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

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

Frank, 

 

You also  KNEW David Krech, right? 

 

 

If I say that {(0, 0), (1,0), (0,1)} is a right triangle, then that’s what a right triangle is (for my research) and there is nothing more to say about it. 

 

You have been spending too much time with mathematicians.  Oh.  Wait a minute.  YOU ARE ONE!  How could you not S spend lots of time with one?  Even on my account, you have privileged access to the mind of a mathematician.  

 

Doesn’t every mathematical proof begin with 

Let X = [AFTISII]

 

>From which it follows that:

 

X = [AFTISII] 

 

At which point, Hywel says calmly, “Math is ok, but sometimes you need to know what you are talking about”.  

 

Where is Hywel when we need him.   DARN!

 

N

 

 

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 30, 2020 8:59 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Metaphor [POSSIBLE DISTRACTON FROM]: privacy games

 

Excellent, Jon.

 

On that basis, in answer to Nick's claim that I have never seen a right triangle, here's a classic one

 

{(0, 0), (1,0), (0,1)}

 

and here's a manifold 

 

{(x,y,z) in R^3: x*x+y*y+z*z = 1} where the open sets are the open sets of S^2.

 

Note these are not physical objects.

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

 

On Fri, May 29, 2020, 11:17 AM Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com <mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com> > wrote:

Frank, Steve,

 

My favored approach is to say that space is like a manifold.

For me, space is a thing and a manifold is an object. The former

I can experience free from my models of it, I can continue to

learn facts(?) about space not derived by deduction alone

(consider Nick's posts on inductive and abductive reasoning).

I concede here that we talk about an objectified space, but

I am not intending to. I am using the term space as a place-

holder for the thing I am physically moving about in. OTOH

manifolds are fully objectified, they exist by virtue of their

formality. Any meaningful question about a manifold itself

is derived deductively from its construction. Neither in their

own right are metaphors, the metaphor is created when we

treat space as if it were a manifold. Just my two cents.

 

At the beginning of MacLane's Geometrical Mechanics, (a book

I have held many times, but never found an inexpensive copy

to buy) MacLane opens his lecture's with 'The slogan is: Kinetic

energy is a Riemann metric on configuration space'. What a baller.

 

Glen,

 

I love that you mention the <placeholder>, ultimately reducing

the argument to a snowclone. Because the title of the thread

actually implicates a discussion of metaphor, and because I may

have missed your point about xyz, please allow me this question.

Do you feel that snowclones are necessarily templates for making

metaphors, or do you feel that a snowclone is somehow different?

 

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/20200530/aa8a69c4/attachment.html>