Just out of idle curiosity, what's the '...ysics' or '...ology' word for 'prefers to talk (incessantly) about it rather than doing it?'
Unless, of course, that is an unsuitable question. The question emerged, unbidden, you see... On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:50 PM, Steve Smith <sasm...@swcp.com> wrote: > 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<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> 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> 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> > 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**** > > (505) 983-6895 > 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 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**** > > ** ** > > > > > **** > > ============================================================**** > > 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 > > > > ============================================================ >
============================================================ 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
