Re: Cerberus and Quine

From: JXStern (JXSternChangeX2R_at_gte.net)
Date: 02/26/05

  • Next message: yaoziyuan_at_gmail.com: "A modified version of minimum spanning tree" 
    Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:42:09 GMT

    On 25 Feb 2005 06:38:34 -0800, examachine@gmail.com wrote:
    ...
    >On the other hand, the really problematic thing is the language here, I
    >think. The distinctions I draw above are binary, and it just doesn't
    >reflect the true nature of how much ontological commitment we are truly
    >making. There is a perfectly physical sense to understand an "orbit",
    >in that constructive sense, the orbit, as some kind of an unfolding of
    >events, etc., does exist. But in the theoretical sense, as some perfect
    >ellipsoid hanging in space, it doesn't. I just want to say that even at
    >this seemingly simple level, our terminology is inadequate and we want
    >to make sense of something like mathematics that is sometimes
    >considered to be the most difficult subject.

    I entirely agree.

    The nature of the universe, and our relationship to it, is subtle.

    Our relationship to Truth and Reality is one of participation, not
    understanding. Our mechanical operation, on the other hand, is fully
    reducible, analyzable, observable. This is the lesson of computers
    and computation, and it runs 180 degrees out of phase with classical
    assumptions that has our internal operations mysterious and the distal
    world obvious.

    Josh

  • Next message: yaoziyuan_at_gmail.com: "A modified version of minimum spanning tree"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Cerberus and Quine
      ... The distinctions I draw above are binary, ... >reflect the true nature of how much ontological commitment we are truly ... This is the lesson of computers ...
      (sci.logic)
    • Re: Cerberus and Quine
      ... The distinctions I draw above are binary, ... >reflect the true nature of how much ontological commitment we are truly ... This is the lesson of computers ...
      (sci.physics)
    • Re: Cerberus and Quine
      ... The distinctions I draw above are binary, ... >reflect the true nature of how much ontological commitment we are truly ... This is the lesson of computers ...
      (sci.math)
    • Re: On draws
      ... *equally* strong humans. ... you are comparing computers with minor ... though computers play extremely good chess. ... not to draw (and as far as I know programmers have *not* ...
      (rec.games.chess.misc)
    • Re: On draws
      ... draw rate is irrelevant. ... *equally* strong computers have lower draw rates than ... Humans are playing a larger event (which ... best play ends in a draw. ...
      (rec.games.chess.misc)