Dear Anybody Interested in Rosen,
I have continued to plug away at the task of writing a synopsis of the crucial
chapter 5 of Rosen. As you see if you go look at
http://www.sfcomplex.org/wiki/RosenNoodles#Comments_on_chapter_5.2C_Entailment_Without_States:_Relational_Biology
the chapter is
ou your basis of
proof it would seem to me.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Nicholas Thompson
Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 1:02 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [FRIAM] Rosen, Life Itself
Dear Anybody Interested in Rosen,
I have
al Message -
From: Phil Henshaw
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED];The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 8/3/2008 5:36:00 PM
Subject: RE: [FRIAM] Rosen, Life Itself
I find it interesting that he seems to establish the applicability of his
formalism to physical s
On Sun, Aug 03, 2008 at 07:20:22PM -0600, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
> Phil,
>
> Everybody needs to remember that this is my synopsis of Rosen, not Rosen.
>
> Also, I am starting my synopsis on Chapter Five. I have read the previous
> chapters with great care and understand things abut them, but
t; Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Phil Henshaw <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;The Friday Morning Applied
> Complexity Co
ful?
Phil
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 1:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
> Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Rosen, Life Itself
Professor of Psychology and Ethology,
Clark University ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> [Original Message]
> From: Russell Standish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; The Friday Morning Applied Complexity
Coffee Group
> Date: 8/4/2008 4:08:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Ro
Russell Standish wrote:
> Perhaps. IIRC the main Rosen postings were from Glen Ropella and
> myself. I suspect Glen has a rather dilletante approach to Rosen (I
> know I shouldn't really speak for him though) and for myself it is
> very much a side issue of a side issue related to my studies of
Glen,
> Math (which is more than formal systems) can handle loopy inference
> quite well. But the modeling vernacular can NOT handle it so well. And
which mathematics is not a formal system? If it's not formal it's not
math I would say.
Cheers,
Günther
--
Günther Greindl
Department of Phi
Günther Greindl wrote:
>> Math (which is more than formal systems) can handle loopy inference
>> quite well. But the modeling vernacular can NOT handle it so well. And
>
> which mathematics is not a formal system? If it's not formal it's not
> math I would say.
Math is the linguistic constru
glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> Günther Greindl wrote:
>
>>> Math (which is more than formal systems) can handle loopy inference
>>> quite well. But the modeling vernacular can NOT handle it so well. And
>>>
>> which mathematics is not a formal system? If it's not formal it's not
>> math
Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> If Math is a way to create nodes and augment a network of related formal
> systems, it doesn't mean that these transactions are against the same
> graph, or even that it is necessary to go to the first node of a graph
> to understand why it is valid to add this or that
Glen,
I wanted to reply more fully but I don't have time at the moment, so I'm
just going to say that this:
> The existence proof I'm pointing out as an example of how math is more
> than formal systems (Tarski's indefinability or the GIT) merely shows
> that what we call math is not fully ca
Günther Greindl wrote:
> this:
>
> > The existence proof I'm pointing out as an example of how math is more
> > than formal systems (Tarski's indefinability or the GIT) merely shows
> > that what we call math is not fully captured by formal systems (or _a_
>
> is not true; interpreting Gödel/T
Glen,
> Hmmm. So, let's just examine the GIT. What is shown is that, through a
> math technique (Goedel numbering), it can be shown that any particular
> (complex enough) formal system will either allow sentences that are
> undecidable or that can be both valid ("true") and invalid ("false").
Günther Greindl wrote:
> I just reject the notion of some understanding "beyond the machine"
> which is usually invoked, but I see that this is not what you mean.
Right. I (in my more reductionist moments) reject that, too. I'm not
claiming that there is anything _other_ than formal systems.
Glen,
..clip
> You can stay in the system. Then there's only symbols. Whoever said
> that
> it was allowed to go outside the symbols?
>
> And if you analyze one formal system on a higher level formal system,
> then, there again, only symbols.
>
> Everything else is philosophy (this is barebones
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> Günther Greindl wrote:
>>
>> You can stay in the system. Then there's only symbols. Whoever said
>> that it was allowed to go outside the symbols?
>>
>> And if you analyze one formal system on a higher level formal
>> system, then, there again, only symbols.
>>
>> Everythi
change that signal where to
look to see how complex developmental processes work.
Phil
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-Original Message-
From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 20:08:14
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexit
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's odd that you don't catch my intent to help others understand a
> very non ad hoc and efficient method, not yet in general use, for
> doing just that. To understand my technique you do need to
> distinguish between information and the physical prosesses from which
>
Glen,
Well, of course "having clues to where to look for discoverable things" is
not a reliable procedure ...if you simply speculate. It's like offering
someone in a clue to where the beer is. If you don't go get it it's a
hopelessly unreliable way to have one. You make me crazed!!
> Phil
m a representational objective to
an exploratory one.
Phil
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:59 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> S
epresentation of a button hole from it?
Phil
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 5:33 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIA
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> You say math can jump in and out of context with 'meta-math', "a mechanistic
> method for "jumping out" of the context of any given mechanism into its
> entailing context."If you have a complete mathematical representation of
> a button, how would you derive a representati
gt; From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 2:29 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Rosen, Life Itself - in context
>
> Phil Henshaw wrote:
> > You say
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> So, you get the representation of the unknown context of a thing by somehow
> knowing that the thing is not well described without it? How do you know
> what you're missing?I don't get where you propose the missing
> information to come from.
What? I don't understand.
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Rosen, Life Itself - in context
>
> Phil Henshaw wrote:
> > So, you get the representation of the unknown context of a thing by
> somehow
> > knowing that the thing is not well described with
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> You seem to suggest it is 'illformed' to have local knowledge and unanswered
> contextual questions.
No, not at all. One can easily have an incomplete math representation
of some aspect of a concrete thing. But one cannot have a complete math
representation of some aspect
> OK. So perhaps you might be willing to change your question to:
> "Given
> an INcomplete math representation of a button, how would you derive a
> math representation of a button hole?" If you did that, then we might
> be able to formulate an answer. However, although that modified
> questio
29 matches
Mail list logo
