Gary, List: GR: For me one of the prime questions arising in consideration of the question of the primordial primacy of mind or matter (or both, as Edwina has been arguing) is: Did matter exist at or just after the Big Bang?
I suppose that this is a prime question for those who *affirm *the "big bang" hypothesis, but not for those seeking to understand *Peirce's *cosmology. As I have pointed out before, one of the key *assumptions *underlying the "big bang" hypothesis is that the laws of nature have remained essentially unchanged ever since the very first minuscule fractions of a second after that alleged event. By contrast, Peirce was quite adamant that the laws of nature as we observe them today are just as much the results of *evolution *as anything else. Accordingly, his "hyperbolic" scheme posits complete indeterminacy in the infinite past and complete regularity in the infinite future, not as *actual *states, but as *ideal *limits. CSP: We look back toward a point in the infinitely distant past when there was no law but mere indeterminacy; we look forward to a point in the infinitely distant future when there will be no indeterminacy or chance but a complete reign of law. But at any assignable date in the past, however early, there was already some tendency toward uniformity; and at any assignable date in the future there will be some slight aberrancy from law. (CP 1.409, 1887-8) Hence, it seems highly unlikely that Peirce would have endorsed any *finite *estimate of the "age" of the universe. Instead, according to him, its creation "did not take place during a certain busy week, in the year 4004 B.C"--nor, for that matter, at an instant of time roughly 13.7 billion years ago--"but is going on today and never will be done" (CP 1.615, EP 2:255, 1903). CSP: You think all the arbitrary specifications of the universe were introduced in one dose, in the beginning, if there was a beginning, and that the variety and complication of nature has always been just as much as it is now. But I, for my part, think that the diversification, the specification, has been continually taking place. (CP 6.57, EP 1:307, 1892) CSP: That first moment of time was of course infinitely long ago. But more than that, although it was but one moment, it was infinitely longer than any number of ages. It contained as great a multitude of ages as there are points upon a continuous line. In one sense this continuum was not time, it is true, because it all occupied but a moment of time. But it was not only strictly analogous to time, but it gradually and continuously developed into time; so that it was of one continuous nature with time. All that follows from the principles of continuity. (NEM 4:149, 1898) CSP: I am inclined to think (though I admit that there is no necessity of taking that view) that the process of creation has been going on for an infinite time in the past, and further, during all past time, and, further, that past time had no definite beginning, yet came about by a process which in a generalized sense, of which we cannot easily get much idea, was a development. (CP 6.506; c. 1906) As Peirce writes elsewhere, "philosophy requires thorough-going evolutionism or none" (CP 6.14, EP 1:289, 1891), and his own synechism "carries along with it the following doctrines: first, a logical realism of the most pronounced type; second, objective idealism; third, tychism, with its consequent thorough-going evolutionism" (CP 6.163, EP 1:333, 1893). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 1:09 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Helmut, Jon, List, > > For me one of the prime questions arising in consideration of the question > of the primordial primacy of mind or matter (or both, as Edwina has been > arguing) is: Did matter exist at or just after the Big Bang? > > Of course there can be no definitive answer to this from either the > philosophical nor the scientific standpoints. However, if you look > on the website of CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research), > "one of the world's largest and most respected centers for scientific > research," you'll find their, I would imagine, tentative answer to the > question. > > In the first moments after the Big Bang, the universe was extremely hot > and dense. As the universe cooled, *conditions became just right to give > rise to the building blocks of matter – the quarks and electrons of which > we are all made.* ... As the universe continued to expand and cool, > things began to happen more slowly (emphasis added). > https://home.cern/science/physics/early-universe > > Now this immediately gives rise to another question: *What* was "hot and > dense" before the cooling that brought into being "*the building blocks > of matter –the quarks and electrons** of which we are all made*"? > > There have been a number of hypotheses proposed by physicists including > that it was a kind of potential energy governed by quantum mechanics or a > super-dense singularity containing all the potential energy and spacetime > of the universe. In any event, at least according to CERN, it was *not* > matter, not even the quarks and electrons that are "the building blocks of > matter." Well, if not matter, then *what*? > Another question (and suggestion of an answer by Peirce) emerges, one > outlined in my recent post addressed to Jon regarding the blackboard > diagram (I erroneously referred to it as the "blackboard metaphor") found > in *The Cambridge Conference Lectures* (1898): What preceded the putative > 'Big Bang'? > Some have answered, "absolutely nothing," or some version of that such as > Stephen Hawking's "no-boundary proposal." But if it were *not* > "absolutely nothing," I have found Peirce's musings in the last of those > lectures quite thought-provoking and not at all unrelated to the question > of what followed upon the putative Big Bang before the "building blocks of > matter" were formed. > If you are interested in these questions, I highly recommend Jon's > discussion in section 5 of this paper intriguing (which includes a kind of > hypothetical development of some of those Peircean suggestions in the > Blackboard diagram): See: "A Neglected Additament: Peirce on Logic, > Cosmology, and the Reality of God" ( > https://tidsskrift.dk/signs/article/view/103187). > Best, > Gary R > “Let everything happen to you > Beauty and terror > Just keep going > No feeling is final” > ― Rainer Maria Rilke > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► 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 UNSUBSCRIBE PEIRCE-L in the SUBJECT LINE of the message and nothing in the body. More at https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/help/user-signoff.html . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
