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.
Science.
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.
Simplicity.
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).
"evade quantities"
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).
Limitations:
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.
John
----- 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
- Re: Mathematical Logic, Podnieks'page ... Kory Heath