[FRIAM] alternative response

[Marcus Daniels]

I like this intuition:  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-019-00165-8

From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> on behalf of "thompnickson2 at gmail.com" <thompnickson2 at gmail.com>
Reply-To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 11:59 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response

Gary,

Is this what others meant earlier by “truncation”?

N

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com<mailto:ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com>
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/


From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of Gary Schiltz
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:10 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam at redfish.com>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] alternative response

If I am honest, which I at least usually try to be, most beliefs that I have are only supported by the amount of effort I'm willing to put into the endeavor of supporting them. I can rationalize this by saying that nobody's brain, not even Einstein's, has (or had) the capacity to calculate and keep track of all the assumptions necessary to support our beliefs. I do believe this is true, even though it is more the result of my simply getting tired of or bored with trying to do so. Maybe this has a lot to do with why people have "faith", they just get tired of trying to figure it all out, and it is so much easier to accept what a large group of your peers tells you. I think true wisdom starts when one realizes those limitations.

On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:44 PM Jon Zingale <jonzingale at gmail.com<mailto:jonzingale at gmail.com>> wrote:
Nick,

Spoiler alert, there is no *how best to think*. You say random, Gary says
determined. Until you investigate the consequences of each you can't even
know whether or not you are actually developing the same model ( like with
the Church-Turing thesis). At the end of the day, deciding whether or not
the universe is determined, indeterminate, random, etc.. is decidedly
uninteresting. I try to hold 50 conflicting ontological commitments before
breakfast. Alas, it appears that we have no interest in working with the
commitments others make. In an effort to contribute to the banality I
propose 2401 or perhaps whatever number you would construct the fifth time
you follow Cantor's diagonal argument!



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
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/20200618/3ea57cfc/attachment.html>