But surely Professor Thompson... (re Wolfram)

[Joshua Thorp]

Maybe this is because it is a "_new_ kind of science" and the proper
methodology is still being worked out.  The beginning of science is an
acknowledgment of ignorance.  I believe that we need a proper
understanding of how to work with new models and theories in a
constructive,  repeatable,  predictive, "scientific" manner so that we
can better explore how the world works.  This is what the 'hard
sciences' have all been about--but have become increasingly harder as
we embrace more squishy topics.

We are stuck in the local minima of post-modernism and have yet to bust
our way out.  Just because there is a problem,  and a complicated one
at that,  doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and say it is all
useless.  It seems to me that this is the essential problem we are
facing in complexity,  we know that the world is more complicated than
Newton's laws predict.  We fear that there are limits to what can be
known.  (Perhaps the end of science would be ignorance of ignorance
itself?)  We have the uncertainty principle,  we have the
incompleteness theorem from Godel,  we all have bounded rationality.  
"Survival of the fittest"/evolution is part of the puzzle of life.  But
that there is more to life than simple reproduction,  consumption and
death is clear.  Isn't one of the standard arguments against evolution,
  just how mathematically unlikely all of this order in life is?  That
we have all of this in such a short time?  Where does order come from
if chaos is so easy to achieve?  If disorder is the natural course of
systems then where do patterns come from?  Etc.

Ultimately the world can be modeled to any precision but will still
remain a model--  will still not be reality.  However we should embrace
this not run from it.  What can be learned from different levels of
description?   Newton's laws certainly have a predictive power,  a
descriptive power.  They explain the rules by which nature works.  And
they are wrong.

Wrong,  but an important step in understanding the world.  And within
certain parameters (speed,  mass,  energy,  environment,  material
composition,  margin of error desired, ...) perfectly useful.

Our theories are built of entities and rules.  From these we can find
dynamics that are expressive of properties of observed reality.  But we
can observe the world and note that beyond certain thresholds of size
or error every theory we have come up with so far has broken down.  
This hasn't stopped cosmologists from exploring reality using theory.  
I do not see why it should stop anyone honestly trying to understand
the world.

So the criticism that "yeah, that looks right" is well taken.  I think
just as observations of the real properties of light and gravitational
fields lead us to say that Newton's work doesn't look right,  so too,
we should be willing to embrace where our models do not look right.  
And we should work toward using the old scientific method to turn this
"new _kinda_ science" into a true kind of science.  We need to be able
to say for what good are these models.  For what regimes do these
models give us useful information.  How do these models further our
exploration of reality.  Where do they reveal our misunderstandings?  
This is science.  Saying we have answered something-- this should be
suspect,  surely.  Of course if we didn't allow ourselves a little
false pride how could we get up in the morning?

As a disclaimer I am not really talking about Wolfram's particular work
here as I haven't really looked at it very deeply but I think it is of
a piece of what has been referred to as "Complexity Science".   Just
under his own catchy trademark.  If some one were to practice a new
kinda science would they have to pay Wolfram for the right?

Just asking,

--Joshua


On Dec 9, 2004, at 9:44 PM, Robert Holmes wrote:

> ?one of the problems with Wolfram-math is it over-privileges the role
> of metaphor. Yes metaphor is important in the development of theories
> (and so are dreams and experience and funding and blind good fortune)
> but it is not a whole load of use in evaluating - and hence ultimately
> accepting or rejecting - those theories.
>
> If I want to see just how good Newton's laws are at describing the
> motion of planetary bodies, I take lots of astronomical measurements
> as accurately as I can and then I compare my predictions with my
> measurements.? What I don't do is look up into the night sky and say
> "yeah, that looks about right". Which - unfortunately - is pretty much
> the extent of confirmation that is sought in much of the 'new'
> science.
>
> Robert
>
> Dr. Robert Holmes
>  ?
>  PO Box 2862, Santa Fe, NM 87504
>  mobile: [phone]
>  web: www.holmesacosta.com
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> http://www.friam.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 5493 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20041209/01785825/attachment.bin

[Joshua Thorp]

What I Meant to Say...

Metaphor ultimately is all we have to work with in describing reality.  
Instead of wringing our hands at the impossibility of it all, we should  
be working on the proper methodology that will allow us to properly and  
carefully use metaphor (i.e. models).  This methodology must keep us  
from blinding ourselves with conviction that we have figured it all  
out.  Allow us to use models to communicate our understanding of the  
world to one another and from which we can compare observed dynamics of  
the world to describe where we have it wrong and where we have it  
right.  I particularly like the use of Newton because we learn his  
physics first,  and all along we are given the disclaimer that this  
isn't how the world really works but that it suffices at particular a  
level of description of the world.

--Joshua



On Dec 9, 2004, at 11:03 PM, Joshua Thorp wrote:

> Maybe this is because it is a "_new_ kind of science" and the proper  
> methodology is still being worked out.  The beginning of science is an  
> acknowledgment of ignorance.  I believe that we need a proper  
> understanding of how to work with new models and theories in a  
> constructive,  repeatable,  predictive, "scientific" manner so that we  
> can better explore how the world works.  This is what the 'hard  
> sciences' have all been about--but have become increasingly harder as  
> we embrace more squishy topics.
>
> We are stuck in the local minima of post-modernism and have yet to  
> bust our way out.  Just because there is a problem,  and a complicated  
> one at that,  doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and say it is  
> all useless.  It seems to me that this is the essential problem we are  
> facing in complexity,  we know that the world is more complicated than  
> Newton's laws predict.  We fear that there are limits to what can be  
> known.  (Perhaps the end of science would be ignorance of ignorance  
> itself?)  We have the uncertainty principle,  we have the  
> incompleteness theorem from Godel,  we all have bounded rationality.  
> "Survival of the fittest"/evolution is part of the puzzle of life.  
> But that there is more to life than simple reproduction,  consumption  
> and death is clear.  Isn't one of the standard arguments against  
> evolution,  just how mathematically unlikely all of this order in life  
> is?  That we have all of this in such a short time?  Where does order  
> come from if chaos is so easy to achieve?  If disorder is the natural  
> course of systems then where do patterns come from?  Etc.
>
> Ultimately the world can be modeled to any precision but will still  
> remain a model--  will still not be reality.  However we should  
> embrace this not run from it.  What can be learned from different  
> levels of description?   Newton's laws certainly have a predictive  
> power,  a descriptive power.  They explain the rules by which nature  
> works.  And they are wrong.
>
> Wrong,  but an important step in understanding the world.  And within  
> certain parameters (speed,  mass,  energy,  environment,  material  
> composition,  margin of error desired, ...) perfectly useful.
>
> Our theories are built of entities and rules.  From these we can find  
> dynamics that are expressive of properties of observed reality.  But  
> we can observe the world and note that beyond certain thresholds of  
> size or error every theory we have come up with so far has broken  
> down.  This hasn't stopped cosmologists from exploring reality using  
> theory.  I do not see why it should stop anyone honestly trying to  
> understand the world.
>
> So the criticism that "yeah, that looks right" is well taken.  I think  
> just as observations of the real properties of light and gravitational  
> fields lead us to say that Newton's work doesn't look right,  so too,  
> we should be willing to embrace where our models do not look right.  
> And we should work toward using the old scientific method to turn this  
> "new _kinda_ science" into a true kind of science.  We need to be able  
> to say for what good are these models.  For what regimes do these  
> models give us useful information.  How do these models further our  
> exploration of reality.  Where do they reveal our misunderstandings?  
> This is science.  Saying we have answered something-- this should be  
> suspect,  surely.  Of course if we didn't allow ourselves a little  
> false pride how could we get up in the morning?
>
> As a disclaimer I am not really talking about Wolfram's particular  
> work here as I haven't really looked at it very deeply but I think it  
> is of a piece of what has been referred to as "Complexity Science".    
> Just under his own catchy trademark.  If some one were to practice a  
> new kinda science would they have to pay Wolfram for the right?
>
> Just asking,
>
> --Joshua
>
>
> On Dec 9, 2004, at 9:44 PM, Robert Holmes wrote:
>
>> ?one of the problems with Wolfram-math is it over-privileges the role  
>> of metaphor. Yes metaphor is important in the development of theories  
>> (and so are dreams and experience and funding and blind good fortune)  
>> but it is not a whole load of use in evaluating - and hence  
>> ultimately accepting or rejecting - those theories.
>>
>> If I want to see just how good Newton's laws are at describing the  
>> motion of planetary bodies, I take lots of astronomical measurements  
>> as accurately as I can and then I compare my predictions with my  
>> measurements.? What I don't do is look up into the night sky and say  
>> "yeah, that looks about right". Which - unfortunately - is pretty  
>> much the extent of confirmation that is sought in much of the 'new'  
>> science.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> Dr. Robert Holmes
>>  ?
>>  PO Box 2862, Santa Fe, NM 87504
>>  mobile: [phone]
>>  web: www.holmesacosta.com
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
>> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
>> http://
>> www.friam.org=========================================================
>> ===
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
> Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
> http://www.friam.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 6607 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20041209/24a4f9be/attachment-0001.bin