Gary R., Helmut, List: Since we have been discussing *philosophical* cosmology and cosmogony lately, I was wondering if/when the current *scientific* (and popular) consensus would come up--i.e., the Big Bang theory, which claims that the physical universe as we know it began as a singularity roughly 13.8 billion years ago. One of the key assumptions underlying that particular account is that the laws of nature have remained essentially *unchanged* ever since the first minuscule fractions of a second after that alleged event. By contrast, Peirce was adamant that the laws of nature as we observe them today are just as much the results of *evolution* as anything else. Accordingly, his "hyperbolic" scheme posits complete indeterminacy in the infinite past and complete regularity in the infinite future; not as *actual *states, but as *ideal *limits.
CSP: But at any assignable date in the past, however early, there was already some tendency toward uniformity; and at any assignable date in the future there will be some slight aberrancy from law. (CP 1.409; 1887-1888) Consequently, it seems unlikely that he would have endorsed any *finite* estimate of the "age" of the universe. To my knowledge, the closest that he ever came to offering one himself was in the first Additament to "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God." CSP: How, for example, can we ever expect to be able to predict what the conduct would be, even of [an] omniscient being, governing no more than one poor solar system for only a million years or so? (CP 6.489, EP 2:447; 1908) In that context, "a million years or so" was likely just a colloquial way of saying "an enormous span of time." If the laws of nature really *evolved *to reach their current, relatively stable condition, then it is *impossible *even to approximate how long ago the "beginning" occurred--that "first day of Creation" when the entire transition took place from "the indeterminate general Nothing" to "the emergence of Time" (NEM 4:138; 1898). In fact, Peirce went on to say the following in the same manuscript. CSP: That first moment of time was of course infinitely long ago. But more than that, although it was but one moment, it was infinitely longer than any number of ages. It contained as great a multitude of ages as there are points upon a continuous line. In one sense this continuum was not time, it is true, because it all occupied but a moment of time. But it was not only strictly analogous to time, but it gradually and continuously developed into time; so that it was of one continuous nature with time. All that follows from the principles of continuity. (NEM 4:149; 1898) He said much the same thing a few years later. CSP: I am inclined to think (though I admit that there is no necessity of taking that view) that the process of creation has been going on for an infinite time in the past, and further, during all past time, and, further, that past time had no definite beginning, yet came about by a process which in a generalized sense, of which we cannot easily get much idea, was a development. (CP 6.506; c. 1906) What *scientific *sense could we make of the "beginning" as something *indefinite *that supposedly occurred "infinitely long ago," especially if whatever "preceded" time was nevertheless "of one continuous nature with time"? On the other hand, what *philosophical* sense could we make of the "beginning" as a singularity that supposedly occurred a finite interval in the past, especially from a Peircean standpoint? If the Big Bang theory had been introduced and widely adopted during Peirce's lifetime, would he have embraced it, thus abandoning the metaphysical framework that he had so carefully developed and vigorously advocated? Although none of us can claim to know for sure, again, it seems doubtful to me. Peirce's "thorough-going evolutionism" was entailed by his tychism (CP 6.193; 1892), which was subsidiary to his synechism (CP 6.202; 1898); and he held that "philosophy *requires* thorough-going evolutionism or none" (CP 6.14; 1891, emphasis mine), since "law itself requires an explanation" (CP 6.613; 1893). If the constitution of being is fundamentally a *continuum*, then that precludes an *absolute* *discontinuity* as the starting point for the entire universe. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:15 PM Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Helmut, List, > > I think most all of your concerns regarding space and time dissolve once > one considers that everything that Peirce comments on in the last lecture > of RLT expresses 'conditions' holding 'before' the alleged Big Bang > (however, there's no way to get around the language of time and space, like > 'conditions' and 'before', when discussing the possible ultimate origins of > the Universe). All you write of in your message concerns that which is post > that which many physicists refer to as the Big Bang singularity. > > But, was there such a singularity? You might be interested to learn, that > not every astrophysicist is convinced that there was such a singularity. > Some see it as a way of thinking about the cosmos which is dated by at > least 40 or so years. See, for example, this fascinating article, "There > Was No Big Bang Singularity," by the astrophysicist, Ethan Siegel. > > https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/27/there-was-no-big-bang-singularity/#6115d83a7d81 > > Pertinent excerpt: > > > There is a theorem, famous among cosmologists > <https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012>, showing that an inflationary state > is past-timelike-incomplete. What this means, explicitly, is that if you > have any particles that exist in an inflating Universe, they will > eventually meet if you extrapolate back in time. This doesn't, however, > mean that there must have been a singularity, but rather that *inflation > doesn't describe everything that occurred in the history of the Universe, > like its birth. We also know, for example, that inflation cannot arise from > a singular state, because an inflating region must always begin from a > finite size. *(emphasis added) > > > Conclusion: > > Every time you see a diagram, an article, or a story talking about the > "big bang singularity" or any sort of big bang/singularity existing before > inflation, know that you're dealing with an outdated method of thinking. The > idea of a Big Bang singularity went out the window as soon as we realized > we had a different state — that of cosmic inflation — preceding and setting > up the early, hot-and-dense state of the Big Bang. *There may have been a > singularity at the very beginning of space and time, with inflation arising > after that, but there's no guarantee. In science, there are the things we > can test, measure, predict, and confirm or refute, like an inflationary > state giving rise to a hot Big Bang. Everything else? It's nothing more > than speculation.* (Emphasis added) > > > > [image: Starts With A Bang] <http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/> > Best, > > Gary > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 4:48 PM Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> Gary, list >> >> I agree to you and the quotations, except literally to "emergence of >> time", because "emergence", I guess, is something that is commonly >> understood as an event in an existing unidirectional time continuum. >> >> Time, after Einstein, is connected with space in the >> "time-space-continuum". While time is unidirectional, and has one >> dimension, space is not, and has three. Time and space can however be >> transformed into each other, if high speeds close to light velocity play a >> role. >> >> Einstein supposed a fourth space dimension, in which the other three are >> bent, bending radius being or representing gravitation. >> >> On the other hand, gravitation is supposed to be a force like the three >> others (electromagnetic, weak and strong nuclear), and, like them, is done >> by messenger particles, in this case gravitons. >> >> Anyway, this situation might seem like something quite special, this >> special case enabling that what we call existence and things, entities, >> events, whatever, everything that we know from our experiences. >> >> Maybe, time as we know it, unidirectional, is a special case of time, so >> "time" (as we know it) "did" emerge according to its own point of view, but >> is just (accidentially? volitionally?) existing in its unidirectional order >> from the point of view of chaotic time as a special case. As chaotic time >> is not unidirectional, from its standpoint there is no date of creation of >> this special case our universe is. The evolution of our universe is only >> happening in it (our universe), but in the chaos it is a side-effect that >> is always there. I guess, in the chaos, due to multidimensional time, there >> are no things and events for necessarily identifyable targets, but all is >> superposition of other things and events. This also works as secondness, >> though not in the way we know it. This default radical otherness, >> dependence on, and reference to something other, may poetically be called >> unconditional love, a divine secondness, but chaos from our point of view. >> It is not in contradiction to our world, as our world is a marginal >> side-effect taking place in it. >> >> That was just some experimental megalomaniac complete bullshit, but why >> not, as long as no harm is done, best, >> Helmut >> >
----------------------------- 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 .
