Friam

from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

Classic

List

Threaded

17 messages Options

Prof David West

from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

Topics arose on Friday that I would be interested in pursuing if anyone else shares the interest

We briefly talked about story and evocation versus representation

I claimed that a words and pictures can be placed on a continuum between representational and evocative. A journal article being closer to representation, poetry closer to evocative. Pictures are more likely to be evocative (although the typical "here I am at the Grand Canyon" pic is mostly representative) because sight dominates our senses and text has to be processed via the left-brain before we can make sense of / react to it.

Stories can be fixed on the same spectrum. I have spent a lot of time working with story within the world of software development. Although story has been a constant in software (e.g.UML Use Cases, Agile User Stories) they have been nearly useless because they are representational - requirement capture - in nature and stripped of evocative context.

Nick raised the issue of being contrarian with regards science and could get no one to admit to anything beyond ignoring doctor's orders. This conversation also briefly touched on conspiracies and the possibility of a conspiracy without conspirators.

My frequent COVID contrariness is, I think, an example of what Nick was looking for. It certainly contains the arrogance of thinking I am better informed with regard relevant data than what is contained in the models and prognostications put forward by the experts.

Also, I would assert that the "Deep State" is a real thing, and an exemplar of a conspiracy without conspirators.

Thirdly, we talked about charity and the gap between personal and institutional. Contrary to Steve, who noted he grew up absent any kind of religious charitable context, I grew up in a culture where personal charity, awareness, and mutual aid was ubiquitous and constant. Welfare was distributed with every Bishop (roughly equivalent to parish priest - responsible for 100-150 families) had full authority to grant food, clothing, housing, etc. assistance to anyone within his Ward. Social contact, both in church services but also via activities like Family Home Teaching, meant that everyone in the Ward was aware of the needs of everyone else and the Bishop was fully informed as well. When families, even communities, experienced disaster, it was rectified in a matter of days and months. Similar things have been observed in Mennonite and Amish communities.

The social system integrated with the LDS religion (or Amish or Mennonite) can provide both the personal and the institutional support, and charity, that will forever elude bureaucratic government.

-- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Stephen Guerin-5

Re: from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

Dave West writes:

Thirdly, we talked about charity and the gap between personal and institutional. Contrary to Steve, who noted he grew up absent any kind of religious charitable context, I grew up in a culture where personal charity, awareness, and mutual aid was ubiquitous and constant. Welfare was distributed with every Bishop (roughly equivalent to parish priest - responsible for 100-150 families) had full authority to grant food, clothing, housing, etc. assistance to anyone within his Ward. Social contact, both in church services but also via activities like Family Home Teaching, meant that everyone in the Ward was aware of the needs of everyone else and the Bishop was fully informed as well. When families, even communities, experienced disaster, it was rectified in a matter of days and months. Similar things have been observed in Mennonite and Amish communities.

The social system integrated with the LDS religion (or Amish or Mennonite) can provide both the personal and the institutional support, and charity, that will forever elude bureaucratic government.

Very interesting example, Dave!

For the list, on Friday's VirtualFriam I brought up the pain the citizens of Paradise are in after the Camp Fire. As tragic as the event was in life and property loss in 2018, visiting the community on the anniversary on Nov 8, 2019, there was an almost equal tragedy around the frustration and depression around the failed distribution of massive federal recovery and charitable donations. And the community feels forgotten as so many events have happened since then. They are a community like Marcus describes at the end of the pandemic. So yes, agreeing on the fact that we can't rely on bureaucratic government.

On the chat I asked about more decentralized mechanisms as a counter to the federal and appreciate Dave you bringing up the church which has provided this in the past. As a Catholic growing up, I certainly saw resources flow and the "privacy-preserving" role the priest (and more importantly lay staff hierarchy) played in gathering and redistributing resources/activity.

I assert that we should turn over the collective intelligence and action around resource gathering and redistribution to Faith-based communities.

....

pausing for the anaphylactic response of many FRIAM readers to subside from the use of "Faith-based".

...

COVID is interesting as a rare global collective action event with the need for collective intelligence while maximizing privacy as well as much more intelligent routing of resources to those in need. People can understand that we are literally connected with COVID and are not isolated individuals. A collectively intelligent system is needed not only for resource distribution but for epidemic intelligence to know where the infectious locations are at any time (I don't need to know who).

If you have a belief that a collectively intelligent system could be built and you could be a member, welcome to a Faith-based community.

-- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Hi David,

As I review to myself the very little I know about LDS history, it seems to
me that the church suffered more at the hands of mobs than it did of
governments. Is that true? And if so, where does the distaste for
governments arise? And how is a system in which some few elders can deploy
the resources of a community as they see fit NOT a government?
I keep expecting Jim Gattiker to weigh in. I think he will say something
about the hegemony and coercive power of The State. With LDS you can always
choose a different religion. So, it's not that you fear governments, it's
that you fear SOME governments. And then the question is, what is the
difference between governments you fear and those you don't?

Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 11:08 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

Topics arose on Friday that I would be interested in pursuing if anyone else
shares the interest

We briefly talked about story and evocation versus representation

I claimed that a words and pictures can be placed on a continuum between
representational and evocative. A journal article being closer to
representation, poetry closer to evocative. Pictures are more likely to be
evocative (although the typical "here I am at the Grand Canyon" pic is
mostly representative) because sight dominates our senses and text has to be
processed via the left-brain before we can make sense of / react to it.

Stories can be fixed on the same spectrum. I have spent a lot of time
working with story within the world of software development. Although story
has been a constant in software (e.g.UML Use Cases, Agile User Stories) they
have been nearly useless because they are representational - requirement
capture - in nature and stripped of evocative context.

Nick raised the issue of being contrarian with regards science and could get
no one to admit to anything beyond ignoring doctor's orders. This
conversation also briefly touched on conspiracies and the possibility of a
conspiracy without conspirators.

My frequent COVID contrariness is, I think, an example of what Nick was
looking for. It certainly contains the arrogance of thinking I am better
informed with regard relevant data than what is contained in the models and
prognostications put forward by the experts.

Also, I would assert that the "Deep State" is a real thing, and an exemplar
of a conspiracy without conspirators.

Thirdly, we talked about charity and the gap between personal and
institutional. Contrary to Steve, who noted he grew up absent any kind of
religious charitable context, I grew up in a culture where personal charity,
awareness, and mutual aid was ubiquitous and constant. Welfare was
distributed with every Bishop (roughly equivalent to parish priest -
responsible for 100-150 families) had full authority to grant food,
clothing, housing, etc. assistance to anyone within his Ward. Social
contact, both in church services but also via activities like Family Home
Teaching, meant that everyone in the Ward was aware of the needs of everyone
else and the Bishop was fully informed as well. When families, even
communities, experienced disaster, it was rectified in a matter of days and
months. Similar things have been observed in Mennonite and Amish
communities.

The social system integrated with the LDS religion (or Amish or Mennonite)
can provide both the personal and the institutional support, and charity,
that will forever elude bureaucratic government.

-- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ...
... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

-- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

In reply to this post by Stephen Guerin-5

Steve,

Have you ever read David Sloan Wilson’s Darwinian Cathedral? The idea here is that religions originate as systems for the capture and equitable distribution of non-zero gains arising from community action and become corrupted when some individuals capture the system for their own gain.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 12:08 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

Dave West writes:

Thirdly, we talked about charity and the gap between personal and institutional. Contrary to Steve, who noted he grew up absent any kind of religious charitable context, I grew up in a culture where personal charity, awareness, and mutual aid was ubiquitous and constant. Welfare was distributed with every Bishop (roughly equivalent to parish priest - responsible for 100-150 families) had full authority to grant food, clothing, housing, etc. assistance to anyone within his Ward. Social contact, both in church services but also via activities like Family Home Teaching, meant that everyone in the Ward was aware of the needs of everyone else and the Bishop was fully informed as well. When families, even communities, experienced disaster, it was rectified in a matter of days and months. Similar things have been observed in Mennonite and Amish communities.

The social system integrated with the LDS religion (or Amish or Mennonite) can provide both the personal and the institutional support, and charity, that will forever elude bureaucratic government.

Very interesting example, Dave!

I assert that we should turn over the collective intelligence and action around resource gathering and redistribution to Faith-based communities.

....

pausing for the anaphylactic response of many FRIAM readers to subside from the use of "Faith-based".

...

If you have a belief that a collectively intelligent system could be built and you could be a member, welcome to a Faith-based community.

Prof David West

Re: from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Before Utah, it was the mobs. The first time the Feds stepped in was forced conscription of almost every able bodied man - just as they were beginning their emigration to Utah (the Mormon Battalion who were marched to Mexico before being released from service). Statehood was predicated on armed invasion (actually the troops stopped in Wyoming, ran out of salt, refused Brigham Young's gift of salt, and did no more than threaten and bluster) by the US Federal Government, the Feds deposed Brigham Young and installed a political governor, rescinded women's right to vote and hold public office (both of which they had from the beginning of the church and would not recover until the rest of the US passed the 19th amendment), the Feds, confiscated all property belonging to anyone with any kind of tie to polygamy, shut down the breweries and distilleries, etc. etc.

It is not a "few elders." The entire Church has less than 100 full-time ecclesiastical elders. Everything else is lay members, serving for limited terms. The one deciding if you get resources is not "an elder" it is your neighbor and probably your friend, and since he is a lay person, maybe your employer or employee.

I have a solid antipathy to any government,

... except I have no problem with the situational leadership, a kind of government, that prevailed among people before we, as a species, invented agriculture. And, don't try to tell me that "primitive" forms of government, or non-hierarchical and institutional forms of government can't scale to modern society. You do not know that, and there is lots of evidence that such an assertion would be wrong.

If Mormonism were a theocracy I would abhor it equally. However, the socio-cultural System that operates in parallel to but fundamentally apart from the doctrinal church is, I believe, admirable because it is a peer-to-peer, everyone equal, means for assuring smooth social interaction and mutual interdependence as necessary. Not even close to a government.

I would echo Steve G's proposal to turn 'welfare" over to faith-based organizations, but no any such. Only those without a full time costly bureaucracy of priests, prelates, cardinals, et. al. and only those that are not de facto theocracies. This leaves a short list, like the mennonites, amish (both would be difficult because they are insular), the Soka Gakkai (a modern thread of Buddhism), LDS, and a host of specific congregations among other faiths.

Rant — nape hair fully erect
davew

On Sat, May 16, 2020, at 12:21 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> Hi David,
>
> As I review to myself the very little I know about LDS history, it seems to
> me that the church suffered more at the hands of mobs than it did of
> governments. Is that true? And if so, where does the distaste for
> governments arise? And how is a system in which some few elders can deploy
> the resources of a community as they see fit NOT a government?
> I keep expecting Jim Gattiker to weigh in. I think he will say something
> about the hegemony and coercive power of The State. With LDS you can always
> choose a different religion. So, it's not that you fear governments, it's
> that you fear SOME governments. And then the question is, what is the
> difference between governments you fear and those you don't?
>
> Nick
> Nicholas Thompson
> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
> Clark University
> [hidden email]
> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Prof David West
> Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 11:08 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: [FRIAM] from 5/15 virtual FRIAM
>
> Topics arose on Friday that I would be interested in pursuing if anyone else
> shares the interest
>
> We briefly talked about story and evocation versus representation
>
> I claimed that a words and pictures can be placed on a continuum between
> representational and evocative. A journal article being closer to
> representation, poetry closer to evocative. Pictures are more likely to be
> evocative (although the typical "here I am at the Grand Canyon" pic is
> mostly representative) because sight dominates our senses and text has to be
> processed via the left-brain before we can make sense of / react to it.
>
> Stories can be fixed on the same spectrum. I have spent a lot of time
> working with story within the world of software development. Although story
> has been a constant in software (e.g.UML Use Cases, Agile User Stories) they
> have been nearly useless because they are representational - requirement
> capture - in nature and stripped of evocative context.
>
> Nick raised the issue of being contrarian with regards science and could get
> no one to admit to anything beyond ignoring doctor's orders. This
> conversation also briefly touched on conspiracies and the possibility of a
> conspiracy without conspirators.
>
> My frequent COVID contrariness is, I think, an example of what Nick was
> looking for. It certainly contains the arrogance of thinking I am better
> informed with regard relevant data than what is contained in the models and
> prognostications put forward by the experts.
>
> Also, I would assert that the "Deep State" is a real thing, and an exemplar
> of a conspiracy without conspirators.
>
> Thirdly, we talked about charity and the gap between personal and
> institutional. Contrary to Steve, who noted he grew up absent any kind of
> religious charitable context, I grew up in a culture where personal charity,
> awareness, and mutual aid was ubiquitous and constant. Welfare was
> distributed with every Bishop (roughly equivalent to parish priest -
> responsible for 100-150 families) had full authority to grant food,
> clothing, housing, etc. assistance to anyone within his Ward. Social
> contact, both in church services but also via activities like Family Home
> Teaching, meant that everyone in the Ward was aware of the needs of everyone
> else and the Bishop was fully informed as well. When families, even
> communities, experienced disaster, it was rectified in a matter of days and
> months. Similar things have been observed in Mennonite and Amish
> communities.
>
> The social system integrated with the LDS religion (or Amish or Mennonite)
> can provide both the personal and the institutional support, and charity,
> that will forever elude bureaucratic government.
>
> -- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ...
> ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>
>
> -- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. .
> ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
>

Prof David West

Re: from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

Dave has read it and it has a faulty premise.

Prior to the invention of agriculture and the generation of a surplus that had to be managed (storage, preservation, later distribution) the only "specialist" role in the cultures and societies of the time was that of Shaman.

The very first specialist role was "priest" an individual who held that God gave him the right to manage the surplus. When secular specialist roles multiplied, the priests power was usurped by the kind who, of course, also ruled by divine right. Personal corruption, power elites, stratified society, and government ensued — to the eternal detriment of humanity.

davew

On Sat, May 16, 2020, at 12:55 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

Steve,

Have you ever read David Sloan Wilson’s Darwinian Cathedral? The idea here is that religions originate as systems for the capture and equitable distribution of non-zero gains arising from community action and become corrupted when some individuals capture the system for their own gain.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Stephen Guerin
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 12:08 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

Dave West writes:
Thirdly, we talked about charity and the gap between personal and institutional. Contrary to Steve, who noted he grew up absent any kind of religious charitable context, I grew up in a culture where personal charity, awareness, and mutual aid was ubiquitous and constant. Welfare was distributed with every Bishop (roughly equivalent to parish priest - responsible for 100-150 families) had full authority to grant food, clothing, housing, etc. assistance to anyone within his Ward. Social contact, both in church services but also via activities like Family Home Teaching, meant that everyone in the Ward was aware of the needs of everyone else and the Bishop was fully informed as well. When families, even communities, experienced disaster, it was rectified in a matter of days and months. Similar things have been observed in Mennonite and Amish communities.

The social system integrated with the LDS religion (or Amish or Mennonite) can provide both the personal and the institutional support, and charity, that will forever elude bureaucratic government.

Very interesting example, Dave!

For the list, on Friday's VirtualFriam I brought up the pain the citizens of Paradise are in after the Camp Fire. As tragic as the event was in life and property loss in 2018, visiting the community on the anniversary on Nov 8, 2019, there was an almost equal tragedy around the frustration and depression around the failed distribution of massive federal recovery and charitable donations. And the community feels forgotten as so many events have happened since then. They are a community like Marcus describes at the end of the pandemic. So yes, agreeing on the fact that we can't rely on bureaucratic government.

On the chat I asked about more decentralized mechanisms as a counter to the federal and appreciate Dave you bringing up the church which has provided this in the past. As a Catholic growing up, I certainly saw resources flow and the "privacy-preserving" role the priest (and more importantly lay staff hierarchy) played in gathering and redistributing resources/activity.

I assert that we should turn over the collective intelligence and action around resource gathering and redistribution to Faith-based communities.

....
pausing for the anaphylactic response of many FRIAM readers to subside from the use of "Faith-based".
...

COVID is interesting as a rare global collective action event with the need for collective intelligence while maximizing privacy as well as much more intelligent routing of resources to those in need. People can understand that we are literally connected with COVID and are not isolated individuals. A collectively intelligent system is needed not only for resource distribution but for epidemic intelligence to know where the infectious locations are at any time (I don't need to know who).

If you have a belief that a collectively intelligent system could be built and you could be a member, welcome to a Faith-based community.

-- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

jon zingale

Re: from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Disclaimers:
1. TLDR Warning
2. These opinions will be poorly founded and are subject to change.

Dave,

You write: `Nick raised the issue of being contrarian with regards science and

could get no one to admit to anything beyond ignoring doctor's orders.`

Questions like the one Nick posed fill me with a sense of aporia.
I am left without an immediate response. Personally, I find it useful
to factor science into a number of modes or senses. The ultimate goal
for me is to sketch out the kind of space where I can investigate the shape
of my own conception of science. Ultimately, whatever science is to me
cannot be a single consistent entity, but rather a kind of eidetic variation.

* Science as institution. Science can be identified with its institutions:
STEM outreach after-school programs, publishing companies, research centers,
and the like. Here science is sometimes portrayed as a career with clear
delineations regarding who is good or bad at science. Its goals are set by
commitees and participation is all but automated through bureaucratic policy.
The authority we assert when we reference expertise, degrees and associations
is one of institutional authority. While there is probably a lot for me to pick
apart here, I will stick to two or three contrary beliefs I hold. For me, the
notion of STEM is awkward exactly because mathematics is a liberal art and

not necessarily a science. Mathematics exists to describe relationships and to
facilitate thought. It's home is not far from painting, drawing or the
activities of thespians. Another belief I hold is that any institution is
susceptible to legitimation crisis. It is very possible, as is often argued of
our news outlets, for scientific institutions to fail in their duty to produce
science.

For anyone who is interested in these potential short-comings I recommend

reading the history of the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction. While the story ends

well, it leaves the critical reader wondering what good science has been left to die.

Here, I hold the belief that there is very likely science, as legitimated by other

scientific senses, which have been de-legitimated by science as institution.

Science as institution is not itself consistently decided. It is prone
to as-well-as open to inter-institutional disagreement. Putting aside for the
moment that agreement will one day be reached (an ontological claim that

may itself not be amenable to scientific inquiry) any active area of research
is riddled with competing theories. Extreme cases include cosmology and
string theory. A weaker example is the Feynman-Wheeler electron.

* Science as abstract authority. It is a personal pet peeve of mine when
someone forms a sentence like, "Well, science says X". It is a strange side-
effect of our culture that the notion of science can be lifted to the status
of abstract authority. The function of such a statement is to end discussion,
to leave ideas stillborn. To the degree that I find this behavior appalling,

I hold beliefs contrary to science in this sense.

* Science as methodology. Science as the product of scientific methodology
has a great number of sub-topics whose surface I will barely ever get to know.
Scientific method, peer-review publishing, description production, explanation
production, Occam's Razor and the constructivists. Many scientific results
have at the core of their methodology useful but known-to-be troublesome
assumptions. The scientific method itself is a co-recursive algorithm and
therefore subject to limitations like NP-completeness and decidability.
At the root of our most trusted tools, like differentiation, hide the uncertainties

of second-order logic. In an attempt to remedy perceived failings in the tools of

formal logic, the constructivists (under the impetus of Brouwer, Heyting and others)

proceeded to develop new logics which in turn were used to create new forms of

analysis, non-standard analysis and synthetic differential geometry to name two.

This proliferation of new tools, however, introduce new complexities.

Theorems which were abhorrent in one logical frame (Banach-Tarski) became

non-issues in another, but now in the new frame live other abhorrent theorems

which didn't exist in the first (Specker's Theorem). I suspect it will not be

possible for science as methodology to decide which logical frame is somehow

the most correct. As it stands I do value the predictions afforded by a classically

founded differential calculus, even if its foundations are unresolvable. Perhaps

less controversially, I hold space for the existence of Chaitin random numbers.

In a Scientific American article Chaitin writes:

'Although randomness can be precisely defined and can even be measured,
a given number cannot be proved to be random. This enigma establishes a
limit to what is possible in mathematics'.

Lastly on this point and just to bait Nick...
Nick often attributes to Peirce that, "Truth is what we will ultimately
come to agree upon". This idea is perhaps non-scientific in that it
may be a form of Ramsey statement (thanks Glen!) which falls on the side
of metaphysics. A truth-principle like this with Ramsey meta-physicality would
suggest that truth is here, but we cannot know it, despite Nick's deepest wishes.
Further, if we could know a thing in this way, we would only be able to verify
it once all of the ballots were in.

* Science as metaphor. In a very narrow context, science can be construed as
metaphor between mathematical model and physical observation. Nick often

points out that while instantaneous velocity is mathematical, we should be leery

of calling it physical. When we apply the notion of an arc to the path of a ball,
we are importing and projecting onto physical space the properties of a model.
These properties almost invariably entail the continuity and smoothness of
time and of space. Arguably, even time and space are imported. I do believe
that time and space are worth the import, but I do not think of the metaphor
as establishing truth.

* Science as culture. A biologist friend of mine asked me to validate his
claim that our universe is four dimensional. I took the opportunity to elaborate
on the concept of dimension as I think of it, namely as an assertion about
linear independence. I attempted to move the conversation to a discussion
about models and what we intend to describe. I am ok with a four dimensional
time-space if we are discussing Einstein's relativity theory. Clearly, in other
physical contexts I may wish to talk meaningfully about infinite dimensional
Hilbert spaces or six dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds. He left the conversation
miffed. Science has a cultural component, we argue and push and struggle to
define scientific contexts with each other. Imre Lakotos wrote a wonderful
book about this called "Conjectures and Refutations". It playfully covers,
in dialogue form, the development of modern topology from the perspective
of mathematics culture.

* Temporality in Science. Because Newton and Einstein held different beliefs,
we cannot rely (nor should we) on science to be consistent in time. We can hope,
along with Nick, that some scientific acquisition will meet the ultimate gold-
standard, jump the limit of our methodologies and finally and gloriously be
classified as known true. While it would likely be the case that if Newton
were here today he would agree that Einstein's theory is better, there are other
examples which exhibit oscillatory behavior. Is coffee good for you? Should
you avoid red meat? It is hard for me to keep up with the temporality of
science, and I suspect that we are capable of believing things which are not-
now-but-will-one-day-satisfy the scientific criteria of one or many of the

senses above.

In many ways I feel that I am taking a bold risk in rambling here, so I hope
that it meets your (Dave) satisfaction. I also hope that it inspires others
to take a chance and spill some e-ink.

Full of it,

Jon

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

Jon-

While reading your essay I had several associations. I recently read the assertion that in developing axiomatic systems and proving the entailed theorems mathematicians are writing for God as the authority. So mathematics, from that point of view is a conversation with God.

At the other extreme (?) I thought Reuben Hersh held a view similar to the one you attribute to Nick: that mathematics is the set of theorems that mathematicians agree to by consensus.

I agree that Newtonian physics and differential calculus are the correct model for objects moving in a vacuum. I was given an $85 ticket by a rookie police officer for rolling through a stop sign. She said my wheels never completely stopped turning I don't think any experienced officer would have given me a citation. I had fantasies of writing to the judge explaining that an object moving along a continuous path can stop for zero seconds (unit of time irrelevant). This happens when you throw an object straight up (directly away from the center of the earth). I don't know about whether space and time have the Hausdorff property but for traffic purposes it doesn't matter.

In the Woody Allen film "Sleeper", Allen's character wakes up 200 years in the future. He's getting in to know a stranger and he tells him that he owned a health food store in Greenwich Village. The stranger looked puzzled and then said, "Oh, those were the days before scientists realized that the ideal diet consists of steak and chocolate milkshakes".

I feel, without evidence, that mankind will not last long enough to see all science as settled. There is hope for pure math.

Is any of this responsive to your email?

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sat, May 16, 2020, 7:07 PM Jon Zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:

Disclaimers:
1. TLDR Warning
2. These opinions will be poorly founded and are subject to change.

Dave,

You write: `Nick raised the issue of being contrarian with regards science and
could get no one to admit to anything beyond ignoring doctor's orders.`

Questions like the one Nick posed fill me with a sense of aporia.
I am left without an immediate response. Personally, I find it useful
to factor science into a number of modes or senses. The ultimate goal
for me is to sketch out the kind of space where I can investigate the shape
of my own conception of science. Ultimately, whatever science is to me
cannot be a single consistent entity, but rather a kind of eidetic variation.

* Science as institution. Science can be identified with its institutions:
STEM outreach after-school programs, publishing companies, research centers,
and the like. Here science is sometimes portrayed as a career with clear
delineations regarding who is good or bad at science. Its goals are set by
commitees and participation is all but automated through bureaucratic policy.
The authority we assert when we reference expertise, degrees and associations
is one of institutional authority. While there is probably a lot for me to pick
apart here, I will stick to two or three contrary beliefs I hold. For me, the
notion of STEM is awkward exactly because mathematics is a liberal art and
not necessarily a science. Mathematics exists to describe relationships and to
facilitate thought. It's home is not far from painting, drawing or the
activities of thespians. Another belief I hold is that any institution is
susceptible to legitimation crisis. It is very possible, as is often argued of
our news outlets, for scientific institutions to fail in their duty to produce
science.

For anyone who is interested in these potential short-comings I recommend
reading the history of the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction. While the story ends
well, it leaves the critical reader wondering what good science has been left to die.
Here, I hold the belief that there is very likely science, as legitimated by other
scientific senses, which have been de-legitimated by science as institution.

Science as institution is not itself consistently decided. It is prone
to as-well-as open to inter-institutional disagreement. Putting aside for the
moment that agreement will one day be reached (an ontological claim that
may itself not be amenable to scientific inquiry) any active area of research
is riddled with competing theories. Extreme cases include cosmology and
string theory. A weaker example is the Feynman-Wheeler electron.

* Science as abstract authority. It is a personal pet peeve of mine when
someone forms a sentence like, "Well, science says X". It is a strange side-
effect of our culture that the notion of science can be lifted to the status
of abstract authority. The function of such a statement is to end discussion,
to leave ideas stillborn. To the degree that I find this behavior appalling,
I hold beliefs contrary to science in this sense.

* Science as methodology. Science as the product of scientific methodology
has a great number of sub-topics whose surface I will barely ever get to know.
Scientific method, peer-review publishing, description production, explanation
production, Occam's Razor and the constructivists. Many scientific results
have at the core of their methodology useful but known-to-be troublesome
assumptions. The scientific method itself is a co-recursive algorithm and
therefore subject to limitations like NP-completeness and decidability.
At the root of our most trusted tools, like differentiation, hide the uncertainties
of second-order logic. In an attempt to remedy perceived failings in the tools of
formal logic, the constructivists (under the impetus of Brouwer, Heyting and others)
proceeded to develop new logics which in turn were used to create new forms of
analysis, non-standard analysis and synthetic differential geometry to name two.

This proliferation of new tools, however, introduce new complexities.
Theorems which were abhorrent in one logical frame (Banach-Tarski) became
non-issues in another, but now in the new frame live other abhorrent theorems
which didn't exist in the first (Specker's Theorem). I suspect it will not be
possible for science as methodology to decide which logical frame is somehow
the most correct. As it stands I do value the predictions afforded by a classically
founded differential calculus, even if its foundations are unresolvable. Perhaps
less controversially, I hold space for the existence of Chaitin random numbers.
In a Scientific American article Chaitin writes:

'Although randomness can be precisely defined and can even be measured,
a given number cannot be proved to be random. This enigma establishes a
limit to what is possible in mathematics'.

Lastly on this point and just to bait Nick...
Nick often attributes to Peirce that, "Truth is what we will ultimately
come to agree upon". This idea is perhaps non-scientific in that it
may be a form of Ramsey statement (thanks Glen!) which falls on the side
of metaphysics. A truth-principle like this with Ramsey meta-physicality would
suggest that truth is here, but we cannot know it, despite Nick's deepest wishes.
Further, if we could know a thing in this way, we would only be able to verify
it once all of the ballots were in.

* Science as metaphor. In a very narrow context, science can be construed as
metaphor between mathematical model and physical observation. Nick often
points out that while instantaneous velocity is mathematical, we should be leery
of calling it physical. When we apply the notion of an arc to the path of a ball,
we are importing and projecting onto physical space the properties of a model.
These properties almost invariably entail the continuity and smoothness of
time and of space. Arguably, even time and space are imported. I do believe
that time and space are worth the import, but I do not think of the metaphor
as establishing truth.

* Science as culture. A biologist friend of mine asked me to validate his
claim that our universe is four dimensional. I took the opportunity to elaborate
on the concept of dimension as I think of it, namely as an assertion about
linear independence. I attempted to move the conversation to a discussion
about models and what we intend to describe. I am ok with a four dimensional
time-space if we are discussing Einstein's relativity theory. Clearly, in other
physical contexts I may wish to talk meaningfully about infinite dimensional
Hilbert spaces or six dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds. He left the conversation
miffed. Science has a cultural component, we argue and push and struggle to
define scientific contexts with each other. Imre Lakotos wrote a wonderful
book about this called "Conjectures and Refutations". It playfully covers,
in dialogue form, the development of modern topology from the perspective
of mathematics culture.

* Temporality in Science. Because Newton and Einstein held different beliefs,
we cannot rely (nor should we) on science to be consistent in time. We can hope,
along with Nick, that some scientific acquisition will meet the ultimate gold-
standard, jump the limit of our methodologies and finally and gloriously be
classified as known true. While it would likely be the case that if Newton
were here today he would agree that Einstein's theory is better, there are other
examples which exhibit oscillatory behavior. Is coffee good for you? Should
you avoid red meat? It is hard for me to keep up with the temporality of
science, and I suspect that we are capable of believing things which are not-
now-but-will-one-day-satisfy the scientific criteria of one or many of the
senses above.

In many ways I feel that I am taking a bold risk in rambling here, so I hope
that it meets your (Dave) satisfaction. I also hope that it inspires others
to take a chance and spill some e-ink.

Full of it,
Jon
-- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

In reply to this post by jon zingale

I really like this, and it strengthens my belief that we ought to be assembling and publishing a book of FRIAM Gems.

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Jon Zingale
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 7:07 PM
To: [hidden email]; Kaitlyn Berry <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

Disclaimers:
1. TLDR Warning
2. These opinions will be poorly founded and are subject to change.

Dave,

You write: `Nick raised the issue of being contrarian with regards science and

could get no one to admit to anything beyond ignoring doctor's orders.`

not necessarily a science. Mathematics exists to describe relationships and to
facilitate thought. It's home is not far from painting, drawing or the
activities of thespians. Another belief I hold is that any institution is
susceptible to legitimation crisis. It is very possible, as is often argued of
our news outlets, for scientific institutions to fail in their duty to produce
science.