[PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Gary R, list But you are ignoring my own comments! And I don't refer only to Peirce's earlier work but to all his work! I find it strange that you keep insisting that I refer only to 'his earlier comments ' ie 1.4

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

On 8/21/2019 1:18 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: I suggest that [Peirce] could have offered an argument against [the Big Bang] -- in fact, against any theory that posits a finite age and definite beginning of the universe... No. Peirce insisted on following the evidence. An amazing event occurre

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

John, List: JFS: An amazing event occurred around 13.8 billion years ago. Again, that estimated time frame relies on the assumption that the laws of nature have remained essentially unchanged for the entire duration--a presupposition that Peirce rejected in favor of "thorough-going evolutionism

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang John, List: JFS: An amazing event occurred around 13.8 billion years ago. Again, that estimated time frame relies on the assumption that the laws of nature have remained essentially unchanged for the entire

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Gary F., List: As I have already stated, I do not see how Peirce's synechistic and hyperbolic cosmology is compatible with the hypothesis of a singularity (discontinuity) at the beginning of the universe, especially since he affirmed more than once that time began "infinitely long ago" as whatever

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang Gary F., List: As I have already stated, I do not see how Peirce's synechistic and hyperbolic cosmology is compatible with the hypothesis of a singularity (discontinuity) at the beginning of the universe, especially since he affirmed more than

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

_ From: Jon Alan Schmidt Sent: Friday, August 23, 2019 8:42 AM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang Gary F., List: As I have already stated, I do not see how Peirce's synechistic and hyperbolic cosmology is compatible with the h

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

> On Aug 22, 2019, at 11:04 PM, John F Sowa wrote: > > On 8/21/2019 1:18 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt wrote: >> I suggest that [Peirce] could have offered an argument against >> [the Big Bang] -- in fact, against any theory that posits a finite >> age and definite beginning of the universe... > > No.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

ferent universe of > discourse. That was my point. The implication, as I see it, is that > Peirce’s cosmology can’t be reduced to physics or any other special science. > > Gary f > > > > *From:* Jon Alan Schmidt > *Sent:* 23-Aug-19 11:43 > *To:* peirce-l@list.iu

RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Downard Sent: 23-Aug-19 12:46 To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang Jon S, Gary F, John S, List, Peirce engages in inquiries that fall under the headings "cosmological metaphysics" and "cosmological physics." (see, for example, CP

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

> would affect Jeff’s idea about the reduction of dimensions over time.) > > I haven’t read the Quanta article yet and have a busy weekend ahead so > this very rough sketch is all I can offer for awhile. > > Gary f. > > > > *From:* Jeffrey Brian Downard >

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

y f. > > From: Jon Alan Schmidt > Sent: 23-Aug-19 09:58 > To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu > Subject: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang > > John, List: > > > > JFS: An amazing event occurred around 13.8 billion years ago. > > > > Again, that

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Gary F., List: GF: Right now the only suggestion I can contribute is that a concept of time as a true topological continuum would be independent of scale, while any concept of *historical *time does have a fixed scale, which assigns the origin of the earth to around 5 billion years ago, the Big B

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

forever >> (or you could if you had infinite computing power) without reaching an >> (“innermost”) end. (I wonder how the possibility of fractal dimensions >> would affect Jeff’s idea about the reduction of dimensions over time.) >> >> I haven’t read the Qu

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

John, List: JFS: Although Jon prefers to quote other passages, Peirce never denied CP 1.412. I have never claimed that Peirce denied CP 1.412. What I have maintained is that we should interpret it in light of later passages, which presumably reflect Peirce's more considered views. Besides, up

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Jon, John, List, JFS: Although Jon prefers to quote other passages, Peirce never denied CP 1.412. JAS: "I have never claimed that Peirce denied CP 1.412. What I have maintained is that we should interpret it in light of later passages, which presumably reflect Peirce's more considered views.

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

ent of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: g...@gnusystems.ca Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 4:48:39 AM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: RE: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang Jeff, Jon, List, It’s true that my suggestion of a r

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Jon: > On Aug 27, 2019, at 10:01 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt > wrote: > > Those are interesting questions, but I suggest that we first explore a more > fundamental one--what is a dimension in this context? > > According to Wikipedia , "the > dimension of a

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

List: > On Aug 28, 2019, at 3:48 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard > wrote: > > How might we study something as complex as a highly folded, twisted and > knotted space? As with any kind of relatively complex topological space, it > helps to decompose that space into its component parts. As such, we c

Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Jeff, all, Peirce also pursued nonions (a 9-version /á la/ quaternions, octonions, etc.), over which he got into a public priority dispute with Sylvester. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22nonions%22+%22peirce%22+%22sylvester%22 https://www.google.com/search?q=%22nonions%22+%22A+Communicatio

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

e origins of the universe to the present time, what might explain the general direction of those changes? --Jeff Jeffrey Downard Associate Professor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 - From: Jon Alan Schmidt Sent: Frid

Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

dea about the reduction of dimensions over time.) I haven’t read the Quanta article yet and have a busy weekend ahead so this very rough sketch is all I can offer for awhile. Gary f.   From: Jeffrey Brian Downard <jeffrey.down...@nau.edu> Sent: 23-Aug-19 12:46 To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

I sometimes use the analogy of “zooming in” on a >>> representation of the Mandelbrot set: you can zoom in on any region forever >>> (or you could if you had infinite computing power) without reaching an >>> (“innermost”) end. (I wonder how the possibility of fractal dime

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; } Gary R I'll continue to support my reading of Peirce - which disagrees with your outline. I know that some on this list have, graciously, defined me as 'intelligent' - but, alas, also declared that my being inte

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Edwina, List: ET: So- there is not only a 'universal tendency towards habit-forming' - but a universal tendency towards chance/sporting/deviation - and a universal tendency to instantiation into discrete units. ALL Three are 'universal tendencies'. Thanks for confirming that 3ns is fundamental

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Edwina, List, Yes, you continue to stick to your interpretation of the situation of the early cosmos and will probably continue to do so, even when presented with new evidence, for example, the unpublished draft that includes the Ogden Rood (not 'Nash' as I last wrote, my computer having 'correcte

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Jon, List, Jon wrote: The resulting evolution of states is an ongoing and continuous process (3ns) away from the ideal limit of "unpersonalized feeling" (1ns) in the infinite past and toward the ideal limit of "dead matter" (2ns) in the infinite future. On the other hand, we should acknowledge t

Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Gary R., List: Your additional comments are well-taken, especially about the distinction that you suggest "may, indeed, prove to be at the core of the disagreement." In fact, it is why I follow Nicholas Guardiano's lead in discerning not just one, but *three *cosmological accounts in Peirce's wri

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

BODY { font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px; }Gary R, list Yes, I continue to stick by my interpretations - just as others continue to stick by theirs - and no-one here has offered any new evidence to make me change my interpretation. And I do add other refer

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Edwina, List, We are most certainly in disagreement in this matter as we always have been and, most likely, always will be. For if this passage doesn't convince you that Peirce, and *by his own admission,* either changed his mind or further developed his thought. . . Dr. Edward Montgomery remarke

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Gary R., List: One correction--CP 1.412 is from 1887-1888, not 1891, so it reflects an even earlier stage of Peirce's thinking on these matters than what he wrote in the *Monist *series. Whether particular comments are snide, unprofessional, and/or insulting is in the eye of the beholder. John S

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Jon, List, Thanks for the corrections, esp. the first re: the correct dating of a quotation. As for the other matter, except for that one untoward remark reproduced as your second item, and further noting your on-list apology in the third item, explaining that it came from a acute sense of, as I

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Jon Alan Schmidt Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 3:00:16 PM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang Gary R., List: One correction--CP 1.412 is from 1887-1888, not 1891, so it

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Jeff, List: JD (below): What is the general trend: an increase in dimensions from 1 to 4, or a decrease in dimensions from infinity to four? How might the rival metaphysical hypotheses be tested? JD (to Gary F.): We have to ask, if real space has 3 dimensions, then why is it a whole number and

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

sday, August 27, 2019 8:01 PM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang Jeff, List: JD (below): What is the general trend: an increase in dimensions from 1 to 4, or a decrease in dimensions from infinity to four? How might the rival metaphysical

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

of > cosmological physics to something that is easier to get one's mind > around. As such, in a future post, I'd like to take up some > graph-theoretical explorations of how we might think about the > dimensions of space and time. In doing so, the aim will be to create some > ki

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Jeff, List: JD: Peirce provides definitions for dimension, dimensional and dimensionality in the Century Dictionary. Thanks for pointing this out; it did not occur to me to look there ( http://triggs.djvu.org/century-dictionary.com/djvu2jpgframes.php?volno=02&page=741). Here is his first defini

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

e, and then think >> about the various ways such surfaces might be connected. What is more, we >> can think of the possible paths that things might travel on that surface as >> edges in a graph. Those, I suspect, are kinds of the techniques we might >> profitably employ to st

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Jon, Jeff, List, This message is meant to solicit clarification on what seems to be the thrust of Jon's argument in support of a dimensionless ur-continuity. My question is: Am I clearly grasping what you're getting at, Jon? You wrote near the end of your post: JAS: What I notice is that *measure

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

fessor Department of Philosophy Northern Arizona University (o) 928 523-8354 From: Gary Richmond Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 1:24 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang Jon, Jeff, List, This message is meant to solicit clar

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

mpty chalkboard before any chalk streaks have been > drawn on its surface. Some philosophers might claim that Peirce is wrong to > think the original vague potentiality doesn't need a further explanation, > but I take that to be the view he is exploring in this last lecture. > >

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

From: Gary Richmond Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 4:50 PM To: Peirce-L Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang Jeff, Jon, List, Jeff concluded: JD: In saying that the dimensions of space, time and quality were potential and not actual, I do not take him to be saying that the

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Gary R., List: GR: Are you suggesting that it is* only* in the aboriginal (from Latin *ab origine --*“from the beginning”) continuum that there are *no discrete dimension

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

of a process of cognition can be thought of as triangle > touching the surface of water in a glass. The starting point of > inquiry--the tip of the triangle--is a kind of limiting idea. > > --Jeff > Jeffrey Downard > Associate Professor > Department of Philosophy > Northern

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

om: Jon Alan Schmidt Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 8:22:43 PM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang Jeff, Gary R., List: Supplementing what I just posted ... JD: On my reading of the last lecture of RLT, I think it is an error to sugge

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

-8354 From: Jon Alan Schmidt Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2019 8:22:43 PM To: peirce-l@list.iupui.edu Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang Jeff, Gary R., List: Supplementing what I just posted ... JD: On my reading of the last lecture of RLT, I think it

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

y have an indeterminate metrical character. >> Proportions are preserved, but not scalar values. >> >> As far as I can see, Peirce appears to be drawing on the ideas of the >> beginning and ending points of inquiry--as those are worked out in a >> speculative rhetoric (

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

dimensions did this potential >> have? An indefinite vague multitude. The dimensions were continuous. There >> were uncountable, to say the least. >> >> >> In saying that the dimensions of space, time and quality were potential >> and not actual, I do not take him t

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Jeff, List: I am well aware of Peirce's advocacy of "hyperbolic" philosophy, and used that term myself in the very first post of this thread, stating that it "posits complete indeterminacy in the infinite past and complete regularity in the infinite future; not as *actual *states, but as *ideal *l

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Jeff, List: JD: In saying that points i and j represent discontinuities in A and B, I would not draw the conclusion that those points are no longer parts of the continuous lines A and B. I disagree. Points are *never *parts of *any *continuous figure *in itself*, because they are of *lower *di

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Gary R., List: Thank you for clarifying. As Peirce stated in the first Additament to "A Neglected Argument" ... CSP: In that state of absolute nility, in or out of time, that is, before or after the evolution of time, there must then have been a tohu-bohu of which nothing whatever affirmative o

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Jon, List, JAS: Peirce clearly affirmed that *some *possibilities are real, not merely "potentially real"; that is why Max Fisch called him "a three-category realist" as of 1897. In fact, there are real possibilities that *never *become actualized, such as the resistance to scratching of a diamon

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Gary R., List: I apologize for the (unintended) distraction. What I was trying to emphasize was not that all possibilities are real, but rather that the reality of a possibility does not depend upon its eventual actualization. Again, according to Peirce, the *only *requirement for something to be

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Gary R., List: This post has a twofold purpose--first, to "bump" the one below, in case it got overlooked in the flurry of other exchanges over the last 24 hours, including the "distraction" about real possibilities; and second, to introduce some additional remarks by Peirce about the concept of *

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Jon, List, JAS: . . . as Pietarinen comments, "Peirce also makes the observation that the notion of dimension does not imply that the geometry of logical space is metric. If we have dimension, we already have a topological space (topical geometry, topology, topics) that is not subject to measurem

Re: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang

Gary R., List: GR: What are the implications of this 'correction' re: dimension for Peirce's model/diagram of the earliest Universe as interpreted by you? It is actually consistent with my understanding that Peirce endorsed my option #2--continuous space-time has a definite number of discrete d

[PEIRCE-L] Re: Peirce and the Big Bang (was Objective Idealism and Synechism)

List: What might Peirce have said about the Big Bang theory? As I acknowledged before, we cannot know for sure; but I suggest that he *could* have offered an argument *against* it--in fact, against *any* theory that posits a finite age and definite beginning of the universe--similar to that which