RE: SUO: Irreducible Triadicity
Dear John,
> Matthew and Lee,
>
> I agree with Lee's response:
>
> >The "triadic" issue in the example you have given is whether we can
> >analyze this example into triads which add up to the whole
> picture without
>
> >any loss of logical content. In listing the attributes of
> the measurement
>
> >problem you have already done this, if we can show that each
> element of
> >the problem-- time of observation, measurement device,
> measurement scale,
> >place of observation, observing subject, observed object etc.-- is
> >reducible to the pattern O(for object)-R(for representamen)-I (for
> >interpretant), where any R can also be seen as an O for some further
> >O-R-I, and any I can be seen as an O or R for some further
> O-R-I, and any
> >O may also be an R or an I, and so on, this whole business being the
> >continuum of semiosis, infinitely extendable and infinitesimally
> >refinable.
>
> to Matthew's question:
MW: except that is not the answer to the question I was asking. If I am
satisfied that any arbitrary relation can be decomposed into binary
relations
I am hardly going to be questioning simply whether they can be decomposed
into
ternary relations.
MW: The issue is more a follow up on your interchange with Pat where the
discussion turned to lambda expressions with at least 3 variables. At that
time
you left it open as to whether there might be expressions with more than 3
variables. It seems to me that reducing relations to triadic rather than
dyadic
form is a somewhat arbitrary choice unless there is some substance behind
it.
This substance is what I am pursuing.
>
> >>... John has not responded to this example, which I repeat below.
> >>
> >> > MW: OK. In that case please show me how a measurement can be
> >> > reduced to triads. A Measurement is an activity that:
> >> >
> >> > has a subject (the thing measured)
> >> > an observer (doing the measuring)
> >> > an instrument (e.g. thermometer)
> >> > a measure (what about the thing is being measured, e.g.
> temperature)
> >> > a result (the value e.g. 20)
> >> > a Unit of Measure (e.g. Celsius)
> >> > the time when the measurement was taken.
> >>
> >> I would be interested to see whether and how this can be
> reduced to triadic
>
> >> or less ontologically dependent elements. If it can't,
> then there is at
> >> least one case where this does not apply (which is enough)
> >>or perhaps as Pat
> >> has been suggesting there has been confusion between graph
> >>theory and ontology.
>
> The word "measurement" is ambiguous, since it can refer to
> either the result (a sign) or the process (called "semiosis").
MW: Here I refer to the activity of making an observation and noting
the result.
> As Lee has said, this act of semiosis can be represented as
> a triangle, which relates other signs (such as the marks
> on a thermometer) to a sign that serves as a standard unit
> to a number, which serves as a sign of the count of units
> that represent the result.
MW: Oh I thought that a unit of measure was a particular mapping
between a type of characteristic (say temperature) and a number space.
I don't see how signs get into it, except as representations of the
mapping.
> The activity of measuring is in
> some situation (another triad) that relates the space-time
> region to the activity taking place in that region.
>
MW: Now here you lost me. I can see that temperature has a
relationship to activity, but not for instance mass. Or are
you sticking to temperature (not the easiest example).
MW: Taking some particular example would be a good way to
explore this. Probably a length of some sort would be simplest.
> The reason why I did not respond quickly is that doing all
> the analysis and drawing all the triangles would take some
> time.
MW: I can appreciate that - but you didn't mention you intended to
come back either.
> But to illustrate the kind of diagram I would draw,
> if I took the time, see Section 2, "Signs of Signs", in my
> paper "Ontology, Metadata, and Semiotics":
>
> http://www.bestweb.net/~sowa/peirce/ontometa.htm
>
> For another point of view, I suggest the lectures by
> Joseph Esposito:
>
> http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/epc/srb/cyber/espout.html
>
> Following is the abstract of his lectures (which are all
> available on line).
>
> John Sowa
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Peirce's Theory of Semiosis:
> Toward a Logic of Mutual Affection
>
> Instructor: Joseph L. Esposito
>
> Course Description
>
> This is a course on the development of Peirce's theory of
> signs (semiotics),
> focusing on various writings of Peirce in
> more or less chronological order. Just about as soon as
> Peirce began to philosophize
> he was using the concept of a 'sign'
> to help clarify his thoughts. The course begins with the
> philosophical tradition
> Peirce as a young Harvard student
> inherited and ends with our own speculations on Peirce's
> legacy. Our study is
> guided by the concept of reciprocity in
> Peirce's thought. Our aim is to attain a more philosophically
> refined understanding
> of the concept and at the same time
> acquire a deeper appreciation of Peirce's semiotics, and
> semiosis as a form
> of reciprocity, as we review the various
> formulations of the concept in his work. In refining the
> concept of reciprocity
> illustrations of working uses of the concept
> in a variety of disciplines will be sought for analysis and
> reflection. Thus,
> the course will function as a true community
> of inquirers believed by Peirce to be best way for knowledge
> to increase.
>
MW: I really don't have much problem with signs and their
importance. The work of ISO TC184/SC4 has historically been to
a great extent about CAD drawings, and it is fairly fundamental
that CAD drawings both are something in their own right, but that
they represent something else.
MW: What I am not sure about is what semiotics has to do with
reducing a complex activity to triadic form.
MW: What it seems to me is that you (and perhaps other Peirceans)
have developed a particular style of analysis that you find useful,
rather than some fundamental truth. On the other hand, I and others
have developed a different style of analysis for which I claim no
more than that it has proved useful in practice.
MW: For me it would be useful to distinguish between what is fundamental
and what has proved useful, aiming to discover the first, and
appreciate the second.
Regards
Matthew
===============================================================
Matthew West http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
Principal Consultant Shell Visiting Professor
Operations & Asset Management The Keyworth Institute
Shell Services International The University of Leeds
http://www.shellservices.com/ http://www.keyworth.leeds.ac.uk/
H3229, Shell Centre, London, SE1 7NA, UK.
Tel: +44 207 934 4490 Fax: 7929 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
===============================================================