>
> Holding ourselves apart from nature,
> We are surprised when nature pays our work no mind.
> Were our methods unsound?
>
> Phil Henshaw wrote:
> > I think what may be holding back the math is our failure to go to the
> next
> > level and consider change as a physical process. When you do that
> you find
> > what nature actually does much more interesting and inspiring than
> anything
> > we can invent.
> >
> > Using a physical systems model the process now bringing about our
> whole
> > system collapse was seen coming a long way off and it could have
> inspired
> > the math to demonstrate the turn onto another path instead too.
> Live and
> > learn I guess.
> >
> > The 2006 paper by Bettencourt is easily generalized to reach this
> > implication, acknowledging that for the physical growth system he
> considered
> > "achieving major innovation cycles must be generated at continually
> > accelerating rates"(
>
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/17/7301.abstract).
> > That's remarkably close to the basis of proof for the general
> principle I
> > offered in my "Infinite Society" paper in 1979
> > (
http://www.synapse9.com/UnhidPatt-theInfiniteSoc.pdf). The general
> > principle being the theorem that I've been using ever since with
> excellent
> > forecasting results. In physical systems "growth runs into
> complications"
> > and nature does a lot of creative stuff with it. You just look for
> the
> > complications coming and then 'voila', cool new science at every
> turn!
> >
> > Phil
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From:
[hidden email] [mailto:
[hidden email]]
> On
> >> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
> >> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 6:10 PM
> >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Mathematics and Music
> >>
> >> Prof David West wrote:
> >>
> >>>> We have also talked about the lack of rigorous mathematical
> >>>> representation of complexity and that being a barrier to progress
> >>>> in the science.
> >>>>
> >>> the idea of magic raised your hackles - the above sentence raises
> >>>
> >> mine.
> >>
> >>> implicit in the sentence is some variation of "mathematics is a
> >>>
> >> better /
> >>
> >>> superior / privileged / real language compared to all other
> languages
> >>> used by humans to think and therefore we cannot really think
> properly
> >>>
> >> or
> >>
> >>> rigorously unless we are thinking mathematically."
> >>>
> >> I don't think that inference is implied by that sentence. I so
> believe
> >> math is a better language with which to describe reality than, say,
> >> English. But, that's not what the sentence above says. The
> sentence
> >> above states that a _lack_ of math rigor is a barrier to one
> particular
> >> domain: plectics.
> >>
> >> Your inference goes quite a bit further than the David's sentence.
> >>
> >>
> >>> this annoying attitude is expressed / believed by a majority of
> >>> intellectuals and academicians - not just mathematicians. We
> cannot
> >>>
> >> be
> >>
> >>> "scientists" unless we 'mathematize' our field of enquiry.
> >>>
> >> And although I believe that math is the best known language for
> >> describing reality, I don't believe that one must mathematize every
> >> scientific field or that one cannot be a scientist without
> >> mathematizing
> >> their field.
> >>
> >> Science is the search for truth. And truth can be sought using any
> >> language... any language at all. Some domains, particularly the
> ones
> >> resistant to rigor are best studied with languages that have a high
> >> tolerance for ambiguity... e.g. English.
> >>
> >> Some domains that are not so resistant to rigor are best studied
> with
> >> math. Often, it takes a great deal of work using ambiguity tolerant
> >> languages like English before an ambiguity intolerant language like
> >> math
> >> can be effectively used.
> >>
> >> If and when less ambiguous languages can be used, _then_ those
> >> languages
> >> become more effective than the more ambiguous languages.
> >>
> >> From 50,000 metaphorical feet, this can be seen as a simple case of
> >> specialization. A generalist uses coarse tools and a specialist
> uses
> >> fine tools. Math is a fine tool that can only be used after the
> >> generalists have done their upstream work in the domain. Neither is
> >> really "better", of course, when taking a synoptic view of the whole
> >> evolution of the domain. But math is definitely more refined...
> more
> >> special.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Interestingly enough, all advances in science stem from the uses of
> >>> metaphor - not mathematics. (see Quine) The premature rush to
> >>>
> >> abandon
> >>
> >>> the language of metaphor and publish using arcane squiggles is the
> >>>
> >> real
> >>
> >>> - in my not very humble opinion - barrier to progress.
> >>>
> >> I agree. Likewise, the tendency to stick with a coarse language
> when a
> >> more refined language is called for is also a real barrier to
> >> progress... "progress" defined as: the evolution of a domain from
> >> general to special, coarse to fine.
> >>
> >> --
> >> glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846,
http://tempusdictum.com> >>
> >>
> >> ============================================================
> >> 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> >
> >
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College