Friam

Oh my gawd...

Classic

List

Threaded

25 messages Options

Nick Thompson

Re: Epistemological Maunderings

Apologies all around. This was meant for Steve alone. I REALLY REALLY don’t want to do this stuff anymore. I apologize particularly to the group at large.

All the best to everybody,

Over and out,

Nick

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 10:05 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings

Robert, I detect an insinuation of dissatisfaction from somewhere. There is a disturbance in the force. But, enough of this epistemological relativism, I deduce that there probably no need to classify the source: it suffices to simply know that it is there.

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Steve,

Oh god, the trolls are out, again. My last comment “… too lazy … etc.” was a major blunder and I am about to pay for it. I keep forgetting that I am not among friends.

I have in fact spent HOURS trying to figure out the difference between metaphysics and epistemology (and ontology), without success. It’s not like I haven’t read a lot of stuff and talked to a lot of people about it, it’s just that none of it ever sticks. I get the impression that epistemology is about the possibility of knowledge … how one would ever come by it, particularly given the fact that, on almost every philosopher’s account since Descartes, all we can know about is the contents of our own minds. Also, given that induction is impossible, and, every deductive inference requires some induction along the way to get the deduction “down to the ground.”

Anyway, it gives me so little pleasure to see Doug and Robert vying for Smug Cynic Award, that I will try very hard to stay away from these things. If you have any thoughts you would like me to comment on please do send them to me directly.

All the best,

Nick

‘.

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 7:50 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings

Metaphysics being the nature of being and existence, Epistemology being the nature of knowledge. Whether emergence is Epistemological or if it is Phenomenological or Metaphysical is an interesting question and not an unsubtle one...

I think this is metaphysics, no?

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:44 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings

On Primeness...

I am mathematician by training (barely) but I don't think anyone should listen to me about mathematics unless serendipitously I happen to land on a useful or interesting (by whose measure?) mathematical conjecture (and presumably some attendant proofs as well).

That said, I've always wondered why the poets among the mathematicians didn't hit on naming the "naive" Primes (Primes+1) - Prime' (Prime prime). Perhaps there are too many mathematicians with stutters and/or tourette's that would be set off by such a construct?

Who can answer the question of why we (this particular group, or any one vaguely like it) can get so wrapped up on such a simple topic? There IS a bit of circular logic involved in defining mathematics as that which mathematicians study. Or as Robert suggests, that his definition of a mathematical construct (Prime numbers in this case) is not legitimate because he is not a mathematician.   I'd say his definition is not useful because it deals in concepts which are not mathematical in nature (in particular "attractive", "shade", "blue") which are terms of interest and relevance in aesthetics and psychophysics (both of which are known to utilize, mathematics but not vice-versa).   Numerology, on the other hand uses all three!

We seem to wander off into epistemological territory quite often without knowing it or admitting to it.   I am pretty sure a number of people here would specifically exclude epistemological discussions if they could, while others are drawn to them (self included).

While I do find discussions about the manipulation of matter (technology), and even data (information theory) and the nature of physical reality (physics) and formal logic (mathematics) quite interesting (and more often, the myriad personal and societal impacts of same), what can be more interesting (and the rest grounded in) than the study of knowledge itself?

That said, I don't know that many of us are well versed in the discourse of epistemology and therefore tend to hack at it badly when we get into that underbrush, making everyone uncomfortable. On the other hand, I'll bet we have a (large?) handful of contributors (and/or lurkers) here with a much broader and deeper understanding than I have but who perhaps recognize the futility of opening that bag of worms.

Our "core" topic of Complexity Science is fraught with epistemological questions (I believe), most particularly questions such as "whence and what emergence?" as Nick's seminars of 2+ years ago considered. I don't know if the topic was approached from the point of view of "what is the nature of knowledge?" or more specifically, "how can we define a new concept such as emergence and have it hold meaning?". In my view, "emergence" is strictly "phenomenological" as are the many (highly useful) constructs of statistical physics.

I promised a maunder here, I trust I succeeded in delivering!

Carry on!
- Steve

Actually you can't define primeness any way you want. The definition needs to be negotiated by the community of professionals who are can credibly agree on the definition.

My definition of primeness is "anything bigger than 3 and painted an attractive shade of blue". But no one listens to me. Nor should they, because I'm not a mathematician.

—R

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Grant Holland <[hidden email]> wrote:

George's observation (from Saturday) under "mathematician" pretty much captures the issue for me. One can define "primeness" any way one wants. The choice of excluding 1 has the "fun" consequence that George explains so well. Maybe including "1" has other fun consequences. If so, then give that definition a name ("prime" is already taken) , and see where it leads. You can make this stuff up any way you want, folks. Just follow the consequences. Some of these consequences provide analogies that physicists can use. Some don't. No matter. We just wanna have fun!

Grant

On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote:

Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a

mathematician

it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.

statistician

do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view usage says 1 is not prime

artist

try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime. I didn't see any.

Cheers, Duncan

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:
I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.

PMcC

On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote:
Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:

"Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"

That's how I remember.

Mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
George Duncan
georgeduncanart.com
<a href="tel:%28505%29%20983-6895" target="_blank">(505) 983-6895
Represented by ViVO Contemporary
725 Canyon Road
Santa Fe, NM 87501

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Marcos

Re: Oh my gawd...

In reply to this post by Robert J. Cordingley

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Robert J. Cordingley
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Shouldn't theorems be independent of arbitrary decisions regarding what is
> or is not a prime number? Otherwise I'll have to believe that
> mathematicians are just making up stuff.

Of course its all "made up". What do you think an axiom is?

I'm being a bit cynical, but the various arbitrary starting points
from which all theorems derive are the end-products of a
millennia-long "natural selection" process. Even the concept of
"number" could, in theory, be totally re-written, but at this point,
it would be mostly a pointless act of rebellion.

If you want a great read on the subject, see Gregory Chaitin.

mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: Epistemological Maunderings

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

>Logorrhea (psychology), a communication disorder resulting in incoherent talkativeness

I picked at this one deliberately. (Apologies to Nick for accidentally suckering him into the ReplyAll vs Reply error we all make from time to time. I will take his appeal to discuss the details offline.)

It started with the discussion of "what means prime?".   While I'm too familiar with what often feels to be pathological logorrhea, I'm also familiar with attempts to discuss topics without an existing (or consistent or apt or sufficient) frame of reference.

Scientists rarely argue with religious zealots while religious zealots are eager to argue with scientists. The argument breaks down (or never starts) because the two groups are not really talking about the same thing and apparently only one side understands that.   It is my assertion that a lot of discussions that are presumed to be about technology, physical science, or even mathematics have a similar problem. Robert Holmes tried to caste some light on how it might get decided "what means Prime?"

In direct response to Doug's (rhetorical but pointed) question, "talk incessantly about it rather than doing it?": A great deal of the work of philosophy (including natural philosophy) is sorting out the questions before attempting to answer them.   Sorting out the *nature* of the questions *is* the work to be done and in some sense talking (incessantly) about it is the only way to do it. In physics and engineering, asking the right question is paramount.

Plenty of folks spent huge amounts of time and energy trying to niggle out the nature of Phlogiston or Aether or the Epicycles that the planets *must* be following before someone had the temerity to consider the possibility that they were asking the wrong questions, though those very questions were more apt than the ones being asked before them.

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just out of idle curiosity, what's the '...ysics' or '...ology' word for 'prefers to talk (incessantly) about it rather than doing it?'
Unless, of course, that is an unsuitable question. The question emerged, unbidden, you see...
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Metaphysics being the nature of being and existence, Epistemology being the nature of knowledge. Whether emergence is Epistemological or if it is Phenomenological or Metaphysical is an interesting question and not an unsubtle one...
I think this is metaphysics, no?

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:44 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings

On Primeness...

I am mathematician by training (barely) but I don't think anyone should listen to me about mathematics unless serendipitously I happen to land on a useful or interesting (by whose measure?) mathematical conjecture (and presumably some attendant proofs as well).

That said, I've always wondered why the poets among the mathematicians didn't hit on naming the "naive" Primes (Primes+1) - Prime' (Prime prime). Perhaps there are too many mathematicians with stutters and/or tourette's that would be set off by such a construct?

Who can answer the question of why we (this particular group, or any one vaguely like it) can get so wrapped up on such a simple topic? There IS a bit of circular logic involved in defining mathematics as that which mathematicians study. Or as Robert suggests, that his definition of a mathematical construct (Prime numbers in this case) is not legitimate because he is not a mathematician.   I'd say his definition is not useful because it deals in concepts which are not mathematical in nature (in particular "attractive", "shade", "blue") which are terms of interest and relevance in aesthetics and psychophysics (both of which are known to utilize, mathematics but not vice-versa).   Numerology, on the other hand uses all three!

We seem to wander off into epistemological territory quite often without knowing it or admitting to it.   I am pretty sure a number of people here would specifically exclude epistemological discussions if they could, while others are drawn to them (self included).

While I do find discussions about the manipulation of matter (technology), and even data (information theory) and the nature of physical reality (physics) and formal logic (mathematics) quite interesting (and more often, the myriad personal and societal impacts of same), what can be more interesting (and the rest grounded in) than the study of knowledge itself?

That said, I don't know that many of us are well versed in the discourse of epistemology and therefore tend to hack at it badly when we get into that underbrush, making everyone uncomfortable. On the other hand, I'll bet we have a (large?) handful of contributors (and/or lurkers) here with a much broader and deeper understanding than I have but who perhaps recognize the futility of opening that bag of worms.

Our "core" topic of Complexity Science is fraught with epistemological questions (I believe), most particularly questions such as "whence and what emergence?" as Nick's seminars of 2+ years ago considered. I don't know if the topic was approached from the point of view of "what is the nature of knowledge?" or more specifically, "how can we define a new concept such as emergence and have it hold meaning?". In my view, "emergence" is strictly "phenomenological" as are the many (highly useful) constructs of statistical physics.

I promised a maunder here, I trust I succeeded in delivering!

Carry on!
- Steve

Actually you can't define primeness any way you want. The definition needs to be negotiated by the community of professionals who are can credibly agree on the definition.

My definition of primeness is "anything bigger than 3 and painted an attractive shade of blue". But no one listens to me. Nor should they, because I'm not a mathematician.

—R
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Grant Holland <[hidden email]> wrote:
George's observation (from Saturday) under "mathematician" pretty much captures the issue for me. One can define "primeness" any way one wants. The choice of excluding 1 has the "fun" consequence that George explains so well. Maybe including "1" has other fun consequences. If so, then give that definition a name ("prime" is already taken) , and see where it leads. You can make this stuff up any way you want, folks. Just follow the consequences. Some of these consequences provide analogies that physicists can use. Some don't. No matter. We just wanna have fun!

Grant

On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote:
Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a

mathematician

it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.

statistician

do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view usage says 1 is not prime

artist

try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime. I didn't see any.

Cheers, Duncan

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.

PMcC

On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:

"Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"

That's how I remember.

Mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--

George Duncan
georgeduncanart.com

<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:%28505%29%20983-6895" target="_blank">(505) 983-6895
Represented by ViVO Contemporary

725 Canyon Road

Santa Fe, NM 87501

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Epistemological Maunderings

I'm afraid I became permanently biased against the "philosophy of philosophysing" during one particular infinite-duration 45-minute philosophy undergrad class that I once had ill-advisedly enrolled in to satisfy a humanities undergrad requirement.

During that 45 minutes in Hell, a self-satisfied, pompous, self-important twit of a a philosophy professor beat the "If a tree falls in the forest yada yada" chestnut into a bloody, distasteful pulp. Repeatedly.

Further, my repeated cycling in and out of the university environment and into the actual work force as a student engineer over the 8 year period that I took to get my bachelor's degree only had the effect of reinforcing my already somewhat strong distaste for "talkers", versus "doers".

Those who can, do, those who can't, teach: there are very good reasons that this nugget of observation has become a part of our lexicon.

--Doug

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Logorrhea (psychology), a communication disorder resulting in incoherent talkativeness

I picked at this one deliberately. (Apologies to Nick for accidentally suckering him into the ReplyAll vs Reply error we all make from time to time. I will take his appeal to discuss the details offline.)

It started with the discussion of "what means prime?".   While I'm too familiar with what often feels to be pathological logorrhea, I'm also familiar with attempts to discuss topics without an existing (or consistent or apt or sufficient) frame of reference.

Scientists rarely argue with religious zealots while religious zealots are eager to argue with scientists. The argument breaks down (or never starts) because the two groups are not really talking about the same thing and apparently only one side understands that.   It is my assertion that a lot of discussions that are presumed to be about technology, physical science, or even mathematics have a similar problem. Robert Holmes tried to caste some light on how it might get decided "what means Prime?"

In direct response to Doug's (rhetorical but pointed) question, "talk incessantly about it rather than doing it?": A great deal of the work of philosophy (including natural philosophy) is sorting out the questions before attempting to answer them.   Sorting out the *nature* of the questions *is* the work to be done and in some sense talking (incessantly) about it is the only way to do it. In physics and engineering, asking the right question is paramount.

Plenty of folks spent huge amounts of time and energy trying to niggle out the nature of Phlogiston or Aether or the Epicycles that the planets *must* be following before someone had the temerity to consider the possibility that they were asking the wrong questions, though those very questions were more apt than the ones being asked before them.
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:
Just out of idle curiosity, what's the '...ysics' or '...ology' word for 'prefers to talk (incessantly) about it rather than doing it?'
Unless, of course, that is an unsuitable question. The question emerged, unbidden, you see...
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Metaphysics being the nature of being and existence, Epistemology being the nature of knowledge. Whether emergence is Epistemological or if it is Phenomenological or Metaphysical is an interesting question and not an unsubtle one...
I think this is metaphysics, no?

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:44 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings

On Primeness...

I am mathematician by training (barely) but I don't think anyone should listen to me about mathematics unless serendipitously I happen to land on a useful or interesting (by whose measure?) mathematical conjecture (and presumably some attendant proofs as well).

That said, I've always wondered why the poets among the mathematicians didn't hit on naming the "naive" Primes (Primes+1) - Prime' (Prime prime). Perhaps there are too many mathematicians with stutters and/or tourette's that would be set off by such a construct?

Who can answer the question of why we (this particular group, or any one vaguely like it) can get so wrapped up on such a simple topic? There IS a bit of circular logic involved in defining mathematics as that which mathematicians study. Or as Robert suggests, that his definition of a mathematical construct (Prime numbers in this case) is not legitimate because he is not a mathematician.   I'd say his definition is not useful because it deals in concepts which are not mathematical in nature (in particular "attractive", "shade", "blue") which are terms of interest and relevance in aesthetics and psychophysics (both of which are known to utilize, mathematics but not vice-versa).   Numerology, on the other hand uses all three!

We seem to wander off into epistemological territory quite often without knowing it or admitting to it.   I am pretty sure a number of people here would specifically exclude epistemological discussions if they could, while others are drawn to them (self included).

While I do find discussions about the manipulation of matter (technology), and even data (information theory) and the nature of physical reality (physics) and formal logic (mathematics) quite interesting (and more often, the myriad personal and societal impacts of same), what can be more interesting (and the rest grounded in) than the study of knowledge itself?

That said, I don't know that many of us are well versed in the discourse of epistemology and therefore tend to hack at it badly when we get into that underbrush, making everyone uncomfortable. On the other hand, I'll bet we have a (large?) handful of contributors (and/or lurkers) here with a much broader and deeper understanding than I have but who perhaps recognize the futility of opening that bag of worms.

Our "core" topic of Complexity Science is fraught with epistemological questions (I believe), most particularly questions such as "whence and what emergence?" as Nick's seminars of 2+ years ago considered. I don't know if the topic was approached from the point of view of "what is the nature of knowledge?" or more specifically, "how can we define a new concept such as emergence and have it hold meaning?". In my view, "emergence" is strictly "phenomenological" as are the many (highly useful) constructs of statistical physics.

I promised a maunder here, I trust I succeeded in delivering!

Carry on!
- Steve

Actually you can't define primeness any way you want. The definition needs to be negotiated by the community of professionals who are can credibly agree on the definition.

My definition of primeness is "anything bigger than 3 and painted an attractive shade of blue". But no one listens to me. Nor should they, because I'm not a mathematician.

—R
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Grant Holland <[hidden email]> wrote:
George's observation (from Saturday) under "mathematician" pretty much captures the issue for me. One can define "primeness" any way one wants. The choice of excluding 1 has the "fun" consequence that George explains so well. Maybe including "1" has other fun consequences. If so, then give that definition a name ("prime" is already taken) , and see where it leads. You can make this stuff up any way you want, folks. Just follow the consequences. Some of these consequences provide analogies that physicists can use. Some don't. No matter. We just wanna have fun!

Grant

On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote:
Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a

mathematician

it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting theorems, like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says every natural number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and 3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or the theorem doesn't work.

statistician

do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency of entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an empirical point of view usage says 1 is not prime

artist

try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1 as prime. I didn't see any.

Cheers, Duncan

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began, "Well, it depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was an ambiguous case.

PMcC

On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish <[hidden email]> wrote:

Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...

Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:

"Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"

That's how I remember.

Mark

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--

George Duncan
georgeduncanart.com

<a href="tel:%28505%29%20983-6895" target="_blank">(505) 983-6895
Represented by ViVO Contemporary

725 Canyon Road

Santa Fe, NM 87501

Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: Epistemological Maunderings

Doug, et al -

I am far from a philosopher myself, but am eternally grateful that my first philosophy class (which I was prepared to sleep through or drop if needs be) was taught be a very insightful and engaged person.   My first (and only) Anthropology class was just the opposite, and it probably took me a decade to get past that bad experience far enough to become deeply curious (again) about human nature in that context.

I went to college on my own nickel (no parents, no GI Bill, no Pell Grants, no Student Loans) and was there out of pure curiosity. I didn't waste much time on classes that didn't work for me. I came from schools deeply steeped in rural poverty and ignorance. My best teachers were over their heads but tried hard, my worst were just pathetic. The average University prof looked pretty good to me, maybe because I'd already learned to take the good and ignore the rest with teachers.   I had a few "return from industry" professors who were, contrary to expectation, almost completely worthless, they spent most of their time pontificating about "the real world" rather than teaching the topic at hand. The rare ones who actually used their real world experience to add to my learning experience were treasured.

I grew up amongst (and have a deep respect for) those who are "doers" rather than "thinkers", but I also saw first hand the deep hazard of acting without thinking, and without any context for the often righteous (but always limited) understanding involved. To make the point close to home, think "Pete Nanos". The questions were all simple and the answers were simpler.   Most of the kids I grew up with still live in various forms of poverty and/or ignorance (with their children and grandchildren) maintained by a marked preference for *doing* over *thinking*. I still have a lot of respect for (some of) these people... for the reasons you cite... they aren't afraid to get their hands dirty... and learn mostly be *doing*. Those who escaped to a bigger world were more prepared by this down and dirty background than their relatively privileged urban/suburban peers, but it was the exposure to ever-widening circles of context that made the difference for them... they had *doing* down, it was *thinking* they needed to learn.    This would be my bias I suppose.

What I learned in the myriad humanities courses I was "required" to take was _perspective_.   As a student in the Arts and Sciences(Math/Physics) rather than Engineering I had (yet) more humanities requirements and fewer "underwater basketweaving" options to sneak past with. Also my math and physics professors actively encouraged me to understand the context of what I was learning about. They were happy that I refused to learn a formula until I understood it's intuitive basis and it's derivation.

I was also curious to understand the historical context in which it was first encountered and the broader philosophical implications of topics like quantum entanglement, tachyons, and time dilation at relativistic speeds. WTF *did* we believe before *that* and *why*? What are the implications? Perhaps studying counter-intuitive and abstract topics like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Statistical Physics and Group Theory made me more hungry for context than my Engineering colleagues who just wanted to make sure their toothpick bridge was the last to collapse or their egg survived a 10 meter drop. Mathematics and Physics were at best a convenient tool to support direct solutions to practical problems.

There is a lot of chatter here about the latest observations around the Higgs Boson, but mostly it is just reporting and repeating, possibly just fetishising the LHC gear?   Who CARES about the Higgs Boson and WHY?   There is a lot of "philosophical context" around the Standard Model and it's many variants and alternatives...

So the question of whether and why 1 is/not a prime is of broader interest to me perhaps than to some... and I don't believe I actually know anyone who self-identifies as a philospher? hmmm...

- Steve

However, that said: some of my best friends are philosophers... :-/

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm afraid I became permanently biased against the "philosophy of philosophysing" during one particular infinite-duration 45-minute philosophy undergrad class that I once had ill-advisedly enrolled in to satisfy a humanities undergrad requirement.

Those who can, do, those who can't, teach: there are very good reasons that this nugget of observation has become a part of our lexicon.

--Doug