Nick,
Have you read Penrose's Emperor's New Mind, Shadows of the Mind, and
Road to Reality.
These all explore the relationship between physics, mathematics and how they
relate to / represent the mind.
Ken
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Nicholas
Lie Groups are fancy?
Simple, elegant, perhaps. Not fancy.
Ken
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Mikhail Gorelkin
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 11:02 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music
Nick -
OK . . . now that we recognize that terms like point are (should
more properly be?) left intentionally undefined in the axiomatic
systems, we can move to the next step . . .
A term like point (in an axiomatic theory) is a place where we
can make a (temporary?) connection
Nick -
Have you read Thomas Nagel's The View From Nowhere ?You
might find it amusing . . .
tom
On Jul 14, 2008, at 8:35 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
But then I want to continue to wonder (for perhaps a few more
days) what implications this might have for the concept of mind.
Tomorrow, Wednesday July 16, is an industrial strength data day at
Santa Fe Complex. We begin the discussions with a 1:00 discussion led
by Emil Eifrem titled Neo: A High-Performance Graph Database. That
will be followed by the regular blender session at 6:00, when Emil
will be joined by
All,
I just want to thank everybody for the illuminating discussions on the
foundations of mathematics over the last week. I have to admit that I have
been overwhelmed by the response and unable to make the kind of use of it that
I had hoped. When I started the Noodling project, I thought a
Hey Nick,
I'm not talking about points. I don't care about points. All I'm doing is
using the existence of a disagreement about points (you think one thing, I
think another) and our inability to resolve it to illustrate my claim that one
cannot objectively identify category errors. So identifying
I agree with Nick's concept of his own Noodle... yes... discussion
automatically into the Discussion page with someone(s)
extracting/distilling a more structured version of the topic into the
main Article page. This is pretty much how Wiki's are designed to
work, but the added concept of
There are a number of things Chaitin talks about that seem problematic to
me. But the mathematical joy remains.
Central to the disconnect for me is a series of related statements beginning
with-
A law has to be simpler than what it explains. To understand is to
compress. The laws of physics
Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote:
Why does a law have to be simpler? What is simpler? I suppose that is
the reason to be for complexity science that life appears to more
likely move from simpler to more complex.
The most powerful computers in the world can only simulate microseconds
of the many
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Ann Racuya-Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
What I like most about mathematics is the feeling of being able to hold the
whole world in my head. It is a very powerful feeling...being able to reduce
the enormous complexity and importance even power of the world
Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote:
Why does a law have to be simpler? What is simpler?
This makes the problem seem like it is technical not ontological...i.e. what
is need is greater computing power.
If one wants to think about how an organism works without
simplification, and be able to poke and prod
Here's another contribution to the benefits of social diversity literature,
from last week's nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7201/abs/nature06940.html
Social diversity promotes the emergence of cooperation in public goods
games
Francisco C. Santos, Marta D. Santos
glen e. p. ropella wrote:
Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote:
Why does a law have to be simpler?
Modeling, traditionally, consists of taking one concrete thing,
in all its particular gory detail, and studying it side-by-side with
some other concrete thing, in all its gory detail. Both things,
In the first part, you have just demonstrated Samson Abramsky's point:
This dynamic aspect, the interweaving of reasoning and action, is not
adequately catered for by the static conception of logic.
Samson Abramsky - Christopher Strachey Professor of Computing, Oxford
University (UK)
In the
Using your traditional description of modeling Modeling, traditionally,
consists of taking one concrete thing,
in all its particular gory detail, and studying it side-by-side with
some other concrete thing, in all its gory detail.
What is a concrete thing? I guess by concrete thing you do not
peter wrote:
This is the same subject that scared me regarding the comments at last
Fridays lecture at SFI Computational thinking means we do not have
to worry about what is we can target whats desired and model that
Totally Orwellian
This has been the appeal of programming to me since
Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote:
Using your traditional description of modeling Modeling,
traditionally, consists of taking one concrete thing, in all its
particular gory detail, and studying it side-by-side with some other
concrete thing, in all its gory detail. What is a concrete thing? I
guess by
glen e. p. ropella wrote:
But the trick with any compression or
encoding is that the simpler the law, the more complex the codec and
vice versa. Simple codec means complex law. Simple law means complex
codec. And a law is totally useless without its codec, the body of
knowledge that
Glen, 1) But, one has to realize that the latter me is just as real as the
former me. Probably, from a point of view of an
authentic self, a degree of such real-ness is not very significant - zero
probability - and may be ignored almost completely. I
think it is real because this authentic
Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
But
all that's really required to make it science is to declare the
mechanisms of the codec and the properties being observed. Refusing to
accept any declaration (and to my mind it is valid to call this
`simplification'), is to prefer magic.
No, it goes beyond
glen e. p. ropella wrote:
The rest of us admit that implicit and undeclarable knowledge is part of
the codec for any abstracted law.
Do you mean undeclarable in the sense of 1) It's unreasonable to expect
a one-time formal, and complete declaration from anyone, or 2) the
knowledge can't
glen e. p. ropella wrote:
But, only a few of us believe that science could be pursued by
a specified automaton.
Btw, no, I don't mean that. I mean a growing, developing automaton.
Evolving on its own accord as well as with editing by human experts.
Much more useful than a textbook!
Mikhail Gorelkin wrote:
Glen
1) But, one has to realize that the latter me is just as
real as the former me.
Probably, from a point of view of an
authentic self, a degree of such real-ness is not very significant
- zero probability - and may be ignored almost completely. I think it
is
Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
Do you mean undeclarable in the sense of 1) It's unreasonable to
expect a one-time formal, and complete declaration from anyone, or 2)
the knowledge can't be communicated or inferred or modeled, in
principle.
I largely mean (2); but I also mean (1) because in any
glen e. p. ropella wrote:
Btw, no, I don't mean [science can be pursued by a specified
automaton]. I mean a growing, developing automaton. Evolving on its
own accord as well as with editing by human experts. Much more useful
than a textbook!
The only problem with this belief is the
LORDY!
You folks do go on and on.
A humble request: *Could one of you, sort of, ...you know: Get To The
Point?*
I mean really. For *days* we've been inundated with vague postulations
about math, music, ABMs, biomimicry (whatever that is) complexity (whatever
*that* is) compression, fidelity
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 05:31:11PM -0600, Peter Lissaman wrote:
Thirty years of brilliant orbital mechanics in the space programs have
proven a solid validation of Newtonian Calculus. And, Yes, Virginia, there
is a Saint Isaac, and those simple laws hold here, on the moon and
everywhere
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:03:21AM -0600, Ann Racuya-Robbins wrote:
There are a number of things Chaitin talks about that seem problematic to
me. But the mathematical joy remains.
Central to the disconnect for me is a series of related statements beginning
with-
A law has to be simpler
Robert,
Sorry if I am being otiose here, but I am genuinely confused.
Everything I read leads me to the belief that IF one can prove an absurdity
from a set of assumptions,then something about the set must be wrong.So the
procedure is to assume the truth of a suspect proposition and
This could be pretty interesting. Lisa wrote Warped Passages, a
recent pop-physics book that has been pretty well received. I've
beamed into a few of her talks on the web and enjoyed them as well.
-- Owen
Begin forwarded message:
From: Della Ulibarri [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: July
Glen,
Here I am, going on vacation, and you serve me up this marvelous
opportunity to spurn my packing and go on a behaviorist rant. OUCH!
Unfair tactic.
Instead, let me just try to connect this discussion to the tussle Robert
and I are having. I would say that the following passage
Ascent Solar Technologies, Inc., Littleton, CO, now making rolls of 9.5%
efficiency CIGS solar cells on plastic -- ready for roofs: Rich Murray
2008.07.15
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS207675+30-Jun-2008+BW20080630
US Air Force Awards Ascent Solar High Efficiency Solar Cell
33 matches
Mail list logo
