Tom, thanks, you said it as I will try to spell it out interjected in your
reply.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Caylor" <Daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden>
To: "Everything List" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: ROADMAP (SHORT)
>
> jamikes.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tom Caylor" <Daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden>
> > To: "Everything List" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 3:23 PM
> > Subject: Re: ROADMAP (SHORT)
> >
> >
> >
> > You wrote:
> > What is the non-mathematical part of UDA? The part that uses Church
> > Thesis? When I hear "non-mathematical" I hear "non-rigor". Define
> > rigor that is non-mathematical. I guess if you do then you've been
> > mathematical about it. I don't understand.
> >
> > Tom
> > ----------
> > Smart: whatever I may come up with, as a different type of "vigor"
> > (btw is this term well identified?) you will call it "math" - just a
> > different type.
> > John M
> > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
>
> The root of the word "math" means learning, study, or science. Math is
> the effort to make things precise. So in my view applied math would be
> taking actual information and trying to make the science precise in
> order to further our learning and quest of the truth in the most
> efficient manner possible.
Applied math is a sore point for me. As long as I accept (theoretical)
"Math" as a language of logical thinking (IMO a one-plane one, but it is not
the point now) I cannot condone the APPLIED "math" version, (math) using
the results of Math for inrigorating (oops!) the imprecise model-values
(reductionist) 'science' is dealing with.
Precise it will be, right it won't, because it is based on a limited vue
within the boundaries of (topical) science observations. It makes the
imprecise value-system looking precise.
>
> I think that this is the concept that is
> captured by the term "rigor". But what's in a name? I call it "math"
> and I think that a good many people would agree, but others might call
> it something else, like "rigor". I think that it's an intuitive
> concept limited by our finite capabilities, as you so many times point
> out, John.
I did, indeed and am glad that someone noticed. Your term 'rigor' is pretty
wide, you call it 'math' (if not "Math") including all those qualia-domains
which are under discussion to be 'numbers(?) or not'. OK, I don't deny your
godfatherish right to call anything by any name, but then - please - tell me
what name to call the old "mathematical math"? (ie. churning conventional
numbers like 1,2,3) by?
>
> Tom
>
John
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Sep 11 2006 - 17:54:15 PDT