On Jul 28, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
> I don't understand what you mean by "holistically" here. I thought there
> is only one way to understand/interpret thermodynamics -- scientifically.
Yes but any scientific model is simplified. You exclude other systems that the
system under an
Clark wrote (072814-1), (- 2), (-3), (-4), (-5), (-6), (-12) and (-13):
"The implications of this are quite important and demand (072814-1)
we consider the thermodynamics far more holistically."
I don't understand what you mean by "holistically" here. I thought there
is only one way to under
On Jul 28, 2014, at 3:28 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
> Effectively to deny this gap is to claim the legendary transcendental sign
> which is key to certain philosophies - especially many Platonic ones. I think
> a major theme of semiotics in the second half of the 20th century, regardless
> of jar
On Jul 25, 2014, at 8:01 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
> As you know, Prigogine (1917-2003) divided all structures in the Universe
> into two classes equilibrium structures (ES) and dissipative structures
> (DS) [1, 2]. ESs do not but DSs do need to dissipate free energy for them
> to exist. I thin
(Sorry for any repeats - I accidentally sent several emails from the wrong
account so they didn’t make it to the list)
On Jul 26, 2014, at 7:28 PM, Sungchul Ji wrote:
> Peircean scholars and philosophers in general seem to find it difficult
> (or trivial) to distinguish between the two categori
Clark, I think you're right about the confusion that sometimes leads to
miscommunication. Yes, we should focus on argument - but problems can arise
especially when we think that Peirce is right on some point, because then
there may be two arguments involved: one about whether some proposition or
ot
In that category of areas where Peirce is not regarded as important, I
would list theology. Though seemingly simple it is convincingly logical, as
he suggests, that ultimately evil is contained within good. This and
related CP theological statements thrust us into mysteries we cannot
resolve, but b
Sorry I’ve not had time to contribute much the past weeks. A few thoughts below.
On Jul 26, 2014, at 7:24 AM, Gary Fuhrman wrote:
> We could say that PPs are miners of Peirce because in his work they find
> realizations that deserve to be replicated in the philosophical community, in
> many ot
I agree with Howard that Swenson's "fastest rate" hypothesis (SFRH) is in
error.
I have been trying to dissuade Stan away from SFRH for 5-10 years,
providing many examples, on at least a half dozen occasions on this and
other lists, but not as eloquently and as convincingly as Howard:
"A common e
Dear Clark,
Thanks for your response.
What you say below is correct if we accept the meanings of "dissipative"
and "equilibrium" structures as you define them in your mind, and this
applies to Benjamin's previous response as well.
But the point I was making in my admittedly provocative email was
10 matches
Mail list logo
