Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric
Supplement: I put an "other" in my second paragraph. Individual signs cannot communicate using quantum entanglement. But perhaps the universe can use quantum entanglement for communication in itself, so may have an event horizon as big as itself.. Edwina, list, I agree. I too think, that a sign is an action, an event, and is therefore limited by its event horizon. Though a part of any sign is due to universal laws, but that does not connect all signs to one (not completely, because only a part of the sign is due to universal laws like efficient causation, other parts follow limitedly ranged laws, habits, needs, volitions, etc.). To your last paragraph about backwards reasoning: I also think, that it is not justified to conclude from subsystems and usual signs to the universe, because the universe is the biggest possible system, and has, other that any other system, no supersystem, and no event horizon bigger than itself. This makes it unique: Even if every other sign would have an object external to it, and if the universe was a sign, then a conclusion that the universe would have an external object too, would still be not justified. On the other hand it is possible to assume, that a part of any sign has the universe as event horizon, e.g. by divine interaction or communication by quantum entanglement. I think, Peirce has assumed so, when he wrote, that he does not entertain a doubt, that what is present to one mind, is present to all minds. But again, this only would apply to a (quite small) part of the sign, I think. Helmut 21. Mai 2019 um 20:16 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Helmut Science requires empirical evidence - and discussions about 'God' rarely provide that. Logic can only show us that our beliefs are logical but can't provide any proof of their pragmatic reality. I consider that a major problem in discussion of 'the sign' is the view, almost, that it is a 'thing', a discrete entity. My understanding of the sign/representamen is that it is A PROCESS OF MEDIATION, an ACTION and is not a 'thing' in itself. As such a process of mediation, the sign/representamen only functions within a semiosic triad of relations, made up of the R-O; the R-R; and the R-I. Therefore, one has to examine the functioning nature of this mediative action- which never 'exists' or functions on its own. My understanding of it is that the sign/representamen operates by developing habits of organization or laws which enable matter to develop as morphological forms. Therefore - reductionism, which, despite JAS's objection to the term, is the only one I can come up with that describes the concept that 'all signs are one'seems to me to ignore these laws or habits. These laws and habits are real and not only real but existent [we can scientifically examine the laws of chemistry, physics, biology] - can or should they be ignored? And are all these laws reducible? Can a biological entity, eg, a swan, be reduced to a pile of chemicals? My view is that these normative rules of formation are relatively stable and scientifically, I don't see how we can ignore them such that we can conclude that ALL mediation is actually using the same law. In addition, I object to the 'backwards reasoning' as I see it, where you proceed from a conclusion to a premise. If we conclude that all signs/representamens must refer to objects external from themselves [and this is a debatable conclusion] - can we actually say that this 'proves' that the Universe, as a sign/representamen actually has an Object-external-to-itself? I don't think we can do this that easily. Edwina On Tue 21/05/19 11:18 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Edwina, All, I think there is (and will be) a premiss missing: Scale-invariance / connectedness / noncontingency. A forest consisting of different (nonconnected) trees is not a tree, it is not scale-invariant. But there may be a forest in which the trees are connected by their roots, which make them one plant, so you can say that this forest is one tree. Now to the question whether the universe is one sign: Do all signs have a connectibility towards each other, or are they separated, made contingent, by event-horizons due to the limitations by light-velocity and other speed/space limits? Or are there nonlocal and nontemporal ways of connections between signs, such as divine interactions? Is the universe scale-invariant or not? Does religion as reconnection in reality (whatever that is) provide such a scale-invariance, or is religion a collusion (shared illusion)? Nobody knows, but everybody is free to guess, or "believe" (whatever that is). I think it is ok. to assume that these things (justified religion, connectedness...) may exist. I mean, though it is unscientific to take unproven things for premiss, it is unscientific too to claim for premiss that something cannot exist because it is not proved. Helmut 21. Mai 2019 um 14:48 Uhr Von: "Edwina
Aw: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Trinity, Continuity, and the Cosmotheandric
Edwina, list, I agree. I too think, that a sign is an action, an event, and is therefore limited by its event horizon. Though a part of any sign is due to universal laws, but that does not connect all signs to one (not completely, because only a part of the sign is due to universal laws like efficient causation, other parts follow limitedly ranged laws, habits, needs, volitions, etc.). To your last paragraph about backwards reasoning: I also think, that it is not justified to conclude from subsystems and usual signs to the universe, because the universe is the biggest possible system, and has, other that any other system, no supersystem, and no event horizon bigger than itself. This makes it unique: Even if every sign would have an object external to it, and if the universe was a sign, then a conclusion that the universe would have an external object too, would still be not justified. On the other hand it is possible to assume, that a part of any sign has the universe as event horizon, e.g. by divine interaction or communication by quantum entanglement. I think, Peirce has assumed so, when he wrote, that he does not entertain a doubt, that what is present to one mind, is present to all minds. But again, this only would apply to a (quite small) part of the sign, I think. Helmut 21. Mai 2019 um 20:16 Uhr "Edwina Taborsky" wrote: Helmut Science requires empirical evidence - and discussions about 'God' rarely provide that. Logic can only show us that our beliefs are logical but can't provide any proof of their pragmatic reality. I consider that a major problem in discussion of 'the sign' is the view, almost, that it is a 'thing', a discrete entity. My understanding of the sign/representamen is that it is A PROCESS OF MEDIATION, an ACTION and is not a 'thing' in itself. As such a process of mediation, the sign/representamen only functions within a semiosic triad of relations, made up of the R-O; the R-R; and the R-I. Therefore, one has to examine the functioning nature of this mediative action- which never 'exists' or functions on its own. My understanding of it is that the sign/representamen operates by developing habits of organization or laws which enable matter to develop as morphological forms. Therefore - reductionism, which, despite JAS's objection to the term, is the only one I can come up with that describes the concept that 'all signs are one'seems to me to ignore these laws or habits. These laws and habits are real and not only real but existent [we can scientifically examine the laws of chemistry, physics, biology] - can or should they be ignored? And are all these laws reducible? Can a biological entity, eg, a swan, be reduced to a pile of chemicals? My view is that these normative rules of formation are relatively stable and scientifically, I don't see how we can ignore them such that we can conclude that ALL mediation is actually using the same law. In addition, I object to the 'backwards reasoning' as I see it, where you proceed from a conclusion to a premise. If we conclude that all signs/representamens must refer to objects external from themselves [and this is a debatable conclusion] - can we actually say that this 'proves' that the Universe, as a sign/representamen actually has an Object-external-to-itself? I don't think we can do this that easily. Edwina On Tue 21/05/19 11:18 AM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent: Edwina, All, I think there is (and will be) a premiss missing: Scale-invariance / connectedness / noncontingency. A forest consisting of different (nonconnected) trees is not a tree, it is not scale-invariant. But there may be a forest in which the trees are connected by their roots, which make them one plant, so you can say that this forest is one tree. Now to the question whether the universe is one sign: Do all signs have a connectibility towards each other, or are they separated, made contingent, by event-horizons due to the limitations by light-velocity and other speed/space limits? Or are there nonlocal and nontemporal ways of connections between signs, such as divine interactions? Is the universe scale-invariant or not? Does religion as reconnection in reality (whatever that is) provide such a scale-invariance, or is religion a collusion (shared illusion)? Nobody knows, but everybody is free to guess, or "believe" (whatever that is). I think it is ok. to assume that these things (justified religion, connectedness...) may exist. I mean, though it is unscientific to take unproven things for premiss, it is unscientific too to claim for premiss that something cannot exist because it is not proved. Helmut 21. Mai 2019 um 14:48 Uhr Von: "Edwina Taborsky" Gary R, list I think we have to be very cautious here. I don't think that these discussions on religion and logic have anything to do with bridging the chasm between religion and science. They have no scientific content whatsoever. Furthermore, because an
