List,
I am not happy with tychism: Conservation laws require infinite exactness of conservation: Energy or impulse before a reaction must be exactly the same before and after a reaction. Though in a very small (quantum) scale it is not so, but then there must be some kind of counting buffer mechanism to make sure that in a bigger scale infinite exactness is granted. This one is also governed by laws. I do not believe in the dualism sui-generis versus laws, I rather guess that it is all laws providing the possibility of evolution and generation of new things, self-organization and so on. Without laws nothing would happen, I´d say. I think that natural constants may change, but that there are some laws that dont. And if these laws are only the ones based on tautology: One plus one can never be 2.0000001, because 2 is defined as 1+1. I guess these eternal laws are the laws of logic. I think they are tautologies, like a syllogism is a tautology: The conclusion is nothing new, all is already said in the two premisses: "Arthur is a human, all humans are mortal, so Arthur is mortal", you can forget the conclusion by just putting an "and" between the premisses: "Arthur is a human, and all humans are mortal". The conclusion ", so Arthur is mortal" is redundant, except you do not believe in continuity which is indicated by the word "and" between the two premisses.
My conclusion: "Law" is an inexact term. A "law" is a compound constructed of an eternal part (tautology, continuity), and a changeable part ((temporary) constants).
Best,
Helmut
30. Mai 2017 um 21:39 Uhr
"James Albrecht" <j...@villalena.com> wrote:
"James Albrecht" <j...@villalena.com> wrote:
This always struck me as being, at least, a parallel articulation of quantum mechanics. Peirce knew that macro-scale knowledge was beset by limits, and that these limitations became more problematic as precision increased.
Also, in the same work on chance, Peirce references Boltzmann, whose gas laws helped lead Planck to the quantum nature of radiation.
On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:34 PM, Mike Bergman <m...@mkbergman.com> wrote:
I just encountered this assertion:
"In the present work we have indicated that a form of logic, relational logic developed by C. S. Peirce, may serve as the foundation of both quantum mechanics and string theory." [1]
Does the list have any comments, further references or criticisms on this pretty bold statement?
Thanks, Mike
[1] A. Nicolaidis, 2008. "Categorical Foundation of Quantum Mechanics and String Theory," arXiv:0812.1946, 10 Dec 2008. See https://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.1946.pdf
-----------------------------
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 .
