List: As I have pointed out before, it seems unlikely that Peirce would have endorsed the so-called "big bang" theory. According to his cosmology, instead of having a distinct beginning in the *finite *past, even billions of years ago, time extends into the *infinite *past.
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) Moreover, he understands time to be a true continuum--in fact, the paradigmatic example of one--which rules out *any *singularities whatsoever. CSP: What is here meant is that time has no instant from which there are more or less than two ways in which time is stretched out, whether they always be in their nature the foregoing and the coming after, or not. If that be so, since every portion of time is bounded by two instants, there must be a connection of time ring-wise. Events may be limited to a portion of this ring; but the time itself must extend round or else there will be a portion of time, say future time and also past time, not bounded by two instants. The justification of this view is that it extends the properties we see belong to time to the whole of time without arbitrary exceptions not warranted by experience. (CP 1.498, c. 1896) Finally, "scientific" estimates of the "age" of the universe are based on the dubious assumption that the laws of nature have remained essentially unchanged since very soon after its alleged beginning, while Peirce maintains that they are results of evolution and still evolving today. CSP: By a process of reasoning, then, of the nature of which I thus give you some hint, though given in full it would be seen to be drawn from a great variety of different evidences, I reached the conclusion that a theory of the evolution of the laws of nature must be sought. But if the laws of nature are the result of evolution, this evolutionary process must be supposed to be still in progress. ... But if the laws of nature are still in process of evolution from a state of things in the infinitely distant past in which there were no laws, it must be that events are not even now absolutely regulated by law. (CP 7.513-514, c. 1898) I could provide additional quotations but hope that these will suffice. There was even a whole thread on "Peirce and the Big Bang" several years ago (https://list.iupui.edu/sympa/arc/peirce-l/2019-08/msg00094.html). Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Sun, Sep 29, 2024 at 2:20 PM Edwina Taborsky <[email protected]> wrote: > List > > I sometimes wonder/wish - what would it have been like - if Peirce had > lived for another 10-15 years? Would his concepts be validated by the > advances in the scientific world? > > 1] What about his outline of the emergence of the universe [1.412; 6.217]- > The idea of an expanding, evolving universe, which emerged from a > singularity of density [potentiality?] as Peirce outlines it in 1.412, can > be compared with the 1920’s and 1930’s scientific proposals [Friedmann, > Lemaitre] of the emergence of the universe from a dense singularity. > > 2] His concept that - there was ‘no time’ in this phase - has also been > scientifically shown as valid. > > 3] What about the electromagnetic force - one of the four fundamental > forces? I have always defined the Semiotic process of O-R-I > [Object-Representamen-Interpretant ] as comparable to a function, ie, where > F(X)=Y ..or.. Representamen/Sign [Object)=Interpretant. > > But in addition, an analogy can be made with the electromagnetic force, > which is an interaction that occurs between particles with electric charge > via electromagnetic fields. I’d compare a magnetic field to the semiosic > process, where one vector, B is the magnetic induction [compare with the > Object’s data]; and the other vector , H, is the magnetic fields > intensity/strength [ ie, the strength of the Interpretant’s informational > content. > > It’s interesting that in a vacuum [ infinity???] B and H are proportional > to each other, but inside matter, they are different - which fits in with > the notion of an evolving or different interpretant. > > 4] And of course, his concepts of the reality of chance/freedom as well as > the developments of stable patterns - have also been scientifically > validated. > > Just another decade or two- would have shown, scientifically, the validity > of his theories. > > Edwina >
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ARISBE: THE PEIRCE GATEWAY is now at https://cspeirce.com and, just as well, at https://www.cspeirce.com . It'll take a while to repair / update all the links! ► 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 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.
