[FRIAM] from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

Sat May 16 23:29:54 EDT 2020

Hmmm.  I am afraid I may have underemphasized something in my discussions of “truth”.  The Pragmatic Maxim (which is what Jon refers to), is

Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object. (CP 5.402; emphasis added)as cribbed from http://www.asatheory.org/current-newsletter-online/the-pragmatic-maxim

Please note that, as applied to the word, “truth”,  the maxim is a thesis, not about what truth IS, but what we mean when we say something is a truth.  The consequences for scientific practice – what I call the practicial consequences – of looking for the truth of the matter is to send every scientist looking for that answer upon which science will rest in the very long run.  

This is an interesting example of intensionality.  Nothing in the pragmatic maxim implies that there is a truth of any matter.  It implies only that when you say anything is true, you are implying that, in the very long run opinion, will come to agree with you.  

Nick 

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

 <mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com> ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com

 <https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly
Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2020 7:47 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] from 5/15 virtual FRIAM

Jon-

While reading your essay I had several associations.  I recently read the assertion that in developing axiomatic systems and proving the entailed theorems mathematicians are writing for God as the authority.  So mathematics, from that point of view is a conversation with God.

At the other extreme (?) I thought Reuben Hersh held a view similar to the one you attribute to Nick:  that mathematics is the set of theorems that mathematicians agree to by consensus.

I agree that Newtonian physics and differential calculus are the correct model for objects moving in a vacuum.  I was given an $85 ticket by a rookie police officer for rolling through a stop sign.  She said my wheels never completely stopped turning  I don't think any experienced officer would have given me a citation.  I had fantasies of writing to the judge explaining that an object moving along a continuous path can stop for zero seconds (unit of time irrelevant).  This happens when you throw an object straight up (directly away from the center of the earth).  I don't know about whether space and time have the Hausdorff property but for traffic purposes it doesn't matter.

In the Woody Allen film "Sleeper", Allen's character wakes up 200 years in the future.  He's getting in to know a stranger and he tells him that he owned a health food store in Greenwich Village.  The stranger looked puzzled and then said, "Oh, those were the days before scientists realized that the ideal diet consists of steak and chocolate milkshakes".

I feel, without evidence, that mankind will not last long enough to see all science as settled.  There is hope for pure math.

Is any of this responsive to your email?

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Sat, May 16, 2020, 7:07 PM Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com> > wrote:

Disclaimers:
1. TLDR Warning
2. These opinions will be poorly founded and are subject to change.

Dave,

You write: `Nick raised the issue of being contrarian with regards science and

could get no one to admit to anything beyond ignoring doctor's orders.`

Questions like the one Nick posed fill me with a sense of aporia.
I am left without an immediate response. Personally, I find it useful
to factor science into a number of modes or senses. The ultimate goal
for me is to sketch out the kind of space where I can investigate the shape
of my own conception of science. Ultimately, whatever science is to me
cannot be a single consistent entity, but rather a kind of eidetic variation.

* Science as institution. Science can be identified with its institutions:
STEM outreach after-school programs, publishing companies, research centers,
and the like. Here science is sometimes portrayed as a career with clear
delineations regarding who is good or bad at science. Its goals are set by
commitees and participation is all but automated through bureaucratic policy.
The authority we assert when we reference expertise, degrees and associations
is one of institutional authority. While there is probably a lot for me to pick
apart here, I will stick to two or three contrary beliefs I hold. For me, the
notion of STEM is awkward exactly because mathematics is a liberal art and

not necessarily a science. Mathematics exists to describe relationships and to
facilitate thought. It's home is not far from painting, drawing or the
activities of thespians. Another belief I hold is that any institution is
susceptible to legitimation crisis. It is very possible, as is often argued of
our news outlets, for scientific institutions to fail in their duty to produce
science.

For anyone who is interested in these potential short-comings I recommend

reading the history of the Belousov- <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov%E2%80%93Zhabotinsky_reaction> Zhabotinsky reaction <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov%E2%80%93Zhabotinsky_reaction> . While the story ends

well, it leaves the critical reader wondering what good science has been left to die.

Here, I hold the belief that there is very likely science, as legitimated by other

scientific senses, which have been de-legitimated by science as institution.

Science as institution is not itself consistently decided. It is prone
to as-well-as open to inter-institutional disagreement. Putting aside for the
moment that agreement will one day be reached (an ontological claim that

may itself not be amenable to scientific inquiry) any active area of research
is riddled with competing theories. Extreme cases include cosmology and
string theory. A weaker example is the  <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe> Feynman-Wheeler electron.

* Science as abstract authority. It is a personal pet peeve of mine when
someone forms a sentence like, "Well, science says X". It is a strange side-
effect of our culture that the notion of science can be lifted to the status
of abstract authority. The function of such a statement is to end discussion,
to leave ideas stillborn. To the degree that I find this behavior appalling,

I hold beliefs contrary to science in this sense.

* Science as methodology. Science as the product of scientific methodology
has a great number of sub-topics whose surface I will barely ever get to know.
Scientific method, peer-review publishing, description production, explanation
production, Occam's Razor and the constructivists. Many scientific results
have at the core of their methodology useful but known-to-be troublesome
assumptions. The scientific method itself is a co-recursive algorithm and
therefore subject to limitations like NP-completeness and decidability.
At the root of our most trusted tools, like differentiation, hide the uncertainties

of second-order logic. In an attempt to remedy perceived failings in the tools of

formal logic, the constructivists (under the impetus of Brouwer, Heyting and others)

proceeded to develop new logics which in turn were used to create new forms of

analysis, non-standard analysis and synthetic differential geometry to name two.

This proliferation of new tools, however, introduce new complexities.

Theorems which were abhorrent in one logical frame (Banach-Tarski) became

non-issues in another, but now in the new frame live other abhorrent theorems <https://www.iep.utm.edu/con-math/#SH3a> 

which didn't exist in the first (Specker's Theorem). I suspect it will not be

possible for science as methodology to decide which logical frame is somehow

the most correct. As it stands I do value the predictions afforded by a classically

founded differential calculus, even if its foundations are unresolvable. Perhaps

less controversially, I hold space for the existence of Chaitin random numbers.

In a  <http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~km9/Randomness%20and%20Mathematical.pdf> Scientific American article Chaitin writes:

'Although randomness can be precisely defined and can even be measured,
a given number cannot be proved to be random. This enigma establishes a
limit to what is possible in mathematics'.

Lastly on this point and just to bait Nick...
Nick often attributes to Peirce that, "Truth is what we will ultimately
come to agree upon". This idea is perhaps non-scientific in that it
may be a form of Ramsey statement (thanks Glen!) which falls on the side
of metaphysics. A truth-principle like this with Ramsey meta-physicality would
suggest that truth is here, but we cannot know it, despite Nick's deepest wishes.
Further, if we could know a thing in this way, we would only be able to verify
it once all of the ballots were in.

* Science as metaphor. In a very narrow context, science can be construed as
metaphor between mathematical model and physical observation. Nick often

points out that while instantaneous velocity is mathematical, we should be leery

of calling it physical. When we apply the notion of an arc to the path of a ball,
we are importing and projecting onto physical space the properties of a model.
These properties almost invariably entail the continuity and smoothness of
time and of space. Arguably, even time and space are imported. I do believe
that time and space are worth the import, but I do not think of the metaphor
as establishing truth.

* Science as culture. A biologist friend of mine asked me to validate his
claim that our universe is four dimensional. I took the opportunity to elaborate
on the concept of dimension as I think of it, namely as an assertion about
linear independence. I attempted to move the conversation to a discussion
about models and what we intend to describe. I am ok with a four dimensional
time-space if we are discussing Einstein's relativity theory. Clearly, in other
physical contexts I may wish to talk meaningfully about infinite dimensional
Hilbert spaces or six dimensional Calabi-Yau manifolds. He left the conversation
miffed. Science has a cultural component, we argue and push and struggle to
define scientific contexts with each other. Imre Lakotos wrote a wonderful
book about this called "Conjectures and Refutations". It playfully covers,
in dialogue form, the development of modern topology from the perspective
of mathematics culture.

* Temporality in Science. Because Newton and Einstein held different beliefs,
we cannot rely (nor should we) on science to be consistent in time. We can hope,
along with Nick, that some scientific acquisition will meet the ultimate gold-
standard, jump the limit of our methodologies and finally and gloriously be
classified as known true. While it would likely be the case that if Newton
were here today he would agree that Einstein's theory is better, there are other
examples which exhibit oscillatory behavior. Is coffee good for you? Should
you avoid red meat? It is hard for me to keep up with the temporality of
science, and I suspect that we are capable of believing things which are not-
now-but-will-one-day-satisfy the scientific criteria of one or many of the

senses above.

In many ways I feel that I am taking a bold risk in rambling here, so I hope
that it meets your (Dave) satisfaction. I also hope that it inspires others
to take a chance and spill some e-ink.

Full of it,

Jon

-- --- .-. .-.. --- -.-. -.- ... -..-. .- .-. . -..-. - .... . -..-. . ... ... . -. - .. .- .-.. -..-. .-- --- .-. -.- . .-. ...
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam <http://bit.ly/virtualfriam> 
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200516/2f0583c9/attachment.html>