Re: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

2017-04-08 Thread John F Sowa

On 4/8/2017 2:59 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:

I would say, that the instantiation of a law is not it´s token,
but the law itself at work.


I agree.


So law is all type, there are no tokens of it in inanimate world
of efficient causation. Is my guess.


For a law of science, the proposition that states the law would
be a token.

For a law of nature, I agree that we could never observe a token.

But does that mean no token can exist?  What would existence mean
for such a thing?  Perhaps you could call it logos.  As John the
Evangelist said, "The logos is God."  Does God exist?

John

-
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: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

2017-04-08 Thread Edwina Taborsky
 
 Helmut, list - isn't the instantiation of a natural law - a token of
that law, showing the law itself at work. I don't get your point. A
type is a general that governs existents; the token is the existent.
So- I'm unsure of your point.

I don't see that there are 'no tokens' [existents] of a natural law
in the inanimate world. The inanimate world - by which I am assuming
you mean the physic-chemical world - does have laws! For example, the
laws of forming a hydrogen molecule...of which that individual
molecule is a token of the type/law.

Edwina
 -- 
 This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's 
 largest alternative telecommunications provider. 
 http://www.primus.ca 
 On Sat 08/04/17  2:59 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
  John, List, Speaking of inanimate reactions, and assumed, that
there are natural laws existing governing them, whether or not they
have been thoroughly analyzed by humans, I would say, that the
instantiation of a law is not it´s token, but the law itself at
work. That is so, because in inanimate affairs there are no closed
systems, no piece of matter or energy, which is not interacting with
all other matter and energy in the universe. So there are no signs
either which are spatially separate by their nature. So law is all
type, there are no tokens of it in inanimate world of efficient
causation. Is my guess. Best, Helmut 08. April 2017 um 20:34 Uhr
 "John F Sowa"  wrote:
   Jon and Edwina,
 Jon
 > I am still trying to figure out how to classify that real aspect/
 > regularity as a Sign itself, if in fact it is legitimate to treat
 > reality as consisting entirely of Signs.
 Anything that can affect our sense organs is a mark. Those marks
 could be interpreted and classified as tokens of types.
 Some of those tokens could be instances of individual qualities
 or things that we could classify as redness or as a cat. Other
 tokens could be instances of relational patterns, such as
 "A cat on a red mat".
 All those tokens could be represented by existential graphs with
just
 monads or dyads. As Hume and others have said, it's not possible
 to observe an implication. Post hoc does not imply propter hoc.
 The existence of a law (a triad) is always a hypothesis (abduction),
 which must be tested by predictions that are confirmed by further
 observations.
 Edwina
 > the Dynamic Object of a law of nature [which is Thirdness] is also
 > Thirdness. This enables individual organisms, when they interact
 > with another external organism, to informationally connect with
 > the external organism's LAWS - and thus, possibly, change their
 > own [or both sets of] laws.
 I agree. But every kind of Thirdness must be learned by abduction.
 Observation can only detect post hoc. Propter hoc is an abduction.
 An infant observes patterns in the parents' babbling, imitates the
 babbling, and discovers that certain patterns bring rewards.
 John
 -
 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 [1] .


Links:
--
[1] 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: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs

2017-04-08 Thread Jon Alan Schmidt
John S., Helmut, Edwina, List:

JFS:  Anything that can affect our sense organs is a mark. Those marks
could be interpreted and classified as tokens of types.


Technically anything that can affect our sense organs is a *replica *of a
Qualisign/Mark, the peculiar kind of Sinsign/Token that embodies it--right?

JFS:  The existence of a law (a triad) is always a hypothesis (abduction),
which must be tested by predictions that are confirmed by further
observations.


I agree, except that I would substitute "reality" for "existence," since
the law itself is 3ns while its instantiations are 2ns.

HR:  ... I would say, that the instantiation of a law is not it´s token,
but the law itself at work ...So law is all type, there are no tokens of it
in inanimate world of efficient causation.


Given my agreement with John S. above, it seems to me that a type
(3ns) can *only
*be experienced through its tokens (2ns).  We then use
reason--retroduction, deduction, induction--to formulate, explicate, and
evaluate the hypothesis that what we are observing is the manifestation of
a real law.

ET:  A type is a general that governs existents; the token is the existent.


Yes, the law as a *type *governs an inexhaustible continuum of
*potential *cases;
its instantiation as a *token *is any *actual *case that it governs.

Regards,

Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA
Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman
www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt

On Sat, Apr 8, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Edwina Taborsky  wrote:

> Helmut, list - isn't the instantiation of a natural law - a token of that
> law, showing the law itself at work. I don't get your point. A type is a
> general that governs existents; the token is the existent. So- I'm unsure
> of your point.
>
> I don't see that there are 'no tokens' [existents] of a natural law in the
> inanimate world. The inanimate world - by which I am assuming you mean the
> physic-chemical world - does have laws! For example, the laws of forming a
> hydrogen molecule...of which that individual molecule is a token of the
> type/law.
>
> Edwina
> --
> This message is virus free, protected by Primus - Canada's
> largest alternative telecommunications provider.
>
> http://www.primus.ca
>
> On Sat 08/04/17 2:59 PM , "Helmut Raulien" h.raul...@gmx.de sent:
>
> John, List,
> Speaking of inanimate reactions, and assumed, that there are natural laws
> existing governing them, whether or not they have been thoroughly analyzed
> by humans, I would say, that the instantiation of a law is not it´s token,
> but the law itself at work. That is so, because in inanimate affairs there
> are no closed systems, no piece of matter or energy, which is not
> interacting with all other matter and energy in the universe. So there are
> no signs either which are spatially separate by their nature. So law is all
> type, there are no tokens of it in inanimate world of efficient causation.
> Is my guess.
> Best,
> Helmut
>  08. April 2017 um 20:34 Uhr
> "John F Sowa" wrote:
> Jon and Edwina,
>
> Jon
> > I am still trying to figure out how to classify that real aspect/
> > regularity as a Sign itself, if in fact it is legitimate to treat
> > reality as consisting entirely of Signs.
>
> Anything that can affect our sense organs is a mark. Those marks
> could be interpreted and classified as tokens of types.
>
> Some of those tokens could be instances of individual qualities
> or things that we could classify as redness or as a cat. Other
> tokens could be instances of relational patterns, such as
> "A cat on a red mat".
>
> All those tokens could be represented by existential graphs with just
> monads or dyads. As Hume and others have said, it's not possible
> to observe an implication. Post hoc does not imply propter hoc.
>
> The existence of a law (a triad) is always a hypothesis (abduction),
> which must be tested by predictions that are confirmed by further
> observations.
>
> Edwina
> > the Dynamic Object of a law of nature [which is Thirdness] is also
> > Thirdness. This enables individual organisms, when they interact
> > with another external organism, to informationally connect with
> > the external organism's LAWS - and thus, possibly, change their
> > own [or both sets of] laws.
>
> I agree. But every kind of Thirdness must be learned by abduction.
> Observation can only detect post hoc. Propter hoc is an abduction.
> An infant observes patterns in the parents' babbling, imitates the
> babbling, and discovers that certain patterns bring rewards.
>
> John
>
>

-
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 .