Hi John,
Le 18-août-05, à 00:14, John M a écrit :
> I think we use our 'model' in different senses. In my
> usage "physics" is a model, limited within its
> boundaries of 'physical thinking' - as the scientific
> image of the world developed over the past millennia.
You put the finger on one of the main difficulty to keep the dialog
between logician and physicist: they interchange, almost but alas not
completely, the use of the words "theory" and "models". Logicians use
the word "model" for the intended reality they want to describe with a
theory (like the painter how call the naked person in front of him, the
model). The painting, is the theory, the little things we put on a
paper.
> Even my (worldview?) wholeness is a model: I cannot
> step beyond me, while nature (the world?) is a bit
> wider. Theories are models, since they visualize a
> topic, not the entirety.
Well, no. By definition, for a logician.
> I cannot refer to lobian
> logic, but in this sense it also must be a model, as
> e.g. causality, when we assume that our restricted
> vision of something depends on another 'something' as
> a cause and not the effect of the ongoing changes in
> the totality.
We will come back on this but remember that once you say yes to the
doctor (for the artificial brain) then that brain does not vehiculate a
model of you, but you yourself (assuming comp).
You cannot exclude some fixed point where model and theories are
indentified partially.
Take a map of the USA, if you put in the USA without cutting it in
different unconnected piece, then one point of the map will always
coincide with one point of the USA. This is a version of a theorem in
topology by Brouwer, and many things follows from comp due to the fact
that something similar happens for the notion of computational
representation.
> QM is a model, class. physics anther
> one, the reason why you cannot jump from one into the
> other.
OK. Although I would use the term theory.
>
> I always keep in mind how 'primitive' the thinking was
> 1-2 millennia ago based upon the then level of the
> epistemic cognitive inventory and the knowledge base
> consequently as compared to ours of today -
Except in politics, I would say big regression, isn't it?
> and cannot
> stop continuing, HOW will the 'scientific' etc.
> community look at our 2005 knowledge-base and
> cognitive ionventory in the 4th - 5th millennium?
> Is there somebody who can project that today?
> I would like to talk to her (him).
Which futures? It depends on us, now. It depends on our seriousness
about our past.
A formidable triumph of the mind, the separation of sciences from
"religions".
A formidable triumph of the mind: the separation from politics and
"religions".
I hope this trends will continue and that we will assist to a
separation of theology from "religions".
Of course I have use "religion" in its pejorative sense; its means
anything using authoritative argument.
The nest millenia? It will be "pschhht!" or, something like an
uncontrollable creative big bang, from what I smell from comp.
Best regards,
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
Received on Sat Aug 20 2005 - 13:59:41 PDT