Hi Neil - good to see you back - Geometry
einseele
linguist for Spanish and Portuguese.
Even so, language has something in common with Maths.
May be there are other points to discuss, but my intention today is to
say that the part they share the most is something which clearly shows
the difference between discrete elements and a continuum.
In language there are forms which can only be considered as discrete
units, they mean nothing and their only mission is to differentiate
from each other. Each of this forms is unique, and it has an unique
position within a chain, an address. That chain is conventional.
And there is also a continuum which is the space of meanings,
whatever this means.
Like in "Romeo and Juliet" we understand? their love regardless the
letters R O M E and etc.
Back to Math this represents the same relationship that exists between
Geometry and Arithmetic.
IMO the World/Nature does not use numbers but forms, so somehow can be
said that Math can only base on Geometry.
Numbers are to Math, like information to Language.
Math and Language can only base on forms, that is what they have in
common, IMHO of course
Sam Carana
I always like to explore similarities and differences between maths
and language. I love your idea of form (geometry) as a more likely
basis of maths than arithmetic.
However, let's be careful not to fall into Socrates/Plato type of
assumptions of native knowledge. The square of the hypotenuse might
equal the sum of the squares of the other two sides of a right-angled
triangle, but that only works within a context that is artificial in
the first place. After all, in nature something may have a certain
length at a given moment, but the next moment the temperature will be
different, resulting in expansion or contraction of the material on
which the triangle was drawn, etc. Yes, such expansion may take place
over the entire triangle, but not exactly the same in each part.
Anyway, my point is that scientific analysis may, by taking something
in isolation, take things out of context.
Let me get back to language, to show what I mean. I sometimes think
that the meaning words is formed more through relations in the brain,
rather than that meaning existed inherent in the word. Observations
are stored in our brain and the links between observations, as stored
in our mind, determine their meaning, rather than that meaning was
inherent in words.
Applying that idea to maths, the value of a number would be determined
by its place within a sequence of numbers, i.e. its value being
relative to the other numbers, allowing one to zoom in and out,
magnifying the sequence, while remaining the relationship between
numbers.
Again, let me go back to language, to show what I mean. Language is
often seen as based in words that are part of verbal language (audio).
However, as you say, it makes sense to use form (video) as the basis
of meaning. Form is part of our visual perception. We recognize things
visually, because their form remains the same, as we approach it (zoom
in and out).
Thus, it makes sense to argue that much of the meaning of words is
founded in forms, as part of visual perception, even though many
linguists have traditionally regarded most languages to be more
audio-based. Indeed, for centuries teachers have used the institute of
school to remove many visual parts of language (such as gestures and
body-language), as if only the audio was important, then further
stripping language even of intonation and other life, to end up with
written words, as if words in isolation constituted the perfection of
language. As a result, children all over the world have spent much
time translating written words from one language into the other, while
in the process losing their very ability to speak. Indeed, school may
seem a great way to preach religion, but it's not necessarily the best
way to prepare children for life.
Interestingly, there's also something like form in the audio part of
perception and, as I said, it comes down again to relationships.
Volume is something that is perceived relatively, i.e. a single sound
becomes loud after silence, while a similar sound could be perceived
as soft when accompanied by louder sounds. Pitch is more relative than
absolute, i.e. relationship forms the sound, rather than the
instrument.
In conclusion, science all to often takes something in isolation, when
studying a phenomenon. Their research then looks at the instrument
only, to conclude that the instrument formed the sound, while in
reality, sound is each time formed in a different context making the
instrument sound differently every time, and is primarily formed by
the player of the instrument, rather than by the instrument on its
own, which conclusion makes a mockery of many research findings that
did strip people out of the picture in an effort to focus on objects
only.
I encourage scientists to include more context in their work. Not only
would this make more people gain interest in their findings and
conclusions, it would also enrich their research method itself, which
is all too often analytic only.
Where a research team finds it difficult to look at wider impacts and
importance of things, it could try and include members who are more
inclined to use such perspectives (I'm making a pitch for
epistemologists here).
Anyway, here's an example of a group of scientists who do make an
effort to step out of the box and reach people who typically don't
read scientific papers. It's a rap video by Australian scientists,
called:
I'm A Climate Scientist, at:
http://sustainable.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979327535
Please do have a look!
Cheers!
Sam Carana
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group.
> To post to this group, send email to episte...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
>
>
archytas
Not much time just now, but enough to say I agree we need to spend
more time on context and ideas! I'm off for a look at Sam's link and
then to bed. A current interest is fear in argument.
archytas
Sam Carana
Cheers!
Sam Carana
archytas
approximation (like approximating the area of a circle with
triangles). When I see an argument I don't generally find myself
going to summary; it always seems to expand (though I do 'summarise' a
lot to 'bolloxs' or 'taken as already read'). The cop left in me
still separates 'evidence' from 'piss and wind'. A few years back,
watching news of the Soham killings (of two young girls), I found
myself 'alarmed' when the killer's girlfriend came on. She seemed
just a concerned person who had known the kids at first, but then I
started to feel something wrong (the killer, Huntley was not known
then). What I felt was that she was doing was using her work as a
teaching assistant with the girls to impress 'me' that she had cared
so much about them. To the cop in me, this was 'sign' of psychopath
behaviour - I can explain why, but it would take ages. The actual
investigation was a total cock-up to that time, before some serious
detectives moved in. This was very much my reaction before hindsight.
Now, I could be telling this story now to impress on my 'cop
ability'. Even saying this could just be some sort of 'deferral
ploy'. We are complex shits at times! I was right, but this isn't
the point either. The occasion of a moment like this is hugely
complex. And it's not just an occasion of hunch, or even recognition
of micro-expressions or whatever. Or about playing detective.
'Sam's video' above strikes a chord in me. Nearly all I hear on
climate problems has nothing to do with them - it's mostly just media
dorkism. Our 'arguments' need to be understood in terms of what they
'may really address'. Years ago, I bought an academic book called
'Audiences' hoping it would 'address' this - it didn't and was just
dross.
Hard to get anywhere near what I mean at the moment. I like Francis
Bacon's 'Idols'. Try reading him - it's bloody awful and I can barely
cope. There are around 11 idols to be found over 4 texts - and 4 of
the Idols are really significant. I find something like them in
Berkeley and Wittgenstein. Most of all this writing may as well be
dark energy.
Now, I'm not talking about being able to 'read sign' about character
or truth like every fuckwit and her dog pretend they can just before
the bastard shafts them or as they become Captain Hindsight explaining
how they knew. It's not psychology.
This won't help directly either. What is the geometry of argument?
How does it form hubs? As argument algorithms produce hubs of control
can we identify them? Blather I know, yet we now have an algorithm
that can work out control in complex systems - potentially ending
'economics'.
http://barabasilab.neu.edu/projects/controllability/ is about such an
algorithm - reported in Nature May 12th 2011 (there's a google gadget
for Nature).
I'm not making linear sense - yet we could see my reaction to the
killer's munter as a node address, Bacon's Idols as nodes - and maybe
on to my interests about nodes of fear and other matters 'hidden'
hyper-addressed in argument. From psychology to lingustic forms
revealed?
einseele
I was missing your writings here, I believe Sam as well.
Detectives look into special traces and the basic idea is that they
base their findings in a sort of distrust.
They need somehow to distrust the sorrounding world. Otherwise they
would not get the deepness needed to undercover the crime. Your inner
cop most surely has a lot to tell us.
Scientist I believe do the same with their stuff, also researchers,
psychologists, lawyers (God save us all), writers, actors, my uncle
Rita, everybody. So...
Al this is to try a point about reading, which is not as naif as it
looks.
The question is about Nature (we have to give her a name), when
certain level of certain hormone is reached, the system decides to
trigger certain action. That action has nothing to do with the hormone
itself, which is the "chemical messenger". There is a message, so
something is needed to "read" it.
And the text of that message, to me of course, can only be regarded as
a geometry question. Actually I dont believe there is a reader.
"Nature" is our own abstraction.
But then, why should be us any different. Same applies to DNA, and
Alchemy btw
The organ, the hormone and the system need to agree on the message,
and I can only imagine matching perfect "forms", no room for ideal/
concrete differences here. Perfect in this sense needs to be real.
(what a mess)
Carlos
>
> read more »
Lonnie Clay
einseele
Yes I remember our e-meeting...
The pheromone example applies of course, in fact is much better than
the hormone I gave, although goes to the same point, which to me is
the message itself.
The pheromone, or the hormone are not the message whatsoever, they
"carry", they are the physical transport, the car, the bus, the shoe,
flesh, anything, whatever.
And you said it well, to all irrelevant parties that will mean
nothing.
Why any other message should be any different, If someone writes/
speaks to me in Chinese I will be unable to read it.
Does this mean that I cannot understand the message? Of course not, I
cannot understand the transport.
So the most important point here is to get that that "transport" is
not the "message". Where is the message then...
The message can only be absent, because it will never consists of its
"transport"
Message here equals meaning, information, or if you want the part we
all understand regardless if it is carried by binary, hexadecimal,
hormone, Chinese or Braille.
Back to math all these meanings above I want to think as arithmetic,
and the transport part, these are the "languages", as geometry
Finally the hypothesis is, respectively Math and Language base on
Geometry and.... Geometry as well
I'm sorry I did not check your posts over the net, I will do that (the
I part I still distrust, but I'm involved as well, so I (again) cannot
claim anything different, 'I' is not a good reference no matter if it
is yours or mine, I never liked another "I" lover, Descartes )
regards
Carlos
>
> read more »
