Robert, I detect an insinuation of dissatisfaction from somewhere. There is a disturbance in the force. But, enough of this epistemological relativism, I deduce that there probably no need to classify the source: it suffices to simply know that it is there.
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Nicholas Thompson < [email protected]> wrote: > Steve, **** > > ** ** > > Oh god, the trolls are out, again. My last comment “… too lazy … etc.” > was a major blunder and I am about to pay for it. I keep forgetting that I > am not among friends. **** > > ** ** > > I have in fact spent HOURS trying to figure out the difference between > metaphysics and epistemology (and ontology), without success. It’s not > like I haven’t read a lot of stuff and talked to a lot of people about it, > it’s just that none of it ever sticks. I get the impression that > epistemology is about the possibility of knowledge … how one would ever > come by it, particularly given the fact that, on almost every philosopher’s > account since Descartes, all we can know about is the contents of our own > minds. Also, given that induction is impossible, and, every deductive > inference requires some induction along the way to get the deduction “down > to the ground.” **** > > ** ** > > Anyway, it gives me so little pleasure to see Doug and Robert vying for > Smug Cynic Award, that I will try very hard to stay away from these > things. If you have any thoughts you would like me to comment on please do > send them to me directly. **** > > ** ** > > All the best, **** > > ** ** > > Nick **** > > ‘. **** > > ** ** > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On > Behalf Of *Steve Smith > *Sent:* Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:50 PM > > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings**** > > ** ** > > Metaphysics being the nature of being and existence, Epistemology being > the nature of knowledge. Whether emergence is Epistemological or if it is > Phenomenological or Metaphysical is an interesting question and not an > unsubtle one... > > > > **** > > I think this is metaphysics, no? **** > > **** > > *From:* [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]<[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *Steve Smith > *Sent:* Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:44 AM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings**** > > **** > > On Primeness... > > I am mathematician by training (barely) but I don't think anyone should > listen to me about mathematics unless serendipitously I happen to land on a > useful or interesting (by whose measure?) mathematical conjecture (and > presumably some attendant proofs as well). > > That said, I've always wondered why the poets among the mathematicians > didn't hit on naming the "naive" Primes (Primes+1) - Prime' (Prime *prime*). > Perhaps there are too many mathematicians with stutters and/or tourette's > that would be set off by such a construct? > > Who can answer the question of why we (this particular group, or any one > vaguely like it) can get so wrapped up on such a simple topic? There IS a > bit of circular logic involved in defining mathematics as that which > mathematicians study. Or as Robert suggests, that his definition of a > mathematical construct (Prime numbers in this case) is not legitimate > because he is not a mathematician. I'd say his definition is not useful > because it deals in concepts which are not mathematical in nature (in > particular "attractive", "shade", "blue") which are terms of interest and > relevance in aesthetics and psychophysics (both of which are known to > utilize, mathematics but not vice-versa). Numerology, on the other hand > uses all three! > > We seem to wander off into epistemological territory quite often without > knowing it or admitting to it. I am pretty sure a number of people here > would specifically exclude epistemological discussions if they could, while > others are drawn to them (self included). > > While I do find discussions about the manipulation of matter > (technology), and even data (information theory) and the nature of physical > reality (physics) and formal logic (mathematics) quite interesting (and > more often, the myriad personal and societal impacts of same), what can be > more interesting (and the rest grounded in) than the study of knowledge > itself? > > That said, I don't know that many of us are well versed in the discourse > of epistemology and therefore tend to hack at it badly when we get into > that underbrush, making everyone uncomfortable. On the other hand, I'll > bet we have a (large?) handful of contributors (and/or lurkers) here with a > much broader and deeper understanding than I have but who perhaps recognize > the futility of opening that bag of worms. > > Our "core" topic of Complexity Science is fraught with epistemological > questions (I believe), most particularly questions such as "whence and what > emergence?" as Nick's seminars of 2+ years ago considered. I don't know if > the topic was approached from the point of view of "what is the nature of > knowledge?" or more specifically, "how can we define a new concept such as > emergence and have it hold meaning?". In my view, "emergence" is strictly > "phenomenological" as are the many (highly useful) constructs of > statistical physics. > > I promised a maunder here, I trust I succeeded in delivering! > > Carry on! > - Steve > > > > **** > > Actually you can't define primeness any way you want. The definition needs > to be negotiated by the community of professionals who are can credibly > agree on the definition. **** > > **** > > My definition of primeness is "anything bigger than 3 and painted an > attractive shade of blue". But no one listens to me. Nor should they, > because I'm not a mathematician.**** > > **** > > —R**** > > **** > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Grant Holland < > [email protected]> wrote:**** > > George's observation (from Saturday) under "mathematician" pretty much > captures the issue for me. One can define "primeness" any way one wants. > The choice of excluding 1 has the "fun" consequence that George explains so > well. Maybe including "1" has other fun consequences. If so, then give that > definition a name ("prime" is already taken) , and see where it leads. You > can make this stuff up any way you want, folks. Just follow the > consequences. Some of these consequences provide analogies that physicists > can use. Some don't. No matter. We just wanna have fun! > > Grant **** > > > On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote: **** > > Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a **** > > **** > > *mathematician***** > > **** > > it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like > the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has > unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1. > So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.**** > > **** > > *statistician***** > > **** > > do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of > entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point > of view usage says 1 is not prime**** > > **** > > *artist***** > > **** > > try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as > prime. I didn't see any.**** > > **** > > Cheers, Duncan**** > > **** > > On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[email protected]> wrote: > **** > > I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it > depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case. > > PMcC **** > > > > > On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:**** > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[email protected]> > wrote:**** > > Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...**** > > > Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk > once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone: > > "Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7" > > That's how I remember. > > Mark > > ============================================================ > 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**** > > > > ============================================================ > 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**** > > > > **** > > **** > > -- **** > > George Duncan > georgeduncanart.com**** > > (505) 983-6895 > Represented by ViVO Contemporary**** > > 725 Canyon Road**** > > Santa Fe, NM 87501**** > > > Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward. > Soren Kierkegaard**** > > **** > > > > > **** > > ============================================================**** > > 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**** > > > ============================================================ > 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**** > > **** > > > > > > **** > > ============================================================**** > > 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**** > > **** > > > > > **** > > ============================================================**** > > 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**** > > ** ** > > ============================================================ > 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 > -- Doug Roberts [email protected] [email protected] http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins <http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins> 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================ 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
