[FRIAM] quotes and questions
Prof David West
profwest at fastmail.fm
Sat May 14 19:26:03 EDT 2022
Thank you Marcus for the insightful comments.
I agree with you that the issue is one of communication, and in some sense, one of language. I would depart from your response with regard the assertion that the language must be precise; and further, the implication that equations, computer programs, or a simulacrum could constitute a "language."
I would claim that a language with perfect and complete syntax and precise denotation will, necessarily be insufficient to express and communicate the vast majority of human experiences and knowledge/awareness/understanding. [This is a more nuanced version of my frequently made claim that, "science and math are only useful for the simplest of problems."]
Humans can, with reasonable efficacy, communicate by means other than a precisely defined language. Evocative and connotative poetry, imagery, allusion, and metaphor, within a rich body of context is far more powerful than any formal language.
Consider this alternative means of communication as a "language," RBL (Right-brain language). It seems reasonable to expect that RBL might be improved and extended, with added rigor, while avoiding the reductionism that exemplifies formal, precisely defined languages of math and science (left-brained all). I can imagine a RBL-grounded metaphysics and epistemology.
A robust RBL might provide the communication channel essential to communicate the ineffable, the mystical, the psychedelic—with one big caveat, the lack of shared experience. RBL would be an evocative language, and that which is invoked in each individual must have sufficient experiential overlap with others that "that which is invoked" provides sufficient common context.
Or one might assume Indra's Net where all contextualizes all.
davew
On Fri, May 13, 2022, at 5:33 PM, Marcus Daniels 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://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/20220514/85cf76cf/attachment.html>
More information about the Friam
mailing list