Reply to Bruno's Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:13 AM post
Subject: Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page
Dear Bruno, it seems our ways of expressing thoughts and sights is so different that in spite of many agreeable points a detailed discussion would grow out of the framework of the list.
I want to concentrate on a few minor(?) points - leaving out the rest of the posts.
I am in your corner, however I spoke about the "official" terror of science establishment, the editors, tenure-professors, Nobel people, etc. control freaks. This type of science is perfectly described in today's post of CMR in his points, identifying "reductionist science":
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation,
and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
all pertinenet to mind-interpreted and boundary-enclosed models as observations in the topics we study.
I was shocked when you wrote:
"...I am not sure the word "science" really refers to anything." and after a while I agreed. Chacqu'un a son go^ut. Today's fashion is emphasizing in the west the applied math -involved formalistic 'language' (which is a topic I will come back to).
I would not degrade the reductionist ways: whatever we achieved in technology is based on them. (Read e-mail, use a car, eat cooked food, take an aspirin, etc.) they are just not efficient in "understanding the world" - anymore.
In my wholistic view everything is within unlimited interinfluencing in the universe (this one). No random, no singularity, so everything is infinitely complex - unless we cut it off into boundaries of our attention and disregard the off-limits. Then things become simple.
Special thanks to Hal for his today's post, in which he emphasized a qualifier ('to them'):
"...input from what might be considered an external - to them - random oracle." I read this as: 'random', irrelevant as in 'having nothing to do with circumstances of a Turing computability - and ONLY in this respect. We cut our models to be considered.
I referred th "The Cause" (one) for effects, that indeed are the synthesis of unlimited occurrences (influences, two-way functions) whatsoever, except for our limiting (topical?) boundaries which allow ONE to be overwhelmingly acknowledged. (Reductionistically).
The incomplete 'scientific' (reduced) models omit connotations beyond their boundaries
(topical, qualia, magnitudes, etc.) so a definite "quantizing" value should become feasible. It is not the value (quantity) of the named (concept) item, only of the model in attention.
Formalism works with them and practical results are obtained for technology. Applied math serves for assuring the equational 'truth' in such 'science'. That's what I called an "edifice" of sci. (Sorry, 'nonreductionistic' Comp by Godel II is beyond me).
compare the limited model with the unlimited (natural?) "maximum model", an image of the named item as connected to the total of the world. A silly example: you expect the Board of Co. 'C' to vote according to the well established interest of Co. 'C' (= limited model). Yet board members are also board members of companies X,Y,Z,R,L,M and have vested interest in legal processes, educational aspects, international affairs, relatives, lovers, health problems, perversities, hobbies, so all these influence (in the wider model) the voting outcome. It may not fit the interest of Co. 'C' at all. The Chairman cuts off all those esoteric side-interests in a reductionist limitation and will get the limited-model voting FOR Co.'C' only. It is still not wholism, just an illustration of the widening of the boundaries.
Wholistic thinking is in its early embryonic stage, has no adequate language, just as a
toddler (sorry for writing embryo) does not (yet) have the words to confer about Godel.
And I did not even mention understanding, just the words.
Language I mean as much more than syntax and semantix, I consider it a way to communicate symbols as they occur in the development. Matematicians try to describe their "math-language" (ideational symbolics?) in diverse human vocabulary-talks, yet what they 'think' in is still math. Feelable, as J.v.N. said. In this respect I value it as a primary item in the human mind (not the way Platonists say), comparable maybe to the mother-tongue.
Not so with 'that' reductionistic establishment-science I talked about above.
I am strongly with you in the (free) science-concept with the connotations you mentioned.
I think this was more than I wanted to write onlist.
Thanks for your considerations, it helps in clarifying my obscure thinking.
----- Original Message -----
- Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ... John M
- Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ... CMR
- Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ... Hal Ruhl
- Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ... Bruno Marchal