[FRIAM] new math of complexity

[glen]

IDK. If by "discussion", you mean co-constructing reality, then I'd agree. But that would contradict the dichotomy of explanatory vs. exploratory (perhaps even render the concept of "mind" incoherent). There are machines that derive things from other machines. Some machines are larger than other machines (https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.03886). Etc.

One of the intriguing situations I often find myself in is being presented with seemingly batshit nonsense and wondering *where* it came from. If Marcus is right, then, for example, the garbage spoken by Terrence Howard has a (or several) cause(s). Or if you're a political animal, there are reasons someone might parrot Trumpian bullshit as if it's true. In other words, their "high order" macros cannot be decoupled (completely) from reality even though it sure seems decoupled from reality.

I.e. Marcus' rhetoric is an argument for the existence of God ... hedging however much we need to on the definition of God.

On 6/14/24 09:49, steve smith wrote:
> 
> 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:

-- 
ꙮ Mɥǝu ǝlǝdɥɐuʇs ɟᴉƃɥʇ' ʇɥǝ ƃɹɐss snɟɟǝɹs˙ ꙮ