Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

List, John: > On Aug 16, 2017, at 10:15 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > In his late writings on the logic of pragmatism, he emphasized the > multiple cycles of observations, induction, abduction, deduction, > testing (actions) and repeat. Do you have specific citations? (BTW,

Re: CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

were not known by Peirce. Thus he dis not use the TERM (which is just a name for a theoretical concept) in the sense (meaning) it is used nowadays. I have studied some early cybernetics, then Bertallanffy and Luhman in more detail. I wrote Jerry LR Chandler CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of M

CP2.230 (1910) ] Systems of Meaning was Re: [PEIRCE-L] 123, abc

Armando, List: Consider the meaning of the chromaticity (spectra) of 1,2,3… A, B, C,… H, He, Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F, Ne,… A, B, C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C,… (musical scales) nad A, nad B, and nad C, etc, (genetic symbols with closure over a set of genetic symbols that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] just test

Chromatic scales of Tarski’s meta-languages: a,b,c,... 1,2,3,… H, He, Li, Be, B, C, N, O, F, Ne,… The symbolic (predicate?) logic of each symbol system is different. :-) JLRC > On Aug 4, 2017, at 1:31 PM, Armando - wrote: > > 123 abc > >

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Helmut, Kirsti, List: > On Aug 3, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > But composition is just a matter different from classification. Therefore a > sign relation is either a quali- or a sini-, or a legisign, no matter what a > sini- or a legisign is composed of. > On

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Phaneroscopy & Phenomenology

Kirsti: > On Aug 4, 2017, at 1:34 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > > I have never found sign classifications of much use, even though I spent a > lot of time once, long ago, with reading CSP's own writings on those issues. In my view, the conceptualization of classes / categories lies at

[PEIRCE-L] My apologies to the list

List Moderators: My last post was a private message to Kirsti. Please delete it from the files. Cheers Jerry - 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 .

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

Hi Kirsti: You wrote: >> Logic is not linguistics, and shluld not be replaced, not even partly, by >> lingquitics. I awoke in the middle of the night, feeling that I may have mis-read your meaning. Did you mean, linguistics as the study of languages… Or, that logic ITSELF, whatever that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Rheme and Reason

Gary: > On Jun 13, 2017, at 1:02 PM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > but as Peirce always said, logic is a positive science while mathematics is > not. Computability is not the core issue, when you define logic pragmatically > as “the science of the laws of the stable establishment of beliefs”

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

List: > On Jun 12, 2017, at 8:25 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > After those debates, they came to the conclusion that all three were > equivalent in computational power. In John Sowa’s context, how does one relate such assertions to semiotics in light of 3.468-3.475? Is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

List: > On Jun 12, 2017, at 6:50 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > ERGO present just the THEN part. from Wikipedia (sorry!) Ergo may refer to: A Latin word meaning "therefore" as in Cogito ergo sum . A Greek

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason

> On Jun 11, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Jon Awbrey wrote: > > The big thing that classification maniacs tend to forget about > types of signs in a sign relational theory of signs is that they > are always interpretive and relative never essential and absolute. The chemical table of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Rheme and Reason. A comment on CP 3.440

Open questions to the list: The following quote, posted by gnox (Thanks, Gary) appears to be a deep conundrum from several perspectives of 21 st Century logic. > On Jun 9, 2017, at 8:44 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca wrote: > > Peirce, CP 3.440 (1896): > [[ I have maintained since 1867 that there is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] [biosemiotics:9235] Rupert Sheldrake TED Talk

List, Edwinia If you have watched Sheldrake’s talk, how would you describe his 10 categories? Consider and contrast the meanings of the following terms: dogma doctrine concept idea conjecture axiom postulate theorem argument habit belief judgment conclusion Which is appropriate? Was

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate the Space-Time Continuum?

Kirsti, List: Could you expand your intervention to give some examples of how YOU assign tangible meaning to CP 1.501? Other comments will have to wait, but for one. A Euclidian geometric line has continuity. A Euclidian geometric line is continuous. A Continuum is continuous. Do you agree

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Resources of placing CSP's scientific writings in context.

of propositions.) > On May 26, 2017, at 1:06 AM, John F Sowa <s...@bestweb.net> wrote: > > On 5/25/2017 6:36 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: >> In recent weeks I have found references that give insights into >> the state of the logics of chemistry in the CSP era. > > C

[PEIRCE-L] Resources of placing CSP's scientific writings in context.

List: In recent weeks I have found references that give insights into the state of the logics of chemistry in the CSP era. These references have more depth and hence allow on to speculate how CSP’s works contribute to the advancement of the sciences. Elements of Chemical Physics, J P Cooke

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Did Peirce Anticipate the Space-Time Continuum?

List: > On May 15, 2017, at 7:03 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > In a broad sense, Sir William Rowan Hamilton anticipated Einstein's idea that > space and time can be conceived as parts of a four dimensional continuum. In > fact, he used the algebra of

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

List, Charles: > On Apr 30, 2017, at 2:43 PM, Charles Pyle wrote: > > Many years ago linguists chewed over the issue of whether the semantic > analysis of three place predicates can be broken down into a series of two > place predicates and discovered that the two are

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

List: > On Apr 29, 2017, at 10:41 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Re mathematical category theory: Many mathematicians believe that > the term 'category theory' was a poor choice. The focus of category > theory is on the mappings or morphisms. The things that are mapped > could

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

> Thanks, > > Jon S. > > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:42 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > Jon, List: >> On Apr 19, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com >&

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

Jeff, List: > On Apr 26, 2017, at 10:48 AM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > I wonder why this relation of determination of one being determined after > another seemed to him to be so important. The answer to your question is very very simple, but rather

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Laws of Nature as Signs (Edited)

(This post corrects and adds to the previous post) JLRC ) Helmut, List: > On Apr 21, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Helmut Raulien > wrote: > > I am not so sure, if thirdness is about any triadic relation. The categories > in Peirces "new list" of them are

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

Helmut, List: > On Apr 21, 2017, at 3:59 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > I am not so sure, if thirdness is about any triadic relation. The categories > in Peirces "new list" of them are quality, relation, representation. Maybe > "representation" is a very special kind of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

e composed. In scientific / engineering discourse, the scientific and engineering symbols infer metrological potentials. In the “CSP-speak” of frequent posters to this list, such metrological considerations are often excluded. IMHO, of course. Cheers Jerry > Thanks, > > Jo

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

symbolically expressed only in the symbol system that the interpreter has a competency. Cheers jerry > > Cheers, > > Kirsti > > Jerry LR Chandler kirjoitti 19.4.2017 17:33: >> List, Jon: >>> On Apr 18, 2017, at 8:32 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt >>> <jonalans

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:33 AM, Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Dyadic relations within the triadic

List, Jon: > On Apr 18, 2017, at 8:32 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > If not, how else can we explain why it must be the case that the Object > determines the Sign, which determines the Intepretant? I am puzzled about why this question is of import to you. Are you

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs, CSP's Procrustean Bed?

List, Edwina > On Apr 13, 2017, at 4:18 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Now- what am I missing in this view? I do not understand how your question(s) relate to the concept of identity. Perhaps if you can clearly state the premises and the conclusions of your arguments, I

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs, CSP's Procrustean Bed?

List: (This post is rather technical and the contents may be intractably perplex for many readers of this list. One purpose of this post is to crisply separate the fundamental philosophical concept of identity from the mathematical concept of identity. To differentiate CSP view of lines of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Laws of Nature as Signs and the principle of individuation

List: The following quote deserves rigorous study. It is deeply relevant to three critical aspects of CSP’s philosophy of science: 1. issues that relate realism to idealism 2. issues that relate the physical sciences to the chemical sciences and 3. issues that relate the sciences to the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Sign as Triad vs. Correlate of Triadic Relation (Was semantic problem with the term)

Clark: > On Apr 5, 2017, at 3:02 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > Peirce explicitly saw entropy and conservation as not applying universally > because they only applied to determinate systems. He also saw entropy as a > statistical measure. The question is whether his semiotics

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

ilute both the semantics and the syntaxes? > So is it ok to say, that Peirce had a belief similar to what later was > called Bayesianism? Thomas Bayes, 1702-1761. > > Cheers jerry > > 17. März 2017 um 16:42 Uhr > "Jerry LR Chandler" <jerry_lr_c

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Super-Order and the Logic of Continuity (was Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology))

Jeff: Parallelograms of forces about interacting electrical charges require a spherical mode of description. Correspondingly, an explanation of spherical forces requires categorial illations. Can the diagram be extended to spheres? Cheers Jerry > On Mar 17, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Jeffrey Brian

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

John, List > On Mar 16, 2017, at 1:49 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > But if we use some language with a finite alphabet and limit > the theories to a finite specification, there are at most > a countable number of theories. > > But there are two ways for a theory expressed in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

Jon S. I was not aware of this text. Perhaps it is the source of Val's comment. Perhaps he will chime in and reveal his opinion. Cheers Jerry Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 13, 2017, at 5:58 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > Hi Jon A, Val Daniel, Jon S, John S,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

idt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 2:38 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> w

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Pragmatic Theory Of Truth

List: I am a bit puzzled by this suggestion. Concordance? “Order” (inferring numerical order and mathematics? “Index" as a categorization? Are propositions inferred by “concordances”? Or what is the glue that binds the three concepts together? Can anyone expand on this proposal? Cheers

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

sociate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern Arizona University > (o) 928 523-8354 > > > From: Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> > Sent: Thursday, March 9, 2017 1:06 PM > To: Jerry LR Chandler > Cc: Peirce List > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

List: In her book, Charles Peirces’s Pragmatic Pluralism, Rosenthal states: … the literature on Peirce contains “no fewer than thirteen distinct interpretations of Peirce’s views on the nature of truth”, attributing the account to Robert Almeder. She apparently intends contrast CSP’s

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

> John Collier > Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate > Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal > http://web.ncf.ca/collier <http://web.ncf.ca/collier> > > From: Jerry LR Chandler [mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com] > Sent: Wednesday, 08 March 2017 6:51

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

List, John: I’m rather pressed for time so only brief responses to your highly provocative post. Clearly, your philosophy of mathematics is pretty main stream relative to mine. But this is neither the time nor the place to develop these critical differences. My post was aimed directly at

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

List, John: > On Mar 3, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > I am having a hard time following your thought process here, Yes, you certainly do. And, I can identify several conjectures why this is the case. At the top of the list of conjectures are the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Truth as Regulative or Real; Continuity and Boscovich points.

List, Ben: Your recent posts contribute to a rather curious insight into CSP’s beliefs about the relationships between mathematics, chemistry and logic of scientific hypotheses. > On Mar 2, 2017, at 10:58 AM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > from MS 647 (1910) which appeared in

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: The Logic of Ingenuity

List, Jon: > On Mar 1, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: > > I have argued for years that just as science is perceived as an especially > systematic way of knowing, likewise engineering could be conceived as an > especially systematic way of willing; and if

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - ???

John, List: > On Feb 16, 2017, at 7:17 AM, John Collier wrote: > > From talking with colleagues, some say they think only in words and others, > like me, say they think mostly in diagrams or in physical feelings that I > attach no words to (and probably couldn’t in many

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest - CSP's "Mindset" from AI perspective

s together and cannot receive any proper > presentation in fragments.” ~ Peirce, Letter to William James > > > > Best, > Jerry Rhee > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@ic

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest - CSP's "Mindset" from AI perspective

Steven, List : > On Feb 10, 2017, at 8:04 AM, Stephen C. Rose wrote: > > Which makes it more imperative than ever that a way be found to make the > triadic mode more understandable and to say why it is infinitely superior to > binary thinking. Without it we perish. This

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Possible Article of Interest - CSP's "Mindset" from AI perspective

List, Mike: Your essay is framed in the context of “AI” (computations), a very wide framework indeed! Nothing is excluded from AI is it? I will be only slightly more focal in responding to your call for comments. You write in your article: "Concepts attempt to embody ideas, and while it is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

. > > As for the historical emergence of the term in philosophy.I'm sure > someone can answer that. > > Edwina > - Original Message - > From: Jerry LR Chandler > To: Edwina Taborsky > Cc: John Collier ; Peirce-L > Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2017 12:26 PM

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism -

sults in many eras in our world > history, including modern times. > > Peirce dealt with this with his focus on the freedom of Firstness and his > view that the rules [Thirdness] evolve and adapt. This would enable a society > to have a rule of law, with local variations - something req

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism - “The union of units unifies the unity”

John, List: > On Jan 31, 2017, at 1:05 AM, John Collier wrote: > > 5. The assertion "Empiricists typically claim that we don't need anything > more to do science.” appears rather problematic to me. > > I don’t see this, Jerry. A typical example of a contemporary

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism

John, List: > On Jan 31, 2017, at 1:05 AM, John Collier wrote: > > 2. Now, for the most important comment. It is almost certain that CSP’s > notion of abduction as a method to generate a possibility space came directly > from the concept of proof of structure. It

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism

eal essence of things. Realists have to add something in order to > make their claims. Empiricists typically claim that we don't need anything > more to do science. > > So, logically the consistency of realism entails the consistency of > nominalism. > > > Get Outlook for Andro

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism and Essentialism are the Scylla and Charybdis that Pragmatism Must Navigate Its Middle Way Between

List: > On Jan 17, 2017, at 5:32 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > But extending the dualism, even dichotomy of "ontology" and "epistemology" to > Aristotle is not just a (big) bone, but a grave misrepresentation. > > This distinction is a modern one. - Still going strong, in spite of all

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs Realism

Edwinia: Your horrendous mis-representation of the meaning of my sentence kills all desire to explore this issue. Cheers Jerry > On Jan 29, 2017, at 5:13 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: > > Jerry Chandler - calm down. You are evading the issue, which is, that you >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Nominalism vs. Realism

Eric: > On Jan 28, 2017, at 4:23 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: > > In my view of sytems theory, a system is more than it´s parts, of course, and > what is more, is real and natural. But in my opinion "natural" does not mean > "good for us". A sytem that contains other systems,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] nominalism

> On Jan 24, 2017, at 3:18 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Keep in mind that for Peirce, "habit" is a much broader term than how we > typically use it in ordinary conversation. This is an important observation. In mathematical /systems science terminology of the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] signs, correlates, and triadic relations - The union of the units unifies the unity

her as individuals or as a community, that are also always > involved in the experience. So the smoke remains part of the experience, not > the whole of it; while whether we consider the smoke as experienced in part, > or as a whole, depends on how experience is considered in a given context

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:30 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com &l

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

List: > On Jan 23, 2017, at 2:23 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Why would "[my] literal meanings" of those terms be different from anyone > else's, or from the "generic meaning"? In more than 20 years of posting to List serves, this is among the most surprising

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

hing was > such a chaos. Then pure indeterminacy having developed determinate > possibilities, creation consisted in mediating between the lawless reactions > and the general possibilities by the influx of a symbol." > > Regards, > > Jon > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Jon: > On Jan 23, 2017, at 12:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > CSP: A chaos of reactions utterly without any approach to law is absolutely > nothing; In view of the scope of your literality, what is the meaning of this sentence to you, pragmatically?

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

John, List: > On Jan 17, 2017, at 8:38 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Yes, but mathematicians never assume that any terms have universally > accepted definitions. They never say "set theory" by itself. > Even the qualifications ZF or VNBG in front of "set theory" are > not

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

Hi John: Your points about the instability of words and logical terms are well taken, and, I believe, well-recognized by those inquirers who are culturally competent in the history of language development. And, yes, similar principles hold for mathematics, although the “wavelength" is a tad

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universal/General/Continuous and Particular//Singular/Individual

List, Jerry R.,: I am curious about the origin of the quotes: > ‘almost every proposition of ontological metaphysics is meaningless > gibberish’ > ‘made up of words that define each other with no conception being reached.’ > Or else, claimed Peirce, > ‘the conception that is reached is

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 5:18 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > >> >> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com >> <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 12, 2016,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 5:18 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > >> >> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:17 PM, Jerry LR Chandler <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com >> <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 12, 2016,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

> On Dec 12, 2016, at 3:48 PM, Clark Goble <cl...@lextek.com> wrote: > > >> On Dec 12, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Jerry LR Chandler >> <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: >> >> One critical fact that is “the e

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

List, Ben, John: > On Dec 12, 2016, at 12:20 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > Clark, list, > Yes, the question of measuring sub-Planckian phenomena involves more nuances … > > So quantum gravity theories are not 100% untestable in current practice. > I do not understand the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Given the grandiose conjectures of physicists, which appear and disappears with alarming regularity, I choose to reserve judgment about the limits of measurements. Cheers Jerry > On 12/11/2016 6:43 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: > >> Ben: >> >> The foundation

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

ld > imagine that electric field theory, if it contradicts quantum mechanics and > the uncertainty principle, is valid only in some classical limit. > Best, Ben > On 12/11/2016 3:36 PM, Jerry LR Chandler wrote: > >> Ben, List: >> >>> On Dec 11, 2016, at 1:48

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Science (was Democracy)

Ben, List: > On Dec 11, 2016, at 1:48 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > According to Wikipedia, the Planck length is, in principle, within a factor > of 10, the shortest measurable length – and no theoretically known > improvement in measurement instruments could change that.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce and Democracy

Clark, List: > On Dec 6, 2016, at 3:55 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > Theoretical chemists are physicists. As you probably expect, my views of “theoretical chemists” are radically different. >From roughly 1913 (Rutherford/Moseley papers on the structure of atoms) until

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Time, Topology, Differential Logic

List, John: I was a bit surprised by this statement. > On Nov 15, 2016, at 10:52 AM, John F Sowa wrote: > > Every version of temporal logic, dynamic logic, etc. can be mapped > to first-order logic with explicit quantifiers that range over time: I am thinking of chemical

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Super-Order and the Logic of Continuity (was Metaphysics and Nothing (was Peirce's Cosmology))

List, Jeffrey, John S. First, I would support further discussion along these lines. Of course, I would think that a degree of balance should be introduced into the nature of premises. There are deep mathematical issues involved in this rather casual conversations. With this regard, John S’s

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Auke: > On Oct 24, 2016, at 6:27 AM, Auke van Breemen wrote: > > “It is my contention that although Peirce had a keen eye on both strains of > thought and enterprise, he was hampered in building a system of semiotics by > his preference for the communal or scientific

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

ow can we make a postmodern > transdisciplinary framework that allows us to combine them? > >Søren > > From: Jon Alan Schmidt [mailto:jonalanschm...@gmail.com] > Sent: 21. oktober 2016 17:59 > To: Jerry LR Chandler > Cc: Peirce List > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

> On Oct 21, 2016, at 1:55 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > But the modern word > has become specialized to the single sense of efficient cause. Only among a small minority of philosophers of science who attempt to establish the hegemony of the science of physics, this is probably

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

entific “non-believers”. Cheers Jerry > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt> - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt &g

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Universes and Categories (was Peirce's Cosmology)

Soren: Would it be fair to say that you seek to understand how CSP’s writings relate to scientific causality? I think it is fair to ask if Jon’s views on engineering wrt CSP writings are typical of modern engineering disciplines, such as chemical engineering and molecular-biological

[PEIRCE-L]

D B y Sent from my iPhonekheiydrk - 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

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Parker's propositions on the development of CSP's categories of Logic

Gary, List: > On Jun 19, 2016, at 5:23 PM, Gary Richmond wrote: > > As you appear to approve Jeff D's recent post, while mine was, in large part, > meant to explicate some of the ideas he offered offering little new of my > own, I am mystified as to why you would be

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Parker's propositions on the development of CSP's categories of Logic

ogic of icons," "logic of indices" and "logic of symbols" > is better (because it is more complete) thought of as three levels of sign > relations, where the iconic sort of relation that holds between sign and > object is assured--in its relationships to the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Parker's propositions on the development of CSP's categories of Logic

d possibilities. The > tricky part comes in when we need to consider all the relations (e.g., of > determination, or of representation) that hold between the three levels. > > Hope that helps. > > --Jeff > > > > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Depa

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Parker's propositions on the development of CSP's categories of Logic

, > logic of index, logic of symbol… > > > > Hth, > > Jerry Rhee > > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 2:29 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>> wrote: > Jerry R: > > >> On Jun

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Parker's propositions on the development of CSP's categories of Logic

term “propositional function”? Such a study could add substantially to your understanding of your own work. Cheers Jerry C. > Best, > Jerry R > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:44 PM, Jerry LR Chandler > <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com <mailto:jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com>

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Parker's propositions on the development of CSP's categories of Logic

Hi Jerry R: > On Jun 16, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Jerry Rhee wrote: > > I've never read FS but if the question is what is it that is being > interpreted by two different interpreters for that which is claimed to be > different but assumed to belong to the same whole, then you

[PEIRCE-L] Parker's propositions on the development of CSP's categories of Logic

List, Clark, Kirsti, Ben, Frederik: The recent mention by Clark of Parker’s book, “Continuity…” re-opens the question of how Parker categorized CSP’s writings. Of particular interest is Parker’s division of the three periods of meanings: Fig. 6.2: 1865-1885 Fig. 6.3: 1885-1902 Fig. 6.4:

Re: [PEIRCE-L] on the reality of objects

List, Clark: > On Jun 13, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Clark Goble wrote: > > Just that I notice for many trying to get a grasp on Peirce the real/existent > distinction isn’t obvious because most philosophy is based upon nominalistic > assumptions. For nominalists of the realist

[PEIRCE-L] Abduction - J. Shook

List In view of the the extended discussion of abduction, I thought the following article may be of interest: Axiomathes (2016) 26:157–186 DOI 10.1007/s10516-015-9282-y ORIGINAL PAPER Abduction, Complex Inferences, and Emergent Heuristics of Scientific Inquiry John R. Shook1 It generates a

[PEIRCE-L] CSP's intended meaning of "abduction"?

List: Once again, I will look at the issues from the perspective of the influence of chemical logic on CSP’s writings about logic. The logic of chemistry demands that from a set of atoms, one constructs a molecule of a specific form that matches the specific properties of the stuff at hand.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Peirce on the Definition of Determination

Clark, List: > On May 6, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > >> On May 6, 2016, at 8:16 AM, g...@gnusystems.ca >> wrote: >> >> There’s no question that scarlet is a determination of red and red a >> determination of color. That’s just

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

anything but > wild. > > >[JC:] Do you consider an assertion such as “A sells B to C for D”, where A, > >B, C, and D are nouns, that is, the premise is a polynomial of adicity four, > >to be an atomic sentence, an atom of logic? > > BU: If its form amounts to H(a,

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

Ben, List: While I agree with the first part of this post, these sections raise questions. Questions interwoven. > On May 1, 2016, at 12:57 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote: > > In abduction, the 'result' is the surprising observation in one of the > premisses. In deduction, it's

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism? Role of abduction in chemical ratiocinations / dicisigns

Ben, List: This is an aside to major thread. But it offer an innovative hypothesis on the meaning of “abduction” in conjunction with the meaning of ‘syllogisms’ in CSPs determinations of arguments. The relationship between the concept of “atom” and of “molecule” was rather fuzzy in CSP’s

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - in Chemistry and Biology FYI

Clark, Kirsti, List: > On Apr 25, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > > As I understand it these issues of metamathematics are an ongoing fruitful > area of mathematics. I’ll confess I don’t know as much about it as I perhaps > should. I’m more familiar with certain

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - in Chemistry and Biology FYI

Kristi, Clark, List: > On Apr 29, 2016, at 12:05 AM, kirst...@saunalahti.fi wrote: > > The most common form these problems appear, is in the form of just jumping > from "the level of individuals" (be they chemical reactions, organisms or > organelles, human or animal individuals) into the

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Is CP 5.189 a syllogism?

> On Apr 24, 2016, at 8:43 AM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > then the syllogism looks like this. > > A = X is Y. > R = Y is Z. > C = X is Z. Really? Perhaps you mean that the conclusion you seek can be reached by this clear, distinct and logical expression of

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Systems Of Interpretation - in Chemistry and Biology FYI

Clark, Kirsti, List: > On Apr 20, 2016, at 4:09 PM, Clark Goble wrote: > >> >> The issue of concern to me is the interpretation given to the meta-languages >> that use mathematical symbols. >> >> Tarski’s insistence of the role of meta-languages in logical and >>

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   >