jamikes.domain.name.hidden wrote:
> 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
That is called arithmetic. I don't really want to pursue a discussion
on terminology, but thanks for your thoughts.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 - 18:18:55 PDT