> On Apr 5, 2017, at 1:18 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > So- I don't see how Peirce's view is incompatible with the current view - but > I might be missing what you are trying to explain. >
Peirce explicitly saw entropy and conservation as not applying universally because they only applied to determinate systems. He also saw entropy as a statistical measure. The question is whether his semiotics violates the laws of thermodynamics and he explicitly saw that they did. The question then becomes how contemporary understanding of thermodynamics in science would see it. Most contemporary science sees thermodynamics as unbreakable. In that case if the universe is getting more ordered that violates the second law of thermodynamics. So fundamentally the question is whether Peirce’s view that the universe is growing to more reasonableness is incompatible with thermodynamics. Clearly it is. I don’t think that says much about the utility of semiotics. It does raise serious questions about his cosmology though for many people.
----------------------------- 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 .
