[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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
That is called arithmetic. I don't really want to pursue a discussion on terminology, but thanks for your thoughts. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
