----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: indeterminacy, chaos, and complexity -L3


>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, September 19, 2004 9:00 PM
> Subject: Re: indeterminacy, chaos, and complexity -L3
>
>
> > Dan Minette wrote:
> > > One of the things that I would like to do is break the cycle of
> > > repeated arguments, that tend to exist after mostly the same
people
> > > cover mostly the same territory.  One thought I had was
triggered by
> > > the use of the word "rational" in several posts.  I started
thinking
> > > about framing the argument in terms of axiomatic systems, seeing
> > what
> > > is derived from various sets of axioms, and what just appears to
be
> > > derived from a casual use of the axioms.
> >
> > Maybe I am just dense, but I cannot see what the above paragraph
had
> > to do with the balance of the post.
>
> I am setting up several axioms in several posts.  I will then use
those
> axioms.

Alright, Then I will just have to start out a bit lost and hope it
comes together for me later.<G>


>
> > > Well, this post has gotten long while giving us just one axiom.
> > But,
> > > I think it helps lay the groundwork for explaining my thinking.
I'd
> > > welcome any critique of this analysis.
> > >
> > And I didn't see what I would clearly identify as *the* axiom.
>
> This gives us a rule for the use of complexity.  Complexity can
result in
> phenomena that are counter-intuitive to one who just thinks in
general
> about basic principals.  Complexity cannot result in phenomena that
are at
> odds with the basic principals.

*That* I can follow. I'll go back and read your original post with
that in mind.

>
> > Maybe you are doing this in reverse?!?
> > It might be easier to understand if you stated your axioms first
and
> > then explained and analysed them in individual posts.
>
> I'll have another post with a couple more axioms shortly.
>

Well.....I'm not criticizing your method or methodology, just trying
to figure out why I wasn't getting what you were trying to convey.


xponent
Slogging Maru
rob


_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to