Clark, Edwina, list:
If you know that “Local entropy can (and often does) decrease whereas the universal entropy increases” then perhaps you thought to place this law in context of entities with permeable membranes. It seems to me an important matter to consider if one is going to talk about biology and physics. Best, J On Wed, Apr 5, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > Clark-list; I'm not saying that biology is reducible to physics!!!! > Physics doesn't have that self-organization or 'negentropy that biology has. > > I don't see how or where I am rejecting Peirce's views. I don't see that > chance 'enables habit'; it breaks up some habits and allows for different > habits to develop. As Peirce writes.."non-habitual reactions take place; > and these tend to weaken the habit" 6.264. I see the non-habitual as > Firstness/chance - which 'tend to weaken the habit'. > > I think that a decrease in entropy, DOES matter, for it means that a > particular ecosystem is losing its capacity for diversity and novelty. A > peat bog, for instance, has a very low 'diversity-count', while a meadow > has a huge range of diversity of plant and insect/animal life. > > Edwina > > > -- > This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's > largest alternative telecommunications provider. > > http://www.primus.ca > > On Wed 05/04/17 4:25 PM , Clark Goble cl...@lextek.com sent: > > > On Apr 5, 2017, at 2:19 PM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > > Clark- but isn't the reality of the biological realm, which introduces > the non-isolation of a system and self-organization and thus, works against > entropy - a natural action? After all, the basic mode of action of semiosis > is its non-isolation - and the transformation of energy from one to another > mode. > > Is the universe growing more reasonable according to Peirce? Or more > complex? I don't see how the universe is growing more ordered IF that same > universe maintains its three categories: Firstness rejects order. > Secondness fights against similarities. Thirdness inserts order. > > Again- I might be missing something in your outline > > > Let me start by saying not all biologists accept physicalism, materialism > or other range of views which I think most assume it ought take. If we take > biology to be in some sense reducible to physics, then the fact biology > isn’t isolated (and can’t be) then local entropy decrease doesn’t matter. > Put simply the earth isn’t a closed system so there is no global second law > for that system. This is important since of course Creationists often bring > up the second law relative to biology but that’s simply because they don’t > understand how it works. > > As for the universe, more or less you’re just rejecting Peirce’s view > there. Which again is fine. The reason Peirce saw the universe as getting > more complex is precisely because he saw chance both enabling habit and > varying from habit. So how you are using firstness and chance is just not > the same as Peirce, although it may well make perfect sense in the > particular arena you’re applying it. > > > > > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
