Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Eric, looks 'real' good. Thx for the link. - g Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 29, 2015, at 9:19 AM, David Eric Smith wrote: > > Right. > > I thought the point was that you can have propositions that are "true" in the > sense of being consistent within the system, but not

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

You are correct. On Monday, December 28, 2015, Eric Charles wrote: > Pat said: *I've argued with Marxist's who assert craziness like "under > true communism there will be no crime". They assert such nonsense under > "rationalist" arguments that a "truly

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

On 12/29/2015 06:19 AM, David Eric Smith wrote: A book on this that I have liked is Torkel Franzen's relatively short and pleasant survey: http://www.amazon.com/G%C3%B6dels-Theorem-Incomplete-Guide-Abuse/dp/1568812388 Torkel had a great online personality. (I didn't know him in meat space.)

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

On thick & thin problems: Excerpt: I would call this a classic ‘thick’ problem, one in which an analyst needs to deal with an enormous amount of data of varying quality. Being smart is necessary but not sufficient: you also need to know lots of stuff. Link:

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Right. I thought the point was that you can have propositions that are "true" in the sense of being consistent within the system, but not provable by constructions defined within the system. But all this, too relies heavily on what you consider to constitute truth value for propositions

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Hi Eric, My undergraduate adviser wrote a book on constructive analysis. An Amazon review is quoted below. It seems like it wasn't so short or pleasant: *Foundations of Constructive Analysis* * A Brilliant Book* By Frank Cannonito - July 16, 2013 *Amazon Verified Purchase* Errett Bishop

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Nick, Good question. Before I answer, lemme introduce some terminology. With respect to this discussion about "art", I admit that what I'm really getting at is my particular take on the "mythos versus logos" issue - with my notion of "art" falling on the "mythos" side. In my notion of

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Grant, Aw. Come on. Try. I stipulate that it’s not easy. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

I've been fascinated by "paraconsistency" since I learned of it (whenever that was). And since the other tangent of the thread is about "rationality", I'll cite this page instead of the much better pages that exist: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic I've been amused by

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

I'm mainly worried that my educational session with Nick is boring everyone else. --- Pat On Monday, December 28, 2015, Nick Thompson wrote: > Grant, > > Aw. Come on. Try. I stipulate that it’s not easy. > > N > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Thanks, Nick, for the research on “thick” and “thin.” On Dec 28, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Patrick Reilly wrote: > Not my terms. > > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Pamela McCorduck wrote: > I haven’t heard the terms “thin problems” and “thick

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

P Uh, no. n Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Patrick

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Mathematics already went through this "crisis of confidence" in the latter half of the 19th century when Lobachevsky and Riemann came up with alternative, non-Euclidean, geometries. The issue that forced this new look at the soul of mathematics was, I believe, the verifiability - consistency,

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Hi Nick: In further reply, I've argued with Marxist's who assert craziness like "under true communism there will be no crime". They assert such nonsense under "rationalist" arguments that a "truly fulfilled person", as a communist utopia must exclusively generate, would be a naturally

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Students of relativity should be happy that mathematicians pursued their interest in "unverifiable" non-Euclidean geometry. Frank Sent from my Verizon Nexus 6 4G LTE Phone (505) 670-9918 On Dec 28, 2015 1:51 AM, "Grant Holland" wrote: > Mathematics already went

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

It's a fun way to put the question, Grant, > Should physics give up its similar insistence on verification (seeking "the > truth") - and join the ranks as just another branch of abstract mathematics? (in context of your longer summary). One can almost do a meta-Popper on the relation of syntax

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

I've gotta give you that one, Frank! And fortunately you are right. After all, mathematicians make their living by selling mathematical trinkets to unsuspecting physicists for promoting their quests for TRUTH (and the American way). What I'm saying is that, since Hilbert's program,

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

On 12/28/2015 06:30 AM, David Eric Smith wrote: > A language that is not even internally consistent presumably has no hope of > having an empirically valid semantics, since evidently the universe "is" > something, and there is no semantic notion of ambiguity of its > "being/not-being" some

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Glen, I thought I knew the difference, but maybe I don't . I thought of rationalism as a form of idealism in which the a priori categories have to do with reason. Perhaps see ... http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/ This conversation is starting to distress

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

FWIW, I'm very interested in your responses, being an ex-libertarian with both marxist and observationalist friends. On Dec 28, 2015 1:35 PM, "Patrick Reilly" wrote: > > I'm mainly worried that my educational session with Nick is boring everyone else.

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Well, the main point I have (unless Nick's psychoanalysis of my thinly submitted aggressiveness is the real story) is that I believe that there are thin problems and thick problems, and that solvers of thin problems are overly regarded in Silicon Valley culture. Such captains of industry think

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Oh yes, it need not be neither. It just can't be both! Grant Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 28, 2015, at 3:29 PM, Grant Holland wrote: > > Glen, Eric, > > If "reality" is complete, must not then (assuming that it is at least as > complex as arithmetic), aka Godel,

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Patrick, For the aforementioned reasons, I am probably wrong about all of this, but … Idealism is the position that the categories by which we understand reality exist prior to experience. Empiricism is the position that all knowledge of reality comes from experience. [philosophical]

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Grant, What is the implicit definition of "art" you are running with there? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

It's a bit of slippage to swap out rationalism in favor of idealism. I do it on purpose. I'm hoping others don't do it by accident. On 12/28/2015 10:29 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: Idealism is the position that the categories by which we understand reality exist prior to experience.

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Eric, I like: So here, "syntactically internally inconsistent" takes the place of Popper's "falsified", whereas "apparently syntactically internally consistent" takes the place of Popper's "not yet falsified". Trying to find a semantics for an apparently-consistent formal system takes the

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Glen, Eric, If "reality" is complete, must not then (assuming that it is at least as complex as arithmetic), aka Godel, it be also inconsistent? Grant Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 28, 2015, at 11:23 AM, glen wrote: > >> On 12/28/2015 06:30 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Pat said: *I've argued with Marxist's who assert craziness like "under true communism there will be no crime". They assert such nonsense under "rationalist" arguments that a "truly fulfilled person", as a communist utopia must exclusively generate, would be a naturally law-abiding citizen. *

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Nick, Some nebulous one, for sure. Grant Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 28, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > Grant, > > What is the implicit definition of “art” you are running with there? > > Nick > > Nicholas S. Thompson > Emeritus Professor of

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Thanks, Glen, That's an argument I hadn't heard of before. I guess I think that observationalists wouldn't be able to find their home from a party after dark, let alone discover anything new or interesting for the rest of us. No compasses. No maps. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

On Dec 28, 2015 6:51 PM, "Nick Thompson" wrote: > > I guess I think that observationalists wouldn't be able to find their home from a party after dark, let alone discover anything new or interesting for the rest of us. No compasses. No maps. Ha! Yeah, as compared to

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Thanks, Grant, I am still a bit confused, perhaps because I don’t really know how to play the “information” word game very well. In information theory, I thought communication was defined as any change in the response probabilities of the receiver that was due to the content of the

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Nick, Ok, I'll giv'er a whirl. Don't take this as a lexical definition; but rather as my own peculiar way of choosing to understand art. I see art as a form of communication that attempts to arouse or evoke information (e.g. imagery) from within the minds of audience members to the forefront

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Not my terms. On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Pamela McCorduck wrote: > I haven’t heard the terms “thin problems” and “thick problems.” Are these > yours, Patrick? They’re wonderfully intuitive: if I hadn’t heard the terms > before, I still knew what you meant. Thanks. > > As

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

G “observational-ist”? Whazzat? N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

On 12/28/2015 03:56 PM, Nick Thompson wrote: “observational-ist”? Whazzat? I tend to think of "Doubting Thomas". I associate it with a more specific version of empiricism, which can take either of 2 basic forms: 1) that all thought has to be grounded _immediately_ in observation or 2)

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

I haven’t heard the terms “thin problems” and “thick problems.” Are these yours, Patrick? They’re wonderfully intuitive: if I hadn’t heard the terms before, I still knew what you meant. Thanks. As for the techno-liberterians of Silicon Valley, it’s useless to remind them that they ride on a

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Wow, that may become a new favorite expression: "save my breath to cool my soup". Thanks for it. On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Pamela McCorduck wrote: > I haven’t heard the terms “thin problems” and “thick problems.” Are these > yours, Patrick? They’re wonderfully intuitive:

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Patrick, I just wanted to hear more about those Marxist fops. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Hi, Pamela, Cf, Clifford Geertz, thin and think description. Geertz described the practice of thick description as a way of providing cultural context and meaning that people place on actions, words, things, etc. Thick descriptions provide enough context so that a person outside the

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Did you ever hear the early communist argument that theory of the natural order tending toward entropy is a capitalist argument meant to demoralize the working class by discouraging them from working towards a better future? On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Nick Thompson

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Hi Nick: Well, I practice IP/Patent Law in Silicon Valley and I am rather frequently exposed to libertarian-drivel about how social problems can be solved by applying the principle of liberty and drowning the government. Not unusually, the proponents of these views are quite bright, contentious

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

That will be quite a trick: Bayes' theorem is named after Rev. Thomas Bayes > (/ˈbeɪz/ > ; 1701–1761), who > first[*citation needed > *] showed

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Ah Dave, You do me honor. If only I understood Peirce, better, let alone Bayes. We need Bybee (philosopher at St. Johns) to come do this for us. It does seem to me that Bayesian inference is a lot like abduction. And I had a vague notion that Peirce had read Bayes. Therefore I went to

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

I expect Nick to be prepared to argue why Pierce anticipated Bayesianism at the next meeting of FRIAM. davew On Sat, Dec 26, 2015, at 08:59 PM, Tom Johnson wrote: > Something to keep you occupied until New Years Day. >

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Hi, Patrick, Thanks for getting back to me. Wow, was that a form of libertarianism!? I would have thought the “users” were property owners who “use” the police to protect them from the anger of the poor. Anyway. One of the lessons that FRIAM has taught me over the years is to be

[FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Something to keep you occupied until New Years Day. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/ === Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism Santa Fe, NM SPJ Region 9 Director t...@jtjohnson.com

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Hi Patrick, I didn’t altogether follow you here. Can you say a bit more? N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Abs fab! But amazingly, there are fantastic young grad students doing the impossible in this field .. testing at the Planck limits. Often using the universe itself to test its own theories. One of my favorites is a stream of matter flowing towards a void in space which suggests "gravity on the

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

my comment: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/ By: Natalie Wolchover December 16, 2015 Comments (61) Physicists George Ellis (center) and Joe Silk (right) at Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich on Dec. 7. Physicists

Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

Thanks, Tom, Really quite nifty. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam