List, Ben: Your recent posts contribute to a rather curious insight into CSP’s beliefs about the relationships between mathematics, chemistry and logic of scientific hypotheses.
> On Mar 2, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Benjamin Udell <baud...@gmail.com> wrote: > > from MS 647 (1910) which appeared in Sandra B. Rosenthal's 1994 book _Charles > Peirce's Pragmatic Pluralism_: > > An Occurrence, which Thought analyzes into Things and Happenings, is > necessarily Real; but it can never be known or even imagined in all its > infinite detail. A Fact, on the other hand[,] is so much of the real Universe > as can be represented in a Proposition, and instead of being, like an > Occurrence, a slice of the Universe, it is rather to be compared to a > chemical principle extracted therefrom by the power of Thought; and though it > is, or may be Real, yet, in its Real existence it is inseparably combined > with an infinite swarm of circumstances, which make no part of the Fact > itself. It is impossible to thread our way through the Logical intricacies of > being unless we keep these two things, the Occurrence and the Real Fact, > sharply separate in our Thoughts. [Peirce, MS 647 (1910)] > > In that quote Peirce very clearly holds that not all will be known or can > even be imagined. > In MS 647, he compares a fact with "a chemical principle extracted therefrom by the power of Thought;” That is, the notion of a fact is in the past tense. It is completed and has an identity. It is no longer is question about the nature of what happened during the occurrence. Thus the separation from: "in its Real existence it is inseparably combined with an infinite swarm of circumstances, which make no part of the Fact itself.” Now, compare this logical view of a chemical principle with the mathematical relation with the realism of matter in the synechism (EP1, 312-333.): The things of this world, that seem so transitory to philosophers, are not continuous. They are composed of discrete atoms, no doubt Boscovichian <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Joseph_Boscovich> points (my emphasis). The really continuous things, Space, and Time, and Law, are eternal.” Do you believe that CSP is asseerting that there exist two clear and distinctly different notions of mathematical points? That is, the Boscovichian points of discrete atoms as contrasted with the points of ”really continuous things, space, time and Law"? What would be an alternative hypothesis? That true continuity does not contain points? Would it be necessary for a legi-sign be something other than space and time because they would not be points?? Any ideas on the ontological status of Boscovichian points from your perspective of singularities? More precisely, what is the meaning of Synechism … it is a regulative principle of logic, prescribing what sort of hypothesis is fit to be entertained and examined.?? Is it possible that a “regulatory principle of logic” is a continuity in the sense of excluding Boscovichian points? Very confusing, to say the least. 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 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 .
