Download Quark_model_of_signs1

Subject:
Re: [biosemiotics:46] Re: Aerts 2012 On the Foundations of the Theory of
Evolution
From:
"Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]>
Date:
Wed, December 26, 2012 8:33 pm
To:
[email protected]
Bcc:
[email protected] (more)
Priority:
Normal
Options:
View Full Header | View Printable Version | Download this as a file | Add to
Address Book | View Message details | Bounce
(In this email, the so-called “quark model of the Peircean sign” is further elaborated following the
first formulation proposed in S. Ji (2004). “Semiotics of Life: A Unified Theory of Molecular
Machines, Cells, the Mind, Peircean Signs, and the Universe based on the Principle of InformationEnergy Complementarity,” the set of the lectures given at the Rovira I Virgili University in Taragona,
Spain, in 2003, available at http://www.conformon.net under Publications < Proceedings and
Abstracts.)
Dear Edwina,
Thank you for sending me your paper "The Nature of the Sign as an WFF"
which I read with great interest.
Reading your paper motivated me to review Peirce's classifications of
signs as succinctly summarized by John Sheriff in his book, "Charles
Peirce's Guess at the Riddle” [1]. Before I make some comments on your
paper, I would like to describe Peircean signs as I understand them.
(1) As you know, Peirce divides signs into 9 groups (which I will call
"elementary signs" for the reason that will become evident below) which
can be represented as a 3x3 table with top row indicating three
ontological (or material) categories labeled Quality (1), Fact (2) and Law
(3), and the left-most column indicating three phenomenological (or
formal) categories of Sign, Object, and Interpretant (in agreement with
the table on p. 41, Sheriff, 1994).
(2) Peirce then divides signs into 10 classes (which will be referred to as
“composite signs"), each class consisting of a “sign-object-interpretant”
triad (see the diagram on p.46, Sheriff, 1994).
(3) I combined (1) and (2) into a single figure as shown in Figure 1
attached. As indicated at the bottom of the first page, there may be an
interesting analogy between the structures of baryons (consisting of three
quarks) and that of Peircean composite signs (consisting of three
elementary signs). That is to say, Peircean elementary signs may be to
composite signs what quarks are to baryons in high-energy physics. The
same idea can be expressed as a geometric proportionality or a tetractys:
Elementary signs
Quarks
----------------------- = --------Composite signs
Baryons
(I)
Equation (I) may be referred to as the particle/sign tetractys for
convenience. It is interesting to note that the terms “particles”,
“signs” and “tetractys” occur in a paper by V. Christiansen [2] who
utilized the Peircean sign theory to organize elementary particles in
physics whereas here I am attempting to do the opposite – namely, to
organize signs in analogy to the patterns exhibited by elementary
particles in physics. If Christian’s effort is successful, that would
re-enforce the validity of the particle/sign tetractys.
(4) The triadic structure of Peircean composite signs can be denoted as
S_(ijk), where S indicates "sign", and the subscripts i, j and k indicate,
respectively, interpretant, object, and representamen. Representamen is
often replaced by (or used synonymously with) "sign" so that the term
"sign" has dual meanings --"elementary sign" and "composite sign", which
can cause confusions unless due care is exercised. Semioticians not
distinguishing between these two types of signs may be akin to physicists
conflating quarks with baryons.
Since each of the three subscripts can assume any one of the three
possible values -- i as one of the three values in the third row in
Figure 1, j one of the three values in the second row, and k one of the
three values in the first row -- there can be in principle 3x3x3 = 27
possible composite signs. However Pierce chose only 10 out of these
possibilities based on the following selection rule:
I ≤ j ≤k
(II)
where the symbol “≤” reads "less than or equal to" or "not greater than".
That is, Inequalitiy (II) states that i is not greater than j, which is in
turn not greater than k. We may refer to (II) as the "Peircean rule of
composite signs (PRCS)". In other words, PRCS states that the subscripts
i, j, and k can assume any values within their allowed ranges as long as
they obey Inequality (II).
Inequality (II) can be viewed as an example of “rule-governed
creativity (RGC)”, a well-established principle in linguistics. RGC may
be alternatively called the “rule-governed freedom” to avoid giving any
impression of anthropocentrism. RGF is also exhibited by quarks, since
the three quarks in a baryon can change their colors “freely”, from red
to blue to green, as long as the sum of their colors remain white
(“rule-governedness”).
(5) The definitions given in the legend to Figure 1 attached indicates that
“A legisign cannot exist without its interpretant.”
(III)
“A sinsign cannot exist without its object.”
(IV)
“A qualisign can exist without any object or interpretant.”
(V)
(6) The table in Figure 1 attached defines the Peircean signs in terms of
two orthogonal axes each trichotomized into Firstness, Secondness and
Thirdness, thus giving rise to 9 boxes or squares. For convenience, I
will refer to this table as the “sign table” in analogy to the periodical
table in chemistry and physics, thus leading to what I call “particle/sign
tetractys”:
Sign Table
Periodic Table
------------ = -----------------Semiotics
Chemistry/Physics
or
or
Study of Signs
Study of Particles
(VI)
Equation (VI) may be useful in defining what semiotics is in analogy to
physics/chemistry. Just as physics/chemistry is the study of particle
processes, i.e., their production, destruction, interactions, and internal
structures, so we may define semiotics as follows:
“Semiotics is the study of sign processes or semiosis, i.e.,
the production, destruction, interaction, and internal
structures of signs, both macroscopic and microscopic.”
(VII)
(7) A few weeks ago someone on this list asked me what really
distinguishes the “Peircean semiotics” and “non-Peircean semiotics”. I
now can suggest that PRCS, i.e., Equation (VII), may be the answer:
"Non-Peircean semiotics violates the Peircean rules
of composite signs.”
(VIII)
The definition of non-Peircean semiotics given by (VIII) is reminiscent of
the non-Euclidean geometry which violates the parallel line axiom of the
Euclidean geometry.
(8) The seemingly rational behaviors of the living cell (e.g., chemotaxis,
morphogenesis, apoptosis, etc.) may be an example of non-Peircean
semiosis, since they can be viewed as a S_322 sign (“3” because cells
apparently can compute and reason; the first “2” is because cell behaviors
are causally linked to and driven by the internal states of the living
cell; and the third “2” because cell behaviors are real, not imaginary,
entities). As you can see the subscripts of S_322 violates Inequality (II)
and hence S_322 (i.e., argument indexical sinsign) is a non-Peircean sign.
Another non-Peircean sign is an enzyme-substrate complex such as
ATP-myosin complex since it can be viewed as a S_322 sign because it (i)
can reason, i.e.,
selectively interacts with its target, an actin on a thin filament, if and
only if the actin monomer is in a specific conformational state, (ii) can
move driven by its own mechanical force generated from the chemical energy
of ATP supplied by the hydrolysis of ATP catalyzed that it itself
catalyzes, and (iii) can be isolated and studied in the test tube [3]. In
fact, since all living processes are ultimately driven by the mechanical
energy derived from the chemical reactions catalyzed by enzymes (also
called molecular machines), it seems logical to conclude that
“All living processes on the molecular level violate
the Peircean rules of composite signs.”
(IX)
Statement (IX) is synonymous with Statement (X):
“Microsemiosis violates the Peircean rules of composite signs.”
(X)
where “microsemiosis” is defined as sign processes (“-semiosis”) in living
systems on the molecular level (“micro-“).
Statement (X) is in turn synonymous with Statement (XI):
“Microsemiotics is a non-Peircean semiotics.”
(XI)
where “microsemiotics” is defined as the study of sign processes in living
systems
on the molecular level.
(7) Now I am ready to make some (only some, because making a full set of
comments would take weeks and months of studying) comments on your paper
utilizing the concept of signs, both Peircean and non-Peircean, as defined
above:
(i) Figure 1 in your paper also contains two orthogonal axes (as does
Figure 1 attached) called the “Epistemological Cut” and the “Ontological
Cut” that bisects each other producing 4 boxes or what you call “the
Cartesian quadrant”. The basic difference between “the sign table”, Figure
1 attached, and “the Cartesian quadrant” in your Figure 1 is that the
former embodies Peirce’s triadic metaphysics explicitly (by trichotomizing
both the horizontal and vertical axes) whereas the Cartesian quadrant does
not (because it dichotomizes its axes). In other words, the architectural
principle underlying the “sign table” is triadic, whereas that of the
Cartesian quadrant is dyadic.
(ii) To me, well-formed formulas, WFFs, are symbolic legisigns, i.e.,
S_133, S_233, or S_333, and, as such, represents only 30% of the Peircean
signs.
(iii) Figure 2 in your paper indicates that Peirce’s triadic sign can be
represented as f(x) = y, identifying x with Input Relation,
Object-Relation (or by implication, Secondness); y with Output Relation,
Interpretant-Relation (or, by implication, Thirdness); and f with
Mediation Relation, Representamen-Relation (or, by implication,
Firstness), as summarized in the third column of Table 1 below. This table
is consistent with Figure 1 attached. I do not agree with the assignments
that you make as summarized on the third column in Table 1 because I do
not see how mediation, f, can be an object or object relation and how
output, y, can be interpretant or interpretant relation, since these
assignments seem to violate our common sense that interpretant (thirdness)
cannot exist without representamen (Firstness) and object (Secondness);
object (Secdondness) cannot exist without a representamen (Firstness). The
assignment that I prefer is given on the last column of Table 1 which seems
to agree with our common sense.
___________________________________________________________________________
f
Table 1. The dual aspects of the sign represented as f(x) = y or as x --------> y.
___________________________________________________________________________
Peircean
Formal Aspect
Material Aspect
Categories
___________________________________________________________________________
Taborsky
___________
Firstness
Representamen
Ji
___________________________
Input (x)
Availability of x, y,
and f before selection
___________________________________________________________________________
Secondness Object
Mediation (f)
x ---> y as a process
___________________________________________________________________________
Thirdness
Interpretant
Output (y)
Mediation (f)
___________________________________________________________________________
If you have any questions or comments, let me know.
With all the best for the New Year!
Sung
___________________________________________
Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
Rutgers University
Piscataway, N.J. 08855
732-445-4701
www.conformon.net
References:
[1] Sheriff, J. K. (1994). Charles Peirce’s Guess at the riddle:
Grounds for Human Significance. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
[2] Christiansen, V (20_ _). The Semiotic Flora of Elementary Particles.
http://www.library.utoronto.ca/see/SEED/Vol3-2/Christiansen_3-2.htm.
[3] Ji, S. (2012). The Conformon Model of Molecular Machines. In: S.
Ji, Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular
Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications. Springer, New York. Section
11.4, pp. 368 – 377. Available at conformon.net under Publications >
Book Chapters.
> Thanks for the link, Sung. It is indeed an interesting paper. Their
> outline of potentiality has, I think, similarities to what I've described
> as Strong Anticipation, while Newtonian mechanistic processes fall within
> what I described as Weak Anticipation.
>
> I like their concept of 'actualization of potential under the influence of
> context, ie, the rest of the universe'. Although I totally agree with
> this Informational Context, I think it is first of all, local rather than
> global, but, links could be established with the rest of the world. But
> first, it's local, which is why local adaptation is so vital and strong a
> process.
>
> My outline of Strong and Weak Anticipation processes were outlined in a
> paper I gave to the CASYS conference (Computing Anticipatory Systems)
> conference in Liege, Belgium. I attach it here.
>
> Edwina Taborsky
>
> ----- Original Message ----> From: "Sungchul Ji" <[email protected]>
> To: "Malcolm Dean" <[email protected]>
> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
> <[email protected]>;
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 4:21 PM
> Subject: [biosemiotics:45] Re: Aerts 2012 On the Foundations of the Theory
> of Evolution
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is a great article on evolution, both general and biological.
>>
>> I like their Context-driven Actualization of Potential (CAP) formalism
>> and think that they are onto something.
>>
>> The Shillongator model of the Universe [1], and the mechanisms of
>> biological evolution [2] inspired by the pre-fit model of enzymic
>> catalysis [3] which is in turn based on the generalized Franck-Condon
>> principle [4] all seem to be consistent with the CAP formalism.
>>
>> This may mean that it is possible to describe and understand the
>> physical processes ranging from the evolution of the Universe to
>> biological evolution and enzymic catalysis within one coherent
>> theoretical framework rooted in quantum mechanics and information theory.
>>
>> Sung
>> ____________________________________________
>> Sungchul Ji, Ph.D.
>> Associate Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology
>> Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology
>> Ernest Mario School of Pharmacy
>> Rutgers University
>> Piscataway, N.J. 08855
>> 732-445-4701
>>
>> www.conformon.net
>>
>> References:
>> [1] Ji, S. (1991). A Biological Model of the Universe: The
>> Shillongator. In: Molecular Theory of Cell Life and Death. Rutgeers
>> University Press, new Brunswick. Available at conformon.net under
>> Publications > Proceedings & Abstracts.
>> [2] Ji, S. (2012). Principles and Mechanisms of Biological
>> Evolution. In: S. Ji, Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts,
>> Molecular Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications. Springer, New York.
>> Chapter 14 (Part A), 487-505. Available at conformon.net under
>> Publications > Book Chapters.
>> [3] Ji, S. (2012). The Kinetics of Ligand-Protein Interactions: The
>> "Pre-fit" Mechanism Based on the Generalized Franck-Condon Principle.
>> In: S. Ji, Molecular Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular
>> Mechanisms, and Biomedical Applications. Springer, New York. Section
>> 7.1.3, pp. 209-231. Available at conformon.net under Publications >
>> Book Chapters.
>> [4] Ji, S. (2012). The Franck-Condon Principle. In: S. Ji, Molecular
>> Theory of the Living Cell: Concepts, Molecular Mechanisms, and
>> Biomedical Applications. Springer, New York. Section 2.2, pp. 18-24.
>> Available at conformon.net under Publications > Book Chapters.
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0107
>>> *On the Foundations of the Theory of Evolution*
>>> Diederik Aerts, Stan Bundervoet, Marek Czachor, Bart D'Hooghe, Liane
>>> Gabora, Philip Polk, Sandro Sozzo
>>> (Submitted on 1 Dec 2012)
>>>
>>> Darwinism conceives evolution as a consequence of random variation and
>>> natural selection, hence it is based on *a materialistic, i.e.
>>> matter-based, view of science inspired by classical physics.* But
>>> matter in itself is considered a very complex notion in modern physics.
>>> More specifically, at a microscopic level, matter and energy are no
>>> longer retained within their simple form, and quantum mechanical models
>>> are proposed wherein potential form is considered in addition to actual
>>> form.
>>> In this paper we propose an alternative to standard Neodarwinian
>>> evolution theory. We suggest that *the starting point of evolution
>>> theory cannot be limited to actual variation whereupon is selected, but
>>> to variation in the potential of entities according to the context*. We
>>> therefore develop a formalism, referred to as *Context driven Actualization of Potential
>>> (CAP)*, which handles potentiality and describes the evolution of
>>> entities as an actualization of potential through a reiterated interaction with the
>>> context. As in quantum mechanics, lack of knowledge of the entity, its
>>> context, or the interaction between context and entity leads to
>>> different forms of indeterminism in relation to the state of the entity. This
>>> indeterminism generates a *non-Kolmogorovian distribution of
>>> probabilities*that is different from the classical distribution of
>>> chance described by Darwinian evolution theory, which stems from a
>>> 'actuality focused', i.e. materialistic, view of nature. We also
>>> present a quantum evolution game that highlights the main differences arising
>>> from our new perspective and shows that it is more fundamental to consider
>>> evolution in general, and biological evolution in specific, as a process
>>> of actualization of potential induced by context, for which its material
>>> reduction is only a special case.
>>>
>>> Subjects:Biological Physics (physics.bio-ph); Populations and Evolution
>>> (q-bio.PE); Quantum Physics (quant-ph) Journal reference:In D. Aerts, J. Broekaert, B. D'Hooghe
>>> and N. Note (Eds.), Worldviews, Science and Us: Bridging Knowledge and Its
>>> Implications for our Perspectives of the World; Singapore, World
>>> Scientific (2011) Cite as:arXiv:1212.0107 [physics.bio-ph] (or arXiv:1212.0107v1 [physics.bio-ph]
>>> for this version) http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.0107 *On the Foundations of the Theory of
>>> Evolution* Diederik Aerts, Stan Bundervoet, Marek Czachor, Bart D'Hooghe, Liane
>>> Gabora, Philip Polk, Sandro Sozzo (Submitted on 1 Dec 2012)
>>>
>>> Darwinism conceives evolution as a consequence of random variation and
>>> natural selection, hence it is based on *a materialistic, i.e.
>>> matter-based, view of science inspired by classical physics.* But
>>> matter in itself is considered a very complex notion in modern physics. More
>>> specifically, at a microscopic level, matter and energy are no longer
>>> retained within their simple form, and quantum mechanical models are
>>> proposed wherein potential form is considered in addition to actual
>>> form.
>>> In this paper we propose an alternative to standard Neodarwinian
>>> evolution theory. We suggest that *the starting point of evolution theory cannot
>>> be limited to actual variation whereupon is selected, but to variation in
>>> the potential of entities according to the context*. We therefore develop a
>>> formalism, referred to as *Context driven Actualization of Potential
>>> (CAP)*,which handles potentiality and describes the evolution of
>>> entities as an actualization of potential through a reiterated interaction with
>>> the context. As in quantum mechanics, lack of knowledge of the entity,
>>> its context, or the interaction between context and entity leads to
>>> different forms of indeterminism in relation to the state of the entity. This
>>> indeterminism generates a *non-Kolmogorovian distribution of
>>> probabilities*that is different from the classical distribution of
>>> chance described by Darwinian evolution theory, which stems from a
>>> 'actuality focused', i.e. materialistic, view of nature. We also
>>> present a quantum evolution game that highlights the main differences arising
>>> from our new perspective and shows that it is more fundamental to consider
>>> evolution in general, and biological evolution in specific, as a process of actualization of potential
induced by context, for which its material reduction is only a special case.
>>>
>>> Subjects:Biological Physics (physics.bio-ph); Populations and Evolution
>>> (q-bio.PE); Quantum Physics (quant-ph) Journal reference:In D. Aerts, J. Broekaert, B. D'Hooghe
>>> and N. Note (Eds.), Worldviews, Science and Us: Bridging Knowledge and Its
>>> Implications for our Perspectives of the World; Singapore, World
>>> Scientific (2011) Cite as:arXiv:1212.0107 [physics.bio-ph] (or
>>> arXiv:1212.0107v1 [physics.bio-ph] for this version)
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Attachments:
Ten_classes_of_signs_12232012.pdf