On 21 Aug 2008, at 18:32, Tom Caylor wrote:
I see that fractals also came up in the other current thread.
I can see the believableness of your conjecture (Turing-completeness
of the Mandelbrot set), but I see this (if true) as intuitive
(heuristic, circumstantial) evidence that reality is
I see that fractals also came up in the other current thread.
I can see the believableness of your conjecture (Turing-completeness
of the Mandelbrot set), but I see this (if true) as intuitive
(heuristic, circumstantial) evidence that reality is more than what
can be computed. (My belief in the
Even if the Koch Snowflake is restricted to those 3 angles, you don't have
to be restricted to the Snowflake itself -- by expanding, contracting or
transforming the space of interest, you can get somewhere more interesting
(anywhere you want, maybe?). For example, if you take the natural numbers,
Hi Tom,
Nice. I see beauty in the Mandelbrot set. However, there seems to be
a lot of deja vu, similar repetition on a theme.
Right. But full of subtle variations.
It is all normal to have a lot of deja vu when you make a journey
across a multiverse ...
I have never been
able to
On 09 Aug 2008, at 09:44, Tom Caylor wrote:
I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily
beautiful.
And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of
why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if
they think God is about
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 05:30:24PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 09 Aug 2008, at 09:44, Tom Caylor wrote:
I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily
beautiful.
And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of
why I am a theist. I don't
Nice. I see beauty in the Mandelbrot set. However, there seems to be
a lot of deja vu, similar repetition on a theme. I have never been
able to find anything resembling a beautiful girl, or even a mother-in-
law, or a white rabbit. This seems to go against your conjecture.
Tom
On Aug 12,
The repetition is the self-similarity, in essence the fractal nature
of the beast. Yet I believe there are points on the Mandelbrot
boundary that require an infinite calculation to determine if they're
in or out (believe because I haven't studied the maths - presumably it
has been proven one way
On Aug 10, 7:38 am, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom, please see after your quoted text.
John M
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:44 AM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily
beautiful.
And this from a theist? Yes! This
Just to be clear, I was not equating God and the knowable
fundamental Truth/Essence of Everything. I was just noting that my
statements work with either one.
On Aug 10, 11:51 pm, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 10, 7:38 am, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom, please see
Tom, (no further reply from here into your turf)
I usually keep away from discussing (GOD-) religious domains - now I am 'in'
and want to redirect my previous post.
Please: put GOD into the first part of my post, instead of BEAUTY
- then think it over again with your similarly changed reply.
BTW:
See below.
On Aug 11, 7:48 am, John Mikes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom, (no further reply from here into your turf)
I usually keep away from discussing (GOD-) religious domains - now I am 'in'
and want to redirect my previous post.
Please: put GOD into the first part of my post, instead of
Tom, please see after your quoted text.
John M
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 3:44 AM, Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily
beautiful.
And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of
why I am a theist. I don't
I believe that nature is not primarily functional. It is primarily
beautiful.
And this from a theist? Yes! This is actually to the core point of
why I am a theist. I don't blame people for not believing in God if
they think God is about functionality.
Tom
On Jul 29, 2:20 am, [EMAIL
Le 30-juil.-08, à 15:26, Stathis Papaioannou wrote :
Yes, I was partially agreeing with you. Psychotic people often still
manage very well with deductive reasoning, but they get the big
picture wrong, obviously and ridiculously wrong. So there must be more
to discovering truth about the
On Jul 31, 1:26 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Popper showed that an infinite number of theories is compatible is any
given set of finite observations. Mere algorithmic shuffling to
calculate Pr(B) probablities according to the Bayes formula won't help
much.
Arsthetics?
do we have a definition that satisfies *general* considerations? I doubt,
because I cannot find one that applies to different ethnic, cultural (- even
within one), at different times even if considered only in HUMAN beings. the
'scientific' terms are applying to (dis?)liking and
On Jul 30, 1:22 am, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've long been puzzled by the phenomenon of delusion in intelligent,
rational people who develop psychotic illness. For example, out of the
blue, someone starts to believe that their family have been replaced
by impostors.
But what is aesthetics the study of? Of beauty? That's it isn't it?
But how can something as plastic as beauty have any kind of
terminal
value that you and I can both share? Do aesthetic terminal values
decide where something fits into aesthetic reality or something
like
that? By the way, thanks
2008/7/30 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I've long been puzzled by the phenomenon of delusion in intelligent,
rational people who develop psychotic illness. For example, out of the
blue, someone starts to believe that their family have been replaced
by impostors. Their facility with deductive logic
Marc,
Yes, good Kim and Gunther- I’m now adopting the radical belief that
intelligence has a lot more to do with art, than math ;)
snip
So throw away all those math books , forget about Bayes, and start
studying the arts: painting, music and so on and so forth.
The idea is that good
Two issues I wish to mention, here.
Firstly, I present a few rapid-fire ideas about objective morality,
culminating in an integration of aesthetics, intelligence, and
morality, all in a few brief sentences ;)
Secondly, I give a mention to computer scientist Randy Pausch, who
recently died.
As
But what is aesthetics the study of? Of beauty? That's it isn't it?
But how can something as plastic as beauty have any kind of terminal
value that you and I can both share? Do aesthetic terminal values
decide where something fits into aesthetic reality or something like
that? By the
2008/7/29 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Point (1) there is a clear evolution to the universe. It started from
a low-entropy-density state, and is moving towards a higher-entropy
density, which, remarkably, just happens to coincide with an increase
in physical complexity with time. In the beginning the
Marc,
I would agree with you that aesthetics is an important driving
principle, and the top scientist _do_ recognize this (see for instance
many quotes by Albert Einstein in this direction).
Also, you should have a look at Nietzsche - science and the aesthetic
pervade his work!
Cheers,
Marc,
your (long) post gave me a feeling of having returned into my childhood.
Back to the reductionist figments of the model view 'physical world' and
'conventional sciences'.
I should interjet a lot into your long text, in view of a 'totality-view'
(not yet adaquately formulated) - I choose to
26 matches
Mail list logo
