But there really are no stupid questions. An answer like "you're not allowed to ask" doesn't help. A better answer would be an explanation of undefined terms and how they impact the body of theory. A good example is division by 0. We're taught (in what? elementary school?) that the sentence c/0 is meaningless, undefined. But then we're taught in analysis that c/n as n→0 is meaningful. What's missing in these discussions is *when* or how meaning is established/bound to the alphabet and sentences and when/how the "ol' switcheroo" happened from one body of theory to another.
This is common with GUMmers (Grand Unified Modelers, which Nick & Dave are calling "monists"). The unifiers often gloss over the process of semantic binding and often (presumably accidentally) bait-and-switch the body of theory being used. Pluralists, on the other hand (try to) mark these events explicitly. On 3/30/20 11:52 AM, Prof David West wrote: > thanks, that brought back a conversation I had with him on this topic. It has > to do with frames of reference being relative. Absent a universal constant > frame of reference, you cannot ask "from whence" or "where to" in any > meaningful way. > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote: >> Cosmology: globally speaking, everything is moving away from everything >> else. I asked Hywel can't you extrapolate backwards and determine the >> location of the "big bang". He said, "You're not allowed to ask that >> question". Is/was he an anti-realist? -- ☣ uǝlƃ ============================================================ 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 archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
