List, John: (N.B. This post includes substantial technical material. I conjecture that it is readable for a substantial subset of the readers of this list serve. No apologies, just my views expressed within the lexical field of the natural sciences.)
Before responding to your insightful comments, I would note that the opened ended logic of the chemical sciences is extremely important philosophically as well as for interpreting CSP’s writings. The logical signature of set theory and classical mathematics is remote from the logical signature of formal chemical logic. Despite this profoundly deep logical distinction, amazingly, the sciences of physics and chemistry are Siamese twins, symbolically conjoined by the facts of life and the realism of matter. > On May 24, 2018, at 8:01 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > On 5/23/2018 2:14 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >> This is because CSP logic, which he repeatedly said was based on chemistry >> failed and the reasons why it failed to represent chemical logic now very >> clear, at least to me. > > Peirce never used the term "based on". It would be better to say > "an analogy with the diagrams of organic chemistry”."an analogy with the > diagrams of organic chemistry”. I agree that my choice of terms “based on” was conceptual, not empirical. But, in my opinion, the phrase: > "an analogy with the diagrams of organic chemistry”. does not capture the essence of the relationship between CSP writings and chemistry. CSP fully appreciated that Kant’s late 18 th Century view of chemistry as a non-mathematical science was completely wrong BECAUSE ALL CHEMICAL EXPERIMENTS ARE BASED ON CALCULATIONS. His rejection of Kantian philosophy was clear and crisp. It was well stated. CSP recognized the extreme philosophical importance of the open-ended nature of chemical logic. He also recognized the generative and / or creative (evolutionary?) of atoms informing molecules quantitatively. Kant merely opined about the role of mathematics in the sciences. CSP set about to develop a logic that, within that historical 19 th century timeframe, was consistent with the realism of chemical experimentation. Roughly speaking, during the first half of the 19 th Century, the skeletal logic of “ionic” chemistry was developed as “valence” of inorganic stuff. In the second half of the 19 th Century, the emergence of the principles of organic chemistry was in progress as ”radicals continuing multiple atoms” but lacked inclusiveness during CSP lifetime. By primitive state, I mean that VAST number of unexplainable organic structures existed. These were mostly crystals extracted from biological organisms, without either a mathematical or physical foundation for the relationships between nouns as subjects and physical attributes as predicates. Of course, CSP's efforts to construct a mathematical logic for chemistry failed. But brilliant scientists often fail in very very interesting ways such the later generations profit from their writings. Such was CSP fate, as he foresaw in his philosophical view of scientific inquiry. (Thus, the notion of the synductive logic of the perplex numbers system emerges from CSP’s notion of “abductive logic” in augmentation of the mathematical and physical necessity to follow the two principles laws of physics of Newton and Coulomb.) > > Venn had written two articles in the same issue: the first one > gave many examples of logic notations, including Frege (1879) and > Peirce (1880). The second one discussed many kinds of diagrams > for logic, and it added that Frege's notation could also be > considered a kind of diagram. > >> he foresaw the grammatical constraints in his (1860’s) >> specification of the breadth and depth of information. > > Without seeing a quotation, I don't know exactly what you're > referring to. But the inverse relation of breadth vs depth > (also called extension vs intention or comprehension) is > as old as Aristotle. And it is usually called a semantic > relations, not a syntactic one. > >> Peirce failed to grasp the notion of identity in chemistry, >> even in its logic form of 1890-1910. > > The first-order subset of his existential graphs have an exact > mapping to and from his 1885 algebraic notation for FOL. So what are you seeking to infer from this relationship. If you are aware of a propositions / logical analyses that describe the FOL of matter, I would greatly appreciate the reference. The concept of identity in chemistry is a physical concept that emerges from the antecedent elements and consequential attributes of compositions. (I presume that you are NOT asserting that the emergence of the organic from the inorganic is a process of FOL.) > > I'm not aware of his discussions of "identity in chemistry". > Could you quote an example? He discussed the relationships between optical isomers of (organic) tartaric acid discovered by Pasteur and “explained” Van Hoff and LaBel in the time frame of 1875-1882. Now we recognize that optical isomers are describable as quantum objects since the pair of isomers have identical physical properties except one - the relationship with polarized light. More generally, any formal name of any chemical object is it’s identity. Please note well that the profound grammatical, logical, symbolic, syntactical and physical distinction between the MEANING of the term “identity” in chemistry and mathematics. > >> In my opinion, Wittgenstein was, is, and will be scientifically >> incoherent.... "Local thoughts only.” Proclamation after >> proclamation after proclamation… great narratives, but meaningful? > > On the contrary, Wittgenstein's language games represent the essence > of science and engineering, and they're highly compatible with Peirce: Your assertions are remote from my reading the nature of local and global relationships in number, time and space inferred from Wittgenstein writings and from CSP writings. Just my interpretations, that’s all. > > "It is easy to speak with precision upon a general theme. Only, > one must commonly surrender all ambition to be certain. It is equally > easy to be certain. One has only to be sufficiently vague. It is not > so difficult to be pretty precise and fairly certain at once about a > very narrow subject." (CP 4.237) I love this quote! Indeed, by inference, the entire section, 4.237, is among the clearest statements of the relationships between mathematics and the sciences/lexical fields that I know of. It is relevant to the logical foundations of emergence and evolution, the relationships between the inorganic and the organic. It also is relevant to the numerous philosophical disputes on the distinctions between mathematics and the natural sciences, such as nominalism, idealism, realism, etc. Realism, of course, demands that one be “pretty precise and fairly certain” within the propositions that are assert a relation between the antecedent and the consequent. In this context, the remark > It is not so difficult to be pretty precise and fairly certain at once about a > very narrow subject." (CP 4.237) captures the very essence of the role of identity in the chemical and social sciences. The enormous success of chemistry in its role as the anatomical foundations for the vast range of biological organism is intrinsically dependent on constraining the subject to EXACTLY ONE GRAPH composed from perplex numbers. (Technically, I am including “forests” of graphs (collections) as a unity.) Physically, the formal logic of chemistry associates the perplex numbers of one unique graph with > pretty precise and fairly certain empirical measurements of x-ray diffraction patterns of corresponding crystals of the unique material species represented by the graph. (N.B., the x-ray crystallography methodology for organic structures was developed after CSP passed.) The physical logic of the atomic numbers serve as "pretty precise and fairly certain" ur-roots for chemical and molecular biological identities such as DNA, RNA and Proteins. > Organic chemistry, for example, has been called "the science > of side effects.” The origin of this quote would be appreciated. It is, perhaps, the greatest exhibition of intellectual arrogance that I have come across in roughly 60 years of experience as a scientist. It reminds of Ernest Rutherford famous quote "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." The historical irony is that the formal perplex logic of chemistry is based, in part, on the work of Moseley and Rutherford who discovered and named the “atomic numbers”, thus refuting the assertions of 18 th Century assertions of Kant! Cheers Jerry > The > 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 .
