Thank you Nick, good explanation. And Steve -- we actually started
down this road on the thermodynamic formulation of ABM .. Guerin-
Speak .. with some success.
Much more generally: There is a rift between the formal and
philosophic that I have a partial solution for. Both are VSI (Very
Short Introduction) books.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0192853619/
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0192854119/
The first is the Mathematics VSI. It is written by Timothy Gowers and
really does get the reader into the mind of mathematics folks. Gowers
is a Fields Medalist -- the Nobel for math. And he is driven by a
Wittgenstein understanding of abstraction. Gowers' discussion of a
5th dimensional cube is a wonderful example. He constantly comes back
to the type of abstraction he prefers: very clean and focused on the
properties under discussion.
The second is the Wittgenstein VSI, to bind Gowers' math with his
inspiration, Wittgenstein. I've not finished this one (I've got a
digital version and have just sent for the paper one) but there is
hope we might actually find a connection between the more
philosophical discussions and a formalism for them.
I'd be very interested in this endeavor.
-- Owen
On Jul 2, 2009, at 9:14 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Owen,
(1)Yes, I do assume that most people delete these messages and
press on,
as I delete most (but not all) messages about ... say ... the the
latest
4.0.17a.alpha version of Groovy on Rails.
Different stroke for different folks.
(2)Lord we tried on the summaries. Unfortunately we couldnt agree
sufficiently to produce a synopsis.
(3) I am aware that you believe the following:
Most philosophical discussions of this ilk simply end in semantic
deadly embrace. They are eventually resolved, if ever, at great cost
of word length. The Kolmodorov complexity is quite low:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
in that much compression could be attained.
And, accordingly, our inabiliity to produce such a summary
distressed me
deeply. This I take to be not as a failiure of philosphy but a
failure on
my (our) part to do it right, but I fear you will draw another
conclusion.
.
all the best,
nick
On Jul 2, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
Owen -
Most philosophical discussions of this ilk simply end in semantic
deadly embrace. They are eventually resolved, if ever, at great
cost of word length.
I agree with the sentiment, but if we were to caste this into a set-
theoretic (or algebraic) framework, I think we would find some
interesting features. I'm not sure, however, that such discussions
can truly be placed into a formalism. I would find it interesting
(entertaining, instructive) if you could elaborate how you think
such a mapping would be done. I believe these discussions to
(naturally, inherently) transcend formal logic.
The Kolmodorov complexity is quite low:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
in that much compression could be attained.
I think someone did try to formulate an algorithmic description of
the discussion:
• Read everything written in the Western Philosophical Tradition
• Focus on Kant
• Focus on the New Realists
• Think real hard about all of the above
• Lay in the grass and intend to get up without doing so (my
contribution)
• Discuss your interpretation of 3, 2, 1
• Go to 4
But methinks this is tantamount to getting several large carpets to
cover up the many small ones already hiding large piles of dust and
litter swept under them.
Apologies to Nick, Russ, Eric, et al. for (perhaps) being too flip
here. I respect the earnestness and the information content that
is in the discussion, despite the difficulty in finding any
convergence.
Carry On!
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
