Well said, Steve! Mostly, what's kept me from commenting on the "isomorphism" thread is ... well, the word "isomorphism". [grin]
I spend _all_ my time... seriously ... arguing against the "Grand Unified Model" (GUM). For some reason, everyone seems so certain, convicted, that there exists the One True Truth (and they usually think Cthulu whispers in their ear about it). Even those of us who admit that it may not exist, claim it's a Worthy Goal and we should all tow the line. I do not believe there exists a single isomorphism between computing and philosophy. If _any_ exist at all, there are many. [*] And if I believe that, then I have to consider the efficacy of my spending time figuring out a single isomorphism. Yes, to show that one exists would be interesting. But all it would achieve is continual and annoying [mis]citation of that one demonstration, giving ammo to the GUM crowd. Not only is that not in my ideological best interests, it's not even in my practical best interests. It would be a result analogous to Goedel's Incompleteness Theorems, where everyone from postmodern Eddington typewriters to serious people would jump in and muddy the waters. Practically, all I want to do is find ways to get my work done and finding/demonstrating a single isomorphism won't help me do that ... UNLESS we could demonstrate there are _multiple_ isomorphisms. Or better yet, draw up a rough characterization of the distribution of all morphisms, including multiple iso-s. In the interests of problem solving, perhaps we could break down the task and, rather than searching for an isomorphism, we could just lay out one example morphism in some practical detail? I think we could mine the IACAP crowd for examples: http://www.iacap.org/ I had a lot of fun at the one meeting of theirs I managed to attend. [*] I'll leave the parentheticals alone and avoid trying to explain how there can be multiple isomorphisms between any 2 particular things. ;-) Steve Smith wrote at 04/17/2013 12:18 PM: > The stew is getting nicely rich here. While I wanted to ignore Owen's > original question regarding isomorphisms between computing > (language/concepts/models?) and philosophy as being naive, I know it > isn't totally and the somewhat parallel conversation that has been > continuing that started with circular reasoning has brought this out > nicely (IMO). -- =><= glen e. p. ropella And I know I ain't digging on your lies ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
