[FRIAM] new math of complexity

[steve smith]

Marcus wrote:
> The double slit experiment demonstrates what appears to be nondeterminism, but that hasn't prevented development of an accurate model of the phenomena that deterministic computers can simulate.  I don't have to believe a deterministic interpretation of the double slit experiment, but Occam's Razor encourages me to.  (I can't control the initial conditions of the universe.)  What is the point of discussions about things that cannot be modeled?
Some modeling is explanatory, other is exploratory.   Modeling is a 
high-order mode of "discussion".... building and testing hypotheses in 
an abstract space where (most?) human minds are unable to rigorously 
keep track of all the details of the "discussion", but instead defer to 
a mechanical device and process which manages all that for us in a 
manner we believe we can understand (a given computational/simulation 
method and framework)?
> These discussions belong in a church.  They are not inquiry.
What is FriAM if not a church whose main sermons reflect various 
inquiries built on top of the entire(many overlapping subsets actually) 
canon math/science and for some philosophy, semiotics, linguistics?
>> On Jun 14, 2024, at 6:20 AM, glen <gepropella at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But the trouble is that controlled experiments are our gold standard for testing such. Control is the default. It seems like at least confirmation bias. Of course control demonstrates determinism. It's petitio principii. In order to demonstrate a counter exmaple, we have to control everything we could possibly *ever* control, being left with only that we can't control ... like proving a negative.
>>
>> In that context, those of us who believe there exists some thing we can't control act a bit like theists. Whenever they manage to concretely define the process they claim is uncontrollable, we demonstrate it's controllability. Then they move the goalposts and we start all over again. It's tiresome and even if we want to be charitable, allowing that maybe there's something uncontrollable out there (or there is something we might call God), at every turn, as soon as it's defined concretely, it's eventually falsified. That leads some of us to tire out, give up, and just flip the faith and assume there is no uncontrollable thing.

Beating (probably poorly)  the dead horse-hide drum of "assembly theory" 
following Sara Walker's rhythmic patterns (poorly)...   I don't think 
the issue is "controllable" vs not really... except in the sense of "not 
yet understood or expressed consistently by nature fully enough"?