Jon, List,
Thank you. So this was another semantic problem, this time with the term "would"!
30. März 2017 um 20:04 Uhr
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
Von: "Jon Alan Schmidt" <jonalanschm...@gmail.com>
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
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 .
