon S, Edwina, Jeff D, List,Jon wrote: I do not see it as valid at all to substitute "the Mind-like Reasonableness in Nature" for "God" as Ens necessarium. As I have pointed out before, Peirce made it very clear in the manuscript drafts for "A Neglected Argument" that what he meant by "God" isnot someone or something that is "immanent in Nature." I have also previously noted the distinction between "self-organization" (of that which already has Being), which is perfectly plausible and even evident in the world today, and "self-creation" or "self-generation" (something coming into Being on its own out of nothing), which I find completely implausible.I agree, Jon, and have myself over the years argued that ""Mind-like Reasonableness in Nature" is a valid concept (along with "self-organization") only after the creation of a cosmos, or, as you put it, after there is Being. I too find the notion of "self-generation" and "self-creation" completely implausible and inexplicable.But didn't we just recently have this discussion (remember Platonism vs Aristotelianism?) in contemplating, for prime example, the blackboard analogy (to which Jon added the interesting 'dimension' of a whiteboard)? For those who are unwilling to accept Ens Necessarium as anything but "Mind-like Reasonableness in Nature" (which appears to be Edwina's position, although I'm not as certain as to where Jeff stands on this), then there is no God, no need for God, and exactly nothing 'preceeds' the odd self-creation of the Universe, presumably at the moment of the most singular and peculiar of singularities, the putative Big Bang. So, I don't expect there will be anything approaching a rapprochement in these fundamentally opposed positions any time soon.Meanwhile, and while I think , Jeff, that you may be tending to over-emphasize the importance of developments in the existential graphs in consideration of the Categories/Universes problematic in the N.A. (I don't recall a single mention of EGs in that piece), your most recent post does offer some intriguing hints as to how we might begin to rethink aspects of the relation between the Categories and the Universes, or at least that is my first impression. But how, say, the Gamma graphs might figure in all this, I have no idea whatsover.Jeff concluded: So, in "The Neglected Argument", Peirce may very well be examining--on an observational basis--the different ways that we might think about the phenomenological account of the universes and categories in common experience for the sake of refining his explanations of how the logical conceptions of the universes of discourse and categories should be applied to those abductive inferences that give rise to our most global hypotheses.For me at least there have always been uncanny, unresolved tensions between the phenomenological, the logical, and the metaphysical in The Neglected Argument. The attempt to unravel them seems to me of the greatest potential value.Best,Gary RGary RichmondPhilosophy and Critical ThinkingCommunication StudiesLaGuardia College of the City University of New YorkC 745718 482-5690On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote:Edwina, Jeff, List:This highlights one of my strong initial misgivings about Jeff's posts from last night. I do not see it as valid at all to substitute "the Mind-like Reasonableness in Nature" for "God" as Ens necessarium. As I have pointed out before, Peirce made it very clear in the manuscript drafts for "A Neglected Argument" that what he meant by "God" is not someone or something that is "immanent in Nature." I have also previously noted the distinction between "self-organization" (of that which already has Being), which is perfectly plausible and even evident in the world today, and "self-creation" or "self-generation" (something coming into Being on its own out of nothing), which I find completely implausible.Regards,Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USAProfessional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran LaymanOn Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 8:12 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote:Jeffrey- very nice outline. My view is that "the Mind-like Reasonableness in Nature as Ens necessarium self-sufficient in its originative capacity, "...for Peirce rejected the Cartesian separation of Mind and Matter. Therefore, Mind, as a necessary component of Matter, self-organizes that same Matter and its Laws - by means of the three Categories which enable it to do just that.Edwina
-----------------------------
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 .
-----------------------------
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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
