One thing I like about SubStack (while it lasts - which hopefully is maybe not "forever" but a long time - and in fact, I'm gonna take a picture of stamp and post it on this article)........anywho, one thing I like about SubStack, and I halfway swear I'm about to forget what I was gonna type - one thing I like is....uhhh......it is a decent forum for debate....that wasn't what I was gonna type, but I think that is the case, and if I had any advice to offer I'd say this - resist all attempts at censorship - once you give an inch, they will take a mile.
If I remember the other thing I was gonna say, I'll come back here and post it in a comment for eff sake....
You know your comment has "2" likes and mine above more recent but "1" - I think yours should be at the top - what you think or do you think it is just something not worth discussing?
There is a great difference between models and axiomatic mathematics or logic. People use logic/math to create computational models, but, models do not add to or take away from the mathematics. As I said, the application of math to physical processes allows one person to state what they are attempting to describe in a way that can be (if the axioms of the math is understood and agreed on by both parties) transferred (in principle) with error minimized. This means that the description can be falsified. Falsifiable statements should be the gold standard of communication. The problem is math is not a language that is universally applicable, whether that is because of the limitation of mathematics or us, I am not sure. Which means we still have to rely on normal languages to provide mappings that may be flawed. The use of imprecise descriptions can be used to usher in lies and half truths, that are difficult to falsify. We have all seen the use of weasel words by supposed experts, which allows them imply one thing one day and the same words mean something entirely different when it is convenient for them.
A good question Ken and one that can be disproved by maths (beyond my paygrade!). When I founded my computer company in 1985 (LaserLogic Ltd) - I did so as a joint venture with a highly skilled systems programmer named Peter Searle who held a Masters in number theory (ex-Logica).
Whilst playing one day he wrote a proof showing that 2+2 does not equal 4. It must be on the Web somewhere (apparently it is well-known in nerdy math circles) but I don't have time today to research it, but I will dig it out next week.
2 and 4 are just concepts... As is a "perfect" circle. I'm not sure where two things with two more added does not equal 4 things... I would be amused to see what People have to offer proving that sometimes adding two things to tow other things equals more or less than 4 things... Haha!
OK though - here is the thing ok - I got two apples and I want to trade them to you....
Do you need to see the apples in person for the trade to be fair?
~
I would like to answer my own question so I will. I don't think so - I don't think you need to see the apples, but this depends on several factors including the following:
1. past experiences
2. whether customer service was evident
3. the quality of the product
~
In '24 I'm gonna have some peppers to offer and not a one of them is alike - each one is individual and the seeds within - they have a story to tell!
~
Warm Regards for the bay....versus the nay.....and one must think - either way it ought be delivered.
That would depend on many things, like are You honest? (I think so.) Can You send pics? Where were they picked from? Was pesticide used? And what am I offering in trade? If it's a new car, I'd want to see them apples! LOL!
Well, then it might not be fair to You... But probably is if You were willing.
I see You edited above since I replied. I presume bell peppers? If so, I would graciously decline. I loathe bell peppers of all colors, races, creeds, and religions! LOL! If hot peppers... I'd take 'em in a heartbeat!
Well - I considered this... and for you the chances are higher - I considered slipping in just some of my "hot pepper powder so potent"......I think I will "hold off" on that, but you were a winner of the puzzle and I'm true to my word!
Maybe though we can have further communications in regards to peppa potential in '24.
We have had a discussion about this exact topic in the past. We see this from entirely different viewpoints. That is fine, and as it should be. The fact that we are talking about 2+2=4 is in itself just a mental construct. If we cannot agree upon a mental foundation based on everyday counting of fingers, oranges, or, other physical activity, seriously limits sharing of ideas more abstract than that. To me, the inability to have a one to one mapping of the mind, is and always has been, the foundation of misunderstanding and animosity among the human family. It is fine to explore what one means by rejecting basic postulates of the mind, but, the acceptance of these has allowed the closest we come to mapping ideas between people without error or possibility of misunderstanding. I for one will not cast that aside lightly, however, I have and will explore the stretchering of the envelope and I think that is a good exercise.
There is some context to this post of mine - to the article - it was "triggered" by something I read in "Notes" in which they put it out as if it was irrefutable 2 + 2 = 4. I do sometimes take offense to folks presuming and when they view things "too literal".....causing loss of perspective of other views.
~
With that said, I think I am going to edit the subtitle, cause...... yes Brown - Yes.
We need to be able to count and I'm not suggesting 2 apples plus 2 apples are anything but 4 apples and from a practical standpoint no denying we need to be able to have some "basic math" that is essentially a "language" for interaction. No denying any of that.....
~
I suppose the point of the article/post was just to suggest that sometimes either assumptions may be biased and/or one examines real, real, real, close - like quantum close - well then some assumptions start breaking down. Most of the time looking that close in the practical world is irrelevant and "in the noise", but sometimes it makes a big difference when things seem to be approaching the edge in particular......
I think it is helpful for the sake of humility for reminders on occasion that being "too literal" leads to error and there is always mystery in life - especially on the edges....so yes this is sort of a mental exercise, but you get real close to the fine arc of a circle I can assure you - there are flaws and there is no such thing as a "perfect circle" - and this is for a "static" view at any moment - start adding "time" to the consideration and even moreso this is true - tis plum obvious and if there is not a perfect circle can there be a perfect 2?
As you say, there are no perfect circles in the real world. As a matter of fact, any part of the real world we map into our minds, is not the real world. It is amazing to me that it makes as much sense at it does. I am saying, and it is certainly not the only viewpoint, mathematics/logic is the part of our metal world that can truly said to be sharable. The greater mental set is fraught with ambiguities and interpretations. That part of the set of mental constructs is very human and very valuable. I would hate to live in a world without art, for example.
So, in my metal world, the circle exists in all its perfection, in that world, all integers and the operations between integers exist in a very precise order. That order, to me, is not to stifle the creative aspects of the mind, it is just the part that can truly be shared without ambiguity. It is this aspect of math/logic that requires the perfect circle.
However, the real world/universe is much larger and more complicated than can be mapped fully into that part of our minds. For me, that is not downplaying the human potential, it is just me standing outside at night looking at the stars saying here I am appreciating the grandeur and not presupposing all that will fit into my small brain. For this limited being that is enough.
Nothing more for me to say besides: "I concur". I agree. Stated well for sure. You know, I left my seeds at the "getaway" place even though I said - "we need to remember these" - and now I'm wondering whether I need to go rescue them, but fact of the matter is, I have more seeds than I know what to do with!
Ken
(smile)
ps: Mutual Aid is a fine book - if it ain't your cup of tea at least it could be a topic of discussion.
Thanks for a very interesting discussion. I'm sure the book will give us more common ground to understand the human condition better, and, provide fertile ground to grow new ideas and generate even more discussions.
As for the seeds, I think they will become a precious resource in the near future. I am sure you are taking very good care of them as they have taken care of so many generations of our ancestors.
Keep in good spirits, above all other things this state of mind will also become a precious commodity and the energy it engenders will be needed for any good works that needs to be accomplished.
I'm a little worried about the seeds I left behind inadvertently that may be freezing in Fries, VA, but to be totally honest - I think they are pretty tough and when I get them back in my hands and plant them individually I know the toughest are most likely to germinate!
~
Best to you Brown - I think you are a true gentleman.
Moreover - I agree - let there be further discussion of ideas - no harm in that.
Seeds have evolved to be tough. I remember, from way back, a story about a seed found between to pyramid stones that was able to germinate after thousands of years. I find that difficult to imagine, but, I did see that story, or, did I. lol.
One thing I like about SubStack (while it lasts - which hopefully is maybe not "forever" but a long time - and in fact, I'm gonna take a picture of stamp and post it on this article)........anywho, one thing I like about SubStack, and I halfway swear I'm about to forget what I was gonna type - one thing I like is....uhhh......it is a decent forum for debate....that wasn't what I was gonna type, but I think that is the case, and if I had any advice to offer I'd say this - resist all attempts at censorship - once you give an inch, they will take a mile.
If I remember the other thing I was gonna say, I'll come back here and post it in a comment for eff sake....
~
Go Bills!
BK
11724 1618
Reminded me of this Kenny: The Problem Of Model Lock-in
Thinking inside the box by THE SCIENCE ANALYST JUN 25, 2022 https://thescienceanalyst.substack.com/p/the-problem-of-model-lock-in?publication_id=951934&post_id=61112918&isFreemail=true&r=iun8d&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Hey Parzival - what the hell is up with you?
You know your comment has "2" likes and mine above more recent but "1" - I think yours should be at the top - what you think or do you think it is just something not worth discussing?
It's all good Ken! I'm just happy to learn new things here, like from browntsunami. And how elegantly explained!
There is a great difference between models and axiomatic mathematics or logic. People use logic/math to create computational models, but, models do not add to or take away from the mathematics. As I said, the application of math to physical processes allows one person to state what they are attempting to describe in a way that can be (if the axioms of the math is understood and agreed on by both parties) transferred (in principle) with error minimized. This means that the description can be falsified. Falsifiable statements should be the gold standard of communication. The problem is math is not a language that is universally applicable, whether that is because of the limitation of mathematics or us, I am not sure. Which means we still have to rely on normal languages to provide mappings that may be flawed. The use of imprecise descriptions can be used to usher in lies and half truths, that are difficult to falsify. We have all seen the use of weasel words by supposed experts, which allows them imply one thing one day and the same words mean something entirely different when it is convenient for them.
A good question Ken and one that can be disproved by maths (beyond my paygrade!). When I founded my computer company in 1985 (LaserLogic Ltd) - I did so as a joint venture with a highly skilled systems programmer named Peter Searle who held a Masters in number theory (ex-Logica).
Whilst playing one day he wrote a proof showing that 2+2 does not equal 4. It must be on the Web somewhere (apparently it is well-known in nerdy math circles) but I don't have time today to research it, but I will dig it out next week.
Good article my friend,
Blessings
AP
2 and 4 are just concepts... As is a "perfect" circle. I'm not sure where two things with two more added does not equal 4 things... I would be amused to see what People have to offer proving that sometimes adding two things to tow other things equals more or less than 4 things... Haha!
That is wonderful!
OK though - here is the thing ok - I got two apples and I want to trade them to you....
Do you need to see the apples in person for the trade to be fair?
~
I would like to answer my own question so I will. I don't think so - I don't think you need to see the apples, but this depends on several factors including the following:
1. past experiences
2. whether customer service was evident
3. the quality of the product
~
In '24 I'm gonna have some peppers to offer and not a one of them is alike - each one is individual and the seeds within - they have a story to tell!
~
Warm Regards for the bay....versus the nay.....and one must think - either way it ought be delivered.
Ken
That would depend on many things, like are You honest? (I think so.) Can You send pics? Where were they picked from? Was pesticide used? And what am I offering in trade? If it's a new car, I'd want to see them apples! LOL!
What if I said - I'll send them for free?
Well, then it might not be fair to You... But probably is if You were willing.
I see You edited above since I replied. I presume bell peppers? If so, I would graciously decline. I loathe bell peppers of all colors, races, creeds, and religions! LOL! If hot peppers... I'd take 'em in a heartbeat!
Well - I considered this... and for you the chances are higher - I considered slipping in just some of my "hot pepper powder so potent"......I think I will "hold off" on that, but you were a winner of the puzzle and I'm true to my word!
Maybe though we can have further communications in regards to peppa potential in '24.
Respectfully and in appreciation,
Ken
🙏🏻💜🙏🏻
We have had a discussion about this exact topic in the past. We see this from entirely different viewpoints. That is fine, and as it should be. The fact that we are talking about 2+2=4 is in itself just a mental construct. If we cannot agree upon a mental foundation based on everyday counting of fingers, oranges, or, other physical activity, seriously limits sharing of ideas more abstract than that. To me, the inability to have a one to one mapping of the mind, is and always has been, the foundation of misunderstanding and animosity among the human family. It is fine to explore what one means by rejecting basic postulates of the mind, but, the acceptance of these has allowed the closest we come to mapping ideas between people without error or possibility of misunderstanding. I for one will not cast that aside lightly, however, I have and will explore the stretchering of the envelope and I think that is a good exercise.
There is some context to this post of mine - to the article - it was "triggered" by something I read in "Notes" in which they put it out as if it was irrefutable 2 + 2 = 4. I do sometimes take offense to folks presuming and when they view things "too literal".....causing loss of perspective of other views.
~
With that said, I think I am going to edit the subtitle, cause...... yes Brown - Yes.
We need to be able to count and I'm not suggesting 2 apples plus 2 apples are anything but 4 apples and from a practical standpoint no denying we need to be able to have some "basic math" that is essentially a "language" for interaction. No denying any of that.....
~
I suppose the point of the article/post was just to suggest that sometimes either assumptions may be biased and/or one examines real, real, real, close - like quantum close - well then some assumptions start breaking down. Most of the time looking that close in the practical world is irrelevant and "in the noise", but sometimes it makes a big difference when things seem to be approaching the edge in particular......
I think it is helpful for the sake of humility for reminders on occasion that being "too literal" leads to error and there is always mystery in life - especially on the edges....so yes this is sort of a mental exercise, but you get real close to the fine arc of a circle I can assure you - there are flaws and there is no such thing as a "perfect circle" - and this is for a "static" view at any moment - start adding "time" to the consideration and even moreso this is true - tis plum obvious and if there is not a perfect circle can there be a perfect 2?
~
Regards,
BK
As you say, there are no perfect circles in the real world. As a matter of fact, any part of the real world we map into our minds, is not the real world. It is amazing to me that it makes as much sense at it does. I am saying, and it is certainly not the only viewpoint, mathematics/logic is the part of our metal world that can truly said to be sharable. The greater mental set is fraught with ambiguities and interpretations. That part of the set of mental constructs is very human and very valuable. I would hate to live in a world without art, for example.
So, in my metal world, the circle exists in all its perfection, in that world, all integers and the operations between integers exist in a very precise order. That order, to me, is not to stifle the creative aspects of the mind, it is just the part that can truly be shared without ambiguity. It is this aspect of math/logic that requires the perfect circle.
However, the real world/universe is much larger and more complicated than can be mapped fully into that part of our minds. For me, that is not downplaying the human potential, it is just me standing outside at night looking at the stars saying here I am appreciating the grandeur and not presupposing all that will fit into my small brain. For this limited being that is enough.
Nothing more for me to say besides: "I concur". I agree. Stated well for sure. You know, I left my seeds at the "getaway" place even though I said - "we need to remember these" - and now I'm wondering whether I need to go rescue them, but fact of the matter is, I have more seeds than I know what to do with!
Ken
(smile)
ps: Mutual Aid is a fine book - if it ain't your cup of tea at least it could be a topic of discussion.
Thanks for a very interesting discussion. I'm sure the book will give us more common ground to understand the human condition better, and, provide fertile ground to grow new ideas and generate even more discussions.
As for the seeds, I think they will become a precious resource in the near future. I am sure you are taking very good care of them as they have taken care of so many generations of our ancestors.
Keep in good spirits, above all other things this state of mind will also become a precious commodity and the energy it engenders will be needed for any good works that needs to be accomplished.
I'm a little worried about the seeds I left behind inadvertently that may be freezing in Fries, VA, but to be totally honest - I think they are pretty tough and when I get them back in my hands and plant them individually I know the toughest are most likely to germinate!
~
Best to you Brown - I think you are a true gentleman.
Moreover - I agree - let there be further discussion of ideas - no harm in that.
Ken
Seeds have evolved to be tough. I remember, from way back, a story about a seed found between to pyramid stones that was able to germinate after thousands of years. I find that difficult to imagine, but, I did see that story, or, did I. lol.
I'm listening to the music posted here - it ain't a coincidence.