Mark, This is the corrected question to Krimel:
On Jan 16, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Krimel wrote: > > [Krimel] > The notions of math can't be wrong if you accept the assumptions that the > mathematician specifies at the outset. However, as a mathematician you are > free to offer other premises, like Lobachevsky and Riemann. But again I > would see this as a problem for the deductive method that does not > necessarily apply to the inductive method. > Krimel, I think I remember that Einstein used Riemannian geometry in the general theory of relativity. Is the general theory of relativity science? Marsha On Jan 16, 2010, at 8:08 PM, markhsmit wrote: > Marsha, > The general theory of reality can be science if you want it to be. > Regards, > Mark > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 1:17:29 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics > Date: January 16, 2010 1:17:29 PM PST > To: [email protected] > > corrected... > > > Krimel, > > I think I remember that Einstein used Riemannian geometry in the general > theory of relativity. > Is the general theory of relativy science? > > > Marsha > > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Krimel wrote: > >> [Mark] >> I think the concept of intelligent design depends on the definition >> of intelligence. We have been through this before so I won't >> belabor it, but doesn't the trial and errors and learning that >> occurs in evolution represent a form of intelligence? Semantically >> at least? >> >> [Krimel] >> When atmospheric conditions produce a hurricane, is that a form of >> intelligence? After all how does each new storm know which way to spin and >> where to put its eye? Is it "like" intelligence? In some ways, yes, but to >> identify it "as" intelligence ignores the myriad of ways it is nothing at >> all like intelligence. For example, there is no agency, purpose, intention >> or reflection involved; all of which seem to me at least to have some >> barring on intelligence. >> >> [Mark] >> Thermodynamics is a self-contained system in physics which defines all terms >> with reference to each other. There is no possible way for it to be wrong. >> If I set up a system of definitions, it cannot be wrong because I make the >> definitions. >> >> [Krimel] >> Here I think you are highlighting the difference between inductive and >> deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning begins with its definitions and >> proceeds to make sense from there. For the most part this is the kind of >> closed system the Gödel claims must contain elements that cannot be proven >> within the system. >> >> Deductive reasoning is our gift from the Greeks. Inductive reasoning, which >> is the foundation of scientific thought, doesn't work that way. When we use >> it, we are seeking to build our definitions from our observations. In a >> sense the system we are trying to build is entiring composed of elements >> brought into the system from outside. >> >> This method demands that when those outside elements fit, we assimilate >> them. When they don't fit we must adjust the way we account for them, we >> accommodate to them. >> >> [Mark] >> This is similar to the notions that math cannot be wrong. Of course it >> can't. If I say The sun is hot, because heat comes from the sun, that can't >> be wrong either. >> >> [Krimel] >> The notions of math can't be wrong if you accept the assumptions that the >> mathematician specifies at the outset. However, as a mathematician you are >> free to offer other premises, like Lobachevsky and Riemann. But again I >> would see this as a problem for the deductive method that does not >> necessarily apply to the inductive method. >> >> Saying "the sun is hot" seems to me, at least, to be derived from >> experience. It is what Kant would call synthetic truth. The math examples >> reveal analytic truth. >> >> >> >> Moq_Discuss mailing list >> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org >> Archives: >> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ >> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... > > > > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
