Sign Relational Manifolds • Discussion 2

Re: FB | ParadoxologyAlex Shkotin  

AS:
Not on a narrow topic, but maybe you have a desire to answer.
Hypothesis.  Any material something can be a sign.
Is it possible to give an example of something material that cannot be a sign?

Hi Alex,

Sign relations are mathematical relations we can use to model processes of communication, learning, reasoning, just plain talking and thinking in general.  Anytime we can imagine a triadic relation where one thing, material or otherwise, is related to a second thing in such a way that both refer to a third thing, and that whole relationship is useful in modeling one of the above mentioned processes, then we have a candidate which may be suitable for serving the purpose of a sign relation in the pragmatic conception of the term.

Regards,

Jon

cc: Conceptual GraphsCyberneticsLaws of FormOntolog Forum
cc: FB | SemeioticsStructural ModelingSystems Science

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Differential Geometry, Differential Logic, Geometry, Interoperability, Logic, Manifolds, Mathematics, Riemann, Semiotics, Sign Relational Manifolds, Sign Relations, Triadic Relations, Visualization and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Sign Relational Manifolds • Discussion 2

  1. Pingback: Survey of Semiotics, Semiosis, Sign Relations • 3 | Inquiry Into Inquiry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

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