Re: [FRIAM] idle questions while in self-quarantine
Cosmology: globally speaking, everything is moving away from everything else. I asked Hywel can't you extrapolate backwards and determine the location of the "big bang". He said, "You're not allowed to ask that question". Is/was he an anti-realist? --- Frank C. Wimberly 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Mon, Mar 30, 2020, 12:25 PM Prof David West wrote: > After two weeks in isolation in Holland, I returned to the U.S. Friday for > two more weeks of isolation on the mountain in Utah. Because of possible > exposure while traveling will get tested tomorrow or Wednesday - give the > bug a chance to become detectable. Still convinced there is far less to > fear from the disease than from civil unrest and/or loss of liberty. > > In the absence of external stimuli, lots of questions on different > subjects came to the fore along with the impulse to inflict them on the > group, perhaps as a bit of distraction from more serious matters. > > Covid related: > 1. Given patient zero as a Pangolin seller/buyer/consumer and > Pangolin-zero, what conditions must be satisfied to ensure a > species-to-species jump? > a- mutation in the virus in Pangolin-zero? > b- mutation in patient-zero that made him uniquely susceptible? > c- first time a Pangolin sneezed in the face of a human, or first time a > human licked Pangolin scales? > > 2- Numbers I would like to see: > a. total tested - TT > b. percent of TT that were positive TP or negative TN > c. percent of TT that are one-percenters > d. percent of TT that are in top 20th percentile in terms of money, > power (e.g. politicians), fame (e.g. entertainers, athletes) > e. percent of TT that are front-line personnel > f. percent of TT that are "middle class" > g. percent of TT that are poor > h. percent of TT that are illegal, homeless, etc. > i. percent of TP that were asymptomatic > j. percent of TP that required little or no treatment > k. percent of TP that could be treated with OTC or off-label meds > l. percent of TP that required outpatient treatment plus emerging > medication > m. percent of TP that required hospitalization and serious treatment, > e.g. ventilators > n. percent of TP that died - by age and degree of underlying causes > o. transmissions per infected TPI > p. percent of TPI to others within one-degree of distance (e.g. family, > close friends) > q. percent of TPI to others within two-degrees of distance (e.g. > classmates, spring breakers, neighbors) > r. percent of TPI to others within three-degrees of distance (e.g. > supermarkets, fellow train commuters) > s. percent of TPI to others within four-degrees of distance (strangers > in the casino, at the concert, at restaurants) > > Philosophy of Science > 1. Lee Smolin talks about a schism with regard the nature of science > grounded in a disagreement about the nature of Reality — realists and > anti-realists. > 2. Realists assert that there is a natural world existing independently of > our minds and properties of that that Reality can be comprehended and > described. Anti-Realists would deny one or both of those assertions. > 3. Most scientists are Realists, excepting the case of quantum mechanics, > where anti-realists dominate. > 4. Some Anti-Realists assert that properties ascribed to elementary > particles are created by our interactions with them and exist only at the > time of measurement. > 5. Other Anti-Realists assert that science as a whole does not deal in or > talk about the nature of Reality, but only about our knowledge of that > world; e.g. quantum epistemology. > 6. Operationalists are agnostic about Reality and just want to calculate. > 7. I assume that Peirce would be an anti-Realist. Would he be a quantum > epistemologist? Or, some other variant of the categories Smolin describes? > Or, something totally different? Of course Peirce could not be a quantum > epistemologist, per se, but he does seem to assert a similar anti-Realist > position with regard macro-phenomenon where most scientists are Realists. > > Cosmology: > 1. why geocentric expansion - why is everything moving away from us? > 2. why can we not detect where we are going? what direction are we > expanding into? > > Quantum Physics > 1. both pilot-wave and many-worlds interpretations lead to a need for > either many worlds or ghost waves to deal with superposition "residue" once > an observation has been made and a particle at a specific place exists. > Wheeler's, It from Bit, interpretation bases everything on information. > 2. What if the many worlds / ghost waves were simply erased when a > measurement was made and the wave collapsed to a particle. We know that > erasure costs energy. So observation would consume some tiny bit of energy > from the Universe and increase the mass of the Universe by the mass of the > particle. > 3. Would this lead to a change, over eons of time of course, in the Hubble > constant because there was more mass to slow down expansion and less ener
Re: [FRIAM] idle questions while in self-quarantine
thanks, that brought back a conversation I had with him on this topic. It has to do with frames of reference being relative. Absent a universal constant frame of reference, you cannot ask "from whence" or "where to" in any meaningful way. davew On Mon, Mar 30, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: > Cosmology: globally speaking, everything is moving away from everything else. > I asked Hywel can't you extrapolate backwards and determine the location of > the "big bang". He said, "You're not allowed to ask that question". Is/was he > an anti-realist? > > --- > Frank C. Wimberly > 505 670-9918 > Santa Fe, NM > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020, 12:25 PM Prof David West wrote: >> After two weeks in isolation in Holland, I returned to the U.S. Friday for >> two more weeks of isolation on the mountain in Utah. Because of possible >> exposure while traveling will get tested tomorrow or Wednesday - give the >> bug a chance to become detectable. Still convinced there is far less to fear >> from the disease than from civil unrest and/or loss of liberty. >> >> In the absence of external stimuli, lots of questions on different subjects >> came to the fore along with the impulse to inflict them on the group, >> perhaps as a bit of distraction from more serious matters. >> >> Covid related: >> 1. Given patient zero as a Pangolin seller/buyer/consumer and >> Pangolin-zero, what conditions must be satisfied to ensure a >> species-to-species jump? >> a- mutation in the virus in Pangolin-zero? >> b- mutation in patient-zero that made him uniquely susceptible? >> c- first time a Pangolin sneezed in the face of a human, or first time a >> human licked Pangolin scales? >> >> 2- Numbers I would like to see: >> a. total tested - TT >> b. percent of TT that were positive TP or negative TN >> c. percent of TT that are one-percenters >> d. percent of TT that are in top 20th percentile in terms of money, power >> (e.g. politicians), fame (e.g. entertainers, athletes) >> e. percent of TT that are front-line personnel >> f. percent of TT that are "middle class" >> g. percent of TT that are poor >> h. percent of TT that are illegal, homeless, etc. >> i. percent of TP that were asymptomatic >> j. percent of TP that required little or no treatment >> k. percent of TP that could be treated with OTC or off-label meds >> l. percent of TP that required outpatient treatment plus emerging medication >> m. percent of TP that required hospitalization and serious treatment, e.g. >> ventilators >> n. percent of TP that died - by age and degree of underlying causes >> o. transmissions per infected TPI >> p. percent of TPI to others within one-degree of distance (e.g. family, >> close friends) >> q. percent of TPI to others within two-degrees of distance (e.g. >> classmates, spring breakers, neighbors) >> r. percent of TPI to others within three-degrees of distance (e.g. >> supermarkets, fellow train commuters) >> s. percent of TPI to others within four-degrees of distance (strangers in >> the casino, at the concert, at restaurants) >> >> Philosophy of Science >> 1. Lee Smolin talks about a schism with regard the nature of science >> grounded in a disagreement about the nature of Reality — realists and >> anti-realists. >> 2. Realists assert that there is a natural world existing independently of >> our minds and properties of that that Reality can be comprehended and >> described. Anti-Realists would deny one or both of those assertions. >> 3. Most scientists are Realists, excepting the case of quantum mechanics, >> where anti-realists dominate. >> 4. Some Anti-Realists assert that properties ascribed to elementary >> particles are created by our interactions with them and exist only at the >> time of measurement. >> 5. Other Anti-Realists assert that science as a whole does not deal in or >> talk about the nature of Reality, but only about our knowledge of that >> world; e.g. quantum epistemology. >> 6. Operationalists are agnostic about Reality and just want to calculate. >> 7. I assume that Peirce would be an anti-Realist. Would he be a quantum >> epistemologist? Or, some other variant of the categories Smolin describes? >> Or, something totally different? Of course Peirce could not be a quantum >> epistemologist, per se, but he does seem to assert a similar anti-Realist >> position with regard macro-phenomenon where most scientists are Realists. >> >> Cosmology: >> 1. why geocentric expansion - why is everything moving away from us? >> 2. why can we not detect where we are going? what direction are we >> expanding into? >> >> Quantum Physics >> 1. both pilot-wave and many-worlds interpretations lead to a need for >> either many worlds or ghost waves to deal with superposition "residue" once >> an observation has been made and a particle at a specific place exists. >> Wheeler's, It from Bit, interpretation bases everything on information. >> 2. What if the many wo
Re: [FRIAM] idle questions while in self-quarantine
Dave - Your list of idle questions represents *quite a span*. And I thought *I* was prone to flying off (thinking about and sharing) in all directions at once! There is at least one "great american novel" in there... and maybe a few alternate histories or closer to Gibson's recent pair (Peripheral and Agency) "multiversal future histories". I just got off the horn (yesterday, and what precisely is the referent to a skype window as "a horn"??? nautical from 17-19c ?) with Jenny so new you were on your way back to the USSofA (you don't know how lucky you are boys!) with the interesting parallax between a village-burb of Amsterdam and a bunker (erh... basement) in the canyon country of Utah... Great span of questions by the way, AND concisely stated. Grist for my mill, or is it stones in my craw? - Steve On 3/30/20 12:22 PM, Prof David West wrote: > After two weeks in isolation in Holland, I returned to the U.S. Friday for > two more weeks of isolation on the mountain in Utah. Because of possible > exposure while traveling will get tested tomorrow or Wednesday - give the bug > a chance to become detectable. Still convinced there is far less to fear from > the disease than from civil unrest and/or loss of liberty. > > In the absence of external stimuli, lots of questions on different subjects > came to the fore along with the impulse to inflict them on the group, perhaps > as a bit of distraction from more serious matters. > > Covid related: > 1. Given patient zero as a Pangolin seller/buyer/consumer and Pangolin-zero, > what conditions must be satisfied to ensure a species-to-species jump? > a- mutation in the virus in Pangolin-zero? > b- mutation in patient-zero that made him uniquely susceptible? > c- first time a Pangolin sneezed in the face of a human, or first time a > human licked Pangolin scales? > > 2- Numbers I would like to see: > a. total tested - TT > b. percent of TT that were positive TP or negative TN > c. percent of TT that are one-percenters > d. percent of TT that are in top 20th percentile in terms of money, power > (e.g. politicians), fame (e.g. entertainers, athletes) > e. percent of TT that are front-line personnel > f. percent of TT that are "middle class" > g. percent of TT that are poor > h. percent of TT that are illegal, homeless, etc. > i. percent of TP that were asymptomatic > j. percent of TP that required little or no treatment > k. percent of TP that could be treated with OTC or off-label meds > l. percent of TP that required outpatient treatment plus emerging > medication > m. percent of TP that required hospitalization and serious treatment, e.g. > ventilators > n. percent of TP that died - by age and degree of underlying causes > o. transmissions per infected TPI > p. percent of TPI to others within one-degree of distance (e.g. family, > close friends) > q. percent of TPI to others within two-degrees of distance (e.g. > classmates, spring breakers, neighbors) > r. percent of TPI to others within three-degrees of distance (e.g. > supermarkets, fellow train commuters) > s. percent of TPI to others within four-degrees of distance (strangers in > the casino, at the concert, at restaurants) > > Philosophy of Science > 1. Lee Smolin talks about a schism with regard the nature of science grounded > in a disagreement about the nature of Reality — realists and anti-realists. > 2. Realists assert that there is a natural world existing independently of > our minds and properties of that that Reality can be comprehended and > described. Anti-Realists would deny one or both of those assertions. > 3. Most scientists are Realists, excepting the case of quantum mechanics, > where anti-realists dominate. > 4. Some Anti-Realists assert that properties ascribed to elementary particles > are created by our interactions with them and exist only at the time of > measurement. > 5. Other Anti-Realists assert that science as a whole does not deal in or > talk about the nature of Reality, but only about our knowledge of that world; > e.g. quantum epistemology. > 6. Operationalists are agnostic about Reality and just want to calculate. > 7. I assume that Peirce would be an anti-Realist. Would he be a quantum > epistemologist? Or, some other variant of the categories Smolin describes? > Or, something totally different? Of course Peirce could not be a quantum > epistemologist, per se, but he does seem to assert a similar anti-Realist > position with regard macro-phenomenon where most scientists are Realists. > > Cosmology: > 1. why geocentric expansion - why is everything moving away from us? > 2. why can we not detect where we are going? what direction are we expanding > into? > > Quantum Physics > 1. both pilot-wave and many-worlds interpretations lead to a need for either > many worlds or ghost waves to deal with superposition "residue" once an > observation has been made and a particle at a specific place exis
Re: [FRIAM] idle questions while in self-quarantine
But there really are no stupid questions. An answer like "you're not allowed to ask" doesn't help. A better answer would be an explanation of undefined terms and how they impact the body of theory. A good example is division by 0. We're taught (in what? elementary school?) that the sentence c/0 is meaningless, undefined. But then we're taught in analysis that c/n as n→0 is meaningful. What's missing in these discussions is *when* or how meaning is established/bound to the alphabet and sentences and when/how the "ol' switcheroo" happened from one body of theory to another. This is common with GUMmers (Grand Unified Modelers, which Nick & Dave are calling "monists"). The unifiers often gloss over the process of semantic binding and often (presumably accidentally) bait-and-switch the body of theory being used. Pluralists, on the other hand (try to) mark these events explicitly. On 3/30/20 11:52 AM, Prof David West wrote: > thanks, that brought back a conversation I had with him on this topic. It has > to do with frames of reference being relative. Absent a universal constant > frame of reference, you cannot ask "from whence" or "where to" in any > meaningful way. > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: >> Cosmology: globally speaking, everything is moving away from everything >> else. I asked Hywel can't you extrapolate backwards and determine the >> location of the "big bang". He said, "You're not allowed to ask that >> question". Is/was he an anti-realist? -- ☣ uǝlƃ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
Re: [FRIAM] idle questions while in self-quarantine
Steve and Dave Having interacted and participated in earlier versions of Tyringham back in the 70's (when I was a mere child)--memorable gatherings at Hazel Henderson's place in Princeton, and later Lindisfarne meetings--I decided that nothing much was going to happen after these exciting meetings because they lacked diversity, except in the cognitive sense. The continuing journey decades later still seems to be lacking the "requisite variety" necessary to find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. On the other hand, the work still raises some interesting questions, eh? Stay well, Dave. On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:03 PM Steven A Smith wrote: > Dave - > > Your list of idle questions represents *quite a span*. > > And I thought *I* was prone to flying off (thinking about and sharing) > in all directions at once! > > There is at least one "great american novel" in there... and maybe a few > alternate histories or closer to Gibson's recent pair (Peripheral and > Agency) "multiversal future histories". > > I just got off the horn (yesterday, and what precisely is the referent > to a skype window as "a horn"??? nautical from 17-19c ?) with Jenny so > new you were on your way back to the USSofA (you don't know how lucky > you are boys!) with the interesting parallax between a village-burb of > Amsterdam and a bunker (erh... basement) in the canyon country of Utah... > > Great span of questions by the way, AND concisely stated. Grist for my > mill, or is it stones in my craw? > > - Steve > > On 3/30/20 12:22 PM, Prof David West wrote: > > After two weeks in isolation in Holland, I returned to the U.S. Friday > for two more weeks of isolation on the mountain in Utah. Because of > possible exposure while traveling will get tested tomorrow or Wednesday - > give the bug a chance to become detectable. Still convinced there is far > less to fear from the disease than from civil unrest and/or loss of liberty. > > > > In the absence of external stimuli, lots of questions on different > subjects came to the fore along with the impulse to inflict them on the > group, perhaps as a bit of distraction from more serious matters. > > > > Covid related: > > 1. Given patient zero as a Pangolin seller/buyer/consumer and > Pangolin-zero, what conditions must be satisfied to ensure a > species-to-species jump? > > a- mutation in the virus in Pangolin-zero? > > b- mutation in patient-zero that made him uniquely susceptible? > > c- first time a Pangolin sneezed in the face of a human, or first time > a human licked Pangolin scales? > > > > 2- Numbers I would like to see: > > a. total tested - TT > > b. percent of TT that were positive TP or negative TN > > c. percent of TT that are one-percenters > > d. percent of TT that are in top 20th percentile in terms of money, > power (e.g. politicians), fame (e.g. entertainers, athletes) > > e. percent of TT that are front-line personnel > > f. percent of TT that are "middle class" > > g. percent of TT that are poor > > h. percent of TT that are illegal, homeless, etc. > > i. percent of TP that were asymptomatic > > j. percent of TP that required little or no treatment > > k. percent of TP that could be treated with OTC or off-label meds > > l. percent of TP that required outpatient treatment plus emerging > medication > > m. percent of TP that required hospitalization and serious treatment, > e.g. ventilators > > n. percent of TP that died - by age and degree of underlying causes > > o. transmissions per infected TPI > > p. percent of TPI to others within one-degree of distance (e.g. > family, close friends) > > q. percent of TPI to others within two-degrees of distance (e.g. > classmates, spring breakers, neighbors) > > r. percent of TPI to others within three-degrees of distance (e.g. > supermarkets, fellow train commuters) > > s. percent of TPI to others within four-degrees of distance (strangers > in the casino, at the concert, at restaurants) > > > > Philosophy of Science > > 1. Lee Smolin talks about a schism with regard the nature of science > grounded in a disagreement about the nature of Reality — realists and > anti-realists. > > 2. Realists assert that there is a natural world existing independently > of our minds and properties of that that Reality can be comprehended and > described. Anti-Realists would deny one or both of those assertions. > > 3. Most scientists are Realists, excepting the case of quantum > mechanics, where anti-realists dominate. > > 4. Some Anti-Realists assert that properties ascribed to elementary > particles are created by our interactions with them and exist only at the > time of measurement. > > 5. Other Anti-Realists assert that science as a whole does not deal in > or talk about the nature of Reality, but only about our knowledge of that > world; e.g. quantum epistemology. > > 6. Operationalists are agnostic about Reality and just want to calculate. > > 7. I assume that Peirce would be an anti-Real
Re: [FRIAM] idle questions while in self-quarantine
Dave, Glad to have you back in the country. It seems safer with you in it. I can only speak to one of your questions at the moment. I know, puzzling as it seems, Peirce called himself a realist, or even, half mockingly, an "idealist realist". He basic doctrine of realism is that there is at least some thing that is the case whether or you, or I, or any other finite cognitive system believe it. Most realists are dualists, thinking that there is a world outside the reach of human cognition that we are constantly taking stabs at but only accidentally will ever know. Some of us, like Frank, are dualist realists, about "inner" mental states. But Peirce is a monist. An experience monist can be a realist IFF he is willing to assert that some experience sequencess converge on an endpoint that is beyond the reach of you, me, or any particular 'us'. That point of convergence, which can be inferred but no definitively known, from stabilities in observation, is the real, the true, whatever you call it. For that reason, Peirce would agree, that the speed of light is PROBABLY "real." Nick Nick Nicholas Thompson Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology Clark University thompnicks...@gmail.com https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/ -Original Message- From: Friam On Behalf Of Prof David West Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 12:23 PM To: friam@redfish.com Subject: [FRIAM] idle questions while in self-quarantine After two weeks in isolation in Holland, I returned to the U.S. Friday for two more weeks of isolation on the mountain in Utah. Because of possible exposure while traveling will get tested tomorrow or Wednesday - give the bug a chance to become detectable. Still convinced there is far less to fear from the disease than from civil unrest and/or loss of liberty. In the absence of external stimuli, lots of questions on different subjects came to the fore along with the impulse to inflict them on the group, perhaps as a bit of distraction from more serious matters. Covid related: 1. Given patient zero as a Pangolin seller/buyer/consumer and Pangolin-zero, what conditions must be satisfied to ensure a species-to-species jump? a- mutation in the virus in Pangolin-zero? b- mutation in patient-zero that made him uniquely susceptible? c- first time a Pangolin sneezed in the face of a human, or first time a human licked Pangolin scales? 2- Numbers I would like to see: a. total tested - TT b. percent of TT that were positive TP or negative TN c. percent of TT that are one-percenters d. percent of TT that are in top 20th percentile in terms of money, power (e.g. politicians), fame (e.g. entertainers, athletes) e. percent of TT that are front-line personnel f. percent of TT that are "middle class" g. percent of TT that are poor h. percent of TT that are illegal, homeless, etc. i. percent of TP that were asymptomatic j. percent of TP that required little or no treatment k. percent of TP that could be treated with OTC or off-label meds l. percent of TP that required outpatient treatment plus emerging medication m. percent of TP that required hospitalization and serious treatment, e.g. ventilators n. percent of TP that died - by age and degree of underlying causes o. transmissions per infected TPI p. percent of TPI to others within one-degree of distance (e.g. family, close friends) q. percent of TPI to others within two-degrees of distance (e.g. classmates, spring breakers, neighbors) r. percent of TPI to others within three-degrees of distance (e.g. supermarkets, fellow train commuters) s. percent of TPI to others within four-degrees of distance (strangers in the casino, at the concert, at restaurants) Philosophy of Science 1. Lee Smolin talks about a schism with regard the nature of science grounded in a disagreement about the nature of Reality — realists and anti-realists. 2. Realists assert that there is a natural world existing independently of our minds and properties of that that Reality can be comprehended and described. Anti-Realists would deny one or both of those assertions. 3. Most scientists are Realists, excepting the case of quantum mechanics, where anti-realists dominate. 4. Some Anti-Realists assert that properties ascribed to elementary particles are created by our interactions with them and exist only at the time of measurement. 5. Other Anti-Realists assert that science as a whole does not deal in or talk about the nature of Reality, but only about our knowledge of that world; e.g. quantum epistemology. 6. Operationalists are agnostic about Reality and just want to calculate. 7. I assume that Peirce would be an anti-Realist. Would he be a quantum epistemologist? Or, some other variant of the categories Smolin describes? Or, something totally different? Of course Peirce could not be a quantum epistemologist, per se, but he does seem to assert a similar anti-Realist position with regard m
