Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Evgenii Rudnyi
Nov 3, 2012, 3:01:41 PM11/3/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Some more quotes from Bas C Van Fraassen Scientific Representation:
Paradoxes of Perspective. This time on what Weyl has said on isomorphism
between mathematics and reality.
p. 208 "Herman Weyl expressed the fundamental insight as follows in 1934:
'A science can never determine its subject-matter expect up to
isomorphic representation. The idea of isomorphism indicates the
self-understood, insurmountable barrier of knowledge. [...T]oward the
"nature" of its objects science maintains complete indifference.' (Weyl
1934:19)
The initial assertion is clearly based on two basic convictions:
o that scientific representation is mathematical, and
o that in mathematics no distinction cuts across structural sameness."
p. 209 "Weyl illustrates this with the example of a color space and an
isomorphic geometric object. ... The color space is a region on the
projective plane. If we can nevertheless distinguish the one from the
other, or from other attribute spaces with that structure, doesn't that
mean that we can know more that what science, so conceived, can deliver?
Weyl accompanies his point about this limitation with an immediate
characterization of the 'something else' which is then left un-represented.
'This - for example what distinguish the colors from the point of the
projective plane - one can only know in immediate alive intuition.' (Ibid.)"
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?"
Evgenii
--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/tag/bas-c-van-fraassen
Paradoxes of Perspective. This time on what Weyl has said on isomorphism
between mathematics and reality.
p. 208 "Herman Weyl expressed the fundamental insight as follows in 1934:
'A science can never determine its subject-matter expect up to
isomorphic representation. The idea of isomorphism indicates the
self-understood, insurmountable barrier of knowledge. [...T]oward the
"nature" of its objects science maintains complete indifference.' (Weyl
1934:19)
The initial assertion is clearly based on two basic convictions:
o that scientific representation is mathematical, and
o that in mathematics no distinction cuts across structural sameness."
p. 209 "Weyl illustrates this with the example of a color space and an
isomorphic geometric object. ... The color space is a region on the
projective plane. If we can nevertheless distinguish the one from the
other, or from other attribute spaces with that structure, doesn't that
mean that we can know more that what science, so conceived, can deliver?
Weyl accompanies his point about this limitation with an immediate
characterization of the 'something else' which is then left un-represented.
'This - for example what distinguish the colors from the point of the
projective plane - one can only know in immediate alive intuition.' (Ibid.)"
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?"
Evgenii
--
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/tag/bas-c-van-fraassen
Craig Weinberg
Nov 3, 2012, 7:44:34 PM11/3/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Nice. I was just writing about mathematics and use of symbols: http://s33light.org/post/34935613677
Craig
Craig
Alberto G. Corona
Nov 3, 2012, 7:47:00 PM11/3/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
: 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 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
Alberto.
meekerdb
Nov 3, 2012, 9:58:19 PM11/3/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
we know.
Brent
meekerdb
Nov 3, 2012, 10:28:12 PM11/3/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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.
Evgenii Rudnyi
Nov 4, 2012, 2:12:06 AM11/4/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 04.11.2012 02:58 meekerdb said the following:
>> 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?
Evgenii
> 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
>
Evgenii
Evgenii Rudnyi
Nov 4, 2012, 2:18:31 AM11/4/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 04.11.2012 00:47 Alberto G. Corona said the following:
the whole reality. Let us say that this model is before you as some
computer implementation. The problem of coordination still remains. To
use this model, you need to find out its particular part and relate it
with reality. The model of the whole reality does not do it by itself.
Evgenii
>>
>> : 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 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.
>
Let us imagine that we have a mathematical model that isomorphic with
>> : 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 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 whole reality. Let us say that this model is before you as some
computer implementation. The problem of coordination still remains. To
use this model, you need to find out its particular part and relate it
with reality. The model of the whole reality does not do it by itself.
Evgenii
Richard Ruquist
Nov 4, 2012, 2:37:11 AM11/4/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
the most part string theory has not been verified/falsified
experimentally. Richard
>
> Evgenii
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
Roger Clough
Nov 4, 2012, 7:24:50 AM11/4/12
to everything-list
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, rcl...@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.
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, rcl...@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?"
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.
Roger Clough
Nov 4, 2012, 7:36:59 AM11/4/12
to everything-list
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi
Weyl makes complicated what is ultimately simple--
reality, which is subjective, which is experiencing,
which is now. Which is focussing your attention
on your breath going out and coming in. This is what
yoga teaches. Weyl does best we he touches on color.
Reality is knowledge by acquaintance. The best that science
can give us is knowledge by description. But that is
just words, code, and words are not reality. The
only reality is in experiencing, such as experiencing
your breathing.
Kierkegard said it much better than Weyl, when he
stated that truth is subjective.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/4/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Evgenii Rudnyi
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 14:01:41
Subject: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
Weyl makes complicated what is ultimately simple--
reality, which is subjective, which is experiencing,
which is now. Which is focussing your attention
on your breath going out and coming in. This is what
yoga teaches. Weyl does best we he touches on color.
Reality is knowledge by acquaintance. The best that science
can give us is knowledge by description. But that is
just words, code, and words are not reality. The
only reality is in experiencing, such as experiencing
your breathing.
Kierkegard said it much better than Weyl, when he
stated that truth is subjective.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/4/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 14:01:41
Subject: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
Richard Ruquist
Nov 4, 2012, 7:45:21 AM11/4/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Roger,
Is God part of your reality and if so how do you experience God, or is
god just a theory.?
For me god is described by a theory.
Richard
Is God part of your reality and if so how do you experience God, or is
god just a theory.?
For me god is described by a theory.
Richard
Evgenii Rudnyi
Nov 4, 2012, 8:18:56 AM11/4/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 04.11.2012 08:37 Richard Ruquist said the following:
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."
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."
Richard Ruquist
Nov 4, 2012, 9:42:29 AM11/4/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
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."
>
meekerdb
Nov 4, 2012, 3:58:07 PM11/4/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
make GR and QM compatible,...
Brent
meekerdb
Nov 4, 2012, 4:03:50 PM11/4/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
is a model that one created or someone else created and the correspondence with whatever
is modeled is part of the creation of the model. If you were simply presented with a model
of all reality and you didn't know who created this model so that you could ask them how
it corresponded to the thing modeled then you would be just like a scientist faced with
nature and you would proceed by creating a model of the model in terms you understood.
Brent
Roger Clough
Nov 5, 2012, 10:21:14 AM11/5/12
to everything-list
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, rcl...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
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
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, rcl...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Richard Ruquist
----- Receiving the following content -----
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
Roger Clough
Nov 5, 2012, 2:03:59 PM11/5/12
to everything-list
Hi meekerdb
Love is a qualia and science cannot touch qualia.
Roger Clough, rcl...@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
Love is a qualia and science cannot touch qualia.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-03, 21:28:12
Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
Evgenii Rudnyi
Nov 5, 2012, 2:24:21 PM11/5/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 05.11.2012 16:21 Roger Clough said the following:
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
> 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
>
> Engineering advantages ? A decade before the Wright brothers flew
> their airplane, people would have said, "You're going to do WHAT ?"
>
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
Evgenii Rudnyi
Nov 5, 2012, 2:32:30 PM11/5/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 04.11.2012 22:03 meekerdb said the following:
What you say about a historical development is exactly what Van Fraassen
offers as a part of a solution to the coordination problem.
Yet, even after the theory has been developed (let us imagine that the
science has included in its model the dark energy, the dark matter and
have found a way to make GR and QM compatible), one needs to take a
decision what a particular part of the theory is necessary to drive a
particular innovation. Even a complete scientific theory will not do it
by itself. In this sense, it will be still incomplete.
Evgenii
offers as a part of a solution to the coordination problem.
Yet, even after the theory has been developed (let us imagine that the
science has included in its model the dark energy, the dark matter and
have found a way to make GR and QM compatible), one needs to take a
decision what a particular part of the theory is necessary to drive a
particular innovation. Even a complete scientific theory will not do it
by itself. In this sense, it will be still incomplete.
Evgenii
Roger Clough
Nov 5, 2012, 2:46:49 PM11/5/12
to everything-list
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, rcl...@verizon.net
11/5/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
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, rcl...@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
Receiver: everything-list
Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
meekerdb
Nov 5, 2012, 3:49:51 PM11/5/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>
> Yet, even after the theory has been developed (let us imagine that the science has
> included in its model the dark energy, the dark matter and have found a way to make GR
> and QM compatible), one needs to take a decision what a particular part of the theory is
> necessary to drive a particular innovation. Even a complete scientific theory will not
> do it by itself. In this sense, it will be still incomplete.
itself? That seems rather trivial.
Brent
Evgenii Rudnyi
Nov 5, 2012, 4:19:24 PM11/5/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 05.11.2012 21:49 meekerdb said the following:
An analogy would be using a map. One needs for example to locate oneself
in a map. This could be generalized.
Let us consider how an engineer for example uses Maxwell equations. An
engineer starts with a design. This design could be described by Maxwell
equations but one needs an engineer to suggest the design. Maxwell
equations on their own are not enough.
>
>>
>> Yet, even after the theory has been developed (let us imagine that
>> the science has included in its model the dark energy, the dark
>> matter and have found a way to make GR and QM compatible), one
>> needs to take a decision what a particular part of the theory is
>> necessary to drive a particular innovation. Even a complete
>> scientific theory will not do it by itself. In this sense, it will
>> be still incomplete.
>
> I don't understand the problem; are you simply saying the model of
> reality is not reality itself? That seems rather trivial.
In a way. A scientific model is after all a representation. And a
representation is
p. 21 �Z uses X to depict Y as F�
Hence even a complete scientific theory does not contain "Z uses". This
remains somehow outside of even a complete Theory of Everything.
In a way it is trivial, I agree. Yet, it seems for example Hawking in
his Grand Design does not agree with such a trivial observation.
Evgenii
in a map. This could be generalized.
Let us consider how an engineer for example uses Maxwell equations. An
engineer starts with a design. This design could be described by Maxwell
equations but one needs an engineer to suggest the design. Maxwell
equations on their own are not enough.
>
>>
>> Yet, even after the theory has been developed (let us imagine that
>> the science has included in its model the dark energy, the dark
>> matter and have found a way to make GR and QM compatible), one
>> needs to take a decision what a particular part of the theory is
>> necessary to drive a particular innovation. Even a complete
>> scientific theory will not do it by itself. In this sense, it will
>> be still incomplete.
>
> I don't understand the problem; are you simply saying the model of
> reality is not reality itself? That seems rather trivial.
representation is
p. 21 �Z uses X to depict Y as F�
Hence even a complete scientific theory does not contain "Z uses". This
remains somehow outside of even a complete Theory of Everything.
In a way it is trivial, I agree. Yet, it seems for example Hawking in
his Grand Design does not agree with such a trivial observation.
Evgenii
Stephen P. King
Nov 5, 2012, 10:04:28 PM11/5/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 11/5/2012 2:46 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> 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.
Laugh out loud! Such silly narcissistic elitism!
> 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, rcl...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
Onward!
Stephen
Bruno Marchal
Nov 6, 2012, 8:49:43 AM11/6/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 05 Nov 2012, at 20:03, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi meekerdb
>
> Love is a qualia and science cannot touch qualia.
why qualia are not scientific or communicable. they still remain real
phenomena on which science can say something, even if negative.
Bruno
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com
> .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
Bruno Marchal
Nov 6, 2012, 8:51:11 AM11/6/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
arithmetical statement. So string theory has already lead to
innovation in number theory. For physics, we will see.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Roger Clough
Nov 6, 2012, 9:44:10 AM11/6/12
to everything-list
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, rcl...@verizon.net
11/6/2012
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 08:49:43
My understanding is that qualia are subjective or 1-view,
while the realm of science is completely objective (3-view).
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/6/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
----- Receiving the following content -----
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-06, 08:49:43
Stephen P. King
Nov 6, 2012, 11:18:16 AM11/6/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 11/6/2012 9:44 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> My understanding is that qualia are subjective or 1-view,
> while the realm of science is completely objective (3-view).
Science 'traces' out the observer and wonders why it cannot understand
> My understanding is that qualia are subjective or 1-view,
> while the realm of science is completely objective (3-view).
the observer! LOL!
--
Onward!
Stephen
Bruno Marchal
Nov 7, 2012, 9:22:18 AM11/7/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
Hi Roger Clough,
> My understanding is that qualia are subjective or 1-view,
> while the realm of science is completely objective (3-view).
feeling of seeing the color red, is subjective (1p).
But now the theory saying that a qualia is 1p, might very well be
objective.
Science cannot use subjective statements in a theory, but this does
not prevent a theory to make statements on subjectivity.
If not, you would make a confusion between a level and a meta-level.
We can develop objective and even testable statements about
subjectivity.
For example, with comp, we can decode an 1p-dream from a brain 3p-
analysis.
This seems to have been partially tested:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-read-dreams&WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20121024
Bruno
>> li...@googlegroups.com.
Roger Clough
Nov 7, 2012, 10:36:20 AM11/7/12
to everything-list
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think that dreams are the result of the mind's (not the brain's, as
the article cited below suggests) intelligence trying to make sense of
body signals such as from muscle relaxation, etc.
In bringing up the subject of logical abduction (as well as autopoesis),
these seem to be forms of intelligence, since intelligence per se creates
something new (as I see it) out of an existing situation.
Abduction comes to a conclusion which is a prediction not
possibly arrived at by deduction.
Abduction seems to be the heart and soul of intelligence
and being intelligence, seemingly a desirable comp activity.
In other words, comp as a form of artificial intelligence.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/7/2012
I think that dreams are the result of the mind's (not the brain's, as
the article cited below suggests) intelligence trying to make sense of
body signals such as from muscle relaxation, etc.
In bringing up the subject of logical abduction (as well as autopoesis),
these seem to be forms of intelligence, since intelligence per se creates
something new (as I see it) out of an existing situation.
Abduction comes to a conclusion which is a prediction not
possibly arrived at by deduction.
Abduction seems to be the heart and soul of intelligence
and being intelligence, seemingly a desirable comp activity.
In other words, comp as a form of artificial intelligence.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
11/7/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-07, 09:22:18
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Roger Clough
Nov 15, 2012, 11:10:48 AM11/15/12
to everything-list
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], [rcl...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Evgenii RudnyiReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-04, 07:18:56
Subject: Re: Weyl on mathematics vs. reality
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Roger Clough
Nov 15, 2012, 11:42:40 AM11/15/12
to everything-list
Hi Richard Ruquist
Since all love and all truth and all beauty comes from God,
it is hard not to experience God.
[Roger Clough], [rcl...@verizon.net]
11/15/2012
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen
----- Receiving the following content -----
From: Richard RuquistReceiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-11-04, 06:45:21Subject: Re: truth and reality cannot be expressed in words, only experienced
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Evgenii Rudnyi
Nov 15, 2012, 1:55:10 PM11/15/12
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 15.11.2012 17:10 Roger Clough said the following:
my view, it is highly unlikely that the superstring theory will furnish
better numerical models for chemists.
Evgenii
> 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.
Chemists need numerical models to reduce the number of experiments. In
>
> 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.
my view, it is highly unlikely that the superstring theory will furnish
better numerical models for chemists.
Evgenii
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages