Jerry, List
Now I have had a look at the Commens Dictionary: Ok, to say that the immediate object is inside, and the dynamical object outside of the sign, is not exctly how Peirce wrote it. He rather wrote, that the immediate object is the object as represented in the sign, and the dynamical object is independent of the sign. To call "as represented" "inside", and "independent" "outside" of the sign would be already an interpretation.
About the Bayes part: Maybe I was wrong. I wrote about what I had remembered from a thread about Bayesianism long ago at this list. Wasnt it about reversibility in the way, that an event has different outcome possibilities with different probabilities, but the whole of all that results from the event, in reality, at any time, carries the informations about the event along with it, so the event (the truth about the event) can theoretically be reconstructed? But I better should look it up, but he problem is, I do not understand the mathematic symbols.
Best,
Helmut
19. März 2017 um 22:16 Uhr
"Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>
"Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>
Helmut, John, List:
Thank you for the interesting post. It raises some questions in my mind.
I really do not know how to parse this phrase.
jerry
On Mar 17, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote:Dear List Members,I think, that the Peircean truth is the similarity between the immediate and the dynamical object, achieved in the infinite future, and this similarity will be perfect (after indefinite time), when the only aspect, that tells it (the similarity) from sameness, is, that the immediate object is still inside the sign, whilst the dynamical one is remaining outside of it.Is that so, or somehow like that?
Pragmatically, this appears to an impossibility. Perhaps you can amplify the meaning?
I do not think of signs having an interior or exterior or an interior and exterior.
Anyway, I guess, that the origins, the histories of both the immediate and the dynamical object ly in the past, not in the future. So truth, I think, is a matter of the past, not of the future.And, if one thinks, that the past and it´s truth may, or even will be uncovered in the (be it infinite) future, then I would say, that this belief is a Bayesian one.Because, as far as I have understood Bayesianism, I think that Bayesianists believe that the past can be mathematically reconstructed from the present (no information is completely lost).
Bayesian mathematics is restricted to analysis of probability propositions where the antecedent and consequences are given, that is, [0,1].
What is the purpose of introducing “information” into this context?
The nature of truth is already compromised by introducing the concept of probability into a proposition. Why further dilute both the semantics and the syntaxes?
Thomas Bayes, 1702-1761.So is it ok to say, that Peirce had a belief similar to what later was called Bayesianism?
Cheers
John, List
> On Mar 16, 2017, at 1:49 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>
> But if we use some language with a finite alphabet and limit
> the theories to a finite specification, there are at most
> a countable number of theories.
>
> But there are two ways for a theory expressed in discrete signs
> to describe a continuous aspect of the world:
Yes, there are two ways, so your assertion is reasonable.
But, is this assertion logically complete pragmatically?
Can you relate either of your theoretical ways to modes of description or modes of explanation of genetic material or cellular metabolism, both of which express discrete signs?
The number of ways to express discrete signs is limited by the pre-suppositions about the foundations of mathematics and the illations to modes of description and modes of explanation.
Thus, in my mind, the question arises ,
“How do the two ways you list relate to categorial modes of description and functorial modes of explanation?”
CSP’s “nine-fold way” of creating cyclic arguments to generate legisigns succeeds in this challenge, does it not?
I would further suggest that CSP’s nine-fold way succeeds because of the constraints it places on the meaning of symbols.
Cheers
Jerry
> John
>
> -----------------------------
> 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
