Helmut, List: My guess is that Peirce would say that the existence of the universe is a matter of fact, and thus calls for an explanation; so we should not block the way of inquiry by ruling this out on *a priori* grounds, as you seem to be suggesting. However, he also would say that we should not be *dogmatic *about whatever explanation we devise, since he did not think that we should be dogmatic about *anything*.
Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > List, > I am wondering, whether it is helpful at all to ponder about "nothing", > because I doubt that it can be more than a myth. Same with beginning, > creation, tychism, and platonic ideas. I have the hypothesis, that > reverse-engineering is not possible if you only have the status quo, and no > symbolic second documentary. You can reverse-engineer the derivation of > species, because you have the DNA of existing ones for symbolic > documentary. But in the physicochemical realm there is no such documentary, > not even the background radiation, which is not symbolic, but indexical. > So, this is merely a hypothesis: Myths cannot be falsified or verified > (demythicized) merely with indices and icons. Is that so?? > Best, > Helmut >
----------------------------- 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 .
