List, John, Stephen: A few technical comment from a chemist may be helpful here because the semiotics of chemical sciences developed a forma logic for relationships among all chemical elements. The logical formalism is virtually complete but minor enhancements are necessary from time to time as the fruits of inquiry into the nature of matter continue to generate exact knowledge about the nature of quantum chemistry, chemistry, and biochemistry. > On Feb 18, 2018, at 9:24 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > On 2/18/2018 7:40 AM, Stephen Jarosek wrote: >> As far as the silicon molecule is concerned, the stone has no context that >> is relevant to it. The silicon molecule receives no cue from the stone as to >> what its properties should be.
This sentence is not true. Any stone that contains the element silicon with have the property that chemical and mass spectral analysis will show the presence of the element of silicon. This is positive evidence, far greater than merely a clue. > > That is not true. A silicon atom behaves in very different ways in > different molecules. This sentence is also not exactly true. But very nearly so. A molecule that contains the element silicon must also contain relations between the parts of the molecule - chemical relations that conjoin the parts into a whole, such that a formal name exists for the whole. > In minerals, it is in some molecule, such as > silicon dioxide. But SiO2 may combine in more complex molecules, > such as aluminum silicate. And those molecules are affected by the > crystals, glasses, and surface interactions that affect the rock as > a whole. Heat, pressure, tension, torsion, and chemical processes > are transmitted to, from, and through every molecule in the rock. > >> The stone is not a system, but an agglomeration of disconnected minerals. The word “system” can be interpreted in many, many ways. At one extreme, a stone may be a very loose collection of many mineral of similar composite or diverse composition. At the other extreme, a stone may be a crystal composed from two elements, such as a diamond. (Before anyone sends me a email saying that diamond in pure carbon, I would point out the the diamond-iod structural surface includes hydrogen bonded to the exterior carbon atoms.) > > For organic matter, the processes are even complex and organized than > any human can conceive. I think this is a bit of an rhetorical exaggeration. More than 100,000,000 organic compounds have been indexed by the American Chemical Society. > > And there is a continuum: This phrase is rather misleading in its meaning in this context. Each chemical nuclei is an individual mass and electrical unit. It is a discrete count that associates a specific member of the table of elements with its logical predicates - its physical properties. The concept of a continuum, both in Peircian terms and traditional mathematics) is a mathematical term that relates to certain predicates of atoms with geometric lines but not to the names of the atoms themselves. > Some inorganic processes somehow evolved > into those organic processes. The genesis of organic matter as molecules from inorganic matter as atoms is very well known in chemistry and molecular biology. This usage is confusing to me. The central issues to be explained are the spontaneity of the dynamics of life and the spontaneity of reproduction. These two issues necessary involve both quantum chemistry (Penrose twistors for optical isomers) and the semiotics of genetic symbols as perplex generating functions for the organization of life from small inorganic and organic precursors. > The inorganic processes that generate > the earth's weather are extremely complex. And the weather affects > and is affected by all the organic processes on earth. And the earth > is just one insignificant rocky planet in a run-of-the-mill galaxy > in one corner of an immensely complex cosmos. Fine. I concur. Jerry > > John > > ----------------------------- > 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 .
