"It can’t be necessary to adopt what amounts to a religion in order to function with one another."
Maybe not a religion, but perhaps to recognize/engage one's beliefs relative to another's beliefs? "In many cases, one would have to know the complete history of a person--from his childhood family and environment to whether someone gave him the finger for no apparent reason earlier in the day--to know how he is going react to any particular triggering event." What about classes? Can't we get fine approximations via apt categorizations? I can witness how others, that are similar to this individual, behaved in the past. "So, I think it's Fine and Good to *entertain* the idea of fully closed logical abstraction floors and ceilings. But I think it's shaky metaphysics to rely on them." Agreed. Lately, I have been thinking a lot about openness on the left hand and closedness on the right. There is no adapting to an ever-changing world when we are closed, but at least we can write global theorems. When we are open, we are open to catastrophe, and all progress to rectify discrepancies between model and experience is inherently local. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
