Jerry, you wrote,
I do not understand the pre-suppositions of this assertion. What
motivates it's absoluteness (100%!!)
[End quote]
I said that quantum gravity theories are _/not/_ 100% untestable in
current practice.
You wrote:
At any rate, discreteness looks pretty good now! :-)
In my view, the logics of both continuity and discreteness are
essential for scientific thought and observation. Is it really your
belief that one is superior to the other? If so, why?
[End quote]
When I said "continuity is looking pretty good now!", I was discussing
continuity of spacetime, not continuity of everything whatsoever. I
agree that continuity and discreteness are both essential for scientific
thought and observation. Continuity of spacetime is the simplest way to
preserve the Lorentz symmetry.
You wrote,
Have you moved out of the logic of Peircian reference frame
completely? (qualisign, sinsign, legisign, … , argument?)
I don't think that the Peircean reference frame requires me always to be
thinking and talking about kinds of sign. Peirce thought that way, but
I'm not capable of such sustained effort.
One critical fact that is “the elephant in the room” is the
intrinsic asymmetry of nearly all biomolecules. Life Itself depends
on the asymmetries entailed from parent to offspring and the
offsprings capacity to reproduce these quantum asymmetries through
the energetic casual electric field relations among discrete
molecules. (This is the well-established quantum physics of optical
isomers, of the handedness of biophilic and biogenic hyle.)
I was discussing the Galilean and Lorentz symmetries, not all symmetries
whatsoever. Nature is rife with symmetries and asymmetries, and they
both matter.
Your remarks on chemistry are over my head, but that's easy to do!
Best, Ben
On 12/12/2016 2:20 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote:
List, Ben, John:
On Dec 12, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com
<mailto:baud...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Clark, list,
Yes, the question of measuring sub-Planckian phenomena involves more
nuances …
So quantum gravity theories are not 100% untestable in current practice.
I do not understand the pre-suppositions of this assertion. What
motivates it's absoluteness (100%!!)
(Peirce had reasons based, as far as I can tell, in the nature of
thought and in the nature of spontaneity a.k.a. absolute chance, for
a continuity of space, time, and law. At any rate, continuity is
looking pretty good now.)
At any rate, discreteness looks pretty good now! :-)
In my view, the logics of both continuity and discreteness are
essential for scientific thought and observation. Is it really your
belief that one is superior to the other? If so, why?
The generic principle of relativity (laws of motion look the same in
all inertial reference frames) leaves one with a binary choice
(again, as I understand it) between the Galilean symmetry and the
more constraining Lorentz symmetry (which unites space and time,
quantifying them in the same units), so it's not like some other
symmetry is going to come along and rescue the principle of
relativity in such dire discrete straits.
Have you moved out of the logic of Peircian reference frame
completely? (qualisign, sinsign, legisign, … , argument?)
One critical fact that is “the elephant in the room” is the intrinsic
asymmetry of nearly all biomolecules. Life Itself depends on the
asymmetries entailed from parent to offspring and the offsprings
capacity to reproduce these quantum asymmetries through the energetic
casual electric field relations among discrete molecules. (This is
the well-established quantum physics of optical isomers, of the
handedness of biophilic and biogenic hyle.)
In my reading of this sentence, the narrative contradicts the role of
physical measurements in sustaining life itself.
Or, am I mis-interpreting the role of the natural semiosis associated
with the hyle, either in static or dynamic modes?
BTW, I note the Peircian logical reference frame (qualisign, sinsign,
legisign, … , argument?) accommodate the handedness of molecules
coherently.
I would further note that John S. revision of the Peircian logical
reference frame, (Knowledge Representation, 6.6 Semiosis, page 397)
appears, to my eye, to avoid the discrete countable nature of
biophilic hyle.
In regard to my own research, I would add that the Peircian logical
reference system (qualisign, sinsign, legisign, … , argument?) played
a key role in the forming the logic of addition in the perplex number
system precisely because of its capacity to represent the emergent
roles of handedness in biophilic hyle.
I add this note because of the relevance of discrete asymmetric
quantum electric field effects in the material evolution of life.
Cheers
Jerry
Best, Ben
On 12/12/2016 11:14 AM, Clark Goble wrote:
(Sorry somehow managed to send this to the old list number. Stupid
Apple Mail.)
On Dec 11, 2016, at 12:48 PM, Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com
<mailto:baud...@gmail.com> > wrote:
According to Wikipedia, the Planck length is, in principle, within
a factor of 10, the shortest measurable length – and no
theoretically known improvement in measurement instruments could
change that. But some physicists have found that that's not quite
as much of a barrier as it may seem to be.
It ends up being a bit more complex than that. It really depends
upon the system in question and what you are measuring. There’s also
the debate about whether this is epistemological or “real” (although
when people use that term they mean traditional realism not Peirce’s
realism which tends to blur the distinction).
BTW - a better discussion of Planck length is probably stack
exchange which gets into many of the nuances (both physical and
philosophical). It’s almost always a better source than Wikipedia on
these topics.
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185939/is-the-planck-length-the-smallest-length-that-exists-in-the-universe-or-is-it-th
The short answer is that gravitational effects become dominate below
the Planck length we assume. Since we don’t have a theory of quantum
gravity this region is more or less ‘no man’s land’ unless one tries
to apply string theory or the like. Beyond that it’s just a scale
factor and we probably shouldn’t say much beyond that. (Again unless
one is doing theoretical work in quantum gravity - but that has its
own problems)
Typically in practical QM problems we assume a classical continuous
substantial spacetime and ignore all these issues. In that case
we’re just worried about what we can measure in principle about
*that* system from the math.
A few other useful ones:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/9720/does-the-planck-scale-imply-that-spacetime-is-discrete
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28720/how-to-get-planck-length
-----------------------------
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 .
