Jon, All theories in physics, indeed all theories in “special sciences,” rest on metaphysical assumptions; that’s what makes them special sciences. Peirce’s cosmology is not a special science, certainly not a physical science. According to Peirce’s metaphysics, based on logical principles (as he always said that a scientific metaphysics must be), a discontinuity at the “beginning” of the logical universe (whatever that could mean) is a contradiction in terms. The Big Bang is a theory about the origin of the physical universe which rests on the core metaphysical assumptions of physics — which Peirce’s cosmology does not assume. Hence the “universe” of Peirce’s cosmology is not in the same universe of discourse as the physical “universe” that putatively began with the Big Bang. I don’t think you can logically argue for or against a hypothesis in one universe of discourse by drawing on principles belonging to a different universe of discourse. That was my point. The implication, as I see it, is that Peirce’s cosmology can’t be reduced to physics or any other special science.
Gary f From: Jon Alan Schmidt <[email protected]> Sent: 23-Aug-19 11:43 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang Gary F., List: As I have already stated, I do not see how Peirce's synechistic and hyperbolic cosmology is compatible with the hypothesis of a singularity (discontinuity) at the beginning of the universe, especially since he affirmed more than once that time began "infinitely long ago" as whatever preceded it--whatever that could mean--"gradually and continuously developed into time" (NEM 4:149; 1898). Moreover, the Big Bang theory is not testable by means of physical observations, since it rests on an untestable assumption that the laws of nature have remained essentially unchanged ever since almost immediately after the beginning of the universe--which, again, Peirce denied in accordance with his "thorough-going evolutionism." Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt <http://www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 9:29 AM <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Jon, John, List, I don’t see how Peirce’s cosmology, which is essentially metaphysical (i.e. based on logical principles), has any bearing on the Big Bang theory, which is strictly a physical hypothesis testable only by means of physical observations. I suppose Peirce as physicist would have had something to say about the Big Bang, but I don’t think it would necessitate a modification of his cosmology, nor would his cosmology imply a denial that the Big Bang happened at the beginning of the physical universe as we know it. Gary f.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
