Daer Krassimir, List

`I basically support what you are saying. I understand the mathematics`

`you presented, I am good at mathematics and studied logic with some of`

`the best. However, and this is a big however, giving a mathematical or`

`logical proof by itself, in its formalism, does not show anything at`

`all. One has to be able to connect teh mathematics to experience in a`

`comprehensible way. This was partly the topic of my dissertation, and I`

`take a basically Peircean approach, though there are others that are`

`pretty strong as well.`

`I fgenerally skip over the mathematics and look for the empirical`

`connections. If I find them, then generally all becomes clear. Without`

`this, the formalism is nothing more than formalism. It does not help to`

`give formal names to things and assume that this identifies things,`

`Often trying to follow up approaches kine this is a profound waste of`

`time. I try to, and often am able to, express my ideas in a nonformal`

`way. Some mathematically oriented colleagues see this as automatically`

`defective, since they think that formal representation is all that`

`really rigorously explains things. This sort of thinking (in Logical`

`Positivism) eventually led to its own destruction as people started to`

`ask the meaning of theoretical terms and their relation to observations.`

`It is a defunct and self destructive metaphysics. Irt leads nowhere --`

`my PhD thesis was about this problem. It hurts me to see people making`

`the same mistake, especially when it leads them to bizarre conclusions`

`that are compatible with the formalism (actually, it is provable that`

`almost anything is compatible with a specific formalism, up to numerosity).`

I don't like to waste my time with such emptiness, John On 2018/02/25 6:22 PM, Krassimir Markov wrote:

Dear Sung, I like your approach but I think it is only a part of the whole.1. */The shadows are real/* but only a part of the whole. What isneeded is a systematic research from what they are part.2. About the whole now I will use the category theory I have seen youlike:/CAT_A => F => CAT_B => G => CAT_C / // /CAT_A => H => CAT_C / // /_F ○ G = H / where /F/, /G/, and /H/ are /*functors*/; /CAT_II Î CAT/ is the category of /*information interaction categories*/;/CAT_A Î CAT_II / and /CAT_C Î CAT_II / are the categories of*/mental models’ categories/*;/CAT_B Î CAT_II / is the category of */models’ categories/*.Of course, I will explain this in natural language (English) infurther posts.Smile ; Dear Karl,Thank you for your post – it is very useful and I will discus it infurther posts.; Dear Pedro, Thank you for your nice words.Mathematics is very good to be used when all know the mathematicallanguages.Unfortunately, only a few scientists are involved in the mathematicalreasoning, in one hand, and, as the Bourbaki experiment had shown, noteverything is ready to be formalized.How much of FIS members understood what I had written above?The way starts from philosophical reasoning and only some times endsin mathematical formal explanations.Friendly greetings Krassimir _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

-- John Collier Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban Collier web page <http://web.ncf.ca/collier>

_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis