Helmut, List: HR: Eg. he wrote, that the dynamical object is real, and that it also is the object as a final study would show it to be.
I think that the key word here is *would*. The idea is that the real is that which *would *come to be known by an infinite community after indefinite inquiry, not just what *will* or even *can *be discovered in the future. As you say, some information is now lost to history; but it *could *have been known at some point in the past, and *would *be known today and in the future *if *it had thus been preserved. Therefore, it is real, even though no one will ever *actually *come to know it. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 12:45 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > Jeffrey, List, > I like you 6 points for orientation how to discuss. I can find an argument > of mine from this thread in points 5 and 1. The subject was, that Peirce > believed in completely satisfying results due to final study. This applies > eg. to dynamical object and final interpretant. > Eg. he wrote, that the dynamical object is real, and that it also is the > object as a final study would show it to be. > From the position of your point Nr.5, I argued, that an object which is > something that happened or had been in the past (a finished event or a > snapshot of a past constellation or situation) can never be reconstructed, > because very likely the documentation about it is not complete, information > is missing. No study, how final ever, can retrieve it. > So, from point Nr.5, I would say, Peirce was wrong at this point. > But, because I rather wanted to argue from point Nr.1, I had suggested, > that perhaps Peirce believed in Bayesianism, but this approach was not > correct, I rather should have asked: > Did he believe in a kind of information-conservation-law? > This would mean, that any past event and situation can theoretically be > reconstructed by looking at everything that is influenced by this event or > situation. > There are theories, which claim something like that, eg. QBism, and hidden > variables, if I haven´t gotten it wrongly. > Well, this topic sort of bothers me, because I (at the moment) do not > believe in information conservation, because it contradicts the concept of > entropy increase and Heisenbergean uncertainty, both of which I am more or > less certain. > On the other hand, I often had thought: "Peirce must be wrong at this > point", but later I had seen, that he was not, but I. > > But perhaps this example like you wrote in point Nr1, was not "his > considered view all things considered". > But the problem is, that there are dynamical objects, which change, and > others, that don´t. If they change, they cannot be reached by a final > study, because a study takes time, and maybe they change faster than the > study approaches them. Apart from the type above (past things), there is > only one type of dynamical objects that, I guess, does not change, that is > metaphysical laws, but Peirce did not believe in their unchangeability. > So I am sort of drawn to point Nr.5, Peirce was wrong, so convince me that > he was not. > 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 .
