Glen, Well, of course "having clues to where to look for discoverable things" is not a reliable procedure ...if you simply speculate. It's like offering someone in a clue to where the beer is. If you don't go get it it's a hopelessly unreliable way to have one. You make me crazed!!
> Phil Henshaw wrote: > > Günther Greindl wrote: > >> > >> You can stay in the system. Then there's only symbols. Whoever said > >> that it was allowed to go outside the symbols? > >> > >> And if you analyze one formal system on a higher level formal > >> system, then, there again, only symbols. > >> > >> Everything else is philosophy (this is barebones formalism I am > >> advocating here - but then again - why not? you have to give > >> reasons for assuming more). > > Just to be clear, Günther wrote that part. > > > [ph] Yes that's the key step, having a reason to assume more so that > > a process of looking for it is justified. You can't confirm things > > outside your syntax without looking for them and finding them. > > Otherwise you just have fiction. But having clues to where to look > > for things that are discoverable is a reliable procedure for going > > beyond your current model. > > I agree that your syntax must be somehow inadequate to cause you to > look > outside of it. And, if we believe his argument, Rosen's work > culminated > _merely_ into a demonstration of how our modeling language is > inadequate. (Not to belittle that achievement, of course.) He didn't > really get very far in extending the language so that it could capture > (Rosennean) complexity. > > But, I'm not sure that "having clues to where to look for discoverable > things" is a reliable procedure. That sounds pretty ad hoc. If I were > to attempt to create a reliable procedure, it would invariably involve > some concerted (and distributed) hands-on effort to explore reality. > In > fact, I can't think of a better method than what we're already doing in > science today. The only flaws I can see are a) not quite enough "big > science" and b) not quite enough amateur science. And, of course, our > society is in a fragile balance between objective truth-seeking versus > self-interested rhetoric. We could easily fall back into a dark ages > where, say, Monsanto, specified what we consider "biological truth". > > So, it would be nice, but perhaps logically impossible, to construct a > really _reliable_ procedure. > > -- > glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
