[FRIAM] Metaphor [POSSIBLE DISTRACTON FROM]: privacy games

[Steve Smith]

Jon -
>
> /I might instead say that the source domain of the metaphorical
> description of "bent" or "curved" space IS the formal mathematical
> construction of "a manifold"? /
>
> What about Eddington's measurement or gravitational lensing? These both
> appear situated in a phenomenological domain, and so we seem to have
> another candidate domain for talking meaningfully about /bent/ or
> /curved/ space.
I guess I'm not saying that nobody (in this case Eddington and many
others after him) have not experimentally observed light failing to
follow the Euclidean "straight line" we intuitively? expect to see?   I
agree that we don't have any (much?) direct experience otherwise
(mirage, underwater with density/temp flux?).  I'm still harping on
"bent" as it implies that something was "meant to be straight is
deformed by some process or force"?. 
>  Still, I suspect I am missing something important in
> your emphasis on /apprehension./ Can you say a bit more about what you
> mean?
I'm not sure if it is important... or obvious... or not.  I am using
"apprehension" to be as broad of a word/concept as possible to describe
"taking something in", it could range from observing to experiencing to
measuring (and fitting to an apt model?) to "intuiting" to /grokking/?  
I guess the key is being convinced that what you are "taking in" is
real, even of course, if you are wrong.   This might include Dave's
conversations with Joseph Smith, though that would be on one extreme.
>
> you write:
> /Which I think is analogous or at least similar to Guerin's "least
> action paths"?/
>
> Yeah, I suspect so too. MacLane's book intentionally focuses on developing
> Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. Mechanics, as far as I am concerned,
> is the prototypical home for these ideas.
At least from an embodied, motile creature's perspective, it seems like
it would be?  Not that I can imagine being anything else really?   My
orbital mechanics dreams are just the latest variant on a whole suite of
dreams I've had as far as I can remember and they all involve various
forms of locomotion/navigation through space (flying, levitating,
soaring, running, jumping, seven-leaguing, swimming, swinging from
branches, spidermanning, surfing, skiing, skating, tumbling, etc.).
>
> You write:
> /feels a bit more to me like an "algebra of cliche's"?/
>
> Thanks for that. Upon further reflection, I completely agree with you.
>
And thank you for "snowclone" between you and Glen, I am feeling
hopelessly out of date on modern terminology.   I feel like my
grandfather (born 1890ish) when he came to live with us in the 60's, and
it felt like he had to have explained every other term that I didn't
even recognize as slang!  ("hey man", "cool").
>
> †) At the unintended risk of moving the conversation into the /meta/††,
> I am including a link here to a page motivating the development of
> sheaves
> <https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/motivation+for+sheaves%2C+cohomology+and+higher+stacks#TheBasicIdeaOfSheaves>.
> In section 2 the author invents a game where he thinks up a space and the
> player can query the author about how other spaces map into it.
>
> †† /Meta/ in that sheaves themselves offer a more flexible paradigm for
> reasoning about generalized spaces than we get from manifold theory.

I'm gonna have to give this a lot more attention than the quick read I
tried just now!

I'm barely versed enough in CT to *read* it with a lexicon in my hand.

- Steve

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20200529/122927e8/attachment.html>