On Oct 17, 2008, at 5:35 AM, Rob Freeman wrote: (01)
> Chris,
>
> You say:
>
> '...there are properties
> whose extensions are utterly random sets of natural numbers, ones
> whose members cannot be picked out by any finite expression or any
> computable process. If ever there were a definition of a
> "meaningless" property or relation in the sense that Rob seems to be
> groping for, that would be it.'
>
> The connection with randomness is well spotted. But why would you
> characterize "properties whose extensions are ... random" as
> meaningless, necessarily?
>
> "Random" things don't obey rules, sure, but that need not mean devoid
> of content, rather the contrary. (02)
First, Chris wasn't using scare quotes: he was talking about really,
genuinely, RANDOM. Given that, I also fail to see how a random set of
numbers can have any content. Perhaps you can enlighten about this?
What kind of "content" can a purely random set - or, to be concrete,
lets make it a random linear sequence of numerals - have? (03)
On the face of things, this conversation seems to be suggesting that
what you mean by "content" and "meaning" might be different from any
meaning I can attach to these terms. (04)
Pat (05)
PS. FWIW, there is no randomness in category theory. (06)
> (07)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)
|