P Uh, no.
n Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Patrick Reilly Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 5:08 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine Did you ever hear the early communist argument that theory of the natural order tending toward entropy is a capitalist argument meant to demoralize the working class by discouraging them from working towards a better future? On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net <mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: Patrick, I just wanted to hear more about those Marxist fops. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> ] On Behalf Of Patrick Reilly Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 2:35 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine I'm mainly worried that my educational session with Nick is boring everyone else. --- Pat On Monday, December 28, 2015, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net <mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: Grant, Aw. Come on. Try. I stipulate that it’s not easy. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Grant Holland Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:22 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine Nick, Some nebulous one, for sure. Grant Sent from my iPhone On Dec 28, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net <mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> > wrote: Grant, What is the implicit definition of “art” you are running with there? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Grant Holland Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:51 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com <mailto:friam@redfish.com> >; Owen Densmore <o...@backspaces.net <mailto:o...@backspaces.net> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine Mathematics already went through this "crisis of confidence" in the latter half of the 19th century when Lobachevsky and Riemann came up with alternative, non-Euclidean, geometries. The issue that forced this new look at the soul of mathematics was, I believe, the verifiability - consistency, actually - of Euclid's fifth postulate with respect to his other four. This was followed historically by the works of Dedekind and Cantor who engaged naked logic to expose a number of counter-intuitive "truths" of mathematics. The entire hoopla was addressed by Hilbert's program in an attempt to put the matter to rest for once and for all. However, the work of Russell and Whitehead to further Hilbert's program by developing arithmetic from Hilbertian foundations was eventually stymied by Godel, whose work was generalized by Turing. The result of all of this, according to my understanding, is that mathematics ceased to see itself as a "seeker after the true nature of the universe" (as do both science (which physics thinks it owns) and philosophy even today); and began to see itself as a "constructor of logically consistent models, regardless of their verifiability". Verifiability was dropped from the program of pure abstract mathematics, and was left to the "impure" pursuits of physicists, philosophers and applied mathematicians. I'm sure someone on this list can set straight my recollections of mathematical history. But I do hold to the point that mathematics addressed, and "kind of" resolved, its own crisis of confidence over its assumed need for verifiability about a century ago. It's conclusion? Forget verifiability and pursue pure mathematics as art - not science. Should physics give up its similar insistence on verification (seeking "the truth") - and join the ranks as just another branch of abstract mathematics? Grant On 12/26/15 9:44 PM, Owen Densmore wrote: Abs fab! But amazingly, there are fantastic young grad students doing the impossible in this field .. testing at the Planck limits. Often using the universe itself to test its own theories. One of my favorites is a stream of matter flowing towards a void in space which suggests "gravity on the other side" .. i.e. a multiverse lump hidden from us but not by gravity. Why is there Something, not Nothing gets to be fascinating when the big bang was sparked by less than a tea-spoon of matter, or so it is thought nowadays. -- Owen On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Tom Johnson <t...@jtjohnson.com <mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com> > wrote: Something to keep you occupied until New Years Day. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/ =================================== Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism Santa Fe, NM SPJ Region 9 Director t...@jtjohnson.com <mailto:t...@jtjohnson.com> 505-473-9646 <tel:505-473-9646> =================================== ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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 ============================================================ 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 -- Sent from Gmail Mobile ============================================================ 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 -- The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to patrick.rei...@ipsociety.net <mailto:patrick.rei...@ipsociety.net> .
============================================================ 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
