Login  Register

Re: Direct conversation - 1st vs 3rd person

Posted by Owen Densmore on Jul 02, 2009; 3:46pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-Direct-conversation-tp3137870p3195835.html

Thank you Nick, good explanation.  And Steve -- we actually started  
down this road on the thermodynamic formulation of ABM .. Guerin-
Speak .. with some success.

Much more generally: There is a rift between the formal and  
philosophic that I have a partial solution for.  Both are VSI (Very  
Short Introduction) books.
   http://www.amazon.com/dp/0192853619/
   http://www.amazon.com/dp/0192854119/

The first is the Mathematics VSI.  It is written by Timothy Gowers and  
really does get the reader into the mind of mathematics folks.  Gowers  
is a Fields Medalist -- the Nobel for math.  And he is driven by a  
Wittgenstein understanding of abstraction.  Gowers' discussion of a  
5th dimensional cube is a wonderful example. He constantly comes back  
to the type of abstraction he prefers: very clean and focused on the  
properties under discussion.

The second is the Wittgenstein VSI, to bind Gowers' math with his  
inspiration, Wittgenstein.  I've not finished this one (I've got a  
digital version and have just sent for the paper one) but there is  
hope we might actually find a connection between the more  
philosophical discussions and a formalism for them.

I'd be very interested in this endeavor.

     -- Owen


On Jul 2, 2009, at 9:14 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

> Owen,
>
> (1)Yes,  I do assume that most people delete these messages and  
> press on,
> as I delete  most (but not all) messages  about ... say ... the the  
> latest
> 4.0.17a.alpha version of Groovy on Rails.
>
> Different stroke for different folks.
>
> (2)Lord we tried on the summaries.  Unfortunately we couldnt agree
> sufficiently to produce a synopsis.
>
> (3) I am aware that you believe the following:
>
>> Most philosophical discussions of this ilk simply end in semantic
>> deadly embrace.  They are eventually resolved, if ever, at great cost
>> of word length.  The Kolmodorov complexity is quite low:
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
>> in that much compression could be attained.
>
> And, accordingly,  our inabiliity to produce such a summary  
> distressed me
> deeply.  This  I take to be not as a failiure of philosphy but a  
> failure on
> my (our) part to do it right, but I fear you will draw another  
> conclusion.
> .
>
> all the best,
>
> nick

On Jul 2, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Steve Smith wrote:

> Owen -
>> Most philosophical discussions of this ilk simply end in semantic  
>> deadly embrace.  They are eventually resolved, if ever, at great  
>> cost of word length.
> I agree with the sentiment, but if we were to caste this into a set-
> theoretic (or algebraic) framework, I think we would find some  
> interesting features.   I'm not sure, however, that such discussions  
> can truly be placed into a formalism.   I would find it interesting  
> (entertaining, instructive) if you could elaborate how you think  
> such a mapping would be done.   I believe these discussions to  
> (naturally, inherently) transcend formal logic.
>> The Kolmodorov complexity is quite low:
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolmogorov_complexity
>> in that much compression could be attained.
> I think someone did try to formulate an algorithmic description of  
> the discussion:
>
> •     Read everything written in the Western Philosophical Tradition
> •     Focus on Kant
> •     Focus on the New Realists
> •     Think real hard about all of the above
> •     Lay in the grass and intend to get up without doing so (my  
> contribution)
> •     Discuss your interpretation of 3, 2, 1
> •     Go to 4
> But methinks this is tantamount to getting several large carpets to  
> cover up the many small ones already hiding large piles of dust and  
> litter swept under them.
>
> Apologies to Nick, Russ, Eric, et al.  for (perhaps) being too flip  
> here.   I respect the earnestness and the information content that  
> is in the discussion, despite the difficulty in finding any  
> convergence.
>
> Carry On!
>
> - Steve

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