[Inquiry] Peirce's Logic Of Information -- Discussion

[Jon Awbrey]

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

PLOI.  Discussion Note 1

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

TG(IF) = Tom Gollier (It's Friday!)

Re: PLOI 12.  http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-December/003275.html
In: PLOI.     http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/2005-December/thread.html#3273

TG: Like our rainy day example awhile back I find it curious 
    (at least to my way of thinking) why you change things
    around, just a little, so as to undo the mediational
    aspect of Peirce's thought in particular and signs
    in general.

TG: Why would your diagram between instances and qualities not take the form of:

` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` Blue` ` ` ` `Red` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` o ` ` ` ` ` o ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `\` ` ` ` `/` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` \ ` ` ` / ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `\` ` `/` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` \ ` / ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `\`/` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` Intermediate Object ` Color ` Middle Term ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `/|\` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` / | \ ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `/` | `\` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` / ` | ` \ ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `/` ` | ` `\` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` o ` ` o ` ` o ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` A ` ` B ` ` C ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `

TG: where "color" is a diagrammatic system with certain
    outputs given certain inputs and the transformation
    rules of that system?

Tom, Peirce List,

Well, it's more of a full-blown blizzard day here in Michigan, but ...
Yes, this is now the 3rd or 4th run I've taken at this example
just this 10^3-um -- and the millennium is very young indeed!
I was amazed to find, in hunting up old files for this try,
that I've discussed this with a veritable host of folks on
and off four or five lists -- aside from the original ECI
and ICE threads, and all the usual suspects on Peirce-L,
I've diablogged this with denizens of the Complexity,
Global Brain, Principia Cybernetica, and even the
Sequence Fanatics Lists (!) -- so the current set
of variations is at least being carried out in
full recognizance of having tried all or most
of the more obvious interpretations first.

I can't count as high as blue yet, but I don't understand the logic
of the picture that you drew above.  In the sort of lattice diagram
that I was going for the vertical links are supposed to indicate the
minimal proper implication relations.  Element 'A' linked below 'Red'
would mean "A => Red", plus "A =/= Red", plus the fact that no other
elements of the lattice intervene in the order between 'A' and 'Red'.

One of the problems of rationalizing Peirce's story, say, to the point
of having a full-scale measure of information, comes from the problem
of how to treat "improper implications" like "A => A" or "Red => Red".
Should we count 'A' as one of the intensions of 'A' or Red as one of
the intensions that go into making up the full comprehension of Red?
In at least one place that I know about, Peirce appears to suggest
that the first cut, if not the deepest, at least makes the cut of
counting as a bona-fide quality.  So that takes some ruminating.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o