Redface - ME! Michael, you picked my careless statement and I want to correct it: "...You cannot *build up* unknown complexity from its simple parts..." should refer to THOSE parts we know of, observe, include, select, handle, - not ALL of the (unlimited, incl. potential) parts (simple or not). From such ALL parts together (a topical oxymoron) you can(?) build anything, although it does not make sense.

## Advertising

What I had in mind was a cut, a structural, functional, ideational select model (system organization) FROM which you have no way to expand into the application of originally not included items. I agree with your 'whole caboodle' as a deterministic product (complexity), as far as its entailment is concerned. I don't understand "holy trinities" - yours included. "Growing out" your -it*- requires IMO the substrates it* grows by, - by addition - I dislike miraculous creations. A crystal grows by absorbing the ingredients already present. Cf (my) entail-determinism (- no goal or aim). John On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Michael Rosefield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > "You cannot *build up* unknown complexity from its simple parts" > > That would be the case if we were trying to reconstruct an arbitrary > universe, but you were talking about 'the totality'. My take is that the > whole caboodle is not arbitrary - it's totally specified by its requirement > to be complete. You could take a little bit of it* and 'grow' it out like a > crystal in some kind of fractal kaleidoscopic space; eventually its > exploration would completely fill it. This makes a kind of holy trinity of > equivalence of (Whole | Parts | Process) which I like. > > > > * That little bit could even be unitary or empty in nature, solving for me > the issue as to why something rather than nothing, and why anything in > particular. > > 2008/8/20 John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Brent wrote: >> >> "...But if one can reconstruct "the rest of the world" from these simpler >> domains, so much the better that they are simple...." >> >> Paraphrased (facetiously): you have a painting of a landscape with >> mountains, river, people, animals, sky and plants. Call that 'the totality' >> and *select the animals as your model* (disregarding the rest) even you >> continue by Occam - reject the non-4-legged ones, to make it (even) simpler. >> ((All you have is some beasts in a frame)) >> Now try to *"reconstruct"* the 'rest of the total' ONLY from those >> remnant 'model-elements' dreaming up (?) mountains, sunshine, river etc. >> *from nowhere*, not even from your nonexisting fantasy, or even(2!) as >> you say: from the *Occam-simple*, i.e. as you say: from those few >> 4-legged animals, - to make it even simpler. >> Good luck. >> You must be a 'creator', or a 'cheater', having at least seen the *total >> *to do so. You cannot *build up* unknown complexity from its simple >> parts - you are restricted to the (reduced?) inventory you have - in a >> synthesis, (while in the analysis you can restrict yourself to a choice of >> it. ) >> >> John >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> >>> John Mikes wrote: >>> > Isn't logical inconsistency = insanity? (Depends how we formulate the >>> > state of being "sane".) >>> >>> As Bertrand Russell pointed out, if you are perfectly consistent you are >>> either >>> 100% right or 100% wrong. Human fallibility being what it is, don't bet >>> on >>> being 100% right. :-) >>> >>> In classical logic, an inconsistency allows you to prove every >>> propositon. In a >>> para-consistent logic the rules of inference are changed (e.g. by >>> restoring the >>> excluded middle) so that an inconsistency doesn't allow you to prove >>> everything. >>> >>> Graham Priest has written a couple of interesting books arguing that all >>> logic >>> beyond the narrow mathematical domain leads to inconsistencies and so we >>> need to >>> have ways to deal with them. >>> >>> > Simplicity in my vocabulary of the 'totality-view' means mainly to >>> "cut" >>> > our model of observation narrower and narrower to eliminate more and >>> > more from the "rest of the world" (which only would complicate things) >>> > from our chosen topic of the actual interest in our observational field >>> > (our topical model). >>> > Occam's razor is a classic in such simplification. >>> >>> And so is mathematical logic and arithmetic. But if one can reconstruct >>> "the >>> rest of the world" from these simpler domains, so much the better that >>> they are >>> simple. >>> >>> Brent Meeker >>> >>> > John M >>> > >>> > On 8/18/08, *Bruno Marchal* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 18 Aug 2008, at 03:45, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> > >>> > > Sorry. I quite agree with you. I regard logic and mathematics >>> > as our >>> > > inventions - not restrictions on the world, but restrictions we >>> > > place on how we >>> > > think and talk about the world. We can change them as in para- >>> > > consistent logics. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > I think it depends of the domain of inquiry or application. >>> > Para-consistent logic can be interesting for the laws and in >>> natural >>> > language mind processing, but hardly in elementary computer science >>> or >>> > number theory. >>> > >>> > Then recall that any universal machine, enough good in the art of >>> > remaining correct during introspection, discovers eventually at >>> least >>> > 8 non classical logics (the arithmetical hypostases) most of them >>> > being near "paraconsistency" (by Godel's consistency of >>> inconsistency) >>> > making the most sane machine always very near insanity. >>> > And so easily falling down. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Bruno >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/<http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---