[FRIAM] quotes and questions

[Prof David West]

On 5/12/22 13:56, Jon Zingale wrote:
> An interesting property of turbulence is that it need not be a statement about fluids, but rather a property entailed by a system of equations. 

McGilchrist would assert that the "reality" that is apprehended by the left-brain is precisely that set of abstract equations. However, the right-brain apprehension of "reality" is the totality of the experience of sitting in the spa and feeling the bubbles and jets caress your body.

The latter is not expressible in equations.

davew




On Fri, May 13, 2022, at 1:47 PM, glen wrote:
> On 5/12/22 10:32, Steve Smith wrote:
>> I personally don't think "Turbulent Flow" is an oxymoron.
>
> Exactly! That's the point. By denouncing negation, I'm ultimately 
> denouncing contradiction in all it's horrifying forms. It's judo, not 
> karate.
>
> On 5/12/22 13:56, Jon Zingale wrote:
>> An interesting property of turbulence is that it need not be a statement about fluids, but rather a property entailed by a system of equations. 
>
> I'm a bit worried about all the meaning packed into "property", 
> "entailed", and "system of equations". But as long as we read 
> "equations" *very* generously, then I'm down.
>
> On 5/12/22 19:54, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>> Unitary operators are needed.  Apply a Trumping operator you get a Biden and apply another one to get a Trump back.    To make this work a bunch of ancillary bits are needed to record all the wisdom that Trump destroys.    I am afraid we are dealing with a dissipative system, though.
>
> IDK. The allowance of unitary operators seems to be a restatement of 
> orthogonality. In a world where no 2 variates/objects can be perfectly 
> separated, there can be no unitary operators. (Or, perhaps every 
> operator has an error term. f(x) → y ∪ ε) I haven't done the work. But 
> it seems further that we can define logics without negation and logics 
> without currying. Can we define logics with neither? What's the 
> expressive power of such a persnickety thing? Is it that such a thing 
> can't exist? Or merely that our language is incapable of talking about 
> that thing with complete faith? Biden is clearly not not(Trump), at 
> least if the object of interest is "too damned {old, white, male}". If 
> that's the object, clearly Biden ≡ Trump and ∀x|x(Trump) = x(Biden) ∪ 
> ε, where |ε| >> |x(Trump)-x(Biden)|.
>
> -- 
> Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙
>
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom  
> bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
> archives:  5/2017 thru present 
> https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/
>   1/2003 thru 6/2021  http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/