On 12 Sep 2014, at 03:09, ColinHales wrote:
Hi Liz (Your post is below),
Seriously dropped the ball on email on this. Apologies.
Deeply impoverished? How on earth can the preamble indicate
richness? I wish! J
My sole purpose all along is to build hardware that replicates brain
physics to make real AGI. I became a scientist to do this. No salary
for over a decade. Takes that long to become a scientist. Brain
electromagnetism is my specialisation. Then to work as a scientist,
because you have no decent track record, you get minimal/no grants.
You work as an honorary. You never get told you're right. You never
get told you're wrong. Mostly you get ignorance/shallow dismissive
shoot from hip or silence. You get a book published because the
reviewers can't say it's wrong intelligently. You do seminars,
everyone claps and asks questions that seem to indicate you
communicated well enough. And then you sit, in poverty, waiting for
something to happen. Waiting for that penny to drop. I am starting
to conclude that I may be one of those unfortunate people born just
a bit too early. Don't know. It's as if I am Galileo that skipped
the meeting with the church and went straight into virtual 'as-if'
house arrest as a result of the silence. A bit melodramatic but...
erm.... illustrative of how it feels some days.
Kuhn, revolutions, etc.
If you read the book (attached 1st of 2 sections) you'll find the
Kuhnian idea of revolutions is, in ch 13 properly contextualised
(Extracts below). If ever there was a revolution, this one _we are
in_ now is equal to that of the 1st, which is the enlightenment
(rise of empiricism) and caused the industrial revolution. The rest
of the story of change is that of a power-law (quoted below from the
book). Yes, i agree with you ..... the 'amount' of change is a hard
thing to define and Kuhn's take was an outlier... Had he been aware
of power law physics history may have been different.
Godel. While there is a Godellian take on the 'structure aspect
science '/'appearance-aspect science' relationship, it is not a key
insight into the implementation of the observer. Just because Godel
put self-reference into maths does not entail this is literally
speaking to the process of subjective experience (scientific
observation) implemented by an actual real world made of some real
structural primitive - that being explained by the proposed new
science framework, Dual Aspect Science. Am preparing a paper on the
Godellian interpretation of cellular automata.
Mathematics is merely a description of nature. Nature can operate
mathematically (adverb), but cannot be claimed to 'be' the
mathematics. Being predictive with/using mathematics does not prove
nature is made of it. I deal with nature itself. Not maths. When you
realise this you end up with dual aspect science. A 3 tiered
epistemic framework practical for science
(1) The actual unseen invisible underlying natural world of which we
are all made and inside
(2) describing the structure of (1) that accounts for an observer and
(3) describing how (1) appears to the (2) observer.
For 350 years we do(3) only. I expand it to (1)/(2)/(3). As a self
consistent, and as-complete-as-it-gets framework for scientific
knowledge.
1 half of book attached. 2nd half in second email. Please read it. I
mention Godel p254 in relation to formal systems. Zero philosophy.
This is an empirical proposition. Philosophy is discarded as
irrelevant early in the book.
The choice of assumption is always philosophical, even theological if
there is an ontological commitment. And you do assumes (explicitly?)
nature. This makes your approach non computationalist. What is non
computational in nature.
Also, you are right that math describes nature and nature is not "made
of math" (which is meaningless), but this does not entail the
existence of a nature which would not be describable as an aspect of
the mathematical reality. (1)(2)(3) is what the antic greeks were
doing.
Bruno
Regards,
Colin
P285/286
"That said, the way paradigms were viewed after Kuhn's Structure has
been largely re-engineered by subsequent reviews, including some by
Kuhn. Post 1962, there was a large discourse (it still continues!
E.g. [Weinert, 2013]) that disagreed that the evidence Kuhn
presented supported the idea of 'sudden shift' to an incommensurable
paradigm. All manner of re-characterisation of scientific change has
subsequently added nothing particularly clarifying. Even if it did
clarify, like everything else in this area of philosophy, it is
practically irrelevant to scientists, who remain unaware of it and
even if they were aware it would change nothing.
The answer to this, from a dynamical systems perspective, is that
changes in the statements made by scientists have what would be
called, by scientists, a 'power law' seismology [Varsavsky, 2009].
Power law mediated phenomena can have a time-scale and spatial-scale
invariance to them that accounts for how any given individual's
perspective can determine levels of apparent impact. This means
there are lots of small changes and fewer large ones all
concatenated over a time period of interest and measured over a
community of interest, and that change is largely a matter of
perspective on a population-based spectrum of change magnitudes and
time intervals. One scientist's massive upheaval in a tiny sub-sub-
sub science discipline might be another scientist's background
noise. Viewed over ten years, changes might all look microscopic.
Viewed over 200 years the cumulative change might look massive. But
no single human experienced that change, and an individual's
perspective might regard the change rather unremarkable, depending
on the timescale and the extent of the community impact. Large
changes applicable to large areas of science fit the original
Kuhnian view of paradigm shifts. Based on this understanding it is
not surprising that attempts to linguistically capture the power law
effect have been troublesome."
P288 (DAS = dual aspect science, what I am proposing)
"If DAS is to be adopted over 5 years it might be seen as a major
paradigm shift. If implemented over 100 years the idea of DAS being
an upheaval would seem a stretch to those that experienced the
process."
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
] On Behalf Of LizR
Sent: Friday, 1 August 2014 10:08 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Book: Revolutions of Scientific Structure
How come you're deeply impoverished? The preamble indicates you
should be rich, rich, rich!
Sounds interesting, not that I have yet read the entire preamble
(being at work and all) but it looks like both you and Thomas Kuhn
are "Godelising" science itself. I must admit I lapped up Kuhn's
book then fell out with it after a while, because it didn't seem to
me that there really were that many scientific revolutions in
history. Although the continued existence of the "prove Einstein
wrong" brigade maybe backs him up...
On 31 July 2014 16:50, ColinHales <col.ha...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi ,
My book is finally out.
Hales CG. 2014. "The Revolutions of Scientific Structure"
Press release here
http://www.worldscientific.com/page/pressroom/2014-07-11-01
The book is here:
http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/9211
The Front-Matter (preface) and preamble (Chapter 1) are already
accessible free from the publisher.
The deeply impoverished (like me!) might want a preprint PDF. If
so... just let me know.
Enjoy.
Colin Hales, PhD
Researcher
NeuroEngineering Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Electronic
Engineering
University of Melbourne, Australia
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<2014_Hales_TheRevolutions_Ch1to8.pdf>
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
