Quoting [email protected] circa 09-12-29 04:18 PM: > P.S. I see that I haven't said anything about > ambiguity *of* mathematics. That's because I > can't make much sense of Bohm's or Byers's > comments as quoted. Maybe I need more context.
Byers and Bohm are merely making the point that the type of thing you are trying to say in your paper is pervasive in mathematics. In any situation where we're trying to be maximally explicit in formulating our questions, math is a tool that we use to lay out what we do and do not know. Ambiguity is just one type of statement of ignorance. There are others. In your case, you're simply inverting the focus so we can pay direct attention to the _hole_ in what we know, the ignorance. It's a fantastic idea. So many people are so boggled by all the bricks in the wall of knowledge that they don't notice the little holes of ignorance between the bricks. My favorite example of when this sort of "necker cube" focus inversion is useful is the use of positively charged holes going forward through an electronic circuit, rather than focusing on negatively charged electrons going backward through the circuit. That little inversion helped me get through my "electronic properties of materials" class in college. [grin] Byers and Bohm are saying that this sort of "ignorance highlighting" is the heart of math (in Byers case) and science (in Bohm's case). -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ 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
