That sounds like a possible application of philosophical
firstness, secondness and thirdness, but I don't see any relation
with Peirce's triads, which are to do with the relation between
signs and things. The three things you have (mass, gravitational
force, law of gravitation) are all three "Things" in the universe
of discourse (in this case a solar system). A mathematical
statement of Newton's Laws would contain signs which refer to
those things, and a mathematically literate person reading these
would provide the interpretant. However this equation wold not
include a sign for the third order thing (the equation itself)
and I question whether the gravitational force is really a second
order thing. Semantically there would be a second order thing if
it was described in the context of one of the first order things,
for example if one says that gravity on Earth is 9.81 m/s then
that is a second order description since it only has meaning in
the context of standing on that particular planet. In this case
the third order thing is the context of living on Earth. (01)
Separately, one could write an ontology in some form of Common
Logic, which would also consist of signs referring to those same
things. In this case the classes, datatype properties and object
properties in the ontology are the signs, and interpretation of
that ontology by a machine would I suppose by an interpretant, as
would the understanding of anyone writing or reviewing the
ontology before it goes into production. (02)
So these are two very different sets of three things I think,
both of which are relevant to your example in different ways. (03)
On 07/09/2010 20:40, Avril Styrman wrote:
> Dear all,
> now that you talk again about triads, I want to ask that does anybody
> have objections to the following use of Peirce's triads.
> -Masses of planets A and B are both individual firstnesses.
> -The gravitational force that acts between between A and B is an
> individual secondness.
> -The law of gravitation is thirdness. Thirdness can be called
> universal, because it can be found everywhere, at least on the scale
> of compact stellar objects.
> I think that this is a good example of how Peirce's triads can be
> applied. Any objections?
> Lainaus "Rick Murphy"<rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 19:32 -0500, Christopher Menzel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2010-09-06 at 19:56 -0400, Jon Awbrey wrote:
>>>> ...a lot of confusion can be avoided if we keep this distinction and
>>>> associated facts in mind.
>>> As the kids say (and as seems especially appropriate): Word! Would that
>>> your sage advice were actually to be heeded in this forum.
>> Apparently, when our science fails, all we have left is just words.
>>> Chris Menzel
>> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
>> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
89 Worship Street
London EC2A 2BF
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7917 9522
Mob: +44 (0) 7721 420 730
Registered in England and Wales No. 2461068 (06)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)