[FRIAM] quotes and questions

Fri May 13 20:37:43 EDT 2022

I didn't say anything.

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

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, May 13, 2022, 6:33 PM Marcus Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com> wrote:

> If one wants to translate subjective experience into a narrative, or
> compare & contrast experiences, then negotiating some language is
> necessary.   If one wants to carefully compare experiences, then one must
> be prepared to make the language precise.   The language could be
> “equations”, or some computer program or some careful use of the English
> language, or it could be some use of a well-modelled physical system to
> mimic another physical system, etc.  But it is must to be possible to
> create experiments and evaluate the results in an objective, reasoned way
> using a shared, deconstructable language.    This says nothing about the
> Big Picture of the diverse things that happen in the universe by itself, of
> course.   But the (presumably) narrow window we have on the whole universe
> can be categorized into knowledge we share – objective language, and
> private experiences we don’t know how to share, or are too large and
> complicated to compress into a readable academic paper (e.g. some massive
> generative learning system).   If one wants to go further and say there are
> some experiences that can’t, in principle, be shared, that’s fine, but then
> shut up about it already!   There’s nothing to **talk** about because it
> is private **and** subjective **and** opaque.
>
>
>
> *From:* Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> *On Behalf Of *Prof David West
> *Sent:* Friday, May 13, 2022 4:51 PM
> *To:* friam at redfish.com
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] quotes and questions
>
>
>
> I will channel McGilchrist here, not assert my own opinions/reasoning:
>
>
>
> The argument you have posited is an example of left-brain arrogance *(NOT
> MARCUS ARROGANCE)* in assuming that the left-brain perception and
> apprehension, a totally reductionist and representationalist one, of the
> universe is the only truth.  All that holism, connectedness, empathy,
> stochastic dynamism, etc. that the right-brain believes to be truth is
> woo-woo nonsense and it can be ignored.
>
>
>
> There is also the purely pragmatic problem, ala the 19th century physics
> of Mach, that if you had perfect knowledge of every particle in the
> universe at time 1 you could predict with perfect accuracy its state at
> time 2. Replicating the totality of sensors and the variable range of
> sensitivity in context (e.g. changes in pressure as the water cools as a
> function of distance from jet), plus the variability in the pattern of
> sensors that are simultaneously reporting, and, and, and
>
>
>
> Even if true in principle, it is pragmatically impossible.
>
>
>
> davew
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2022, at 3:47 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>
> > I am sure I have said it dozens of times before:   Create a robot
>
> > covered in sensors of similar pressure and temperature sensitivity.
>
> > Have it sit in the tub and use some algorithm to learn the distribution
>
> > of the sensors and how relates to the performance of its own motor
>
> > system.
>
> >
>
> >> On May 13, 2022, at 3:36 PM, Prof David West <profwest at fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >> 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/
>
> >>
>
> >> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>
> >> 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/
>
> > -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
>
> > 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/
> -. --- - / ...- .- .-.. .. -.. / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe   /   Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom
> bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe <http://bit.ly/virtualfriamun/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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20220513/fd166ee8/attachment.html>