Tom, thanks, you said it as I will try to spell it out  interjected in your
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Caylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything List" <>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: ROADMAP (SHORT)

> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom Caylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: "Everything List" <>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 3:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: ROADMAP (SHORT)
> >
> >
> >
> > You wrote:
> > What is the non-mathematical part of UDA?  The part that uses Church
> > Thesis?  When I hear "non-mathematical" I hear "non-rigor".  Define
> > rigor that is non-mathematical.  I guess if you do then you've been
> > mathematical about it.  I don't understand.
> >
> > Tom
> > ----------
> > Smart: whatever I may come up with, as a different type of "vigor"
> > (btw is this term well identified?) you will call it "math" - just a
> > different type.
> > John M
> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> The root of the word "math" means learning, study, or science.  Math is
> the effort to make things precise.  So in my view applied math would be
> taking actual information and trying to make the science precise in
> order to further our learning and quest of the truth in the most
> efficient manner possible.
Applied math is a sore point for me. As long as I accept (theoretical)
"Math" as a language of logical thinking (IMO a one-plane one, but it is not
the point now) I cannot condone the APPLIED "math"  version, (math) using
the results of Math for inrigorating (oops!) the imprecise model-values
(reductionist) 'science' is dealing with.
Precise it will be, right it won't, because it is based on a limited vue
within the boundaries of (topical) science observations. It makes the
imprecise value-system looking precise.
> I think that this is the concept that is
> captured by the term "rigor".  But what's in a name?  I call it "math"
> and I think that a good many people would agree, but others might call
> it something else, like "rigor".  I think that it's an intuitive
> concept limited by our finite capabilities, as you so many times point
> out, John.
I did, indeed and am glad that someone noticed. Your term 'rigor'  is pretty
wide, you call it 'math' (if not "Math") including all those qualia-domains
which are under discussion to be 'numbers(?) or not'. OK, I don't deny your
godfatherish right to call anything by any name, but then - please - tell me
what name to call the old "mathematical math"? (ie. churning conventional
numbers like 1,2,3) by?
> Tom

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to