Re: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality

2012-11-15 Thread Roger Clough
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: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality

2012-11-06 Thread Roger Clough
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: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality

2012-11-05 Thread Roger Clough
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

2012-11-05 Thread Roger Clough
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: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality

2012-11-05 Thread Roger Clough
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: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality

2012-11-04 Thread Roger Clough
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.