Thanks, Grant,
I am still a bit confused, perhaps because I don’t really know how to play the “information” word game very well. In information theory, I thought communication was defined as any change in the response probabilities of the receiver that was due to the content of the message. So the elicitation of images by a poem, WOULD be the transfer of information. Am I wrong about that? I guess I am pushing this point because metaphors seem to me to be extremely important operators in science. Take “natural selection”, for instance. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grant Holland Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 8:01 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine Nick, Ok, I'll giv'er a whirl. Don't take this as a lexical definition; but rather as my own peculiar way of choosing to understand art. I see art as a form of communication that attempts to arouse or evoke information (e.g. imagery) from within the minds of audience members to the forefront of the minds of those members. Generally, in this form of communication, the "audience" is expected to be human-like (in a sense that I am unprepared to define at present). This form of communication is as opposed to "information transfer". One way to describe the difference is that ambiguity is expected, even desired, in the former, but eschewed in the latter. Another difference is that Shannon's theory applies to the latter but maybe not so well to the former. According to this view, science can be, and often is, art. Anyway, this is the best I can do for now. I hope I have conveyed my meaning. Grant Sent from my iPhone On Dec 28, 2015, at 4:02 PM, Nick Thompson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Grant, Aw. Come on. Try. I stipulate that it’s not easy. N Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grant Holland Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:22 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine Nick, Some nebulous one, for sure. Grant Sent from my iPhone On Dec 28, 2015, at 1:34 PM, Nick Thompson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Grant, What is the implicit definition of “art” you are running with there? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Grant Holland Sent: Monday, December 28, 2015 1:51 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >; Owen Densmore <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Physicists and Philosophers Debate the Boundaries of Science | Quanta Magazine Mathematics already went through this "crisis of confidence" in the latter half of the 19th century when Lobachevsky and Riemann came up with alternative, non-Euclidean, geometries. The issue that forced this new look at the soul of mathematics was, I believe, the verifiability - consistency, actually - of Euclid's fifth postulate with respect to his other four. This was followed historically by the works of Dedekind and Cantor who engaged naked logic to expose a number of counter-intuitive "truths" of mathematics. The entire hoopla was addressed by Hilbert's program in an attempt to put the matter to rest for once and for all. However, the work of Russell and Whitehead to further Hilbert's program by developing arithmetic from Hilbertian foundations was eventually stymied by Godel, whose work was generalized by Turing. The result of all of this, according to my understanding, is that mathematics ceased to see itself as a "seeker after the true nature of the universe" (as do both science (which physics thinks it owns) and philosophy even today); and began to see itself as a "constructor of logically consistent models, regardless of their verifiability". Verifiability was dropped from the program of pure abstract mathematics, and was left to the "impure" pursuits of physicists, philosophers and applied mathematicians. I'm sure someone on this list can set straight my recollections of mathematical history. But I do hold to the point that mathematics addressed, and "kind of" resolved, its own crisis of confidence over its assumed need for verifiability about a century ago. It's conclusion? Forget verifiability and pursue pure mathematics as art - not science. Should physics give up its similar insistence on verification (seeking "the truth") - and join the ranks as just another branch of abstract mathematics? Grant On 12/26/15 9:44 PM, Owen Densmore wrote: Abs fab! But amazingly, there are fantastic young grad students doing the impossible in this field .. testing at the Planck limits. Often using the universe itself to test its own theories. One of my favorites is a stream of matter flowing towards a void in space which suggests "gravity on the other side" .. i.e. a multiverse lump hidden from us but not by gravity. Why is there Something, not Nothing gets to be fascinating when the big bang was sparked by less than a tea-spoon of matter, or so it is thought nowadays. -- Owen On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Tom Johnson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Something to keep you occupied until New Years Day. https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/ =================================== Tom Johnson - Inst. for Analytic Journalism Santa Fe, NM SPJ Region 9 Director [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 505-473-9646 <tel:505-473-9646> =================================== ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
