## Icon Index Symbol • 2

### Questions Concerning Certain Faculties Claimed For Signs

Re: Peirce List Discussion • Jon Alan Schmidt

What class of Sign is a law of nature?

I’ve mentioned the following possibility several times before, but maybe not too recently.

A sign relation $L$ is a subset of a cartesian product $O \times S \times I,$ where $O, S, I$ are the object, sign, interpretant domains, respectively.  In a systems-theoretic framework we may think of these domains as dynamical systems.

We often work with sign relations where $S = I$ but it is entirely possible to consider sign relations where all three domains are one and the same.  Indeed, it could be the case that $O = S = I = U,$ where the system $U$ is the entire universe.  This would make the entire universe a sign of itself to itself.

A general way to understand a system-theoretic law is in terms of a constraint — the fact that not everything that might happen actually does.  And that is nothing but a subset relation.

So the law embodying how the universe represents itself to itself could be nothing other than a sign relation $L \subseteq U \times U \times U.$

### 3 Responses to Icon Index Symbol • 2

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.