>"I would prefer not to have these emails stuff my folder for Peirce-L. Unless >other Peirce-L subscribers want to read these notes, I suggest that the cc or >bcc to Peirce-L should stop."
Before anyone dismisses the study of physics as irrelevant to the study of semiotics, might I suggest that physics has everything to do with semiotics... not just from the perspective of pragmatism as it relates to experimentation, but also pragmatism in the context of how living entities with neuroplastic brains define space and time to matter. If physicists do not address these deeper aspects of pragmatism, then they are likely to keep making the same category errors and churning out the same unfalsifiable nonsense without end. Indeed, I'd go so far as to suggest that the solution to these contemporary controversies in physics must ultimately factor in semiotics, by necessity, because everything that any living organism can know about space or time is experiential and irredeemably subjective. David Chalmers' "hard problem" is about much more than the color red. Space and time are the meanings that we attribute to what we experience, in the choices that we make from space. Or to put all this another way... maybe it is semiotics that will save physics. sj -----Original Message----- From: John F Sowa [mailto:s...@bestweb.net] Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 2:25 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [Sadhu Sanga] Re: Is relativity theory holding back progress in science? I have been following new developments in physics for many years, and I am also interested in Peirce's views on the subject. But I agree with the summary below by Kashyap V Vasavada. I would prefer not to have these emails stuff my folder for Peirce-L. Unless other Peirce-L subscribers want to read these notes, I suggest that the cc or bcc to Peirce-L should stop. John ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Mark, I completely agree with you. QM, SR and GR are three beautiful theories of physics, extremely successful in their domain of applicability. Surely, problems remain, like combination of QM and GR in a theory of quantum gravity which will be relevant in discussion of black holes, origin of universe, dark matter and dark energy. But trying to find faults at a very elementary text book material is like pursuing mirage. Anyone is welcome to waste his/her time!!! You put it very well. Thanks! As I said before, understanding Consciousness is a major task for science. But that will not be helped by trying to fix physical science theories. Do not try to fix things which are not broken!! Best Regards. Kashyap
----------------------------- 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 .
