Dear Tim, I am sorry that you did not read my 1st par:
"Dear Tim,
this writing is not about YOU, only addressed to your post. It is about the
topic of it. I have no argument with you, maybe you will have with me."
And you have.
You precisely formulated what I marginally 'shorthanded' writing "this
list":
> Given that there is no moderation, no censorship, it is clear that talk
> about "this list...took" is missing the point. "This list" is really
> "the comments of those subscribed and contributing."
Amen.
And I love to read them, mostly as a 'lurker', posting occasionally and in
very select topics. I definitely do not want to 'reorganize' or 'change' the
list. I don't believe I wrote anything understandable as "what I would like
to read", only referred to the free spirit that was frequently readable by
contributors who let
their (professionally well trained) minds walk - roam around, as someone
said:
in a post-post-post modern scientific view.
Please do NOT read into this that I deem this spirit all gone from the list.
I wrote "more conventional" referring to the formalistic classical physics
of the textbooks (not exclusively, but the majority of the list-contributors
seem to prefer physics over other 'scientific' disciplines).
Not "you", and my remark was not complaining, rather observing - even if you
overestimate the "alas" in it. It only means that I enjoy the
'nonconventional' more. I always stood up for free spirit/speech/ideas,
whether I was in agreement or not, and it feels really bad to have to
defend myself against the image of a fascist tyrant. So please, remember
the omitted 1st par above.
I suppose your line:
> I cannot understand your point here. But if the "several" who were once
> here are no longer posting, I am not stopping them.<
refers to my phrase "'well composed' edifice of the scientific doctrines..."
(discounting the personal defensive) - maybe if you care to glance at my
'older'
essay (
http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes/SciRelMay00.html) that would release
me from lengthy explanations - subject maybe to my newer miscraftings here -
(and I refer to your next remark:
> Again, I have no idea what you are talking about here<)
Idea I have, wording is hard. I may mention some key-phrases without
contextual explanations (and without asking Wei Dai to reformulate the list
in favor of these <G>) as stirring around lately in select speculations:
-- "complexity-thinking", -- extending the limits of reductionism:
induction-buildup, to deduction-analysis, -- extending the limited models
of reductionist science, -- natural systems as networks of networks, --
total interconnectedness -- etc., but I am afraid that whatever I mention
opens another Pandora's box of worms.
We (working in these lines) have still arguments how to understand (then
formulate) concepts like impredicative, endogenous, emergent, etc., beside
the re-identification of 'older' terms galore.
Sorry to have aggrevated you
John Mikes
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim May" <tcmay.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 7:13 PM
Subject: Re: Science
>
> On Saturday, January 11, 2003, at 03:11 PM, John M wrote:
>
> > This list - several years ago - took a free approach, alas lately more
> > and
> > more conventional opinions slip in, regrettable for me, because I hold
> > that
> > the conventional "science establishment" holds feverishly to old
> > addages,
> > acquired in times when the epistemic cognitive inventory was much less
> > than
> > available today (which is much less than that of tomorrow). Even the
> > "topics
> > of the future" build on ancient observations and their explanations
> > (formalism), in order to conform with the scientists' earlier books,
> > teachings, pupils, discussions.
>
> Given that there is no moderation, no censorship, it is clear that talk
> about "this list...took" is missing the point. "This list" is really
> "the comments of those subscribed and contributing."
>
> As always, if you believe people are talking about the wrong things,
> your best approach to is to persuasively make your own points which you
> believe fit your conception of what subscribers to the list "should" be
> talking about.
>
> I have no understanding of what you mean by saying "alas lately more
> and more conventional opinions slip in."
>
> If you think my views are too conventional, for example, or that I
> should not be posting to this list, I suppose you can ask Wei Dai to
> remove me. I believe nearly all of my posts are in the spirit of the
> list's charter, discussing as I do MWI, Tegmark/Egan, possible worlds,
> modal logic, etc.
>
> (I seldom if ever discuss the Schmidhuber thesis, and the "COMP"
> thesis, as these are not currently interesting to me. I notice plenty
> of other people discussing them, and I read their comments with _some_
> interest, anticipating the eventual day when the COMP stuff is more
> germane to me.)
>
>
>
> > In MOST cases the methodology works in practical ways, builds
> > technology, up
> > to the point when "understanding" comes in. This is a many negated
> > term,
> > many so called scientists satisfy themselves with practical results
> > (for
> > tenure, awards, etc.)
> > Few researchers take the stance to "free" their mind from learned
> > prejudice
> > and check the 'well composed' edifice of the scientific doctrines for
> > sustainability under the newly evolved vistas. There were several on
> > this
> > list.
>
> I cannot understand your point here. But if the "several" who were once
> here are no longer posting, I am not stopping them.
>
> > The new ideas were quickly absorbed into the existing formalistic mill
> > -
> > calculative obsolescence and semantic impropriety, which confused
> > many.
> > New science is like Tao: who says "I developed a theory within it"
> > does not
> > know what he talks about. Science is on the crossroad: (I wold not say
> > bifurcation, because I have negative arguments against this concept)
> > and we
> > know only that something 'new' is in the dreams, we need more thinking
> > before we can identify "what".
>
> Again, I have no idea what you are talking about here.
>
> > Speaking of "science" usually means "old science". This list started
> > out to
> > serve the "new science".
> > It woulod be a shame to slip back into the conventionalities.
>
> Talk to Wei Dai. I write what I think is true and important.
>
>
> --Tim May
Received on Sun Jan 12 2003 - 12:04:01 PST