Login  Register

Re: Direct conversation - 1st vs 3rd person

Posted by Victoria Hughes on Jul 03, 2009; 8:52pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-Direct-conversation-tp3137870p3203334.html

<base href="file://C:\Users\Rikus\Documents\My Stationery\">Sounds like this has a chance of sorting through the levels of language and thought. Keep me in the loop in this, I am interested as well. Also a nice parsing of systems themselves, right? A system of systems, thus useful as a model for other endeavours.

Tory

On Jul 3, 2009, at 8:03 AM, Rikus Combrinck wrote:

I'd also be interested.  I've been trying to put together a basic framework to order my own thinking.  Not quite resorting to set theory, but making explicit the various levels of organisation, system boundaries, relationships between elements, information flow, etc.  My hope is that if one carefully works one's way up through the various levels of organization (from quarks to content of the psyche), it should become clear where the different views part ways.
 
I'd expect that this sort of thing has been attempted before; Google doesn't appear immediately helpful, though.
 
Regards,
Rikus


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Owen Densmore" <[hidden email]>
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:46 PM
To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Direct conversation - 1st vs 3rd person

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


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