Ben:
Your questions are directly on target. It is such questions that I
seek to explicate.
I agree when you say:
The striking thing to a gawker like me who knows very little about =
chemistry is those symbols, and it's encouraging to one's intuition
to =
be reassured that chemists themselves find the symbols striking, a
theme =
worth addressing.
but I believe that a much stronger assertion is true.
At the time Peirce was an undergraduate, economic systems used a wide
range of chemical processes, guided almost entirely by historical
experience.
Dalton developed a symbol system and a way of adding symbols (really
juxtapositioning) to represent chemical change. Apparently, as I
currently understand Peirce's writings, he translated (or perhaps,
sought to formalize?) the Dalton notation into a generalized system
of logic. At the time, the logic of chemical relations was not
sufficient to construct a formal logic. But certainly the vast array
of established chemical propositions existing at his time could be
used in a metaphoric sense (just as physicians today use chemical
metaphors to describe biologic disease conditions.)
Ben, when you state:
The idea seems to be that one thinks the chemistry =
through those symbols; the symbols so empower chemical thought that =
chemists make a theme of it.
you hit the nail on the head.
Symbolic relations are absolutely essential chemical thought.
The history of chemistry, is, in part, the history of creating a
natural symbol system that is self-referential.
The symbols are placed into relations in order to represent the
empirical evidence, the properties of matter.
This is necessary (essential) to create the mental image of the
chemical structure in the external world.
The specific relations among the chemical elements create chemical
structures.
In my mind, I can immediately visualize literally thousands of
different chemical structures each with a particular organization and
name.
Thus, within chemical thought, a chemical structure functions a lot
like a "word" in natural language and in mathematics (groups).
As you are aware, in the past fifty years, molecular biology, fully
grounded in chemical relations, has contributed substantially to
biology and medicine.
Modern medicine is based on eidetic processes of chemical structures,
chemical concentrations, chemical processes and particularly in
imbalances of chemical processes.
The logic of molecular biology emerges from both internal and
external processes. One source of internal logic is a particular DNA
sequence. A particular isomer of DNA may contain millions of "atoms"
in specific relation to one another. To the chemist, a DNA molecule
is a word; in the expansive narratives of scientific philosophers,
DNA becomes not just a sentence, or a paragraph, or a chapter, or a
book, but a library!
1. I've seen that it's called "a logic." I'd like to ask, just to be =
sure, are its characteristics distinctly logical, order-theoretic,
or =
anything like that, as opposed to, say, abstract-algebraic, or =
enumerative-combinatorial, or even graph-theoretic?
Most importantly, chemical symbols are one facet of human
communications capabilities.
I argue that:
1. Chemists developed a particular chemical logic to provide an
internal image of the external observations.
2. Chemical grammar is a highly specialized grammar that was
constructed to be consistent with chemical change.
3. All the subjects within the chemical grammar are a special form of
graphs, labeled bipartite graphs.
4. The atomic numbers form a special sort of number system with
particular operations.
5. The concept of time is separated from the concept of matter.
It is for these reasons, I believe, that the rationality of the
chemical symbol system is virtually opaque to non-chemists, ie,
mathematicians, physicists and philosophers.
(I will give some of the reasons for these beliefs at the Salzburg
Whitehead conference in early July.)
In summary, the chemical symbol system works empirically. What is
its formal representation as a logical system?
What are the relations between atomic numbers and ordinary numbers?
2. Is there anything that you think comparable with chemical
thought's =
use of chemical symbolism, using signs -- diagrams, symbols,
semblances, =
or indexes -- in any other major research fields physical, material, =
biological, or social/human? Physicists use Feynmann diagrams, but
those =
don't seem to have anything like the prominence in physics which =
chemical symbolism has in chemistry. On the other hand, I'm hardly
one =
to know. But when I think of physical thought, I think of
mathematical =
expressions a lot more generally, rather than just of visual
diagrams. =
As for some analogous sort of key vehicle of biologists' thinking,
-- I =
can't even think of a "typical" biologist, there seem such diverse =
kinds, at least "on paper," or in Internet searches and encyclopedia =
articles, which are pretty much what's available to me.
Yes.
But first, the issue of Feyman diagrams. These diagram's presuppose
continuous functions and physical "laws".
Chemistry presupposes invisible particles, indivisible particles,
individual particles.
In a certain sense, the atomic numbers are an index, an exact index
for "durable" electrical particles.
Physicians have elaborated vast collections of (subjective?) indices
for describing diseases.
Within the International System of Units, many indices are
constructed, for example, the index for "hardness".
The geneticists have elaborated a symbolic system for representing
"genes" and logical relations among them (cis, trans, a distance
metric).
Genes are also invisible "particles", but usually genes do not
function individually or independently but as part of the entire
system of the organism.
As for physical thought, it focuses on a few concepts, mass, space,
time, motion, energy, and uses continuous variables to associate
these variables.
These are summarized by the "natural" international system of units
(De tracy, about 1800 and subsequent elaborations)
which promote substitution of one concept for another.
Chemical symbols can not be substituted one for another, that is,
iron can not be substituted for gold. The implications of this
simple fact profoundly influence one's philosophy of science if it is
accepted at face value. (Perhaps this is one point of interest to
Victoria.)
(I am attempting to provide short answers in a language for non-
specialists. If I have failed, please let me know and I will make an
effort to reformulate the grammar but not the concepts.
Transdisciplinary communication is extra-ordinarily difficult.)
Pick up an introductory chemistry text and ask yourself, do these
sentences fit with what is written there?
Now, I must run.
I leave two wide open questions:
Was the motivating force for Peirce's synthesis of his logical system
the chemical symbol system?
What argues AGAINST this possibility?
Cheers
Jerry
On May 9, 2006, at 1:06 AM, Peirce Discussion Forum digest wrote:
Subject: Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about?
From: "Benjamin Udell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 16:54:09 -0400
X-Message-Number: 8
Jerry,
Your thumbnail sketch of chemical logic seems clear to me, and my =
memories from long-ago high-school chemistry fit with it.
The striking thing to a gawker like me who knows very little about =
chemistry is those symbols, and it's encouraging to one's intuition
to =
be reassured that chemists themselves find the symbols striking, a
theme =
worth addressing. The idea seems to be that one thinks the chemistry =
through those symbols; the symbols so empower chemical thought that =
chemists make a theme of it. What I wonder are two things:
1. I've seen that it's called "a logic." I'd like to ask, just to be =
sure, are its characteristics distinctly logical, order-theoretic,
or =
anything like that, as opposed to, say, abstract-algebraic, or =
enumerative-combinatorial, or even graph-theoretic?
2. Is there anything that you think comparable with chemical
thought's =
use of chemical symbolism, using signs -- diagrams, symbols,
semblances, =
or indexes -- in any other major research fields physical, material, =
biological, or social/human? Physicists use Feynmann diagrams, but
those =
don't seem to have anything like the prominence in physics which =
chemical symbolism has in chemistry. On the other hand, I'm hardly
one =
to know. But when I think of physical thought, I think of
mathematical =
expressions a lot more generally, rather than just of visual
diagrams. =
As for some analogous sort of key vehicle of biologists' thinking,
-- I =
can't even think of a "typical" biologist, there seem such diverse =
kinds, at least "on paper," or in Internet searches and encyclopedia =
articles, which are pretty much what's available to me.
Best, Ben Udell
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Jerry LR Chandler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Peirce Discussion Forum" <peirce-l@lyris.ttu.edu>
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 7:39 PM
Subject: [peirce-l] Re: NEW ELEMENTS: So what is it all about?
Ben:
My comment is from a chemical perspective. It may or may not be of =
help to you.
On May 6, 2006, at 1:06 AM, Peirce Discussion Forum digest wrote:
But first, on a general note, let me say that among the issues
driving =
my current display of confusion & error, is the question: if =
comprehension is for quality & predicate, while denotation is for =
objects (resistances/reactions), then what dimension is for =
representational and logical relations themselves? Words like "not," =
"probably," "if," etc. do not designate either qualities or
objects, nor =
do they represent objects as having this or that quality.
Names of chemical substances are always a subject of a chemical =
sentence.
A chemical sentence can express existence. Water exists. This is
in =
the imperative mood.
A chemical name connotes the properties; the properties are context =
dependent. (Thermodynamics, for example, describes the context =
dependency of the variables of temperature, pressure and volume.)
What, then, do they connote? What do they denote?
The particular properties denote a specific substance; the
particular =
properties create the identity of the species in chemical logic.
(Of course, one must keep in mind that the chemical name always
refers =
to the pure substance. The problems of mixtures (like a biological =
cell) are vastly more complicated with respect to connotation and =
denotation. The concept of purity is difficult enough in its own =
right!))
Of course, if one is philosophically opposed to the notion of
material =
existence, the expressions of chemistry are a linguistic challenge!
Cheers
Jerry
Jerry LR Chandler
Research Professor
Krasnow Institute for Advanced Study
George Mason University
---
Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
