0174 Do you know where I am going with this?

Do I know where I am going with this?

Ah, the question!

Does Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay satisfy the three principles listed in point 0152?

I examine the first item.

First (P), limit agents to things that are accessible to observation and measurements.

In other words, for biosemiotics, limit phenomena to the noumenal items portrayed in green.

0175 What about the second admonition (Q) in point 0152?

Do not explain agency by any hypothesized substances or forces other than those already known to modern natural science, social sciences and humanities.

This suggestion is pictured in blue in the above figure.

0176 Of course, the term, “substances”, needs clarification.

According to Razie Mah, the term, “substance”, may be used to label the contiguity between the real elements of matter and form.  By extension, Aristotle’s hylomorphe is an exemplar for Peirce’s category of secondness.

The problem is that the word, “substance”, can be applied to all sorts of crazy notions. 

So, biosemioticians take note.  Sharov and Tonnessen’s noumenal overlay suggests that substances need to be explained by biosemiotic models.  Substances are not explanations.  They are contiguities that need to be explained.

0177 The third please-do in point 0152 (R) says, “Do not link agency with unproven, speculative physical effects such as subatomic quantum factors, extra dimensions in space, and so on.”

Both authors work as editors in the fledgling field of biosemiotics.  Imagine the manuscripts that they have received.  How does one explain triadic sign-relations in terms of dyadic cause and effect?

Here, I wonder.  Are these diagrams equivalent to subatomic quantum factors, extra dimensions in space, and so on? 

Obviously not, physical factors do not cause purely relational beings.  Physical factors may be drawn into a triadic relation.  And, that makes it difficult to tell which is more real.

Physics or metaphysics?What is the nature of reality?