It reminds me of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems show that any formal system powerful enough to describe arithmetic will always have true statements it can’t prove. This seems like a purely theoretical result, but the proof itself is highly constructive—Gödel uses very practical techniques like numbering symbols and mimicking logic inside arithmetic.
In a way, it’s a perfect example of applied technique informing theory. A deep theoretical truth was uncovered not just by abstract thinking, but by rolling up sleeves and working with the system from the inside. Faraday/Maxwell, steam engines/thermodynamics all show how hands-on methods can push theory forward. On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 at 03:20, Santafe <[email protected]> wrote: > I _very often_ have the thought that, were the nature of people such that > grievance and misanthropy simply didn’t do them any good, and so they > simply never engaged in it, so many conversations would go on in such > different ways, that we might have to adjust a bit to realize they started > from the same query. > > One such query is whether the nature of anti-theory people is mainly an > aesthetic style of thought (seems very possible), or mainly motivated by a > dislike of people they met earlier who (whether with warrant or just to > serve other needs of their own) they label as “theory people”. I would > like it if it were mostly the former; that anti-theory people were “born > this way”; it would give me a conversation that seems interesting in > several dimensions and that I could navigate. Let’s suppose that such > conversations are available somewhere, even if not everywhere. > > The start of this went something along the lines of “Faraday locked in > electromagnetism by its empirical evidences, and Maxwell put some pretty > symbols onto it.” (The original wasn’t exactly as I just wrote it, and I > am over-drawing here to take the direction to its cartoon-simplified > limit. I am also _sure_ I can find some truly anti-theory people who > believe this is the absolutely right take on it. Within Chemistry, where I > have the counterpart to this conversation fairly often, I have a good list > of names, because it is still the prevalent aesthetic of the field.) > > The sort of mind that believes that the former take on Maxwellian > electromagnetism is indeed the only real-man’s hard-headed take, is likely > (to the extent that it has any patience with formal logical analysis at all > as not a priestly self-indulgent waste of time) inclined to think that > Popper has a good description of the criteria for scientific meaningfulness > and truthfulness. > > But then we can do it recursively all the way down. Is Newtonian gravity > just one among an infinitude of data-compressions of Keplerian orbits > (since, at the end, everything moving under gravity and approximating away > other effects such as friction is on a Keplerian orbit, including apples, > so there “isn’t” really anything else). > > Let’s not answer, but simply add attested observations: > > It was studying Maxwell’s field equations in school that led Einstein to > try to construct general relativity within similar concepts. And > presumably the very geometric flux-sphere picture that comes with Newtonian > gravity that causes geometry to be retained as the phenomenon for > Einstein’s gravitational field theory to be about. > > One can go through such idea-chains across the sciences. In some, people > don’t leave pithy accounts of why they believed it occurred to them to do > things one way rather than another; in other cases they do leave such > trails, at least about their beliefs. Or philosophers come along later and > do forensics and argue that their work shows their reasons to be > such-and-such. > > A compact representation of the latter collection of asserted-observations > is that there is some kind of work that theory is doing as itself, not as a > proxy for something else (like description-length shortening for a pile of > data-instances). I remember how it seemed an insightful turn for me when > my graduate advisor commented that the particle physicists had felt a sense > of liberation when they could throw away the Particle Data Book, with the > advent of first Murray’s symmetry classification and eventually the > settling in of QCD as a theory in which one could stably compute things, > and then the whole symmetry-grouping of all the elementary particles by a > few terms. > > > Circling back to thermodynamics, Harold’s “Emergence of Everything”, and > what is or isn’t substantial in the world of observations and states of > mind that we take on in relation to them: > > Harold was happy invoking Popper, and didn’t want to sweat a lot over how > much Popper was trying to take over a dichotomy from first-order > logic, and the asymmetry between there-exists and for-all, and how much it > doesn’t work to press that into service as a formalization for empiricist > reasoning. Harold was, generally, an easy-going guy, and willing for > things to be rough, or half-wrong, supposing that if he could intuitively > get them half-right, that would be much better than nothing, and there > would be time to come back and fix whatever parts may have been wrong. So > he could like Popper as one of his half-right positions, even though it was > the inability to deal with being half-right where Popper ultimately > undermined himself. btw., that’s where a very useful study of metaphor in > science, along the lines that DaveW gave a definition of it from Quine, can > get built up. > > Probably likewise with thermo and steam engines. For the purpose of > making a certain point — that theory doesn’t arise in a vacuum or from > direct access to the Mind of God — Harold would be happy to overstate the > simplicity of this position, and to evangelize for empiricism. > > But of course, in the world we live in — and especially the world where I > live, which is almost-all thermodynamics almost-all the time, and > almost-none of it about steam engines, or even anything having to do with > mechanics or energy — we have learned much, much more about > nearly-everything, from thermodynamics, than there even was of > thermodynamics, to have learned from steam engines. At the end of the day, > the lessons of thermodynamics, when properly understood, constitute the > explanation for why there even are stable macro-worlds. Of more-or-less > anything. In other working conversations, with other aims, Harold would of > course have seen that too, and been happy with the statement putting it on > record. Even though that statement would have seemed, to a debaterly-type > mind, to have contradicted the earlier one. > > > I have seen a lot of chat over the years about what is “the nature” of > theory as something that can do work that deserves to be called > different-in-kind, and not just different-in-cost, than listing data > instances, thus making theory particular among data compressions (the > latter, as a kind of generic category; obviously theories are, as one of > their aspects, compressions of data instances; the question here is whether > to say that is “all” they are is as good or as useful an account as we can > give). But at the end, I just hear the same positions reiterated, some of > them more rhetorically elegantly (Cris Moore did a very nice job in a tiny > soliloquy in one of the SFI public lectures), or more tritely and > conventionally. But I haven’t heard somebody with something really > original to say on the question, that makes me stop and think I see things > better, for a long time now. I think the Philosophers of Science (I’ll > capitalize both for DaveW) put a lot of time into this. If I had more time > I would probably try to listen to them, and I might find they have > interesting things to say. > > Eric > > > > > > On Jul 17, 2025, at 2:19, Steve Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > > - Anima's presentation reminded me quite nicely of the Numenta/Redwood > work of Jeff Hawkins et al? Cortical columns, etc. > - Did Harold Morowitz make a strong assertion to the tune: "we learned > more about thermodynamics from steam-engines than vice-versa"? EricS or > StephenG might have first-hand knowledge? > - Is this theory/practice dichotomy just another form of > meta-scaffolding in evolution (of any system) with the cut-and-try > providing the mutation/selection and the theory/formalism binding the > "lessons learned" into well... "lessons learned"? > > On 7/16/2025 2:12 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote: > > Both the video of Anima Anandkumar’s Stanford seminar and her scientific > paper on Neural Operators really got me excited—the ideas feel fresh and > powerful. > > The paper is quite technical and digs into the math behind > Neural Operators, without talking much about robotics. In her talk, though, > she clearly links the work to robots, and it sounds as if robotics is a big > focus for her team. > > What jumped out at me is how different her style is from Elon Musk’s > approach with Tesla’s Optimus robot. Anandkumar begins with deep theory, > building firm mathematical foundations first. Musk takes a “just build it” > path—make it, test it, break it, fix it, and keep going. > > This contrast reminds me of engineering school and the Faraday‑Maxwell > story. Faraday was the hands‑on experimenter who uncovered the basics of > electricity and magnetism through careful tests. Maxwell came later and > wrote the elegant equations that explained what Faraday had already shown. > > So I wonder: will the roles flip this time? Will deep theory from > researchers like Anandkumar guide the breakthroughs first, with practice > following? Or will practical builders like Musk sprint ahead and let theory > catch up afterward? > > Either way, watching these two paths unfold side by side is thrilling. It > feels like we’re standing on the edge of something big. > > On Wed, 16 Jul 2025 at 04:11, Jon Zingale <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Even if just for the freedom of scale, learning infinite dimensional >> function spaces, etc... >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caZyFlSSKtI >> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.10973 >> >> >> .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / >> ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom >> https://bit.ly/virtualfriam >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,fqLCfmxD9O9EQWAvVNvceED6l9-CH0x1NbEyF8I6tcaSy_FU4J1BIpk1r8NvZJBSw_X_tH9vSJ6xESIP5HytHQKnnFYA0bh9moSxajzwT4EYdEq9cHxPGzXfcA,,&typo=1> >> to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,X0Tt91XAOHQTWZG3DGupZBtxQnkXycficvAt9fd5eVt_EjCCANoIQdzMHKjD34hw80pBjuG5m0Ng0pKp6FqbhoVaFQnFtdY4jekmh9Ax&typo=1> >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,DElem1umk50s7v5_n8aVPAcuNV5thmMiUNtEcpFHqLNGxLef3zoSkKJPGL3NZj1fv06LWCojrSEIPlxZ3DM5iqIAP_WjqVD3XisuTSpogyJAvVNW&typo=1> >> archives: 5/2017 thru present >> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ >> <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,9A_0i3LLqKl8Z6qXqieHffdNyyR503sa6Oo3V8p-iO1DqKqmX1nf8FqlAot1NLFgXo_-XLkMFSEEDbNfuFH-1h6JhTt5u7hnpxtsKUVRZZ_gmT36_3gyxbGeVw,,&typo=1> >> 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >> > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... > --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,bH-hGkqjZ_l5N8cHZOb6yVyDB4zuxxdqcEut-frWgkUiX57a014jPVVX89pFQA2pTCCx3ETeGsgy-Ebng6oiq5XGeWyqEOyU2iOsxdpEx-02r0v6yN-MzQ,,&typo=1> > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,CU6C3Y1qd8G69WfNwLFAjYL5YxIpypMnh7WGKCy7sI48bkmbUT5OGSrkkK4qX7Vv4Po78cjfn6PNC8husKj2aNPjP2D6iNPCTJ3WPNnZeponPuUiAOHt&typo=1> > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,RIb8FsDgoQ0Vcb-n9EkS2GQFbBeJu8uV2sGMNlPscE_EdDeMj0ahLXajjAvxvMHu6tlbXkQCgWl_MTEcnopJaHk5D9GFnpfrh-GWo_EiGeciXUDkEQ1qbO2Mr88,&typo=1> > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,Nm3_HtIy4HCOuapzpRMF87dtGln0JtxitxkNZTPOqUuGBgGYuL0j80NQuuNnBFx6wvj0oVrBopF85ahUKilzV5PbJGWTirK9CRxxici-LBl04MpaJ-cSRTtxYCGj&typo=1> > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fbit.ly%2fvirtualfriam&c=E,1,-RpDiYiWHxJeffwvdH-CWmpGyK0qha9HoBze7PGtHY6n8MaAys5GjR8LtHvRrVY3_ob0PBC7Txcp6-mRLqxifemdrqWxqW6AWjop9jJg9Es,&typo=1 > to (un)subscribe > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,CpBNaP1wLHqmBbqmOnbcR_A--YQDoU7HDAojbfqgYdVlMS7XIcuaMOoFfdwqSiDvk41jFiODa1XRUogcyTdjRhEs0OXbJiB8XC-ETzRS&typo=1 > FRIAM-COMIC > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,vA2k7dsDzJHRJysWhARmmeSKjKvA3-R9sIlP1XhRgHzWK4Ljmw7rUZ-61GO8xtcXcXekXZMyh7huJAy6BiXByCHabhN7XcV5dpepv3itVq4KL6Xx7cU,&typo=1 > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fpipermail%2ffriam_redfish.com%2f&c=E,1,NO9uwFaMy3n5q3E8Ag4y1Vi-4B1i9hl-FEdQhPpwKjBigxn02sR9IWH4F8NunauqdZjWTPdQBXCQprmuN2odJIEFtpnLmApntWcNXTzBUBRXcvVonrOkS9S9eQ,,&typo=1 > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ > > > .- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / > ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom > https://bit.ly/virtualfriam > to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: 5/2017 thru present > https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ > 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/ >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
