Re: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi Perhaps strings might better model materials and their behavior than current chemistry and materials science can. And suggest the possibioity of creating new materials (composistes) as well as explaining little understood materials phenomena. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 11/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Evgenii Rudnyi Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 07:18:56 Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality On 04.11.2012 08:37 Richard Ruquist said the following: On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following: On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable alternatives: o that either the point about isomorphism and mathematics is mistaken, or o that scientific representation is not at bottom mathematical representation alone, or o that science is necessarily incomplete in a way we can know it to be incomplete, or o that those apparent differences to us, cutting across isomorphism, are illusory. In his comment about immediate alive intuition, Weyl appears to opt for the second, or perhaps the third, alternative. But on the either of this, we face a perplexing epistemological question: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? It seems to me he left out the most likely case: that our science is incomplete in a way we know. Brent Could you please express this knowledge explicitly? String theory is an example of knowledge of incomplete science as for the most part string theory has not been verified/falsified experimentally. Richard Let us imagine that the superstring theory is completed and even experimentally verified. So what's then? How the superstring theory would change engineering practice? Evgenii -- p. 278 ... the regularities must derive from not just natural but logical necessity. This sentiment is sometimes encountered still, not so much among philosophers but in physicists' dreams of a final theory so logically airtight as to admit of no conceivable alternative, one that would be grasped as true when understood at all. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 15.11.2012 17:10 Roger Clough said the following: Hi Evgenii Rudnyi Perhaps strings might better model materials and their behavior than current chemistry and materials science can. And suggest the possibioity of creating new materials (composistes) as well as explaining little understood materials phenomena. Chemists need numerical models to reduce the number of experiments. In my view, it is highly unlikely that the superstring theory will furnish better numerical models for chemists. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
Hi Roger Clough, My understanding is that qualia are subjective or 1-view, while the realm of science is completely objective (3-view). I agree. A qualia, like the feeling of being convinced, or like the feeling of seeing the color red, is subjective (1p). But now the theory saying that a qualia is 1p, might very well be objective. Science cannot use subjective statements in a theory, but this does not prevent a theory to make statements on subjectivity. If not, you would make a confusion between a level and a meta-level. We can develop objective and even testable statements about subjectivity. For example, with comp, we can decode an 1p-dream from a brain 3p- analysis. This seems to have been partially tested: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-read-dreamsWT.mc_id=SA_WR_20121024 Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-06, 08:49:43 Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality On 05 Nov 2012, at 20:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Love is a qualia and science cannot touch qualia. Science can touch everything. And assuming comp science can explain why qualia are not scientific or communicable. they still remain real phenomena on which science can say something, even if negative. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 21:28:12 Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality On 11/3/2012 6:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: : Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? Yes . I love my mother is some knowledge that I know , and is not part of a scientific theory. But could it be is the question. There could be a scientific theory that Alberto Corona loves his mother and you could know the theory. We know reality because we live in the reality, We do not approximate reality by theories. We directly know reality because we live within it. Our primary knowledge is intuitive, historic, direct.. It is _the_ reality. A theory is a second class of knowledge about a model that approximate reality, maybe upto a point of an isomorphism with some- part-of reality, but certainly, not an isomorphism that embraces the whole reality, because we could never know if we have modelized the entire reality, nether if this modelization is accurate. The legitimate usage of the models is to refine this intuitive knowledge. But at the worst, a model can negate our direct knowledge and try to create an alternative reality. In this case the theorist reclaim the model as the reality. Thus the theorist .reclaim a complete knowledge of reality. In this case the theorist is outside of science, even if it is within the science industry, and becomes a sort of gnostic preacher Yes, a model that includes everything is impossible (and not even useful), but it might still be that each thing you know is part of some model. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 05 Nov 2012, at 20:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Love is a qualia and science cannot touch qualia. Science can touch everything. And assuming comp science can explain why qualia are not scientific or communicable. they still remain real phenomena on which science can say something, even if negative. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 21:28:12 Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality On 11/3/2012 6:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: : Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? Yes . I love my mother is some knowledge that I know , and is not part of a scientific theory. But could it be is the question. There could be a scientific theory that Alberto Corona loves his mother and you could know the theory. We know reality because we live in the reality, We do not approximate reality by theories. We directly know reality because we live within it. Our primary knowledge is intuitive, historic, direct.. It is _the_ reality. A theory is a second class of knowledge about a model that approximate reality, maybe upto a point of an isomorphism with some- part-of reality, but certainly, not an isomorphism that embraces the whole reality, because we could never know if we have modelized the entire reality, nether if this modelization is accurate. The legitimate usage of the models is to refine this intuitive knowledge. But at the worst, a model can negate our direct knowledge and try to create an alternative reality. In this case the theorist reclaim the model as the reality. Thus the theorist .reclaim a complete knowledge of reality. In this case the theorist is outside of science, even if it is within the science industry, and becomes a sort of gnostic preacher Yes, a model that includes everything is impossible (and not even useful), but it might still be that each thing you know is part of some model. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 05 Nov 2012, at 20:24, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 05.11.2012 16:21 Roger Clough said the following: Hi Richard Ruquist Engineering advantages ? A decade before the Wright brothers flew their airplane, people would have said, You're going to do WHAT ? I guess this is a very good example, as the Wright brothers have just done it. I am not sure if they based this innovation on some theory. Hence is the question, if a superstring theory is really necessary to drive innovations. String theory has made possible the discovery of new proofs of arithmetical statement. So string theory has already lead to innovation in number theory. For physics, we will see. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
Hi Bruno Marchal My understanding is that qualia are subjective or 1-view, while the realm of science is completely objective (3-view). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/6/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-06, 08:49:43 Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality On 05 Nov 2012, at 20:03, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Love is a qualia and science cannot touch qualia. Science can touch everything. And assuming comp science can explain why qualia are not scientific or communicable. they still remain real phenomena on which science can say something, even if negative. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 21:28:12 Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality On 11/3/2012 6:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: : Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? Yes . I love my mother is some knowledge that I know , and is not part of a scientific theory. But could it be is the question. There could be a scientific theory that Alberto Corona loves his mother and you could know the theory. We know reality because we live in the reality, We do not approximate reality by theories. We directly know reality because we live within it. Our primary knowledge is intuitive, historic, direct.. It is _the_ reality. A theory is a second class of knowledge about a model that approximate reality, maybe upto a point of an isomorphism with some- part-of reality, but certainly, not an isomorphism that embraces the whole reality, because we could never know if we have modelized the entire reality, nether if this modelization is accurate. The legitimate usage of the models is to refine this intuitive knowledge. But at the worst, a model can negate our direct knowledge and try to create an alternative reality. In this case the theorist reclaim the model as the reality. Thus the theorist .reclaim a complete knowledge of reality. In this case the theorist is outside of science, even if it is within the science industry, and becomes a sort of gnostic preacher Yes, a model that includes everything is impossible (and not even useful), but it might still be that each thing you know is part of some model. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 11/6/2012 9:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote: My understanding is that qualia are subjective or 1-view, while the realm of science is completely objective (3-view). Science 'traces' out the observer and wonders why it cannot understand the observer! LOL! -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
Hi Richard Ruquist Engineering advantages ? A decade before the Wright brothers flew their airplane, people would have said, You're going to do WHAT ? Many if not all innovations like that seem at present to be crazy or impossible. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-04, 09:42:29 Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 04.11.2012 08:37 Richard Ruquist said the following: On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following: On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable alternatives: o that either the point about isomorphism and mathematics is mistaken, or o that scientific representation is not at bottom mathematical representation alone, or o that science is necessarily incomplete in a way we can know it to be incomplete, or o that those apparent differences to us, cutting across isomorphism, are illusory. In his comment about immediate alive intuition, Weyl appears to opt for the second, or perhaps the third, alternative. But on the either of this, we face a perplexing epistemological question: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? It seems to me he left out the most likely case: that our science is incomplete in a way we know. Brent Could you please express this knowledge explicitly? String theory is an example of knowledge of incomplete science as for the most part string theory has not been verified/falsified experimentally. Richard Let us imagine that the superstring theory is completed and even experimentally verified. So what's then? How the superstring theory would change engineering practice? I am unable to predict any engineering advantage to any proposed high energy theory even if it were to explain dark energy. That includes comp. What I can predict is that such a valid theory may change our conception of reality. In particular it may determine if a god is possible and exists and/or if a Many World multiverse exists. My personal prediction is that it is one or the other, either MWI or a god and a supernatural realm. Richard Evgenii -- p. 278 ... the regularities must derive from not just natural but logical necessity. This sentiment is sometimes encountered still, not so much among philosophers but in physicists' dreams of a final theory so logically airtight as to admit of no conceivable alternative, one that would be grasped as true when understood at all. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
Hi meekerdb Love is a qualia and science cannot touch qualia. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 21:28:12 Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality On 11/3/2012 6:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: : Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? Yes . I love my mother is some knowledge that I know , and is not part of a scientific theory. But could it be is the question. There could be a scientific theory that Alberto Corona loves his mother and you could know the theory. We know reality because we live in the reality, We do not approximate reality by theories. We directly know reality because we live within it. Our primary knowledge is intuitive, historic, direct.. It is _the_ reality. A theory is a second class of knowledge about a model that approximate reality, maybe upto a point of an isomorphism with some-part-of reality, but certainly, not an isomorphism that embraces the whole reality, because we could never know if we have modelized the entire reality, nether if this modelization is accurate. The legitimate usage of the models is to refine this intuitive knowledge. But at the worst, a model can negate our direct knowledge and try to create an alternative reality. In this case the theorist reclaim the model as the reality. Thus the theorist .reclaim a complete knowledge of reality. In this case the theorist is outside of science, even if it is within the science industry, and becomes a sort of gnostic preacher Yes, a model that includes everything is impossible (and not even useful), but it might still be that each thing you know is part of some model. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 05.11.2012 16:21 Roger Clough said the following: Hi Richard Ruquist Engineering advantages ? A decade before the Wright brothers flew their airplane, people would have said, You're going to do WHAT ? I guess this is a very good example, as the Wright brothers have just done it. I am not sure if they based this innovation on some theory. Hence is the question, if a superstring theory is really necessary to drive innovations. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 04.11.2012 22:03 meekerdb said the following: On 11/4/2012 1:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 04.11.2012 00:47 Alberto G. Corona said the following: : Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? Yes . I love my mother is some knowledge that I know , and is not part of a scientific theory. We know reality because we live in the reality, We do not approximate reality by theories. We directly know reality because we live within it. Our primary knowledge is intuitive, historic, direct.. It is _the_ reality. A theory is a second class of knowledge about a model that approximate reality, maybe upto a point of an isomorphism with some-part-of reality, but certainly, not an isomorphism that embraces the whole reality, because we could never know if we have modelized the entire reality, nether if this modelization is accurate. Let us imagine that we have a mathematical model that isomorphic with the whole reality. Let us say that this model is before you as some computer implementation. The problem of coordination still remains. To use this model, you need to find out its particular part and relate it with reality. The model of the whole reality does not do it by itself. That seems like an impossible hypothesis. Usually when one talks about having a model it is a model that one created or someone else created and the correspondence with whatever is modeled is part of the creation of the model. If you were simply presented with a model of all reality and you didn't know who created this model so that you could ask them how it corresponded to the thing modeled then you would be just like a scientist faced with nature and you would proceed by creating a model of the model in terms you understood. What you say about a historical development is exactly what Van Fraassen offers as a part of a solution to the coordination problem. Yet, even after the theory has been developed (let us imagine that the science has included in its model the dark energy, the dark matter and have found a way to make GR and QM compatible), one needs to take a decision what a particular part of the theory is necessary to drive a particular innovation. Even a complete scientific theory will not do it by itself. In this sense, it will be still incomplete. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi I have heard it said that every year a certain mathematics society gets together to celebrate the fact that not one of their papers has proven to be useful. Pragmatists on the other hand believe that only the useful is true. Take your pick. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Evgenii Rudnyi Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-05, 14:24:21 Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality On 05.11.2012 16:21 Roger Clough said the following: Hi Richard Ruquist Engineering advantages ? A decade before the Wright brothers flew their airplane, people would have said, You're going to do WHAT ? I guess this is a very good example, as the Wright brothers have just done it. I am not sure if they based this innovation on some theory. Hence is the question, if a superstring theory is really necessary to drive innovations. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 11/5/2012 1:32 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 04.11.2012 22:03 meekerdb said the following: On 11/4/2012 1:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 04.11.2012 00:47 Alberto G. Corona said the following: : Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? Yes . I love my mother is some knowledge that I know , and is not part of a scientific theory. We know reality because we live in the reality, We do not approximate reality by theories. We directly know reality because we live within it. Our primary knowledge is intuitive, historic, direct.. It is _the_ reality. A theory is a second class of knowledge about a model that approximate reality, maybe upto a point of an isomorphism with some-part-of reality, but certainly, not an isomorphism that embraces the whole reality, because we could never know if we have modelized the entire reality, nether if this modelization is accurate. Let us imagine that we have a mathematical model that isomorphic with the whole reality. Let us say that this model is before you as some computer implementation. The problem of coordination still remains. To use this model, you need to find out its particular part and relate it with reality. The model of the whole reality does not do it by itself. That seems like an impossible hypothesis. Usually when one talks about having a model it is a model that one created or someone else created and the correspondence with whatever is modeled is part of the creation of the model. If you were simply presented with a model of all reality and you didn't know who created this model so that you could ask them how it corresponded to the thing modeled then you would be just like a scientist faced with nature and you would proceed by creating a model of the model in terms you understood. What you say about a historical development is exactly what Van Fraassen offers as a part of a solution to the coordination problem. What exactly is 'coordination' and why is it a problem? Yet, even after the theory has been developed (let us imagine that the science has included in its model the dark energy, the dark matter and have found a way to make GR and QM compatible), one needs to take a decision what a particular part of the theory is necessary to drive a particular innovation. Even a complete scientific theory will not do it by itself. In this sense, it will be still incomplete. I don't understand the problem; are you simply saying the model of reality is not reality itself? That seems rather trivial. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 05.11.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following: On 11/5/2012 1:32 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 04.11.2012 22:03 meekerdb said the following: On 11/4/2012 1:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 04.11.2012 00:47 Alberto G. Corona said the following: : Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? Yes . I love my mother is some knowledge that I know , and is not part of a scientific theory. We know reality because we live in the reality, We do not approximate reality by theories. We directly know reality because we live within it. Our primary knowledge is intuitive, historic, direct.. It is _the_ reality. A theory is a second class of knowledge about a model that approximate reality, maybe upto a point of an isomorphism with some-part-of reality, but certainly, not an isomorphism that embraces the whole reality, because we could never know if we have modelized the entire reality, nether if this modelization is accurate. Let us imagine that we have a mathematical model that isomorphic with the whole reality. Let us say that this model is before you as some computer implementation. The problem of coordination still remains. To use this model, you need to find out its particular part and relate it with reality. The model of the whole reality does not do it by itself. That seems like an impossible hypothesis. Usually when one talks about having a model it is a model that one created or someone else created and the correspondence with whatever is modeled is part of the creation of the model. If you were simply presented with a model of all reality and you didn't know who created this model so that you could ask them how it corresponded to the thing modeled then you would be just like a scientist faced with nature and you would proceed by creating a model of the model in terms you understood. What you say about a historical development is exactly what Van Fraassen offers as a part of a solution to the coordination problem. What exactly is 'coordination' and why is it a problem? An analogy would be using a map. One needs for example to locate oneself in a map. This could be generalized. Let us consider how an engineer for example uses Maxwell equations. An engineer starts with a design. This design could be described by Maxwell equations but one needs an engineer to suggest the design. Maxwell equations on their own are not enough. Yet, even after the theory has been developed (let us imagine that the science has included in its model the dark energy, the dark matter and have found a way to make GR and QM compatible), one needs to take a decision what a particular part of the theory is necessary to drive a particular innovation. Even a complete scientific theory will not do it by itself. In this sense, it will be still incomplete. I don't understand the problem; are you simply saying the model of reality is not reality itself? That seems rather trivial. In a way. A scientific model is after all a representation. And a representation is p. 21 “Z uses X to depict Y as F” Hence even a complete scientific theory does not contain Z uses. This remains somehow outside of even a complete Theory of Everything. In a way it is trivial, I agree. Yet, it seems for example Hawking in his Grand Design does not agree with such a trivial observation. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 11/5/2012 2:46 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Evgenii Rudnyi I have heard it said that every year a certain mathematics society gets together to celebrate the fact that not one of their papers has proven to be useful. Pragmatists on the other hand believe that only the useful is true. Take your pick. Laugh out loud! Such silly narcissistic elitism! Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/5/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Evgenii Rudnyi Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-05, 14:24:21 Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality On 05.11.2012 16:21 Roger Clough said the following: Hi Richard Ruquist Engineering advantages ? A decade before the Wright brothers flew their airplane, people would have said, You're going to do WHAT ? I guess this is a very good example, as the Wright brothers have just done it. I am not sure if they based this innovation on some theory. Hence is the question, if a superstring theory is really necessary to drive innovations. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following: On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable alternatives: o that either the point about isomorphism and mathematics is mistaken, or o that scientific representation is not at bottom mathematical representation alone, or o that science is necessarily incomplete in a way we can know it to be incomplete, or o that those apparent differences to us, cutting across isomorphism, are illusory. In his comment about immediate alive intuition, Weyl appears to opt for the second, or perhaps the third, alternative. But on the either of this, we face a perplexing epistemological question: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? It seems to me he left out the most likely case: that our science is incomplete in a way we know. Brent Could you please express this knowledge explicitly? Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 04.11.2012 00:47 Alberto G. Corona said the following: : Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? Yes . I love my mother is some knowledge that I know , and is not part of a scientific theory. We know reality because we live in the reality, We do not approximate reality by theories. We directly know reality because we live within it. Our primary knowledge is intuitive, historic, direct.. It is _the_ reality. A theory is a second class of knowledge about a model that approximate reality, maybe upto a point of an isomorphism with some-part-of reality, but certainly, not an isomorphism that embraces the whole reality, because we could never know if we have modelized the entire reality, nether if this modelization is accurate. Let us imagine that we have a mathematical model that isomorphic with the whole reality. Let us say that this model is before you as some computer implementation. The problem of coordination still remains. To use this model, you need to find out its particular part and relate it with reality. The model of the whole reality does not do it by itself. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following: On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable alternatives: o that either the point about isomorphism and mathematics is mistaken, or o that scientific representation is not at bottom mathematical representation alone, or o that science is necessarily incomplete in a way we can know it to be incomplete, or o that those apparent differences to us, cutting across isomorphism, are illusory. In his comment about immediate alive intuition, Weyl appears to opt for the second, or perhaps the third, alternative. But on the either of this, we face a perplexing epistemological question: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? It seems to me he left out the most likely case: that our science is incomplete in a way we know. Brent Could you please express this knowledge explicitly? String theory is an example of knowledge of incomplete science as for the most part string theory has not been verified/falsified experimentally. Richard Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
Hi Alberto G. Corona The only way to know reality is subjectively, just as Descartes found. He threw everything out until all he could know for sure was that he could think. Reality is what is happening now, which is what we can only know subjectively, from inside, by aquaintance. We cannot know now or reality descriptively from any theory, only by subjective acquaintance. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 11/4/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-11-03, 18:47:00 Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality : Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? Yes . I love my mother is some knowledge that I know , and is not part of a scientific theory.? We know reality because we live in the reality, We do not?pproximate?eality by theories. We directly know reality because we live within it. ?ur ?rimary knowledge is intuitive, historic, direct.. It is _the_ reality. ? A theory is a second class of knowledge about a model that?pproximate?eality, maybe upto a?oint?f an isomorphism with some-part-of reality, but certainly, not an isomorphism that embraces the whole reality,?ecause?e could never know if we have modelized the entire reality, nether if this modelization is accurate. The legitimate usage of the models is ?o refine this intuitive knowledge. But at the worst, a model can ?egate our direct knowledge and try to create an alternative reality. In this case the theorist reclaim the model as the reality. Thus the theorist .reclaim a complete knowledge of reality. In this case the theorist is outside of science, even if it is ?ithin the science industry, and becomes a sort of gnostic preacher -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 04.11.2012 08:37 Richard Ruquist said the following: On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following: On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable alternatives: o that either the point about isomorphism and mathematics is mistaken, or o that scientific representation is not at bottom mathematical representation alone, or o that science is necessarily incomplete in a way we can know it to be incomplete, or o that those apparent differences to us, cutting across isomorphism, are illusory. In his comment about immediate alive intuition, Weyl appears to opt for the second, or perhaps the third, alternative. But on the either of this, we face a perplexing epistemological question: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? It seems to me he left out the most likely case: that our science is incomplete in a way we know. Brent Could you please express this knowledge explicitly? String theory is an example of knowledge of incomplete science as for the most part string theory has not been verified/falsified experimentally. Richard Let us imagine that the superstring theory is completed and even experimentally verified. So what's then? How the superstring theory would change engineering practice? Evgenii -- p. 278 ... the regularities must derive from not just natural but logical necessity. This sentiment is sometimes encountered still, not so much among philosophers but in physicists' dreams of a final theory so logically airtight as to admit of no conceivable alternative, one that would be grasped as true when understood at all. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: On 04.11.2012 08:37 Richard Ruquist said the following: On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following: On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable alternatives: o that either the point about isomorphism and mathematics is mistaken, or o that scientific representation is not at bottom mathematical representation alone, or o that science is necessarily incomplete in a way we can know it to be incomplete, or o that those apparent differences to us, cutting across isomorphism, are illusory. In his comment about immediate alive intuition, Weyl appears to opt for the second, or perhaps the third, alternative. But on the either of this, we face a perplexing epistemological question: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? It seems to me he left out the most likely case: that our science is incomplete in a way we know. Brent Could you please express this knowledge explicitly? String theory is an example of knowledge of incomplete science as for the most part string theory has not been verified/falsified experimentally. Richard Let us imagine that the superstring theory is completed and even experimentally verified. So what's then? How the superstring theory would change engineering practice? I am unable to predict any engineering advantage to any proposed high energy theory even if it were to explain dark energy. That includes comp. What I can predict is that such a valid theory may change our conception of reality. In particular it may determine if a god is possible and exists and/or if a Many World multiverse exists. My personal prediction is that it is one or the other, either MWI or a god and a supernatural realm. Richard Evgenii -- p. 278 ... the regularities must derive from not just natural but logical necessity. This sentiment is sometimes encountered still, not so much among philosophers but in physicists' dreams of a final theory so logically airtight as to admit of no conceivable alternative, one that would be grasped as true when understood at all. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 11/4/2012 1:12 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following: On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable alternatives: o that either the point about isomorphism and mathematics is mistaken, or o that scientific representation is not at bottom mathematical representation alone, or o that science is necessarily incomplete in a way we can know it to be incomplete, or o that those apparent differences to us, cutting across isomorphism, are illusory. In his comment about immediate alive intuition, Weyl appears to opt for the second, or perhaps the third, alternative. But on the either of this, we face a perplexing epistemological question: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? It seems to me he left out the most likely case: that our science is incomplete in a way we know. Brent Could you please express this knowledge explicitly? We don't know what dark matter is, we don't know what dark energy is, we don't know how to make GR and QM compatible,... Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 11/4/2012 1:18 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 04.11.2012 00:47 Alberto G. Corona said the following: : Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? Yes . I love my mother is some knowledge that I know , and is not part of a scientific theory. We know reality because we live in the reality, We do not approximate reality by theories. We directly know reality because we live within it. Our primary knowledge is intuitive, historic, direct.. It is _the_ reality. A theory is a second class of knowledge about a model that approximate reality, maybe upto a point of an isomorphism with some-part-of reality, but certainly, not an isomorphism that embraces the whole reality, because we could never know if we have modelized the entire reality, nether if this modelization is accurate. Let us imagine that we have a mathematical model that isomorphic with the whole reality. Let us say that this model is before you as some computer implementation. The problem of coordination still remains. To use this model, you need to find out its particular part and relate it with reality. The model of the whole reality does not do it by itself. That seems like an impossible hypothesis. Usually when one talks about having a model it is a model that one created or someone else created and the correspondence with whatever is modeled is part of the creation of the model. If you were simply presented with a model of all reality and you didn't know who created this model so that you could ask them how it corresponded to the thing modeled then you would be just like a scientist faced with nature and you would proceed by creating a model of the model in terms you understood. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
Nice. I was just writing about mathematics and use of symbols: http://s33light.org/post/34935613677 Craig On Saturday, November 3, 2012 3:01:55 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Some more quotes from Bas C Van Fraassen Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. This time on what Weyl has said on isomorphism between mathematics and reality. p. 208 Herman Weyl expressed the fundamental insight as follows in 1934: 'A science can never determine its subject-matter expect up to isomorphic representation. The idea of isomorphism indicates the self-understood, insurmountable barrier of knowledge. [...T]oward the nature of its objects science maintains complete indifference.' (Weyl 1934:19) The initial assertion is clearly based on two basic convictions: o that scientific representation is mathematical, and o that in mathematics no distinction cuts across structural sameness. p. 209 Weyl illustrates this with the example of a color space and an isomorphic geometric object. ... The color space is a region on the projective plane. If we can nevertheless distinguish the one from the other, or from other attribute spaces with that structure, doesn't that mean that we can know more that what science, so conceived, can deliver? Weyl accompanies his point about this limitation with an immediate characterization of the 'something else' which is then left un-represented. 'This - for example what distinguish the colors from the point of the projective plane - one can only know in immediate alive intuition.' (Ibid.) p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable alternatives: o that either the point about isomorphism and mathematics is mistaken, or o that scientific representation is not at bottom mathematical representation alone, or o that science is necessarily incomplete in a way we can know it to be incomplete, or o that those apparent differences to us, cutting across isomorphism, are illusory. In his comment about immediate alive intuition, Weyl appears to opt for the second, or perhaps the third, alternative. But on the either of this, we face a perplexing epistemological question: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru/tag/bas-c-van-fraassen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/at06iH1ons4J. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? Yes . I love my mother is some knowledge that I know , and is not part of a scientific theory. We know reality because we live in the reality, We do not approximate reality by theories. We directly know reality because we live within it. Our primary knowledge is intuitive, historic, direct.. It is _the_ reality. A theory is a second class of knowledge about a model that approximate reality, maybe upto a point of an isomorphism with some-part-of reality, but certainly, not an isomorphism that embraces the whole reality, because we could never know if we have modelized the entire reality, nether if this modelization is accurate. The legitimate usage of the models is to refine this intuitive knowledge. But at the worst, a model can negate our direct knowledge and try to create an alternative reality. In this case the theorist reclaim the model as the reality. Thus the theorist .reclaim a complete knowledge of reality. In this case the theorist is outside of science, even if it is within the science industry, and becomes a sort of gnostic preacher -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 11/3/2012 2:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Some more quotes from Bas C Van Fraassen Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. This time on what Weyl has said on isomorphism between mathematics and reality. p. 208 Herman Weyl expressed the fundamental insight as follows in 1934: 'A science can never determine its subject-matter expect up to isomorphic representation. The idea of isomorphism indicates the self-understood, insurmountable barrier of knowledge. [...T]oward the nature of its objects science maintains complete indifference.' (Weyl 1934:19) The initial assertion is clearly based on two basic convictions: o that scientific representation is mathematical, and o that in mathematics no distinction cuts across structural sameness. p. 209 Weyl illustrates this with the example of a color space and an isomorphic geometric object. ... The color space is a region on the projective plane. If we can nevertheless distinguish the one from the other, or from other attribute spaces with that structure, doesn't that mean that we can know more that what science, so conceived, can deliver? Weyl accompanies his point about this limitation with an immediate characterization of the 'something else' which is then left un-represented. 'This - for example what distinguish the colors from the point of the projective plane - one can only know in immediate alive intuition.' (Ibid.) p. 210 We seem to be left with four equally unpalatable alternatives: o that either the point about isomorphism and mathematics is mistaken, or o that scientific representation is not at bottom mathematical representation alone, or o that science is necessarily incomplete in a way we can know it to be incomplete, or o that those apparent differences to us, cutting across isomorphism, are illusory. In his comment about immediate alive intuition, Weyl appears to opt for the second, or perhaps the third, alternative. But on the either of this, we face a perplexing epistemological question: Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? It seems to me he left out the most likely case: that our science is incomplete in a way we know. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
On 11/3/2012 6:47 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: : Is there something that I could know to be the case, and which is not expressed by a proposition that could be part of some scientific theory? Yes . I love my mother is some knowledge that I know , and is not part of a scientific theory. But could it be is the question. There could be a scientific theory that Alberto Corona loves his mother and you could know the theory. We know reality because we live in the reality, We do not approximate reality by theories. We directly know reality because we live within it. Our primary knowledge is intuitive, historic, direct.. It is _the_ reality. A theory is a second class of knowledge about a model that approximate reality, maybe upto a point of an isomorphism with some-part-of reality, but certainly, not an isomorphism that embraces the whole reality, because we could never know if we have modelized the entire reality, nether if this modelization is accurate. The legitimate usage of the models is to refine this intuitive knowledge. But at the worst, a model can negate our direct knowledge and try to create an alternative reality. In this case the theorist reclaim the model as the reality. Thus the theorist .reclaim a complete knowledge of reality. In this case the theorist is outside of science, even if it is within the science industry, and becomes a sort of gnostic preacher Yes, a model that includes everything is impossible (and not even useful), but it might still be that each thing you know is part of some model. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
