That's "C.S. Peirce" he should have known or fact-checked before posting

[Richard Fiero]

alice wellintown wrote:
>Yes. It makes great sense.
>
>On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Richard Fiero <rfiero at gmail.com> wrote:>
> >>
> >> The Crying of Lot 49 and C. S. Peirce's theory of self-organization
> >> Pynchon Notes, Spring-Fall, 2003 by Victoria N. Alexander:
> >>
> >> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6750/is_52-53/ai_n28173119/
> >
> > Anyone find anything in that article that makes any sense?
> >

I just don't like "Do the Math" by Louis Menand so I'm antagonistic 
to start with. Now any discussion of what Maxwell's Demon might be to 
P during his formative years should include the whole story of what 
would have easily been available to P at the time. That would have 
been Wiener, von Neumann, Weaver and Shannon. They are all missing 
except the note that Wiener wrote something called "Cybernetics."
The Peirce example of randomness is especially lacking in substance 
and is just flat wrong.
How did Darwin and Hawking get into this discussion?