Jerry, list,
JERRY:
"Exactly what CSP means by "corpuscular philosophy" is a mystery to me.
Was he arguing for the Boscowitz atoms derived from vortices?"
No mystery to me what CSP meant with "corpuscular philosphy". - The
problem with your question lies in "Exactly what..." - It (logically )
demands some kind of an exact (verbal) definition. Such cannot be given.
Definitely it was not (just) about Boscowitz.
Still, I find it silly to ponder what CSP may have or not have known at
his time. - What are theories for? They are for reaching beyond
available information. Philosophical theories especially are (or should
be) for making clear what must be, what may be, and what cannot be.
There you have it. In a nutshell. This is a logical triad no new
information or data may ever break down. All exact definitions must, of
course, be accommondated to this logical triad together with new data or
information, which consist of some experimental results. which - if
brand new - have not been to hold in the long run OR with a wider view.
Best, Kirsti
Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 22.12.2017 18:03:
List, John:
On Dec 19, 2017, at 10:10 PM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote:
Jerry,
Your discussion and references about chirality are convincing.
But they go beyond issues that Peirce would have known in his day.
I think that he was using issues about chirality as examples
for making a stronger claim:
For example, in his lecture on phenomenology, (EP2, 159), ends
with a discussion of chirality and the laws of motion
(Right—handed and Left-handed screws)
“There, then, is a physical phenomenon absolute inexplicable by
mechanical action. This single instance suffices to overthrow the
corpuscular philosophy.”
By the end of the 19th century, the general consensus in physics
was that all the major problems had been solved. But the first
decade of the 20th c. shattered their complacency.
If Peirce had access to a university library with the latest
journals, he might have found stronger arguments to "overthrow
the corpuscular philosophy."
John
Your response deserves a longer reply.
But, for the moment, one brief comment.
Here is a recent reference from the the Royal Society journal:
Review article: Spontaneous mirror symmetry breaking and origin of
biological homochirality
Josep M. Ribó, David Hochberg, Joaquim Crusats, Zoubir El-Hachemi and
Albert Moyano
J. R. Soc. Interface 14:20170699; doi:10.1098/rsif.2017.0699
(published December 13, 2017)
http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/14/137/20170699 [1]
It discusses the central role of the development of chirality in
emergence of life.
CSP concerns were well founded and remain a profound research problem
to this day.
The issue of chirality effectively blocks the mathematization of
natural sorts and kinds using physical laws alone.
Exactly what CSP means by "corpuscular philosophy” is a mystery to
me.
Was he arguing for the Boscowitz atoms derived from vortices?
At a minimum, CSP was arguing against a universal law of mechanics.
Or, was he merely arguing against the putatively universality of the
newly-defined laws of thermodynamics (entropy?)
Whatever he was arguing for or against, the chiral tetrahedral carbon
atom, as a well-defined natural geometrical object that was
irreducible to a triad, posed a major conundrum for him (and all
others) who seek to construct a universe in simpler terms.
Cheer
Jerry
Links:
------
[1] http://rsif.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/14/137/20170699?etoc
-----------------------------
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 .
