# Re: Intensionality (was: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE)

From: Norman Samish <ncsamish.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 00:00:50 -0700

Tom,

I think you have something important to say, however I found your statement
below incomprehensible. I ran it through Microsoft Word, which informed me
that the "Flesch Reading Ease" score is 38, where I'm told that 60-70 is
desirable for good comprehension. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score is
13.5, where 7 to 8 is desirable for good comprehension. Therefore, by this
criteria, your statement is not easily understood.

The Flesch Reading Ease score is defined as 206.835 – (1.015 x ASL) – (84.6
x ASW)

The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score is defined as (0.39 x ASL) + (11.8 x
ASW) – 15.59

ASL = avg. sentence length, 22.5 in your statement.

ASW = avg. no. of syllables per word, 1.72 in your statement.

Norman Samish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
----- Original Message -----
From: <daddycaylor.domain.name.hidden>
To: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: Intensionality (was: The Riemann Zeta Pythagorean TOE)

Another categorization of this dichotomy could be the Plato universals
corresponding to Intensional definitions and the possible, vs. the Aristotle
particulars corresponding to the Extensional definitions and the actual.
The Intensional can also be associated with mathematical descriptions and
algorithmic complexity, whereas Extensional is when something is defined by
listing all of its components without assigning any order to it or doing any
information compression. I think that it takes a person to do the
Intensional, to assign order, beauty or meaning. My belief is that we as
finite persons cannot reduce that to numbers, fully understanding it in a
reductionist way. I think this is what Stephen was getting at with
Intensionality, and perhaps what is also called simple apprehension,
intuition. I guess this could be Bruno's distinction between the inside
view (G) of only the world that is accessible to us through proof, versus
being able to somehow comprehend truth, beauty and order directly (G*).

I think there might be some confusion sometimes with what math and numbers
are about. I think that math is about Intensionality, seeing truth, beauty
and order. By definition, this is saying that we are leaving out a lot of
the particulars, we are compressing information. Some people (particularly
the reductionist view) say that math brings us closer to understanding
everything about the universe. They look at numbers and say wow numbers are
very precise, so this means we can do the same thing with the universe.
Perhaps in a way math does bring us closer or give us a better
understanding, but I think it is wrong to believe that "closer" means that
we can have a goal of actually
understanding everything. It is like Zeno's paradox, yes we are getting
closer, but what does that mean? I think that we have to always take the
humble stance that there will always be something that we don't understand.

Tom

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Thu Apr 06 2006 - 03:01:51 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST