🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <389b3144.606664718@news.rica.net>,
  jeffmo@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
>
> >In article <3899df55.520140941@news.rica.net>,
> >  jeffmo@dipstick.cfw.com wrote:
> >> sdrodrian@aol.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Of course I do not expect anyone to take your drivel seriously,
> >> >Mr. Kauffman! I expect people who are shown an elephant
> >> >to realize it's an elephant--and not to come back at me with:
> >> >"If you cannot prove mathematically that this so-called elephant
> >> >of yours is in fact an elephant, then it cannot possibly be
> >> >an elephant: No maths, no elephants! Good day, sir!"
> >> >
> >> >From the real world,
> >>
> >> In the real world, physicists have to deal with the imprecision and
> >> inherent ambiguities present in verbal language.  Anyone who denies
> >> the relevance of mathematics, properly implemented, in such
> >> endeavors
> >> is probably not being very realistic about the issues involved.
> >
> >When it comes to pure (purely) mathematics, Jeff,
> >there is something to be said about judging precisely
> >how well a given value equals another given value
> >through mathematics. I have no objections to doing that.
>
> The presence (or lack) of objections on your part matters very little,
> unless you have some rational basis for them.

Well, since I have no objections to it, I reserve the right to not
have any rational (or irrational) basis for my lack of objections!

> >However, it has been the sad history of trying to interpret
> >the world through mathematics... that any model whatever
> >(regardless how it deviates from reality) can be perfectly
> >and most precisely modeled in mathematics.
>
> It has been the sad history of trying to interpret the world through
> verbal language that such language is much more ambiguous and
> imprecise than mathematical modeling.

Then we are in agreement that we should let our senses five
interpret the world, and use our languages to build marvy dreams
we can awake after full of thrills & chills... and nary a doubt
they were but dreams!

> Thus, you get many of the same
> problems, to an even greater degree.

True. But at least we can scream at each other marvelous insults
with ordinary language. Hollering at each other: "Why you 2+2=57!"
"Oh! 67-3458=44!" "Sir, 44x3=5!" ... & other mathematical heresies
just doesn't seem to have quite the same punch. But that's just me.

> I'm frankly amazed that any sane
> person could read a.s.p.n-t (for example) and not be aware of this.

I'm often amazed that people can read, "You are reading this!" And
not be aware of this--As I have proven time after time (when, after I
ask
them: "You didn't read that, did you?" And they claim they didn't
indeed!

> Please see some threads with posts by smart1234 if you need some good
> examples of sloppy use of verbal language.  See also any good website
> on informal fallacies for more support that such usage problems are
> widespread, and that the existence of such is well-known and accepted.

I know what you speak of (and I quite accept it).

> >This is because in mathematics, equations are only bound
> >to be balanced. Period. If there is nothing but madness
> >to the left side of an equation... all it takes is some
> >creativity to the right of such an equation to bring the
> >madness into perfect harmony: So what if ours is a three-
> >dimensional reality? IF we wish to believe that there are
> >really 4,000 dimensions... we shall find the way to express
> >such a "reality" in a perfectly balanced equation. The
> >numbers will add up, they will make sense; the equation itself
> >will be elegant to the point of emotional beauty. And yet
> >the universe will still not orbit the Earth, the Earth
> >will still not be flat, and the Big Bang will still be a myth.
>
> There is a certain truth in what you say.  However, you haven't shown
> that verbal language is superior in any way, or that it is immune to
> the same times of problems noted above.

That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm merely chatting up the mob
with, "Look everybody! The damn hath a leak!" If ever I got into
a discussion with the individual mob members on the best way to
grow leeks... I think I'd just got for a bit of onion & have a good cry.

> And you have not addressed
> the issue of intelligent theorists devising mathematical models which
> apply very well to the reality they observe.

That's because anybody (even the really, really dumb theorists)
can devise mathematical models which apply very well to the reality
they've never seen in their lives! And if they can do that quite
wonderfully, I can't imagine them not being able to model anything
mathematically, I can tell you that!

> All you have said is that someone can perversely claim that a given
> mathematical model is working for them.

That's rather short-changing them! No: Look thee to history
on this: Any manner of someones have all throughout history
quite sincerely and honestly devised any given number (ho!) of
mathematical models that worked very well for the entire world
but which later on proved to be utterly nutty! Do I really have to
mention any of them here?!?!?! Was Aristotle a bad scientist?
Was Ptolemy a perverse cosmologist? Was Columbus, who actually
sailed "around the world" honest in his claim that he had indeed
"sailed around the world?" (He only got as far as Ohio.)

> So?  There seems to be no
> great limitation on people making perverse assertions.

People who make perverse claims are soon found out, Jeff:
It's the people who take the time to establish some preliminary
consistency who cause the most trouble... they just don't
realize they are guessing (when they "rationalize" the existence
of results which do not really exist). Or they're simply fooling
themselves into believing they are good people who can judge
these matters impartially. It's human nature to fudge a few little
principles which might fudge the bigger picture. This is why
science must return to a stricter discipline! This is why we must
stop looking for confirmation of our pet theories and instead go
back to interpreting results with the strictest impartiality--even if
this requires that scientists with strong opinions on a matter
remove themselves from the process of interpreting results which
touch upon those matters they hold strong opinions on exactly
in the same way judges and jurors do in the justice system.

> And they can
> do so just as well with verbal language.  However, mathematics allows
> us to detail specific and unambiguous quantitative predictions for our
> models, and I just don't see why THAT is a negative thing, in your
> view.

I think we already have a very substantial historical record of
the superiority of interpreting facts and results being far, far
superior to guessing from postulated beliefs: I have no objections
to modeling that reality which we have established as true
mathematically so that we may find shortcuts to some additional
ways reality works. But, just looking upon history, Jeff... Almost
every time we have attempted th'shortcut of mathematics to actually
establish reality itself... it has eventually proven to have given us
a false reality. Aristotle did not wait for the telescope, and instead
went ahead and formulated a reality where gravity always pointed
down to the earth (nothing could ever fall elsewhere, and the earth
had to be at rest while the rest of the universe moved about it).
Einstein did not wait until astronomers had established that the
Hubble constant was accelerating, and instead went ahead and
formulated a reality where the universe could ignore gravity and
matter moved away from matter, where man's idea of time was not
only recognized by the universe but which actually ordered the
nature of the universe. Someone actually once said to me: "Wasn't
Einstein incredibly accurate to have predicted the universe was
expanding?" And I could only try to explain to this person that
Einstein's other choices had been 1) the universe is collapsing
(and, how would he have explained whyy the stars weren't crashing
together?). And, 2) the universe consisted of stars sitting side-by-
side in space without any gravitational interaction between them.
And you wanna know the really funny thing about this? Einstein,
with all his brains, actually opted for universe #2 for a time, until he
realized exactly what an  insane reality his equations had modeled!

> Honest inquiry and communication are a requirement, in order to do
> science at all.  We must deal with the smart1234's and George
> Hammond's of the world, no matter WHICH syntax we choose for
> communication.

I have a different spin on this: I think languages are quite adequate
enough for the human exchange of ideas... whether it be pig latin or
mathematics (and I even think the language of music may be the
best language of all). But we must never confuse the way we have
of saying something with what need be said.  If you go to my web
site you will find its conclusions travel this method: "Because of this,
my conclusion is that." If there is no "this" then there is no "that."

> >If it's too much to ask of you to smell reality, to listen to
> >reality, if it's too much to ask of you to see and to touch it
> >... then I will ask it of somebody with more sense than you.
>
> Good luck finding someone with "more sense" than me who doesn't also
> understand the advantages of mathematical expression for quantitative
> modeling of reality.  This last section of your reply seems to me to
> be more about ad hominem implications than considered argument.

I actually have a lot more faith about my fellow men than that: You
see, Jeff, I am not an exceptional fellow. There are four subspecies
of chimps in the world; there is but a single subspecies of humans
(unless Bigfoot turns out to be a cousin). And every one of those
chimp subspecies has a broader genetic pool than our single human
subspecies--this means we are, we humans, are more closely related
than any of the chimps in any of those four chimp subspecies. And
therefore I can say with great confidence that, knowing myself, I know
my fellows. They are a stubborn bunch, no doubt about that; and
they can be pretty tricky in trying to get their way... but, after all
the
playfulness is out of the way, they will take a good look at what is
beautiful, and they will take a whiff of the new something in the air
(if
only to see whether it smells or not).

> >This matter then, concerns only those human beings who trust
> >their humanity. The rest of you can now go back to playing your
> >numbers game,
>
> You assume without evidence that I do not "trust [my] humanity," and
> you assume without evidence that "we" would characterize the topic of
> this thread as a "numbers game."  I certainly won't be taunted into
> playing THAT game.

I only have the evidence of these number of posts I've been exchanging
with a number of faceless persons out there... and some of them truly
seem hell-bent on ignoring any evidence placed in front of their faces
(but that's only to be expected; and, in fact, actually welcomed because
they force me to come up with better ways of presenting my ideas).
There are a couple of occasional persons out there who only post a
simple personal insult, or the net nannies who demand attention because
they represent some grander majority somewhere. And then there are
a number of posters who are actually participating in the quest for
knowledge! They may be quite against me, but that does not mean
they are willing to let something quite possibly worthwhile slip by them
simply because of false pride or some other emotional hang-up. And
engaging those people is perhaps what I enjoy most (although I do
enjoy ridiculing the ridiculous a bit too much, I'll admit that).
However,
let's not forget where we came from. And, if we forget, let's take the
gang
to the zoo and reminisce with our cousins.

S D Rodrian
sdr@t-three.com
http://www.geocities.com/absuluterelativity

> JeffMo

> "[...] any effort at safe sex is totally, utterly immoral from top to
> bottom."
>  -- Rev. James Reuter, Office of Mass Media, Catholic Church of the
> Philippines

It sounds awful, doesn't it! And yet we all know that he really
didn't mean to imply that unsafe sex is moral... now, don't we?
(It's just that we chimps' cousins like to have a little fun with our
fellows too.)



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.