Re: Aw: [PEIRCE-L] The Reality of Time
Helmut- I followed Matsuno in his temporal analysis, which, I think, fits in very well with Peirce. Matsuno is both a world renowned scientist and philosopher. Edwina On Fri 06/03/20 4:14 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Edwina, Dan, Jon, List, Thank you, will do too (look at Koichiro Matsuno). I remember long ago there was a discussion about how to assign the tenses to the categories. You proposed the same like Matsuno does: Present, perfect, progressive, and I proposed the betweens of past-present, present-future, and past-future. Now I think, that both fits: It depends of whether you are the interpreting system (subjectivity), as you said "notion of time", or you are looking at (observing) an interpreting system (objectivity or wannabe-objectivity). What is happening in the primisense or the first perception, is present or presence for the subject, but an observer would say, that it has a reason. The altersense is a matter of perfect tense for the subject: memories have come into play, but for an outside observer these memories are entering the mind now and have an effect on the future. The medisense, the thoughts, are pointing into the future for the subject, and for the observer they have a reason in the past, and an effect on the future. Or something like that, Best! Helmut 06. März 2020 um 20:56 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Helmut, Dan, list Koichiro Matsuno, a bioengineer, and Peircean scholar, has written extensively on the notion of time, which he refers to as present, perfect and progressive [comparable to 1ns,2nd, 3ns]… I suggest you google his name, and on for example, Researchgate.net, you'll find articles dealing with time in physico-chemical and biological semiosis. For example. 1]How does Time Flow in Living Systems: 2]Temporality Naturalized [ where "The Schrodinger equation for quantum mechanics, which is approachable in third-person description, takes for granted tenseless time that does not distinguish between different tenses such as past, present and future…. 3] Time from Semiosis: E-series Time for Living systems. " We develop a semiotic scheme of time, in which time precipates from the repeated succession of punctuating the progressive tense by the perfect tense. The underling principle is communication among local participants. Time can thus be seen as a meaning-making, semiotic system in which different time codes are delineated 4] The Quest for a Unified Theory of Information 5] Google: Koichiro Matsuno- AltExploit. 'Abstract Expressions of Time's Modalities He is a phenomenal scientist and scholar. Edwina On Fri 06/03/20 2:31 PM , "Daniel L. Everett" danleveret...@icloud.com sent: All very intriguing. It is fascinating in light of this to think of the many ways that languages choose to divide/classify time. English, for example, has no morphological future tense (thus one must say “will go”), though it has morphological past (went) and present tenses (go). Other languages have as many as five distinct past tenses, one present and one future (there are many variations, but so far as I know languages will have more past tenses than future tenses if they have multiples). Other languages choose not to mark time at all morphologically (e.g. on the verb) and also have very few words for precise times (e.g. yesterday, today, tomorrow).There are many attempts/theories of how natural language encodes time/temporal relations. Peirce’s concept of time has been underexploited (to put it mildly) in linguistics and clearly the connection of time theory to natural language tense theories could be quite a fecund area of exploration. Admitting the orthogonal nature of these remarks to the mainline of discussion, Dan On Mar 6, 2020, at 2:20 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: Jon, List, I think, the question is, whether time is a continuum, like an ether, in which all events and entities sort of swim, or is a produce of the permanence of systems, with its universality provided by the systems´ coupling. The permanence of a system, I think, is provided by the re-entry of thirdness into firstness, like in a semiosis (a semiotic system) the interpretant becomes the new representamen. Or like in consciousness: Peirce´s Primisense- Altersense- Medisense model, where the Medisense, the thinking, re-enters the Primisense, the first iconic perception: We have a picture of our thoughts.I guess it would be hard to assume, that this re-.entry and permanence as such produce time, because a re-entry and a permanence are only then possible, if a time already exists. But maybe it is a bilateral dependency: Time and systems only exist together. In the beginning of the universe (assuming there was a big bang), the "new" born universe was the only system, and "before" the big bang there was no time. I put "new" and "before" in
Aw: [PEIRCE-L] The Reality of Time
Edwina, Dan, Jon, List, Thank you, will do too (look at Koichiro Matsuno). I remember long ago there was a discussion about how to assign the tenses to the categories. You proposed the same like Matsuno does: Present, perfect, progressive, and I proposed the betweens of past-present, present-future, and past-future. Now I think, that both fits: It depends of whether you are the interpreting system (subjectivity), as you said "notion of time", or you are looking at (observing) an interpreting system (objectivity or wannabe-objectivity). What is happening in the primisense or the first perception, is present or presence for the subject, but an observer would say, that it has a reason. The altersense is a matter of perfect tense for the subject: memories have come into play, but for an outside observer these memories are entering the mind now and have an effect on the future. The medisense, the thoughts, are pointing into the future for the subject, and for the observer they have a reason in the past, and an effect on the future. Or something like that, Best! Helmut 06. März 2020 um 20:56 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Helmut, Dan, list Koichiro Matsuno, a bioengineer, and Peircean scholar, has written extensively on the notion of time, which he refers to as present, perfect and progressive [comparable to 1ns,2nd, 3ns]… I suggest you google his name, and on for example, Researchgate.net, you'll find articles dealing with time in physico-chemical and biological semiosis. For example. 1]How does Time Flow in Living Systems: 2]Temporality Naturalized [ where "The Schrodinger equation for quantum mechanics, which is approachable in third-person description, takes for granted tenseless time that does not distinguish between different tenses such as past, present and future…. 3] Time from Semiosis: E-series Time for Living systems. " We develop a semiotic scheme of time, in which time precipates from the repeated succession of punctuating the progressive tense by the perfect tense. The underling principle is communication among local participants. Time can thus be seen as a meaning-making, semiotic system in which different time codes are delineated 4] The Quest for a Unified Theory of Information 5] Google: Koichiro Matsuno- AltExploit. 'Abstract Expressions of Time's Modalities He is a phenomenal scientist and scholar. Edwina On Fri 06/03/20 2:31 PM , "Daniel L. Everett" danleveret...@icloud.com sent: All very intriguing. It is fascinating in light of this to think of the many ways that languages choose to divide/classify time. English, for example, has no morphological future tense (thus one must say “will go”), though it has morphological past (went) and present tenses (go). Other languages have as many as five distinct past tenses, one present and one future (there are many variations, but so far as I know languages will have more past tenses than future tenses if they have multiples). Other languages choose not to mark time at all morphologically (e.g. on the verb) and also have very few words for precise times (e.g. yesterday, today, tomorrow). There are many attempts/theories of how natural language encodes time/temporal relations. Peirce’s concept of time has been underexploited (to put it mildly) in linguistics and clearly the connection of time theory to natural language tense theories could be quite a fecund area of exploration. Admitting the orthogonal nature of these remarks to the mainline of discussion, Dan On Mar 6, 2020, at 2:20 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: Jon, List, I think, the question is, whether time is a continuum, like an ether, in which all events and entities sort of swim, or is a produce of the permanence of systems, with its universality provided by the systems´ coupling. The permanence of a system, I think, is provided by the re-entry of thirdness into firstness, like in a semiosis (a semiotic system) the interpretant becomes the new representamen. Or like in consciousness: Peirce´s Primisense- Altersense- Medisense model, where the Medisense, the thinking, re-enters the Primisense, the first iconic perception: We have a picture of our thoughts. I guess it would be hard to assume, that this re-.entry and permanence as such produce time, because a re-entry and a permanence are only then possible, if a time already exists. But maybe it is a bilateral dependency: Time and systems only exist together. In the beginning of the universe (assuming there was a big bang), the "new" born universe was the only system, and "before" the big bang there was no time. I put "new" and "before" in quotation marks, because without a preceding time, these words cannot really be applied. Best, Helmut 06. März 2020 um 18:32 Uhr "Jon Alan Schmidt" wrote: Jeff, List: JD: At the beginning of the post, you note that Peirce engaged in "mathematical, phenomenological, semeiotic, and metaphysical" inquiries
