Brent,
thanx for the agreement, - however....
"INVENTIONS"?
I feel more open than that, MAYBE (considering unlimited openness) there IS
something in the reality (which is not accessible to our feeble mentality)
that in some mental simplifying and planifying (? like digitalization) way
could lead to a DISCOVERY rather than invention.
Then we apply our Occam's crutches and 'simplify' the "overwhelming" into
'some logic' and 'Math'.
I go with D. Bohm that numbers are human inventions, but inventions have
some deterministic entailment from mostly unobserved (still unknown?) parts.
Then again to devise math (Math, cap., after Robert Rosen for the
theoretical rather than the applied) upon the 'other' simplification called
logic is no invention either.
Fuzzy logic IMO is closer to what we want to 'planify' than the strict
logical schools. We feel the inexpressable and reduce its complexity (down
to Earth from above our head).
("Para-consistent"???)
Sorry for riding on words.
John
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>wrote:
>
> John Mikes wrote:
> > Brent M,
> > please spare me the arithmetic class.
> > I scribbled an example which may be wrong. So noted and I am ashamed.
> > I was referring to the concept of (our) /'axioms'/ - products of human
> > thinking to make our edifice of the cognitive inventory we carry *-
> > VALID*. I opened the possibility that a quite different view may exist
> > with maybe different 'axioms' - without going into theorizing about such.
> > And I won't.
> > I still hold that EVERYTHING is not restricted to our human ways - not
> > in logic, not in our so called possibilities, not in anything.
>
> Sorry. I quite agree with you. I regard logic and mathematics as our
> inventions - not restrictions on the world, but restrictions we place on
> how we
> think and talk about the world. We can change them as in para-consistent
> logics.
>
> Brent
>
> > Best regards
> > John Mikes
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Brent Meeker <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden
> > <mailto:meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 1Z wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 15 Aug, 20:12, "John Mikes" <jami....domain.name.hidden
> > <mailto:jami....domain.name.hidden>> wrote:
> > >
> > >> As for 1Z's axioms:
> > >> In my vocabulary axioms are artifacts invented to make our
> theories
> > >> workable. If 1 + 1 is NOT 2,
> > >
> > > How would that turn out the case?
> > >
> > >> you can say goodby to math.
> >
> > We define arithmetic so 1+1=2, but that's a particular model for
> > dealing with
> > distinguishable, discrete things. It doesn't apply to everything,
> > e.g. (1
> > member of the U.S. 400m relay team) + (1 member of the U.S. 100m
> > sprint team) =
> > (1 member of the U.S. Olympic team). And given quantum entanglement
> and
> > indistinquishability of particles it may only apply *approximately*
> > to things
> > like apples and oranges. So if 1+1=/=2 it just means you tried to
> > apply a model
> > where it doesn't work.
> >
> > Brent Meeker
> >
> > >> Furthermore I dislike the use of the word 'infinite' - in TEXTS
> > I rather
> > >> use: 'unlimited'.
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Mon Aug 18 2008 - 10:50:29 PDT