Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuine triadicity, chirality (handedness) and the origins of life
Gary R., Gary F., lists, Thanks for the reminder, Gary R. about renaming tangential threads. I should have done that a while ago with some threads that I've been on. Regarding conservation of energy: My understanding is that, in general relativity it's considered not to be conserved in an expanding or contracting universe, although it's still regardable as conserved in normal situations with some assumptions beyond those in special relativity. Just about anybody's guess is probably better than mine as to how that relates to what Peirce said about energy conservation and tychism. There is a left-right asymmetry in fundamental forces and particles, which I had thought seems 'less' of an asymmetry if one takes anti-matter into account, but I'm no expert. (And then there is the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry itself.) Anyway, some people think that the chiral asymmetry in fundamental particles and forces may give rise to observed chiral asymmetry in organic molecules in biochemistry. But who knows. Best, Ben On 9/30/2014 2:44 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: Gary F., Lists, Although I found came upon the quotation below in searching for texts on genuineness in Peirce, I've decided to give this post a new subject line as it seems only tangentially related to dicisigns. The passage (copied below) has interested me for years, so much so that at one point I made extensive notes on it and some related passages in preparation for writing a paper having the working title, Peirce and Chirality, but I got distracted by life and never finished it. Yet I remain as interested in handedness as ever and, in truth, have been ever since, in my twenties I believe, I read a marvelous piece of popular science by Martin Gardner titled /The Ambidextrous Universe,/ which in it latest updated version has been re-titled /The/ New /Ambidextrous Universe: Symmetry and Assymmetry from Mirror Reflections to Superstrings. / I would like to get into Peirce and chirality at some point after the NP seminar if there's interest in that topic and will then refer to some of the sources the Gardner book took me to. The Peirce passage, a long paragraph which I've broken up into several smaller ones, is of some interest in relation not only to chirality but to several topics which have recently been discussed on these lists,and especially to the problem of the origin of life. In segment (a). Peirce writes that he has not found a single genuine triadic relation which is not an intellectual relation or one concerned with the phenomena of life. This would seem to argue against a pre-biological semiosis /if/ genuine triadic relations are considered sine qua non for semiosis (but are they?) But then he offers by way of brute, inorganic example, chirality, and argues that L- R-handedness (d) could not be caused by the inorganic action of dynamical law: (e) . . . the only way in which the laws of dynamics involve triadic relations is by their reference to second differentials of positions. But though a second differential generally involves a triadic relation, yet owing to the law of the conservation of energy [. . .] which has been sufficiently proved for purely inorganic phenomena, the dynamic laws for such phenomena are expressible in terms of first differentials. It is, therefore, a non-genuine, or, as I phrase it, a degenerate form of triadic relationship. So, given that the pervasive holochirality in the universe seems inexplicable unless 'chance' be offered as its explanation, while (d) it is a question whether absolute chance -- pure tychism -- ought not to be regarded as a product of freedom, and therefore of life, Peirce concludes that in consideration of the problem of how life first came about that (e). . the problem of how genuine triadic relationships first arose in the world is a better, because more definite, formulation of the problem of how life first came about; and no explanation has ever been offered except that of pure chance, which we must suspect to be no explanation, owing to the suspicion that pure chance may itself be a vital phenomenon. Of course since his time there have been other explanations offered. What interests me for now is that in that earlier comment in (d) as to whether absolute chance ought not to be regarded as a product of freedom, and therefore of life Peirce adds a remarkable phrase modifying 'life', namely, not necessarily physiological. Thus, the complete snippet reads: . . . it is a question whether absolute chance -- pure tychism -- ought not to be regarded as /a product of freedom, and therefore of life, not necessarily physiological/ . (emphasis added) But what can that phrase not necessarily physiological be pointing to? Still, and mainly, Peirce offers the problem of how genuine triadic relationships first arose in the world as being a better, because more
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuine triadicity, chirality (handedness) and the origins of life
Ben, Edwina, Helmut, lists, I can see from your responses that these issues of chirality and genuine (vs degenerate) triadic relations might be approached from a number of angles. I hope I haven't opened a can of worms by broaching them taken together, although it would appear that Peirce was attempting just that in the passage earlier quoted. For now, I would say that I can't but help agree with Peirce that *genuine* triadic relations only occur in the biologic and intellectual realms, while I leave the possibility of degenerate semiosis occurring before life as an open question. Gardner discusses chirality and the advent of life in several chapters, most especially in chptr. 15, The origin of life. What I remember most from Gardner's book is his emphasis on two of the greatest scientific advances of the century as involving chirality: namely, physics' overthrow of parity (chptr 22, The fall of parity) and biology's discovery of the corkscrew nature of the molecule carrying the genetic code chptr. 14, Living molecules). Gardner's pretty good on the philosophical history of thinking about chirality and has some illuminating passages reflecting on Kants, Pasteur's, Japp's, de Nouy's, and others' understandings of it, as well as the thinking of more contemporary philosophers and, especially, scientists from Pauli through to those working in superstring theory (btw, 4 of the 5 current versions of superstring theory involve chirality). As for the matter-antimatter matter, it's discussed in Gardner's book here and there in several chapters and especially in chptrs. 21, Antiparticles and 26, Where's the antimatter?, but I too, while I read quite a bit in about it a decade or so ago, am hardly an expert. For now, I'll conclude with a brief quote from Gardner's book which may *very tentatively* connect some of the questions your posts brought up, at least for me In a discussion of weak interactions Gardner writes: [O]ne cannot completely rule out the possibility that whatever is responsible for the asymmetry of weak interactions may also play a role in the formation of primitive organic compounds. That thought will have me up half the night! Maybe that's enough for one post. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Benjamin Udell bud...@nyc.rr.com wrote: Gary R., Gary F., lists, Thanks for the reminder, Gary R. about renaming tangential threads. I should have done that a while ago with some threads that I've been on. Regarding conservation of energy: My understanding is that, in general relativity it's considered not to be conserved in an expanding or contracting universe, although it's still regardable as conserved in normal situations with some assumptions beyond those in special relativity. Just about anybody's guess is probably better than mine as to how that relates to what Peirce said about energy conservation and tychism. There is a left-right asymmetry in fundamental forces and particles, which I had thought seems 'less' of an asymmetry if one takes anti-matter into account, but I'm no expert. (And then there is the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry itself.) Anyway, some people think that the chiral asymmetry in fundamental particles and forces may give rise to observed chiral asymmetry in organic molecules in biochemistry. But who knows. Best, Ben On 9/30/2014 2:44 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: Gary F., Lists, Although I found came upon the quotation below in searching for texts on genuineness in Peirce, I've decided to give this post a new subject line as it seems only tangentially related to dicisigns. The passage (copied below) has interested me for years, so much so that at one point I made extensive notes on it and some related passages in preparation for writing a paper having the working title, Peirce and Chirality, but I got distracted by life and never finished it. Yet I remain as interested in handedness as ever and, in truth, have been ever since, in my twenties I believe, I read a marvelous piece of popular science by Martin Gardner titled *The Ambidextrous Universe,* which in it latest updated version has been re-titled *The* New *Ambidextrous Universe: Symmetry and Assymmetry from Mirror Reflections to Superstrings. * I would like to get into Peirce and chirality at some point after the NP seminar if there's interest in that topic and will then refer to some of the sources the Gardner book took me to. The Peirce passage, a long paragraph which I've broken up into several smaller ones, is of some interest in relation not only to chirality but to several topics which have recently been discussed on these lists,and especially to the problem of the origin of life. In segment (a). Peirce writes that he has not found a single genuine triadic relation which is not an
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuine triadicity, chirality (handedness) and the origins of life
Gary, lists, There's a new article on beta decay and biochemical chiral asymmetry: Chirally Sensitive Electron-Induced Molecular Breakup and the Vester-Ulbricht Hypothesis Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 118103 – Published 12 September 2014 J. M. Dreiling and T. J. Gay Abstract [ http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.118103 ] We have studied dissociative electron attachment in sub-eV collisions between longitudinally polarized electrons and chiral bromocamphor molecules. For a given target enantiomer, the dissociative Br anion production depends on the helicity of the incident electrons, with an asymmetry that depends on the electron energy and is of order 3×10−4. The existence of chiral sensitivity in a well-defined molecular breakup reaction demonstrates the viability of the Vester-Ulbrict hypothesis, namely, that the longitudinal polarization of cosmic beta radiation was responsible for the origins of biological homochirality. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.118103 There's a perhaps over-excitingly titled article posted at Sciam from _Nature_ about the new paper: Weak Nuclear Force Shown to Give Asymmetry to Biochemistry of Life Left-handed electrons have been found to destroy certain organic molecules faster than their mirror versions http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weak-nuclear-force-shown-to-give-asymmetry-to-biochemistry-of-life/ Best, Ben On 9/30/2014 5:05 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: Ben, Edwina, Helmut, lists, I can see from your responses that these issues of chirality and genuine (vs degenerate) triadic relations might be approached from a number of angles. I hope I haven't opened a can of worms by broaching them taken together, although it would appear that Peirce was attempting just that in the passage earlier quoted. For now, I would say that I can't but help agree with Peirce that /genuine/ triadic relations only occur in the biologic and intellectual realms, while I leave the possibility of degenerate semiosis occurring before life as an open question. Gardner discusses chirality and the advent of life in several chapters, most especially in chptr. 15, The origin of life. What I remember most from Gardner's book is his emphasis on two of the greatest scientific advances of the century as involving chirality: namely, physics' overthrow of parity (chptr 22, The fall of parity) and biology's discovery of the corkscrew nature of the molecule carrying the genetic code chptr. 14, Living molecules). Gardner's pretty good on the philosophical history of thinking about chirality and has some illuminating passages reflecting on Kants, Pasteur's, Japp's, de Nouy's, and others' understandings of it, as well as the thinking of more contemporary philosophers and, especially, scientists from Pauli through to those working in superstring theory (btw, 4 of the 5 current versions of superstring theory involve chirality). As for the matter-antimatter matter, it's discussed in Gardner's book here and there in several chapters and especially in chptrs. 21, Antiparticles and 26, Where's the antimatter?, but I too, while I read quite a bit in about it a decade or so ago, am hardly an expert. For now, I'll conclude with a brief quote from Gardner's book which may /very tentatively/ connect some of the questions your posts brought up, at least for me In a discussion of weak interactions Gardner writes: [O]ne cannot completely rule out the possibility that whatever is responsible for the asymmetry of weak interactions may also play a role in the formation of primitive organic compounds. That thought will have me up half the night! Maybe that's enough for one post. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond Philosophy and Critical Thinking Communication Studies LaGuardia College of the City University of New York C 745 718 482-5690* On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: - 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] Genuine triadicity, chirality (handedness) and the origins of life
On Sep 30, 2014, at 2:05 PM, Benjamin Udell bud...@nyc.rr.com wrote: Regarding conservation of energy: My understanding is that, in general relativity it's considered not to be conserved in an expanding or contracting universe, although it's still regardable as conserved in normal situations with some assumptions beyond those in special relativity. Stack Overflow Physics does a good job on this http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/296/is-energy-really-conserved http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/296/is-energy-really-conserved Basically while Noether’s Theorem would imply non-conservation in classical (nonrelativistic) physics, within GR you can’t define a time direction. However in GR you have something called global hyperbolicity which leads to the same sort of result as Noether’s Theorem gives in classic physics. Sean Carroll over at Cosmic Variance dealt with this in a nice way a few years back. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ I’m no cosmologist so this was new to me as I didn’t recall it from my GR text. I’d always just assume Noether’s Theorem held. Once it was explained it made complete sense though. No idea how this relates to Peirce though. I assume he just assumed classical physics. - 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] Genuine triadicity, chirality (handedness) and the origins of life
Clark, list, Thanks for the link, I failed to supply any. Even in cases where Wikipedia is to be trusted, it's often too technical and jargony, as if written by students for their professors rather than by professors for the general public. You wrote, ...Noether’s Theorem would imply non-conservation in classical (nonrelativistic) physics... - I think you meant that Noether’s Theorem would imply conservation in classical (nonrelativistic) physics. For my part I should have added that, according to general relativity, the total energy increases in an expanding universe and decreases in a contracting universe. I get scared of saying physical-theoretical things like that because I worry that there's some key caveat or the like that I don't know about. [CG] No idea how this relates to Peirce though. I assume he just assumed classical physics. The issue may be relevant to Peirce because he did assume classical pre-Einsteinian physics in discussing physics. Part of his discussion of life, absolute chance, and triadicity in nature depends on the idea that energy is conserved. Best, Ben On 9/30/2014 7:42 PM, Clark Goble wrote: On Sep 30, 2014, at 2:05 PM, Benjamin Udell bud...@nyc.rr.com mailto:bud...@nyc.rr.com wrote: Regarding conservation of energy: My understanding is that, in general relativity it's considered not to be conserved in an expanding or contracting universe, although it's still regardable as conserved in normal situations with some assumptions beyond those in special relativity. Stack Overflow Physics does a good job on this http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/296/is-energy-really-conserved Basically while Noether’s Theorem would imply non-conservation in classical (nonrelativistic) physics, within GR you can’t define a time direction. However in GR you have something called global hyperbolicity which leads to the same sort of result as Noether’s Theorem gives in classic physics. Sean Carroll over at Cosmic Variance dealt with this in a nice way a few years back. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ I’m no cosmologist so this was new to me as I didn’t recall it from my GR text. I’d always just assume Noether’s Theorem held. Once it was explained it made complete sense though. No idea how this relates to Peirce though. I assume he just assumed classical physics. - 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] Genuine triadicity, chirality (handedness) and the origins of life
Ben wrote: . . . some people think that the chiral asymmetry in fundamental particles and forces may give rise to observed chiral asymmetry in organic molecules in biochemistry. One of the pioneers in this field is Dilip Kondepudi, a student of the late Prigogine, of the Wakeforest University Department of Chemistry. I am sure he would be happy to answer any question you may have on this topic. di...@wfu.edu. With all the best. Gary R., Gary F., lists, Thanks for the reminder, Gary R. about renaming tangential threads. I should have done that a while ago with some threads that I've been on. Regarding conservation of energy: My understanding is that, in general relativity it's considered not to be conserved in an expanding or contracting universe, although it's still regardable as conserved in normal situations with some assumptions beyond those in special relativity. Just about anybody's guess is probably better than mine as to how that relates to what Peirce said about energy conservation and tychism. There is a left-right asymmetry in fundamental forces and particles, which I had thought seems 'less' of an asymmetry if one takes anti-matter into account, but I'm no expert. (And then there is the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry itself.) Anyway, some people think that the chiral asymmetry in fundamental particles and forces may give rise to observed chiral asymmetry in organic molecules in biochemistry. But who knows. Best, Ben On 9/30/2014 2:44 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: Gary F., Lists, Although I found came upon the quotation below in searching for texts on genuineness in Peirce, I've decided to give this post a new subject line as it seems only tangentially related to dicisigns. The passage (copied below) has interested me for years, so much so that at one point I made extensive notes on it and some related passages in preparation for writing a paper having the working title, Peirce and Chirality, but I got distracted by life and never finished it. Yet I remain as interested in handedness as ever and, in truth, have been ever since, in my twenties I believe, I read a marvelous piece of popular science by Martin Gardner titled /The Ambidextrous Universe,/ which in it latest updated version has been re-titled /The/ New /Ambidextrous Universe: Symmetry and Assymmetry from Mirror Reflections to Superstrings. / I would like to get into Peirce and chirality at some point after the NP seminar if there's interest in that topic and will then refer to some of the sources the Gardner book took me to. The Peirce passage, a long paragraph which I've broken up into several smaller ones, is of some interest in relation not only to chirality but to several topics which have recently been discussed on these lists,and especially to the problem of the origin of life. In segment (a). Peirce writes that he has not found a single genuine triadic relation which is not an intellectual relation or one concerned with the phenomena of life. This would seem to argue against a pre-biological semiosis /if/ genuine triadic relations are considered sine qua non for semiosis (but are they?) But then he offers by way of brute, inorganic example, chirality, and argues that L- R-handedness (d) could not be caused by the inorganic action of dynamical law: (e) . . . the only way in which the laws of dynamics involve triadic relations is by their reference to second differentials of positions. But though a second differential generally involves a triadic relation, yet owing to the law of the conservation of energy [. . .] which has been sufficiently proved for purely inorganic phenomena, the dynamic laws for such phenomena are expressible in terms of first differentials. It is, therefore, a non-genuine, or, as I phrase it, a degenerate form of triadic relationship. So, given that the pervasive holochirality in the universe seems inexplicable unless 'chance' be offered as its explanation, while (d) it is a question whether absolute chance -- pure tychism -- ought not to be regarded as a product of freedom, and therefore of life, Peirce concludes that in consideration of the problem of how life first came about that (e). . the problem of how genuine triadic relationships first arose in the world is a better, because more definite, formulation of the problem of how life first came about; and no explanation has ever been offered except that of pure chance, which we must suspect to be no explanation, owing to the suspicion that pure chance may itself be a vital phenomenon. Of course since his time there have been other explanations offered. What interests me for now is that in that earlier comment in (d) as to whether absolute chance ought not to be regarded as a product of freedom, and therefore of life Peirce adds a remarkable phrase modifying 'life', namely, not necessarily
Re: [PEIRCE-L] Genuine triadicity, chirality (handedness) and the origins of life
[O]ne cannot completely rule out the possibility that whatever is responsible for the asymmetry of weak interactions may also play a role in the formation of primitive organic compounds. I think it was D. Kondepudi who proved in his late 1970's (?) Nature article the possibility of chiral molecules forming naturally under the influence of the asymmetry of the weak interactions. Sung Ben, Edwina, Helmut, lists, I can see from your responses that these issues of chirality and genuine (vs degenerate) triadic relations might be approached from a number of angles. I hope I haven't opened a can of worms by broaching them taken together, although it would appear that Peirce was attempting just that in the passage earlier quoted. For now, I would say that I can't but help agree with Peirce that *genuine* triadic relations only occur in the biologic and intellectual realms, while I leave the possibility of degenerate semiosis occurring before life as an open question. Gardner discusses chirality and the advent of life in several chapters, most especially in chptr. 15, The origin of life. What I remember most from Gardner's book is his emphasis on two of the greatest scientific advances of the century as involving chirality: namely, physics' overthrow of parity (chptr 22, The fall of parity) and biology's discovery of the corkscrew nature of the molecule carrying the genetic code chptr. 14, Living molecules). Gardner's pretty good on the philosophical history of thinking about chirality and has some illuminating passages reflecting on Kants, Pasteur's, Japp's, de Nouy's, and others' understandings of it, as well as the thinking of more contemporary philosophers and, especially, scientists from Pauli through to those working in superstring theory (btw, 4 of the 5 current versions of superstring theory involve chirality). As for the matter-antimatter matter, it's discussed in Gardner's book here and there in several chapters and especially in chptrs. 21, Antiparticles and 26, Where's the antimatter?, but I too, while I read quite a bit in about it a decade or so ago, am hardly an expert. For now, I'll conclude with a brief quote from Gardner's book which may *very tentatively* connect some of the questions your posts brought up, at least for me In a discussion of weak interactions Gardner writes: [O]ne cannot completely rule out the possibility that whatever is responsible for the asymmetry of weak interactions may also play a role in the formation of primitive organic compounds. That thought will have me up half the night! Maybe that's enough for one post. Best, Gary *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690* On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Benjamin Udell bud...@nyc.rr.com wrote: Gary R., Gary F., lists, Thanks for the reminder, Gary R. about renaming tangential threads. I should have done that a while ago with some threads that I've been on. Regarding conservation of energy: My understanding is that, in general relativity it's considered not to be conserved in an expanding or contracting universe, although it's still regardable as conserved in normal situations with some assumptions beyond those in special relativity. Just about anybody's guess is probably better than mine as to how that relates to what Peirce said about energy conservation and tychism. There is a left-right asymmetry in fundamental forces and particles, which I had thought seems 'less' of an asymmetry if one takes anti-matter into account, but I'm no expert. (And then there is the observed matter-antimatter asymmetry itself.) Anyway, some people think that the chiral asymmetry in fundamental particles and forces may give rise to observed chiral asymmetry in organic molecules in biochemistry. But who knows. Best, Ben On 9/30/2014 2:44 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: Gary F., Lists, Although I found came upon the quotation below in searching for texts on genuineness in Peirce, I've decided to give this post a new subject line as it seems only tangentially related to dicisigns. The passage (copied below) has interested me for years, so much so that at one point I made extensive notes on it and some related passages in preparation for writing a paper having the working title, Peirce and Chirality, but I got distracted by life and never finished it. Yet I remain as interested in handedness as ever and, in truth, have been ever since, in my twenties I believe, I read a marvelous piece of popular science by Martin Gardner titled *The Ambidextrous Universe,* which in it latest updated version has been re-titled *The* New *Ambidextrous Universe: Symmetry and Assymmetry from Mirror Reflections to Superstrings. * I would like to get into Peirce and chirality at some point after the NP seminar if there's interest in that topic and
