Re: COMP, Quantum Logic and Gleason's Theorem

From: John Mikes <jamikes.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2009 15:27:44 -0500

GŁnther, *please see inserted in "JM:" lines*
John

On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 10:02 AM, GŁnther Greindl <guenther.greindl.domain.name.hidden
> wrote:

>
> John,
>
> my way to the "number reality" was convoluted, but in looking back maybe
> two books could give you the central idea:
>
> Lakoff and Nunez: Where does mathematics come from,
>
> which argues that numbers arise from evolutionary considerations
> (materialist in tenor, Platonia etc ruled out).


JM: 'evolutionary' is 'relational' anyway originated in 'human mind
capabilities' - D.Bohm: "there are no numbers in nature". (Not arguing
against Bruno, who IMO stands for "nature is IN numbers"<G>)

>
>
> The next step then is to realize that modern physics gives us only
> relational knowledge of the world


JM: (misunderstood) conclusions upon (m..) conclusions ((figments)) based on
millennia of '(mis)observations' and their explanations within the simplex
and ever enriching epistemic cognitive inventory level (still growing) -
always keeping the prior art and amend after amendment and so on. The
'physical world' is - as a 'whole' - an [axiomatic?] misconception needed to
maintain the theoretical tenets of (conventional) sciences.

>
>
> Ladyman Et Al. Every thing must go.
>
> (for an excellent overview and discussion), and that matter is indeed
> not "needed" (this was the crossing point into number-reality for me,
> not the Maudlin thought experiment, because I am somewhat skeptical of
> thought experiments (you never know if you've forgotten hidden
> assumptions etc)).


JM: I take it as 'thought experiments' to fabricate unreasonable
circumstances to prove (or at least facilitate) the hypothetical occurrence
of otherwise not realizable theoretical ideas. I would exclude them from the
scientific thinking. The EPR kicked physics - now 8 decades - into highly
mathematized sci-fi. Nobel prizes notwithstanding.

>
>
> Computatations (that's the transition to pure number) then give a more
> well defined picture than "all of mathematics", which gives no handle
> whatever on white rabbits etc.
>
> But then book one (Lakoff Et Al) fits again nicely into the bigger
> picture, explaining how certain structures can evolve to see numbers
> (one simply drops the materialist *tenor*).


JM: (pun!) I would drop the mathematicist *terror* as well. I have a problem
with "evolving" *structures *at all. Unless one 'believes' in *energy??? *that
has become somehow and is directed somehow into doing something. What??

>
>
> Best Wishes,
> GŁnther


JM: Respectfully
John

>
>
> John Mikes wrote:
> > GŁnther and Bruno,
> >
> > am I sorry for not being ~30-40 years younger! I could start to study
> > all those excellent books in diverse kinds of logic (what I missed) and
> > could even have a chance to learn all those advancing ideas over the
> > next 30 or so years...
> >
> > Makes me think of it: 30-40 years ago I WAS that young and did not start.
> > I was busy making 20+ more practical polymer related patents without
> > even thinking of the futility of "physical World" illusions. I just
> > lived (in it)/(them).
> >
> > I am happy in my scientific agnosticim and would love to read something
> > to bring me closer to the idea that 'numbers' consitute the world and
> > not "are the mental products of us, eventuel travellers in this (one)
> > universe."
> >
> > Bruno used the word 'axiomatic', in my vocabulary an axiom is an
> > unjustifiable belief (illusion?) necessary to maintain the validity of a
> > theory - in this case the 'physical world'. Like: 2 + 2 = 4 -
> >
> > Br:"> AUDA is based on the self-reference logic of axiomatizable or
> > > recursively enumerable theories, of machine...."
> >
> > Who is self-referencing, or even acknowledging self-reference? Or 'Self'
> > for that matter? 'Recursively' I agree with, it is 'within'. Machine
> > (limited capability) is 'us', so the 'enumerable theories' are OK.
> > With such handicap in my thinking it is hard to fully follow the flow of
> > the (A)UDA dicussions. I try.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > John M
> -----------------------
>
truncated

>
>
> GŁnther Greindl
> Department of Philosophy of Science
> University of Vienna
> guenther.greindl.domain.name.hidden
>
> Blog: http://www.complexitystudies.org/
> Thesis: http://www.complexitystudies.org/proposal/
>
>
>
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Sun Feb 08 2009 - 15:28:01 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:15 PST