sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-04-01 12:21 PM:
> The reason my points were phrased that way was due to the subject of
> this thread. The "vs." paints holism / reductionism as a black vs
> white "fight", whereas there is a whole spectrum (and not only of
> grays) in between (and beyond) not necessarily in coonflict ("Ebony
> and Ivory ..").
Right. I get that. Don't take my responses as wholly combative. [grin]
If I didn't agree with you in at least some sense, I wouldn't be able
to responds because there'd be no common ground from which to work.
> Returning to my point (1) - ie "non-computable" biological entities, I
> propose that this further reduces to defining if there is actually a
> limit to the smallest "bit" of information. For eg, is an electron (or
> atom) computable? My rough and ready approach to determining which
> biological systems are computable (and dare I say you would have
> encountered some variant of this in your own complexity adventures)
> abandons mathematical formalisms entirely (if you know the answer why
> frame the question) dwells on the the "reality" of "Man". For, those who
> say that "Man" is "real" and a "creation" usually fall within the
> "computable"camp, whereas those who favour the "unreality" line would
> say Man is non-computable..
It's not clear to me how you can actually abandon math formalisms but
still use the word "computable". ("That does not compute!" said in
automaton voce) That word has been hijacked from the English language by
computationalists and mathematicians to mean something very specific.
Perhaps simulable or emulable or something would be better?
> Your point about mystics/seers (possibly / occasionally) being a few
> hundred years ahead of science, is not too far off the mark. In the
> context of Zeno's.paradox, extracting even the slightest sliver from the
> progression would render the infinite computable,. So when we "measure"
> it affects reality (?) and fools (deludes) us into believing that we
> have "solved" (computed) the problem. However, I have no problem with
> such approximate computation ("pseudo-science") if it delivers some
> practical application (sooner rather than later).
But this is the whole point of the scientific method! It's an
evolutionary approach in the sense that each individual scientist is a
woefully ignorant little cog in the huge machine where the combinatorial
explosive space of possibilities is being explored by life. That little
cog is allowed, even encouraged, to delude himself if that helps the
bigger machine of life expand the biosphere, including inseminating
other galaxies. ... [ahem]
> Finally, I wonder why Vladymir perceives us to be idealists who put up
> with "corruption"
I believe he was claiming that I am willing to tolerate corruption,
where toleration is an indicator for a crypto-idealist and you were
complaining of it. But I'll let him speak for himself.
--
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
