Hi John,

Le 18-août-05, à 00:14, John M a écrit :

I think we use our 'model' in different senses. In my
usage "physics" is a model, limited within its
boundaries of 'physical thinking' - as the scientific
image of the world developed over the past millennia.

You put the finger on one of the main difficulty to keep the dialog between logician and physicist: they interchange, almost but alas not completely, the use of the words "theory" and "models". Logicians use the word "model" for the intended reality they want to describe with a theory (like the painter how call the naked person in front of him, the model). The painting, is the theory, the little things we put on a paper.

Even my (worldview?) wholeness is a model: I cannot
step beyond me, while nature (the world?) is a bit
wider. Theories are models, since they visualize a
topic, not the entirety.

Well, no. By definition, for a logician.

I cannot refer to lobian
logic, but in this sense it also must be a model, as
e.g. causality, when we assume that our restricted
vision of something depends on another 'something' as
a cause and not the effect of the ongoing changes in
the totality.

We will come back on this but remember that once you say yes to the doctor (for the artificial brain) then that brain does not vehiculate a model of you, but you yourself (assuming comp). You cannot exclude some fixed point where model and theories are indentified partially. Take a map of the USA, if you put in the USA without cutting it in different unconnected piece, then one point of the map will always coincide with one point of the USA. This is a version of a theorem in topology by Brouwer, and many things follows from comp due to the fact that something similar happens for the notion of computational representation.

QM is a model, class. physics anther
one, the reason why you cannot jump from one into the

OK. Although I would use the term theory.

I always keep in mind how 'primitive' the thinking was
1-2 millennia ago based upon the then level of the
epistemic cognitive inventory and the knowledge base
consequently as compared to ours of today -

Except in politics, I would say big regression, isn't it?

and cannot
stop continuing, HOW will the 'scientific' etc.
community look at our 2005 knowledge-base and
cognitive ionventory in the 4th - 5th millennium?
Is there somebody who can project that today?
I would like to talk to her (him).

Which futures? It depends on us, now. It depends on our seriousness about our past. A formidable triumph of the mind, the separation of sciences from "religions". A formidable triumph of the mind: the separation from politics and "religions". I hope this trends will continue and that we will assist to a separation of theology from "religions". Of course I have use "religion" in its pejorative sense; its means anything using authoritative argument. The nest millenia? It will be "pschhht!" or, something like an uncontrollable creative big bang, from what I smell from comp.

Best regards,



Reply via email to