talk about rabbit holes ...
Locked
 
|
So, I find this: Theorem Proving, Multigraphs and Euler Cycles in R. Part I https://criticathink.wordpress.com/2020/03/21/theorem-proving-multigraphs-and-euler-cycles-in-r-i/ Which is pretty cool. And I think, wow a philosopher who uses R! Maybe I should follow this dude on feedly or somesuch. So, then I find this: The Newman Objection to Ramsey Sentence Structuralism https://m-phi.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-newman-objection-to-ramsey-sentence.html which I read *because* of this I received earlier this morning: The remarkable life of philosopher Frank Ramsey https://blog.oup.com/2020/02/the-remarkable-life-of-philosopher-frank-ramsey/ In the link to the academia.edu page, linked from 2 articles in that post, his blurb says: 'Logician. Stalked by a psychopath. Chased out of Oxford by a feminist vigilante mob. Now a researcher at The University of Warsaw (a project "Model theoretic methods in the foundations of science")'. So now I have to find out if he's just an outright jerk, which means no matter how interesting his tech or philosophy output might be, I'm not gonna follow his work. At which point I find all sorts of links showing he gives talks at Men's Rights conferences and such. Blech. He does seem like a bit of a jerk. It's a shame because I really like (and agree with) his conception of postmodernism: The Metanarrative of Social Justice. Or, Why SJW isn’t Postmodernist Either https://criticathink.wordpress.com/2018/04/29/the-metanarrative-of-social-justice-or-why-sjw-isnt-postmodernist-either/ I worry even about posting these links, here. Am I facilitating the more antisocial aspects of his work? I doubt I am with the FriAM members, particularly. But given that the list is archived and googlable, is it irresponsible to link to his work? Gah. Why is everything so difficult? -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
Glen - Not just any ole rabbit hole but a very convoluted/complex (albeit interesting) one. I dove into your last link (only) because I've been wanting to understand more better what YOUR view of postmoderism is... on the whole I like what I read. I don't have the focus nor bandwidth right now to begin to ask more questions or assert speculations for you to shoot down or bat around. One thing I'm left wondering is what the species of post
postmodernism are or are going to be. Especially right now when we are all going through a huge
experiment/experience... in some ways it is as if there is a
fast-moving battle (fire-fight) between free market capitalism and
social democracy in this pandemic. Both styles of socioeconomic
structuring are being put to the test (as are totalitarian vs
democratic governances) in a trial by fire/virus. Certainly the author's 4 definitions of postmodernism apply to this current goat rope:
I suppose a meta-question I'm pondering is what kind of post postmodernism does postmodernism bootstrap (or procreate if you want a tongue twister)?
I don't have anything much to say about separating the man Ramsey from the behaviour Jerkiness. This occurs a lot in my experience (mostly when reviewing historical or famous figures public/private lives).... I"m sympathetic with your preference for not accidentally reinforcing jerkiness by giving the vessel of it attention. Mumble, - Steve
So, I find this: Theorem Proving, Multigraphs and Euler Cycles in R. Part I https://criticathink.wordpress.com/2020/03/21/theorem-proving-multigraphs-and-euler-cycles-in-r-i/ Which is pretty cool. And I think, wow a philosopher who uses R! Maybe I should follow this dude on feedly or somesuch. So, then I find this: The Newman Objection to Ramsey Sentence Structuralism https://m-phi.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-newman-objection-to-ramsey-sentence.html which I read *because* of this I received earlier this morning: The remarkable life of philosopher Frank Ramsey https://blog.oup.com/2020/02/the-remarkable-life-of-philosopher-frank-ramsey/ In the link to the academia.edu page, linked from 2 articles in that post, his blurb says: 'Logician. Stalked by a psychopath. Chased out of Oxford by a feminist vigilante mob. Now a researcher at The University of Warsaw (a project "Model theoretic methods in the foundations of science")'. So now I have to find out if he's just an outright jerk, which means no matter how interesting his tech or philosophy output might be, I'm not gonna follow his work. At which point I find all sorts of links showing he gives talks at Men's Rights conferences and such. Blech. He does seem like a bit of a jerk. It's a shame because I really like (and agree with) his conception of postmodernism: The Metanarrative of Social Justice. Or, Why SJW isn’t Postmodernist Either https://criticathink.wordpress.com/2018/04/29/the-metanarrative-of-social-justice-or-why-sjw-isnt-postmodernist-either/ I worry even about posting these links, here. Am I facilitating the more antisocial aspects of his work? I doubt I am with the FriAM members, particularly. But given that the list is archived and googlable, is it irresponsible to link to his work? Gah. Why is everything so difficult? ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
Sorry for being unclear. I didn't intend to say that Frank Ramsey, who died in 1930, was the jerk. It's Jeffrey Ketland that I'm concerned about. And to be fair, it is traumatic to have an acquaintance commit suicide, regardless of the circumstances. Whether the "social justice league" who hounded afterward were right or wrong to hound him, it clearly biased his thinking from that point on.
Re: his entry on postmodernism - I think it's important to realize he didn't say the 3 (or 4) things were separate *definitions* of it, but that they contain those 3 main ingredients: • scepticism/incredulity at historical metanarratives. • Deconstruction of "hidden power structures"; social anarchism. • Intellectual obscurantism. I like the way he frames them as ingredients because I vacillate to supporting it or criticizing it based on the other discussants. When someone writes off PoMo, I hold up bullets 1 and 2 to show how PoMo is in the tradition of good hard criticism. When someone advocates PoMo, I hold up bullet 3 to argue that they're silly mental contortionists. As for "what comes after PoMo", *nothing*. To me, PoMo is an exercise in criticism. Period. They're just doing their duty and attempting to falsify unjustified beliefs. Any scientist should appreciate that as a component of critical rationalism. I mentioned a book awhile back by Mikhail Epstein: "The Transformative Humanities", which I think takes a good step toward "what comes after". But this isn't my domain. So, that's the only recommendation I have. On 3/26/20 8:25 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > Not just any ole rabbit hole but a very convoluted/complex (albeit interesting) one. > > I dove into your last link (only) because I've been wanting to understand more better what YOUR view of postmoderism is... on the whole I like what I read. I don't have the focus nor bandwidth right now to begin to ask more questions or assert speculations for you to shoot down or bat around. > > One thing I'm left wondering is what the species of post postmodernism are or are going to be. > > Especially right now when we are all going through a huge experiment/experience... in some ways it is as if there is a fast-moving battle (fire-fight) between free market capitalism and social democracy in this pandemic. Both styles of socioeconomic structuring are being put to the test (as are totalitarian vs democratic governances) in a trial by fire/virus. > > Certainly the author's 4 definitions of postmodernism apply to this current goat rope: > > 1. Non uniformity of progress is being demonstrated in our face at many scales... in the spirit of 3 steps forward and 2 steps back, a LOT of obvious things are in the 2 steps back phase. Others we maybe can't see clearly for the smoke of our economy and TP supplies burning up might actually be 3 forward, or at least foreshadow the possibility. > 2. Scepticism of the traditional metanarrative is definitely being trumped (Trumped?) by the urgent reality of the sky falling in so many ways... expedience and practicality are knocking holes in some of the old-school metanarratives. > 3. I'm not sure if hidden power structures are being revealed by deconstructionism, but the fat is melting off and leaving the bare bones behind to be seen? > 4. Obscurantism: This is more of a criticism of postmodernism I think than a definition of it. I do find most self-identified po-mo's to engage in this. > > I suppose a meta-question I'm pondering is what kind of post postmodernism does postmodernism bootstrap (or procreate if you want a tongue twister)? > > > I don't have anything much to say about separating the man Ramsey from the behaviour Jerkiness. This occurs a lot in my experience (mostly when reviewing historical or famous figures public/private lives).... I"m sympathetic with your preference for not accidentally reinforcing jerkiness by giving the vessel of it attention. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
> Sorry for being unclear. I didn't intend to say that Frank Ramsey, who died in 1930, was the jerk. It's Jeffrey Ketland that I'm concerned about. I felt that I was parsing that wrong but because I was rather tired and losing focus I rushed to respond without going back and double-checking my referents... I'm not sure you were particularly unclear... > Re: his entry on postmodernism - I think it's important to realize he didn't say the 3 (or 4) things were separate *definitions* of it, but that they contain those 3 main ingredients: > > • scepticism/incredulity at historical metanarratives. > • Deconstruction of "hidden power structures"; social anarchism. > • Intellectual obscurantism. > > I like the way he frames them as ingredients Once again, I probably read it too quickly/uncritically and projected something onto it. But to be clear, I *appreciate* them as ingredients or perhaps qualities rather than definitions. When I first encountered PoMo it was probably in the context of long winded discussions with other young people when entered college. It was often a breath of fresh air with the first two points as you point out, but it was the last one that probably bothered me the most... it typified what I only knew then as "sophistry". > When someone writes off PoMo, I hold up bullets 1 and 2 to show how PoMo is in the tradition of good hard criticism. When someone advocates PoMo, I hold up bullet 3 to argue that they're silly mental contortionists. like that. > As for "what comes after PoMo", *nothing*. To me, PoMo is an exercise in criticism. Period. They're just doing their duty and attempting to falsify unjustified beliefs. I think I can appreciate that... maybe what I am seeking is more like epi-PoMo than post-PoMo... from my lame and limited perspective, the link you offered was in fact a bit of that which is what drew me to respond in this otherwise chaotic moment. Any document or person (like yourself I believe) who can both embrace and reject (criticize) PoMo in the same breath is welcome to me... it represents the creation/maintenance of a tension which itself is the point... not the points of attachment to create the tension. My own criticism (really resentment) of PoMo is when it is used as a blunt (or ragged/rusty?) instrument to threaten or intimidate others, it doesn't do itself any favors. > Any scientist should appreciate that as a component of critical rationalism. I mentioned a book awhile back by Mikhail Epstein: "The Transformative Humanities", which I think takes a good step toward "what comes after". But this isn't my domain. So, that's the only recommendation I have. I'll put that in my associative memory and look forward when it gets reactivated again... I haven't even begun to follow the earlier links/references but they were bright shiny objects that I might get back to. - Steve > > On 3/26/20 8:25 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: >> Not just any ole rabbit hole but a very convoluted/complex (albeit interesting) one. >> >> I dove into your last link (only) because I've been wanting to understand more better what YOUR view of postmoderism is... on the whole I like what I read. I don't have the focus nor bandwidth right now to begin to ask more questions or assert speculations for you to shoot down or bat around. >> >> One thing I'm left wondering is what the species of post postmodernism are or are going to be. >> >> Especially right now when we are all going through a huge experiment/experience... in some ways it is as if there is a fast-moving battle (fire-fight) between free market capitalism and social democracy in this pandemic. Both styles of socioeconomic structuring are being put to the test (as are totalitarian vs democratic governances) in a trial by fire/virus. >> >> Certainly the author's 4 definitions of postmodernism apply to this current goat rope: >> >> 1. Non uniformity of progress is being demonstrated in our face at many scales... in the spirit of 3 steps forward and 2 steps back, a LOT of obvious things are in the 2 steps back phase. Others we maybe can't see clearly for the smoke of our economy and TP supplies burning up might actually be 3 forward, or at least foreshadow the possibility. >> 2. Scepticism of the traditional metanarrative is definitely being trumped (Trumped?) by the urgent reality of the sky falling in so many ways... expedience and practicality are knocking holes in some of the old-school metanarratives. >> 3. I'm not sure if hidden power structures are being revealed by deconstructionism, but the fat is melting off and leaving the bare bones behind to be seen? >> 4. Obscurantism: This is more of a criticism of postmodernism I think than a definition of it. I do find most self-identified po-mo's to engage in this. >> >> I suppose a meta-question I'm pondering is what kind of post postmodernism does postmodernism bootstrap (or procreate if you want a tongue twister)? >> >> >> I don't have anything much to say about separating the man Ramsey from the behaviour Jerkiness. This occurs a lot in my experience (mostly when reviewing historical or famous figures public/private lives).... I"m sympathetic with your preference for not accidentally reinforcing jerkiness by giving the vessel of it attention. ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen, It is kind of funny to me, and yet should not surprise me, that an individual was motivated to write a theorem prover in R. OTOH, every attempt I have ever made to get Agda to work for me has required sandboxing my Haskell environments and switching to an emacs editor, so hey. Still, the project strikes me as being one of bull headedness, a just-to-see-if-one-can kind of thing. Do you think they will go so far as to implement general dependent typing? Last night at some point, I was thinking about the problem of implementing flexible contravariant functors in a computing language. This often appears to a stumbling block when I set out to define for all and there exists from a substitution functor, a la Topos theory. Any thoughts are welcome. Jon ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: talk about rabbit holes ...
|
|
There’s the singletons library for GHC, and some follow-on work for Dependent Haskell. As far as I can tell it is another one of those drawn-out projects that the Haskell community manages to endure/ignore.
From: Friam <[hidden email]> on behalf of Jon Zingale <[hidden email]> Glen, It is kind of funny to me, and yet should not surprise me, that an individual was motivated to write a theorem prover in R. OTOH, every attempt I have ever made to get Agda to work for me has required sandboxing my Haskell environments and switching to an emacs editor, so hey. Still, the project strikes me as being one of bull headedness, a just-to-see-if-one-can kind of thing. Do you think they will go so far as to implement general dependent typing? Last night at some point, I was thinking about the problem of implementing flexible contravariant functors in a computing language. This often appears to a stumbling block when I set out to define for all and
there exists from a substitution functor, a la Topos theory. Any thoughts are welcome. Jon ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
I can't imagine he'd try to extend his "helper functions" that far, no. I wasn't even familiar with Prover9 until I saw that post: https://www.cs.unm.edu/~mccune/mace4/ It's a small world after all.
On 3/27/20 10:35 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > There’s the singletons library for GHC, and some follow-on work for Dependent Haskell. As far as I can tell it is another one of those drawn-out projects that the Haskell community manages to endure/ignore. > > On 3/27/20 9:45 AM, Jon Zingale wrote: >> Glen, >> >> It is kind of funny to me, and yet should not surprise me, that an >> individual was motivated to write a theorem prover in R. OTOH, >> every attempt I have ever made to get Agda to work for me has >> required sandboxing my Haskell environments and switching to >> an emacs editor, so hey. Still, the project strikes me as being one >> of bull headedness, a just-to-see-if-one-can kind of thing. >> >> Do you think they will go so far as to implement general dependent >> typing? Last night at some point, I was thinking about the problem of >> implementing flexible contravariant functors in a computing language. >> This often appears to a stumbling block when I set out to define /for all/ >> and /there exists/ from a substitution functor, a la Topos theory. >> Any thoughts are welcome. -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Marcus, Mostly, I bring up the issue of defining the quantifiers via functors for the academic challenge of it, but also thank you for looking up the singletons library. Getting under the hood of that library will likely have some beautiful code and likely a couple of balls-of-mud. Generally, I am not sure the Hindley-Milner type system really even supports such constructions, and so I would guess that a number of pragmas in GHC need to be set to relax the type system. Jon ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |