Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

[Clark Goble]

> On Feb 2, 2016, at 12:37 AM, John Collier  wrote:
> 
> So the empirical support and even coherence of the postulates (in the case of 
> multiverses) is different in the three cases, but dark matter and dark energy 
> have both empirical support for their existence and their character (compared 
> to competing theories). This is not true of the multiverse hypothesis, which 
> is problematic for much more fundamental reasons of scientific methodology.

This seems right. It also seems that at least with dark matter as empirical 
investigations continue we see more about the structure of dark matter (or at 
least where it is). There are various theories for what dark matter is even if 
none are necessarily terribly convincing yet - and most importantly many have 
been falsified. 

Dark energy as you note is more vague if only because the empirical data is 
more vague. 

The main problem with the many multiverse theories is that as plausible and 
sometimes as elegant as they are we just can’t empirically see any difference. 
And as Peirce says for a difference to be a difference it must make a 
difference. Multiverse supporters typically think they will find testable 
implications. There’s interesting work on the relationship between black holes 
and multiverse for instance. But in general it seems that proponents are a tad 
eager in their claims that the theories are empirical.

I should note that I don’t think this means they are not valuable. Just that 
the drive towards empiricism must be kept high. I think sometimes, such as in 
the case of super string theory, insufficient concern with empirics was part 
and parcel of the movement for a long time.



-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

Clark, the inspiration for my own thinking is Isaac Newton. What I would love 
to see in the life sciences is an axiomatic framework that hangs together, much 
as Newton delivered for the physical sciences... hence my interest in Peirce. 
There’s a lot of bad, unfalsifiable science doing the rounds, like multiverse 
theory, the invention of dark energy/matter, etc, in regards to which Wolfgang 
Pauli’s dismissal “not even wrong” often comes to mind. So it’s not a case of 
trying to provide a Peircean interpretation of the different theories, but to 
provide a solid foundation for a life science that hangs together. sj

 

From: Clark Goble [mailto:cl...@lextek.com] 
Sent: Monday, 1 February 2016 11:02 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; Peirce-L
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

 

 

On Feb 1, 2016, at 12:21 PM, Stephen Jarosek <sjaro...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

 

I stumbled upon a fascinating  <https://youtu.be/FzcTgrxMzZk> video clip on the 
weekend. Might Peircean-biosemiotic concepts apply also to atoms and molecules? 
Peirce’s “mind hidebound with habits” comes to mind. But back in his day, 
Peirce could never have known what we now know about quantum physics and 
entanglement – he’d have much to say about all this were he alive today. Atoms 
and molecules also have to “know” very specific properties in order to make 
possible the astonishing complexity within a cell. Entanglement is the medium 
by which atoms and molecules “know” (imitate) their properties.

 

I think the mathematics of quantum mechanics can easily be dealt with by 
Peircean semiotics. I suspect though you’re more asking about Peirce’s 
appropriation of the Epicurean swerve into his ontology as it relates to the 
ontological interpretation of quantum mechanics. (Correct me if that isn’t what 
you mean) I don’t know the answer to that if only because it’s far from clear 
how to interpret quantum mechanics. Most of the interpretations simply adopt 
different ontologies from Peirce. An interesting question might be reconciling 
say Everette possible worlds mechanics with how an object determines an 
interpretant in Peirce. But while I could see an Everette transformation of 
Peircean semiotics at the ontological level this would be different from how 
Peirce appears to have conceived it.

 

The second issue is entanglement. Again this is still very much an open 
question in quantum mechanics even if physicists tend to favor certain 
interpretations. (Typically against hidden variables) I’m not quite sure what 
you mean here but I suspect you’re getting at the teleology vs. efficient 
causation issue. Most analysis of quantum entanglement is done at a given time 
but it’s possible to also conceive of entanglement across time which some might 
see as a way to rescue teleology. (Without looking it up I want to say both 
Smolin and Penrose have speculated on this but I might be confusing who wrote 
on it - it’s been years since I last looked into this) In this way what a 
system evolves to in the future can affect the past which is a kind of 
teleology.

 

One thing to keep in mind when considering Peircean teleology is that it’s not 
really the way medievals conceived of teleology where we have intentions of 
God. Rather for Peirce teleology was much more about a tendency. A big question 
then is how to understand this. My sense is that he’s thinking more of 
tendencies within a particular environment for evolution to arrive at certain 
solutions. I suspect one might say Peircean teleology is efficient causation + 
implications in particular environments. I’m not sure if others would agree.


-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

[Stephen Jarosek]

I agree Edwina. But we need to extend the idea beyond our small group. It is
an important interpretation that has big implications. Richard Dawkins is
promoting his own flawed interpretation, and for the moment he's getting
away with it, he's changing the narrative. Society deserves better than
that. sj

 

From: Edwina Taborsky [mailto:tabor...@primus.ca] 
Sent: Monday, 1 February 2016 9:40 PM
To: Stephen Jarosek; 'PEIRCE-L'; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee
Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

 

Stephen - there are a number of us who have been saying [ and writing] this
for years; that is, that Peircean semiosis operates within the
physico-chemical realm. Peirce too included this realm.

 

Edwina

- Original Message - 

From: Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>  

To: 'PEIRCE-L' <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>  ; biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee 

Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 2:21 PM

Subject: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

 

List,


I stumbled upon a fascinating video clip <https://youtu.be/FzcTgrxMzZk>  on
the weekend. Might Peircean-biosemiotic concepts apply also to atoms and
molecules? Peirce's "mind hidebound with habits" comes to mind. But back in
his day, Peirce could never have known what we now know about quantum
physics and entanglement - he'd have much to say about all this were he
alive today. Atoms and molecules also have to "know" very specific
properties in order to make possible the astonishing complexity within a
cell. Entanglement is the medium by which atoms and molecules "know"
(imitate) their properties.

 

sj

  _  


-
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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of
the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .






-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

[Clark Goble]

> On Feb 1, 2016, at 3:52 PM, Stephen Jarosek  wrote:
> 
> Clark, the inspiration for my own thinking is Isaac Newton. What I would love 
> to see in the life sciences is an axiomatic framework that hangs together, 
> much as Newton delivered for the physical sciences... hence my interest in 
> Peirce. There’s a lot of bad, unfalsifiable science doing the rounds, like 
> multiverse theory, the invention of dark energy/matter, etc, in regards to 
> which Wolfgang Pauli’s dismissal “not even wrong” often comes to mind. So 
> it’s not a case of trying to provide a Peircean interpretation of the 
> different theories, but to provide a solid foundation for a life science that 
> hangs together. 

I’m not sure I’d put dark matter in the same camp as the multiverse (of various 
sorts). After all we might not know what dark matter is but we can measure it. 
Likewise dark energy is just a category for unexplained expansion. We might 
dislike the name but the phenomena seems very empirical.

I’d also not say Newton delivered an axiomatic framework for the physical 
sciences. But perhaps I’m not quite grasping what you mean by that.

Peirce’s semiotics seems more than robust enough to deal with all this. His 
ontology is much more controversial and perhaps also more unnecessary. That 
said he does appear to take randomness in a frequentist interpretation as an 
ontological component of the universe. That’s always interesting when thinking 
implications of quantum mechanics.





-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

[Jerry Rhee]

Stephen and list,



Can you think of any advantages to thinking about modern cell biophysics as
Peircean semiotic?



Wouldn’t that just create more work for biologists/physicists to learn
Peircean ideas and for Peircean scholars to learn biophysics?


Asking scholars to adopt alternative perspectives when existing views work
well enough, and when lives are already jammed with other matters, would
not be compelling unless you can offer good justifications.


Best,

Jerry


“If one is interested in the relations between fields which, according to
customary academic divisions, belong to different departments, then he will
not be welcomed as a builder of bridges, as he might have expected, but
will rather be regarded by both sides as an outside and troublesome
intruder."

~ Carnap

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Stephen Jarosek 
wrote:

> List,
>
>
> I stumbled upon a fascinating video clip 
> on the weekend. Might Peircean-biosemiotic concepts apply also to atoms and
> molecules? Peirce’s “mind hidebound with habits” comes to mind. But back in
> his day, Peirce could never have known what we now know about quantum
> physics and entanglement – he’d have much to say about all this were he
> alive today. Atoms and molecules also have to “know” very specific
> properties in order to make possible the astonishing complexity within a
> cell. Entanglement is the medium by which atoms and molecules “know”
> (imitate) their properties.
>
>
>
> sj
>
>
> -
> 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 the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the
> BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatism - atoms, molecules, entanglement

[Jerry Rhee]

Hi Clark,

What I meant was a suggestion to investigate their methods and contrast
relevant themes.  Interrogate their essence.

If you're interested in education and integrating cultures, you ought to
know Bruner's work.  How can I convince you that it will be good for you?
one, two, three...pathos, ethos, logos...

Best,
J

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 9:01 PM, CLARK GOBLE  wrote:

>
> On Feb 1, 2016, at 6:42 PM, Jerry Rhee  wrote:
>
> How about instead of “…because Peirce”, we try “…because Bruner”?  There
> is an intense resemblance between the two.
>
>
> Maybe it just says more about my background but I suspect Peirce is far
> better known than Bruner.
>
> In any case we shouldn’t believe just on authority. So appeals to
> authority are somewhat problematic to my ears.
>
>
>
>

-
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 the 
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at 
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .