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

> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Tom Caylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Everything List" <everything-list@googlegroups.com> > > 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 > John --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---