Metaphysics being the nature of being and existence, Epistemology being
the nature of knowledge. Whether emergence is Epistemological or if it
is Phenomenological or Metaphysical is an interesting question and not
an unsubtle one...
I think this is metaphysics, no?
*From:*friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]
*On Behalf Of *Steve Smith
*Sent:* Sunday, December 11, 2011 11:44 AM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* [FRIAM] Epistemological Maunderings
On Primeness...
I am mathematician by training (barely) but I don't think anyone
should listen to me about mathematics unless serendipitously I happen
to land on a useful or interesting (by whose measure?) mathematical
conjecture (and presumably some attendant proofs as well).
That said, I've always wondered why the poets among the mathematicians
didn't hit on naming the "naive" Primes (Primes+1) - Prime' (Prime
/prime/). Perhaps there are too many mathematicians with stutters
and/or tourette's that would be set off by such a construct?
Who can answer the question of why we (this particular group, or any
one vaguely like it) can get so wrapped up on such a simple topic?
There IS a bit of circular logic involved in defining mathematics as
that which mathematicians study. Or as Robert suggests, that his
definition of a mathematical construct (Prime numbers in this case) is
not legitimate because he is not a mathematician. I'd say his
definition is not useful because it deals in concepts which are not
mathematical in nature (in particular "attractive", "shade", "blue")
which are terms of interest and relevance in aesthetics and
psychophysics (both of which are known to utilize, mathematics but not
vice-versa). Numerology, on the other hand uses all three!
We seem to wander off into epistemological territory quite often
without knowing it or admitting to it. I am pretty sure a number of
people here would specifically exclude epistemological discussions if
they could, while others are drawn to them (self included).
While I do find discussions about the manipulation of matter
(technology), and even data (information theory) and the nature of
physical reality (physics) and formal logic (mathematics) quite
interesting (and more often, the myriad personal and societal impacts
of same), what can be more interesting (and the rest grounded in) than
the study of knowledge itself?
That said, I don't know that many of us are well versed in the
discourse of epistemology and therefore tend to hack at it badly when
we get into that underbrush, making everyone uncomfortable. On the
other hand, I'll bet we have a (large?) handful of contributors
(and/or lurkers) here with a much broader and deeper understanding
than I have but who perhaps recognize the futility of opening that bag
of worms.
Our "core" topic of Complexity Science is fraught with epistemological
questions (I believe), most particularly questions such as "whence and
what emergence?" as Nick's seminars of 2+ years ago considered. I
don't know if the topic was approached from the point of view of "what
is the nature of knowledge?" or more specifically, "how can we define
a new concept such as emergence and have it hold meaning?". In my
view, "emergence" is strictly "phenomenological" as are the many
(highly useful) constructs of statistical physics.
I promised a maunder here, I trust I succeeded in delivering!
Carry on!
- Steve
Actually you can't define primeness any way you want. The definition
needs to be negotiated by the community of professionals who are can
credibly agree on the definition.
My definition of primeness is "anything bigger than 3 and painted an
attractive shade of blue". But no one listens to me. Nor should they,
because I'm not a mathematician.
---R
On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Grant Holland
<grant.holland...@gmail.com <mailto:grant.holland...@gmail.com>> wrote:
George's observation (from Saturday) under "mathematician" pretty much
captures the issue for me. One can define "primeness" any way one
wants. The choice of excluding 1 has the "fun" consequence that George
explains so well. Maybe including "1" has other fun consequences. If
so, then give that definition a name ("prime" is already taken) , and
see where it leads. You can make this stuff up any way you want,
folks. Just follow the consequences. Some of these consequences
provide analogies that physicists can use. Some don't. No matter. We
just wanna have fun!
Grant
On 12/10/11 4:08 PM, George Duncan wrote:
Yes, it does depend on how you define prime BUT speaking as a
*mathematician*
it is good to have definitions for which we get interesting
theorems, like the unique (prime) factorization theorem that says
every natural number has unique prime factors, so 6 has just 2 and
3, NOT 2 and 3 or 2 and 3 and 1. So we don't want 1 as a prime or
the theorem doesn't work.
*statistician*
do a Bing or Google search on prime number and see what frequency
of entries define 1 as prime (I didn't find any). So from an
empirical point of view usage says 1 is not prime
*artist*
try Bing of Google images and see how many pretty pictures show 1
as prime. I didn't see any.
Cheers, Duncan
On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Pamela McCorduck <pam...@well.com
<mailto:pam...@well.com>> wrote:
I asked the in-house mathematician about this. When he began,
"Well, it depends on how you define 'prime' . . ." I knew it was
an ambiguous case.
PMcC
On Dec 10, 2011, at 5:12 PM, Marcos wrote:
On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Russell Standish
<r.stand...@unsw.edu.au <mailto:r.stand...@unsw.edu.au>> wrote:
Has one ever been prime? Never in my lifetime...
Primes start at 2 in my world. There was mathematician doing a talk
once, and before he started talking, he checked his microphone:
"Testing...., testing, 2, 3, 5, 7"
That's how I remember.
Mark
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
--
George Duncan
georgeduncanart.com <http://georgeduncanart.com/>
(505) 983-6895 <tel:%28505%29%20983-6895>
Represented by ViVO Contemporary
725 Canyon Road
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Life must be understood backwards; but... it must be lived forward.
Soren Kierkegaard
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps athttp://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps athttp://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
