Dave writes:
"Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated - ‘truths’ are possible." This is why imperative programming is a bad idea. Identify all possible dependencies, even if they don't seem relevant. Those extra bits with name the different local situations. Marcus ________________________________ From: Friam <[email protected]> on behalf of Prof David West <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, October 14, 2017 4:01:32 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] Truth: “Hunh! What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!” Two caveats: first, this might better be a private communication with Nick since he is the one with the temerity to first (at least in the past few weeks) use the word 'Truth', although it has been implicit in a lot of recent threads; and second, the following contains a lot of assertions and assertions are, at minimum, ‘Truthy’ in nature, but I am making no such claim, as will be explained later. There can be no Truth. Nothing IS except in context and therefore only local – situated - ‘truths’ are possible. Until the Universe achieves ‘heat death’ (at which time there might be a single Truth), everything changes and therefore only ephemeral ‘truths’ are possible. All is Maya (illusion) and all Truth and all truths are equally illusory. There is no / are no means for discovering Truth even if It existed. To go all postmodern on you: what means/method died and ceded privilege and sole possession of the ‘Royal Road’ to math, logic, scientific method, rhetoric, and “reason?” There is no / are no means for expressing, and therefore communicating or sharing, Truth; were It to exist. Trivially, this is merely an expression of the first line of the Tao de Ching: “Tao Tao not Tao.” More importantly it is a generalization of what Peter Naur said about software and software development. Specifically that a program was the expression of a consensual theory share among those that developed it. That “theory” exists almost entirely in the minds of the humans engaged in building the theory; and, that theory cannot be reduced to documentation and therefore cannot be transmitted/communicated to other minds. (Actually, transmission would be possible extant telepathy and simultaneously, empathy.) As I have understood Nick’s interpretation of Pierce I find him to be an intellectual terrorist and his approach useful only for establishing orthodoxy and dogma. A prime reason for believing this is that the ‘conversation’ espoused by Pierce (and Nick) cannot be global – every living person at once – and therefore can only result in a consensus of the few that that is to be imposed on all. A second reason for this belief is that the only ones allowed at the conversational table are those proficient in and willing to abide by specific rules of discussion. This is application of my postmodern stance expressed above. A corollary of my antipathy towards Pierce, a favorite quote from Hesse: “Those who are too lazy and comfortable to think for themselves and be their own judges; obey the laws. Other’s sense their own laws within them.” Hesse was speaking of ethics but I would extend his notion to epistemology and metaphysics. None of the preceding is Truth, merely my truth. Accepting same essentially makes me a sociopath; but, I hope, an amiable one. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
