Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

[Eric Charles-2]

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

This sounds to me like people who don't know much about law (i.e., how arbitrary the definition of a crime is) and who don't know much about those bits of good science that psychology has managed. I suspect the later is at the heart of your connecting the rationalist-empiricist discussions with those prior bad political-debate experiences. Ultimately, one might assert, that whether crime is eliminated in a Marxist utopia, is a simple empirical question, i.e., something to be tested. 

If we treat it that way, the evidence would likely be against the Marxist's assertion. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that broad economic policies translate into predictable specific behaviors among all members of a population. In fact, we would expect rather dramatic variation unless developmental contexts were specified in MUCH more detail than would be specified by a simple implementation of communism. 

However, no amount of evidence I could marshal, nor any amount of axiomatic assertion the Marxist could lay out, would stop us from viewing the assertion as something we would not be certain about until it was tested. 

Am I understanding the connection you want to make correctly?  

Best,

Eric

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Patrick Reilly <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Nick:

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

So the empiricist reliance in the physics dialogue is a useful reference to me in my counter argument of "what actually existing society supports the argument of a more ethical society eliminating irrational crime".

I say again that the core strength of using this reference lies in the belief widely held among our intelligentsia  that Physics has the quality of offering the purest of all possible truthiness . . .

---   Pat

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi, Patrick,

 

Thanks for getting back to me.  Wow, was that a form of libertarianism!? I would have thought the “users” were property owners who “use” the police to protect them from the anger of the poor.  Anyway. 

 

One of the lessons that FRIAM has taught me over the years is to be much more careful in my deployment of “ist” and “ism” words.  They just don’t seem to have the stability of reference that that I assumed when I learned them and started to use them.  I don’t know quite what to do about that.  It would be nice to be able to identify some clusters of opinion and associate some people with those opinions and be able to refer back to them as points of departure in my thought, but every time I try, I fail.   One really good example is the word, “pragmatist.”  In some hands, “pragmatism” means solving problems as they come along with a view mostly to the immediate tangible future.  Americans are said to given to such pragmatic solutions, as, say, the drone program which eliminates some bad actors in the short run but runs the risk of recruiting others in the long run.  In other hands, the word “pragmatism” refers to an almost precisely opposite philosophy which focuses on where human understanding is “headed”, i.e., where it is likely to fetch up in the very long run.  For a pragmatist, in this sense, there are no “facts of the matter” beyond human understanding, in the broadest sense, because whatever world is “out there” is filtered through our understanding of it. 

 

Now, I think the debate that occurred at the physics conference had a lot to do with this latter sort of pragmatism.  Philosophical pragmatists have tended to be very hard on the “theory-fact” distinction.  To these folks, a fact is nothing  more than a theory that we would be VERY  VERY VERY surprised to see contradicted. 

 

What I am struggling with, here, is how to map all of this (which may be irrelevant from your point of view) onto

 

On another note, the discussion of the  "rationalists" v. "empiricists" crystallized in me how to best argue against Libertarian-hacks and Marxist fops;

 

Now I get that you are pissed off at some folks.  I would probably be pissed off by those same people.   What I can’t yet work out is the relation between these Libertarians and Marxists and the distinction between rationalist and empiricist. 

 

Can you help further?

 

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Patrick Reilly
Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2015 1:22 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

Hi Nick:

 

Well, I practice IP/Patent Law in Silicon Valley and I am rather frequently exposed to libertarian-drivel about how social problems can be solved by applying the principle of liberty and drowning the government. Not unusually, the proponents of these views are quite bright, contentious and have the life experience of, well, and under-30 programmer.

 

Programmers, especially the really good ones, get used to creatively solving any problem that is thrown at them with applied logic.  And they often fail to realize that the overwhelming majority of their architecture challenges are thin problems, wherein all relevant influences and underlying principles can be assumed or quickly ascertained.  In contrast, most social-legal problems of our technological society exist precisely because these problems are thick problems and can seldom be successfully addressed with empirical analysis of applied alternate solutions.

 

One example of a failed libertarian approach in criminal justice is to attempt to extract payments from the "users" of the criminal justice system to fund the police force, al a Ferguson, where frequent fines were promiscuously issued with the explicit purpose of generating revenue.  In particular, the Ferguson police officers were given increasing ticketing quotas and were conditioned to see citizens as ATM machines, especially the less empowered citizens.

 

So I can now cite the article's noting of rationalist/empiricist approaches in physics (a discipline that nerds generally hold to be sacred and inviolate) as a basis for saying, "so first we may want to find a country where you ideas have been actually applied . . .  like Somalia or Indonesia . . . "

 

 

-----    Pat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Patrick,

 

I didn’t altogether follow you here. 

 

Can you say a bit more?

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Patrick Reilly
Sent: Saturday, December 26, 2015 10:13 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

Hi Tom:

 

Thanks for turning me on to this article. It's valuable to known that we are likely 10 EE15 degrees away from observing the true fundamentals of physics.

 

On another note, the discussion of the  "rationalists" v. "empiricists" crystallized in me how to best argue against Libertarian-hacks and Marxist fops; the imagined "principles" of political and economic dynamics empowers empiricists to promise candy mountains when we are better off observing the actual effect of actually instantiated policies and laws. The US used to be the world leader in social pragmatism . . .

 

Great article!

 

---   Pat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Tom Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Something to keep you occupied until New Years Day.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/

===================================
Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, NM
SPJ Region 9 Director
[hidden email]               <a href="tel:[phone]" target="_blank">505-473-9646
===================================

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

--

The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information.  It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient,  you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to [hidden email].

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

--

The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information.  It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient,  you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to [hidden email].

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--

The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information.  It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient,  you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to [hidden email].

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Grant Holland]

Nick,

Some nebulous one, for sure.

Grant

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 28, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Grant,

 

What is the implicit definition of “art” you are running with there?  

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:51 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>; Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

Mathematics already went through this "crisis of confidence" in the latter half of the 19th century when Lobachevsky and Riemann came up with alternative, non-Euclidean, geometries. The issue that forced this new look at the soul of mathematics was, I believe, the verifiability - consistency, actually - of Euclid's fifth postulate with respect to his other four. This was followed historically by the works of Dedekind and Cantor who engaged naked logic to expose a number of counter-intuitive "truths" of mathematics. The entire hoopla was addressed by Hilbert's program in an attempt to put the matter to rest for once and for all. However, the work of Russell and Whitehead to further Hilbert's program by developing arithmetic from Hilbertian foundations was eventually stymied by Godel, whose work was generalized by Turing.

The result of all of this, according to my understanding, is that mathematics ceased to see itself as a "seeker after the true nature of the universe" (as do both science (which physics thinks it owns) and philosophy even today); and began to see itself as a "constructor of logically consistent models, regardless of their verifiability". Verifiability was dropped from the program of pure abstract mathematics, and was left to the "impure" pursuits of physicists, philosophers and applied mathematicians.

I'm sure someone on this list can set straight my recollections of mathematical history. But I do hold to the point that mathematics addressed, and "kind of" resolved, its own crisis of confidence over its assumed need for verifiability about a century ago. It's conclusion? Forget verifiability and pursue pure mathematics as art - not science.

Should physics give up its similar insistence on verification (seeking "the truth") - and join the ranks as just another branch of abstract mathematics?

Grant

On 12/26/15 9:44 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

Abs fab!

 

But amazingly, there are fantastic young grad students doing the impossible in this field .. testing at the Planck limits. Often using the universe itself to test its own theories.

 

One of my favorites is a stream of matter flowing towards a void in space which suggests "gravity on the other side" .. i.e. a multiverse lump hidden from us but not by gravity.

 

Why is there Something, not Nothing gets to be fascinating when the big bang was sparked by less than a tea-spoon of matter, or so it is thought nowadays.

 

   -- Owen

 

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Tom Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Something to keep you occupied until New Years Day.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/

===================================
Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, NM
SPJ Region 9 Director
[hidden email]               <a href="tel:[phone]" target="_blank">505-473-9646
===================================

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Grant Holland]

Eric,

I like:

So here, "syntactically internally inconsistent" takes the place of Popper's "falsified", whereas "apparently syntactically internally consistent" takes the place of Popper's "not yet falsified".  Trying to find a semantics for an apparently-consistent formal system takes the place of building empirical confidence in claims that in Popper's construction are still eligible to be "true".  

Might just work.

Grant

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 28, 2015, at 9:30 AM, David Eric Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> So here, "syntactically internally inconsistent" takes the place of Popper's "falsified", whereas "apparently syntactically internally consistent" takes the place of Popper's "not yet falsified".  Trying to find a semantics for an apparently-consistent formal system takes the place of building empirical confidence in claims that in Popper's construction are still eligible to be "true".  

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Grant Holland]

Glen, Eric,

If "reality" is complete, must not then (assuming that it is at least as complex as arithmetic), aka Godel, it be also inconsistent?

Grant

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 28, 2015, at 11:23 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/28/2015 06:30 AM, David Eric Smith wrote:
>> A language that is not even internally consistent presumably has no hope of having an empirically valid semantics, since evidently the universe "is" something, and there is no semantic notion of ambiguity of its "being/not-being" some definite thing, structurally analogous to an inconsistent language's being able to arrive at a contradiction by taking two paths to answer a single proposition.
>
> It's not clear to me that the presumption is trustworthy.  Isn't it possible that what is (reality) does not obey some of the structure we rely on for asserting consistency (or completeness)?  In other words, perhaps reality is inconsistent.  Hence, the only language that will be valid, will be an inconsistent language.  Of course, that doesn't imply that just any old inconsistency will be tolerated.  Perhaps reality is only inconsistent in very particular ways and any language that we expect to validate must be 1) inconsistent in all those real ways and 2) in only those real ways.
>
> Further of course, inconsistency is a bit like paradox in that, once you identify an inconsistency very precisely, you may be able to define a new language that eliminates it. ... which brings us beyond the (mere) points of higher order logics and iterative constructions, to the core idea of context-sensitive construction.  There is no Grand Unifying Anything except the imperative to approach Grand Unified Things.
>
> And this targets Patrick's argument against the idealists (e.g. libertarians and marxists).  The only reliable ideal is the creation and commitment to ideals.  Each particular ideal is (will be) eventually destroyed.  But for whatever reason, we seem to always create and commit ourselves to ideals.  Old people tend to surrender over time and build huge hairballs of bandaged ideals all glued together with spit and bailing wire.  Any serious conversation with an old person is an attempt to navigate the topology of their iteratively constructed, stigmergic, hairball of broken ideals ... and if that old person is open-minded, such conversations lead to new kinks and tortuous folds ... which is why old people make the best story tellers.
>
> But I can't help wondering why music is dominated by the young. [sigh]
>
> --
> --
> ⊥ glen ⊥
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

Glen,

 

I thought I knew the difference, but maybe I don't .  I thought of rationalism as a form of idealism in which the a priori categories have to do with reason.  Perhaps see ...

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

 

This conversation is starting to distress me a bit because it seems I have started what I hoped to head off.  I was hoping to get Patrick to make as direct a connection as possible between his arguments with particular Libertarians and/or Marists and the arguments between the physicists, without the mediation of all the -ist and -ism.  I seem to have done a piss-poor job of that. 

 

I am happy (of course) to continue to work with you, or anybody else, to build a local consensus about what we mean by these words,  so we don't constantly misunderstand one another.  However, that's a different conversation, I think, isn't it?   Shall we start our own thread?  "Friam, 'ists', and 'isms'"?. 

 

Devotedly,

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 12:25 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

 

It's a bit of slippage to swap out rationalism in favor of idealism.  I do it on purpose.  I'm hoping others don't do it by accident.

 

On 12/28/2015 10:29 AM, Nick Thompson wrote:

> Idealism is the position that the categories by which we understand reality exist prior to experience.  Empiricism is the position that all knowledge of reality comes from experience.   [philosophical] pragmatism is the position that all knowledge is knowledge */of /*experience period. (To talk of a reality beyond experience is just silly.)  To a pragmatist, what we call “reality” is just that upon which we will all agree in the very long run.  Something is “truthy” (to use your term) just in case it seems like the sort of experience that will endure the test of time.  Properties of experience that make them seem “truthy” include coherence with other understandings of prior experiences the capacity to pull together the understandings of working experimentalists.  (Think about the manner in which various understandings of the periodic table converged over the 19^th Century.)   The fact that physicists are arguing about these matters suggests that physicists’ ideas right

now

> are not as “truthy” as those of Newton.

> 

> Now none of this clarifies for me why you are mad at Marxists and Libertarians.  Oddly enough, I would suggest the best way to get at this problem is to precede idiographically, avoiding any –ist or –ism words, to tell a few stories in which you were abused by a particular Marxist and/or libertarian, so we, ourselves, can decide if and how you were treated unfairly.

 

--

⇔ glen

 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[gepr]

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

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic

I've been amused by the status of rational wiki.  It's called a "hit site" by some "alternative medicine" people.  I think it might be dominated by less wrong types (who, themselves have fractured at least twice, one branch of which is the neoreactionaries, which probably raises the hackles of anyone whose hackles are raised by libertarians).  What a wonderful tapestry our gray matter constructs, eh?

On 12/28/2015 12:33 PM, Grant Holland wrote:

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

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

Grant,

Aw.  Come on.  Try.  I stipulate that it’s not easy. 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

Nick,

 

Some nebulous one, for sure.

 

Grant

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 28, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Grant,

 

What is the implicit definition of “art” you are running with there?  

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:51 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>; Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

Mathematics already went through this "crisis of confidence" in the latter half of the 19th century when Lobachevsky and Riemann came up with alternative, non-Euclidean, geometries. The issue that forced this new look at the soul of mathematics was, I believe, the verifiability - consistency, actually - of Euclid's fifth postulate with respect to his other four. This was followed historically by the works of Dedekind and Cantor who engaged naked logic to expose a number of counter-intuitive "truths" of mathematics. The entire hoopla was addressed by Hilbert's program in an attempt to put the matter to rest for once and for all. However, the work of Russell and Whitehead to further Hilbert's program by developing arithmetic from Hilbertian foundations was eventually stymied by Godel, whose work was generalized by Turing.

The result of all of this, according to my understanding, is that mathematics ceased to see itself as a "seeker after the true nature of the universe" (as do both science (which physics thinks it owns) and philosophy even today); and began to see itself as a "constructor of logically consistent models, regardless of their verifiability". Verifiability was dropped from the program of pure abstract mathematics, and was left to the "impure" pursuits of physicists, philosophers and applied mathematicians.

I'm sure someone on this list can set straight my recollections of mathematical history. But I do hold to the point that mathematics addressed, and "kind of" resolved, its own crisis of confidence over its assumed need for verifiability about a century ago. It's conclusion? Forget verifiability and pursue pure mathematics as art - not science.

Should physics give up its similar insistence on verification (seeking "the truth") - and join the ranks as just another branch of abstract mathematics?

Grant

On 12/26/15 9:44 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

Abs fab!

 

But amazingly, there are fantastic young grad students doing the impossible in this field .. testing at the Planck limits. Often using the universe itself to test its own theories.

 

One of my favorites is a stream of matter flowing towards a void in space which suggests "gravity on the other side" .. i.e. a multiverse lump hidden from us but not by gravity.

 

Why is there Something, not Nothing gets to be fascinating when the big bang was sparked by less than a tea-spoon of matter, or so it is thought nowadays.

 

   -- Owen

 

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Tom Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Something to keep you occupied until New Years Day.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/

===================================
Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, NM
SPJ Region 9 Director
[hidden email]               <a href="tel:[phone]" target="_blank">505-473-9646
===================================

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Patrick Reilly]

I'm mainly worried that my educational session with Nick is boring everyone else.

--- Pat

On Monday, December 28, 2015, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Grant,

Aw.  Come on.  Try.  I stipulate that it’s not easy. 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;[e-mail]&#39;);" target="_blank">friam-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;[e-mail]&#39;);" target="_blank">friam@...>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

Nick,

 

Some nebulous one, for sure.

 

Grant

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 28, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Nick Thompson <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;[e-mail]&#39;);" target="_blank">nickthompson@...> wrote:

Grant,

 

What is the implicit definition of “art” you are running with there?  

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;[e-mail]&#39;);" target="_blank">mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:51 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;[e-mail]&#39;);" target="_blank">friam@...>; Owen Densmore <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;[e-mail]&#39;);" target="_blank">owen@...>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

Mathematics already went through this "crisis of confidence" in the latter half of the 19th century when Lobachevsky and Riemann came up with alternative, non-Euclidean, geometries. The issue that forced this new look at the soul of mathematics was, I believe, the verifiability - consistency, actually - of Euclid's fifth postulate with respect to his other four. This was followed historically by the works of Dedekind and Cantor who engaged naked logic to expose a number of counter-intuitive "truths" of mathematics. The entire hoopla was addressed by Hilbert's program in an attempt to put the matter to rest for once and for all. However, the work of Russell and Whitehead to further Hilbert's program by developing arithmetic from Hilbertian foundations was eventually stymied by Godel, whose work was generalized by Turing.

The result of all of this, according to my understanding, is that mathematics ceased to see itself as a "seeker after the true nature of the universe" (as do both science (which physics thinks it owns) and philosophy even today); and began to see itself as a "constructor of logically consistent models, regardless of their verifiability". Verifiability was dropped from the program of pure abstract mathematics, and was left to the "impure" pursuits of physicists, philosophers and applied mathematicians.

I'm sure someone on this list can set straight my recollections of mathematical history. But I do hold to the point that mathematics addressed, and "kind of" resolved, its own crisis of confidence over its assumed need for verifiability about a century ago. It's conclusion? Forget verifiability and pursue pure mathematics as art - not science.

Should physics give up its similar insistence on verification (seeking "the truth") - and join the ranks as just another branch of abstract mathematics?

Grant

On 12/26/15 9:44 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

Abs fab!

 

But amazingly, there are fantastic young grad students doing the impossible in this field .. testing at the Planck limits. Often using the universe itself to test its own theories.

 

One of my favorites is a stream of matter flowing towards a void in space which suggests "gravity on the other side" .. i.e. a multiverse lump hidden from us but not by gravity.

 

Why is there Something, not Nothing gets to be fascinating when the big bang was sparked by less than a tea-spoon of matter, or so it is thought nowadays.

 

   -- Owen

 

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Tom Johnson <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;[e-mail]&#39;);" target="_blank">tom@...> wrote:

Something to keep you occupied until New Years Day.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/

===================================
Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, NM
SPJ Region 9 Director
<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,&#39;cvml&#39;,&#39;[e-mail]&#39;);" target="_blank">tom@...               <a href="tel:[phone]" target="_blank">505-473-9646
===================================

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[gepr]

FWIW, I'm very interested in your responses, being an ex-libertarian with both marxist and observationalist friends.

On Dec 28, 2015 1:35 PM, "Patrick Reilly" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm mainly worried that my educational session with Nick is boring everyone else.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Patrick Reilly]

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

Such captains of industry think that, if they could have coded Twitter, then they know all that they need to to address any discoverable problem after a day or two's investigation.  So the referenced article on the dilemma of Physics will be a valuable reference for me in suggesting that some problems are thick problems . . . and require extensive data-gathering.

And yes, I am tired of hearing from techno-Libertarians that all political problems and privacy rights issues are easily solvable by merely limiting or hobbling government action.  Particularly when IMHO there are currently numerous private corporate entities that need to be better restrained and regulated.

---  Pat

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:35 PM, gepr <[hidden email]> wrote:

FWIW, I'm very interested in your responses, being an ex-libertarian with both marxist and observationalist friends.

On Dec 28, 2015 1:35 PM, "Patrick Reilly" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm mainly worried that my educational session with Nick is boring everyone else.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Pamela McCorduck]

I haven’t heard the terms “thin problems” and “thick problems.” Are these yours, Patrick? They’re wonderfully intuitive: if I hadn’t heard the terms before, I still knew what you meant. Thanks.

As for the techno-liberterians of Silicon Valley, it’s useless to remind them that they ride on a grand government investment of half a century ago, that none of them, individually, or collectively, would have made. But on this, I save my breath to cool my soup.

Pamela

On Dec 28, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Patrick Reilly <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Such captains of industry think that, if they could have coded Twitter, then they know all that they need to to address any discoverable problem after a day or two's investigation.  So the referenced article on the dilemma of Physics will be a valuable reference for me in suggesting that some problems are thick problems . . . and require extensive data-gathering.

And yes, I am tired of hearing from techno-Libertarians that all political problems and privacy rights issues are easily solvable by merely limiting or hobbling government action.  Particularly when IMHO there are currently numerous private corporate entities that need to be better restrained and regulated.

---  Pat

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:35 PM, gepr <[hidden email]> wrote:

FWIW, I'm very interested in your responses, being an ex-libertarian with both marxist and observationalist friends.

On Dec 28, 2015 1:35 PM, "Patrick Reilly" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm mainly worried that my educational session with Nick is boring everyone else.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Patrick Reilly]

Not my terms.

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

I haven’t heard the terms “thin problems” and “thick problems.” Are these yours, Patrick? They’re wonderfully intuitive: if I hadn’t heard the terms before, I still knew what you meant. Thanks.

As for the techno-liberterians of Silicon Valley, it’s useless to remind them that they ride on a grand government investment of half a century ago, that none of them, individually, or collectively, would have made. But on this, I save my breath to cool my soup.

Pamela

On Dec 28, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Patrick Reilly <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Such captains of industry think that, if they could have coded Twitter, then they know all that they need to to address any discoverable problem after a day or two's investigation.  So the referenced article on the dilemma of Physics will be a valuable reference for me in suggesting that some problems are thick problems . . . and require extensive data-gathering.

And yes, I am tired of hearing from techno-Libertarians that all political problems and privacy rights issues are easily solvable by merely limiting or hobbling government action.  Particularly when IMHO there are currently numerous private corporate entities that need to be better restrained and regulated.

---  Pat

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:35 PM, gepr <[hidden email]> wrote:

FWIW, I'm very interested in your responses, being an ex-libertarian with both marxist and observationalist friends.

On Dec 28, 2015 1:35 PM, "Patrick Reilly" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm mainly worried that my educational session with Nick is boring everyone else.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--

The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information.  It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient,  you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to [hidden email].

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Gary Schiltz-4]

Wow, that may become a new favorite expression: "save my breath to cool my soup". Thanks for it.

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

I haven’t heard the terms “thin problems” and “thick problems.” Are these yours, Patrick? They’re wonderfully intuitive: if I hadn’t heard the terms before, I still knew what you meant. Thanks.

As for the techno-liberterians of Silicon Valley, it’s useless to remind them that they ride on a grand government investment of half a century ago, that none of them, individually, or collectively, would have made. But on this, I save my breath to cool my soup.

Pamela

On Dec 28, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Patrick Reilly <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Such captains of industry think that, if they could have coded Twitter, then they know all that they need to to address any discoverable problem after a day or two's investigation.  So the referenced article on the dilemma of Physics will be a valuable reference for me in suggesting that some problems are thick problems . . . and require extensive data-gathering.

And yes, I am tired of hearing from techno-Libertarians that all political problems and privacy rights issues are easily solvable by merely limiting or hobbling government action.  Particularly when IMHO there are currently numerous private corporate entities that need to be better restrained and regulated.

---  Pat

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:35 PM, gepr <[hidden email]> wrote:

FWIW, I'm very interested in your responses, being an ex-libertarian with both marxist and observationalist friends.

On Dec 28, 2015 1:35 PM, "Patrick Reilly" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm mainly worried that my educational session with Nick is boring everyone else.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--

The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information.  It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient,  you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to [hidden email].

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

Patrick,

 

I just wanted to hear more about those Marxist fops. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Patrick Reilly
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 2:35 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

I'm mainly worried that my educational session with Nick is boring everyone else.

 

--- Pat

On Monday, December 28, 2015, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Grant,

Aw.  Come on.  Try.  I stipulate that it’s not easy. 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');" target="_blank">friam-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');" target="_blank">friam@...>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

Nick,

 

Some nebulous one, for sure.

 

Grant

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 28, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Nick Thompson <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');" target="_blank">nickthompson@...> wrote:

Grant,

 

What is the implicit definition of “art” you are running with there?  

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');" target="_blank">mailto:friam-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:51 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');" target="_blank">friam@...>; Owen Densmore <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');" target="_blank">owen@...>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

Mathematics already went through this "crisis of confidence" in the latter half of the 19th century when Lobachevsky and Riemann came up with alternative, non-Euclidean, geometries. The issue that forced this new look at the soul of mathematics was, I believe, the verifiability - consistency, actually - of Euclid's fifth postulate with respect to his other four. This was followed historically by the works of Dedekind and Cantor who engaged naked logic to expose a number of counter-intuitive "truths" of mathematics. The entire hoopla was addressed by Hilbert's program in an attempt to put the matter to rest for once and for all. However, the work of Russell and Whitehead to further Hilbert's program by developing arithmetic from Hilbertian foundations was eventually stymied by Godel, whose work was generalized by Turing.

The result of all of this, according to my understanding, is that mathematics ceased to see itself as a "seeker after the true nature of the universe" (as do both science (which physics thinks it owns) and philosophy even today); and began to see itself as a "constructor of logically consistent models, regardless of their verifiability". Verifiability was dropped from the program of pure abstract mathematics, and was left to the "impure" pursuits of physicists, philosophers and applied mathematicians.

I'm sure someone on this list can set straight my recollections of mathematical history. But I do hold to the point that mathematics addressed, and "kind of" resolved, its own crisis of confidence over its assumed need for verifiability about a century ago. It's conclusion? Forget verifiability and pursue pure mathematics as art - not science.

Should physics give up its similar insistence on verification (seeking "the truth") - and join the ranks as just another branch of abstract mathematics?

Grant

On 12/26/15 9:44 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

Abs fab!

 

But amazingly, there are fantastic young grad students doing the impossible in this field .. testing at the Planck limits. Often using the universe itself to test its own theories.

 

One of my favorites is a stream of matter flowing towards a void in space which suggests "gravity on the other side" .. i.e. a multiverse lump hidden from us but not by gravity.

 

Why is there Something, not Nothing gets to be fascinating when the big bang was sparked by less than a tea-spoon of matter, or so it is thought nowadays.

 

   -- Owen

 

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Tom Johnson <<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');" target="_blank">tom@...> wrote:

Something to keep you occupied until New Years Day.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/

===================================
Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, NM
SPJ Region 9 Director
<a href="javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[e-mail]');" target="_blank">tom@...               <a href="tel:[phone]" target="_blank">505-473-9646
===================================

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

G

“observational-ist”?!!!!  Whazzat? 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of gepr
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 3:35 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

FWIW, I'm very interested in your responses, being an ex-libertarian with both marxist and observationalist friends.

On Dec 28, 2015 1:35 PM, "Patrick Reilly" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm mainly worried that my educational session with Nick is boring everyone else.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

Hi, Pamela,

 

Cf, Clifford Geertz, thin and think description.

 

Geertz described the practice of thick description as a way of providing cultural context and meaning that people place on actions, words, things, etc. Thick descriptions provide enough context so that a person outside the culture can make meaning of the behavior. Thin description by contrast, is stating facts without such meaning or significance. Surveys provide thin descriptions at best. We are suggesting that thick descriptions can be useful to people within an organization in order to better understand themselves and the complexity of organizational life. They can then see their own culture in the subtle ways that cannot be exposed by surveys and sound bites alone. [http://cognitive-edge.com/blog/the-thick-and-thin-of-it/ , for instance].

 

I really like the highlighted bit.

 

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 3:33 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

I haven’t heard the terms “thin problems” and “thick problems.” Are these yours, Patrick? They’re wonderfully intuitive: if I hadn’t heard the terms before, I still knew what you meant. Thanks.

 

As for the techno-liberterians of Silicon Valley, it’s useless to remind them that they ride on a grand government investment of half a century ago, that none of them, individually, or collectively, would have made. But on this, I save my breath to cool my soup.

 

Pamela

 

 

On Dec 28, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Patrick Reilly <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

 

Such captains of industry think that, if they could have coded Twitter, then they know all that they need to to address any discoverable problem after a day or two's investigation.  So the referenced article on the dilemma of Physics will be a valuable reference for me in suggesting that some problems are thick problems . . . and require extensive data-gathering.

 

And yes, I am tired of hearing from techno-Libertarians that all political problems and privacy rights issues are easily solvable by merely limiting or hobbling government action.  Particularly when IMHO there are currently numerous private corporate entities that need to be better restrained and regulated.

 

 

 

---  Pat

 

 

 

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:35 PM, gepr <[hidden email]> wrote:

FWIW, I'm very interested in your responses, being an ex-libertarian with both marxist and observationalist friends.

On Dec 28, 2015 1:35 PM, "Patrick Reilly" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm mainly worried that my educational session with Nick is boring everyone else.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

--

The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information.  It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient,  you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to [hidden email].

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Patrick Reilly]

Did you ever hear the early communist argument that theory of the natural order tending toward entropy is a capitalist argument meant to demoralize the working class by discouraging them from working towards a better future?

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Patrick,

 

I just wanted to hear more about those Marxist fops. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Patrick Reilly
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 2:35 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

I'm mainly worried that my educational session with Nick is boring everyone else.

 

--- Pat

On Monday, December 28, 2015, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Grant,

Aw.  Come on.  Try.  I stipulate that it’s not easy. 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

Nick,

 

Some nebulous one, for sure.

 

Grant

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 28, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Grant,

 

What is the implicit definition of “art” you are running with there?  

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:51 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>; Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

Mathematics already went through this "crisis of confidence" in the latter half of the 19th century when Lobachevsky and Riemann came up with alternative, non-Euclidean, geometries. The issue that forced this new look at the soul of mathematics was, I believe, the verifiability - consistency, actually - of Euclid's fifth postulate with respect to his other four. This was followed historically by the works of Dedekind and Cantor who engaged naked logic to expose a number of counter-intuitive "truths" of mathematics. The entire hoopla was addressed by Hilbert's program in an attempt to put the matter to rest for once and for all. However, the work of Russell and Whitehead to further Hilbert's program by developing arithmetic from Hilbertian foundations was eventually stymied by Godel, whose work was generalized by Turing.

The result of all of this, according to my understanding, is that mathematics ceased to see itself as a "seeker after the true nature of the universe" (as do both science (which physics thinks it owns) and philosophy even today); and began to see itself as a "constructor of logically consistent models, regardless of their verifiability". Verifiability was dropped from the program of pure abstract mathematics, and was left to the "impure" pursuits of physicists, philosophers and applied mathematicians.

I'm sure someone on this list can set straight my recollections of mathematical history. But I do hold to the point that mathematics addressed, and "kind of" resolved, its own crisis of confidence over its assumed need for verifiability about a century ago. It's conclusion? Forget verifiability and pursue pure mathematics as art - not science.

Should physics give up its similar insistence on verification (seeking "the truth") - and join the ranks as just another branch of abstract mathematics?

Grant

On 12/26/15 9:44 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

Abs fab!

 

But amazingly, there are fantastic young grad students doing the impossible in this field .. testing at the Planck limits. Often using the universe itself to test its own theories.

 

One of my favorites is a stream of matter flowing towards a void in space which suggests "gravity on the other side" .. i.e. a multiverse lump hidden from us but not by gravity.

 

Why is there Something, not Nothing gets to be fascinating when the big bang was sparked by less than a tea-spoon of matter, or so it is thought nowadays.

 

   -- Owen

 

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Tom Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Something to keep you occupied until New Years Day.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/

===================================
Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, NM
SPJ Region 9 Director
[hidden email]               <a href="tel:[phone]" target="_blank">505-473-9646
===================================

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Pamela McCorduck]

Thanks, Nick, for the research on “thick” and “thin.”

On Dec 28, 2015, at 4:42 PM, Patrick Reilly <[hidden email]> wrote:

Not my terms.

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Pamela McCorduck <[hidden email]> wrote:

I haven’t heard the terms “thin problems” and “thick problems.” Are these yours, Patrick? They’re wonderfully intuitive: if I hadn’t heard the terms before, I still knew what you meant. Thanks.

As for the techno-liberterians of Silicon Valley, it’s useless to remind them that they ride on a grand government investment of half a century ago, that none of them, individually, or collectively, would have made. But on this, I save my breath to cool my soup.

Pamela

On Dec 28, 2015, at 4:13 PM, Patrick Reilly <[hidden email]> wrote:

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

Such captains of industry think that, if they could have coded Twitter, then they know all that they need to to address any discoverable problem after a day or two's investigation.  So the referenced article on the dilemma of Physics will be a valuable reference for me in suggesting that some problems are thick problems . . . and require extensive data-gathering.

And yes, I am tired of hearing from techno-Libertarians that all political problems and privacy rights issues are easily solvable by merely limiting or hobbling government action.  Particularly when IMHO there are currently numerous private corporate entities that need to be better restrained and regulated.

---  Pat

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 10:35 PM, gepr <[hidden email]> wrote:

FWIW, I'm very interested in your responses, being an ex-libertarian with both marxist and observationalist friends.

On Dec 28, 2015 1:35 PM, "Patrick Reilly" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm mainly worried that my educational session with Nick is boring everyone else.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--

The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information.  It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient,  you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to [hidden email].

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[gepr]

On 12/28/2015 03:56 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> “observational-ist”?!!!!  Whazzat?

I tend to think of "Doubting Thomas".  I associate it with a more specific version of empiricism, which can take either of 2 basic forms: 1) that all thought has to be grounded _immediately_ in observation or 2) that all thought has to be grounded _eventually_ in observation.  Observationalists are more DIY scientists ... they expect to be able to perform the tests themselves rather than allowing the knowledge to accrete over time.  They tend to distrust experiments that, for example, require something like the hadron collider to perform ... that is, unless they happen to have their own access to an accelerator... then they can still be relatively observationalist yet trust the results from CERN.

At least that's they way _I_ use the term.  I'm happy to be corrected.

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Nick Thompson]

P

Uh, no.

n

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Patrick Reilly
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 5:08 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

Did you ever hear the early communist argument that theory of the natural order tending toward entropy is a capitalist argument meant to demoralize the working class by discouraging them from working towards a better future?

 

On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Patrick,

 

I just wanted to hear more about those Marxist fops. 

 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Patrick Reilly
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 2:35 PM

To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

I'm mainly worried that my educational session with Nick is boring everyone else.

 

--- Pat

On Monday, December 28, 2015, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Grant,

Aw.  Come on.  Try.  I stipulate that it’s not easy. 

N

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:22 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

Nick,

 

Some nebulous one, for sure.

 

Grant

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 28, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Grant,

 

What is the implicit definition of “art” you are running with there?  

 

Nick

 

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Grant Holland
Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:51 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>; Owen Densmore <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine

 

Mathematics already went through this "crisis of confidence" in the latter half of the 19th century when Lobachevsky and Riemann came up with alternative, non-Euclidean, geometries. The issue that forced this new look at the soul of mathematics was, I believe, the verifiability - consistency, actually - of Euclid's fifth postulate with respect to his other four. This was followed historically by the works of Dedekind and Cantor who engaged naked logic to expose a number of counter-intuitive "truths" of mathematics. The entire hoopla was addressed by Hilbert's program in an attempt to put the matter to rest for once and for all. However, the work of Russell and Whitehead to further Hilbert's program by developing arithmetic from Hilbertian foundations was eventually stymied by Godel, whose work was generalized by Turing.

The result of all of this, according to my understanding, is that mathematics ceased to see itself as a "seeker after the true nature of the universe" (as do both science (which physics thinks it owns) and philosophy even today); and began to see itself as a "constructor of logically consistent models, regardless of their verifiability". Verifiability was dropped from the program of pure abstract mathematics, and was left to the "impure" pursuits of physicists, philosophers and applied mathematicians.

I'm sure someone on this list can set straight my recollections of mathematical history. But I do hold to the point that mathematics addressed, and "kind of" resolved, its own crisis of confidence over its assumed need for verifiability about a century ago. It's conclusion? Forget verifiability and pursue pure mathematics as art - not science.

Should physics give up its similar insistence on verification (seeking "the truth") - and join the ranks as just another branch of abstract mathematics?

Grant

On 12/26/15 9:44 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

Abs fab!

 

But amazingly, there are fantastic young grad students doing the impossible in this field .. testing at the Planck limits. Often using the universe itself to test its own theories.

 

One of my favorites is a stream of matter flowing towards a void in space which suggests "gravity on the other side" .. i.e. a multiverse lump hidden from us but not by gravity.

 

Why is there Something, not Nothing gets to be fascinating when the big bang was sparked by less than a tea-spoon of matter, or so it is thought nowadays.

 

   -- Owen

 

On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Tom Johnson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Something to keep you occupied until New Years Day.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/

===================================
Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism
Santa Fe, NM
SPJ Region 9 Director
[hidden email]               <a href="tel:[phone]" target="_blank">505-473-9646
===================================

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

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

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

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

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

--
Sent from Gmail Mobile

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

 

--

The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information.  It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient,  you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to [hidden email].

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com