Ravi,
Can you describe in much more vivid detail what you mean by your
question:
How does math or logic help us all
with different philosophic and linguistic backgrounds to help converge
towards universal understanding?
Why do you think that "universal understanding"
exists? Perhaps there is only "individual understanding". How would
we be able to detect cases of "universal understanding" to
distinguish them from "individual understanding"?
In my opinion, we only converge with the groups of people we
interact with on a regular basis. But we never converge for the sake of
converging. There must be an individual motivator to join a specific group. That
motivator tends to be strong in some people for some groups and the inverse for
others. But there is no good enough history database to really collect actual
data on the hundreds of years of written history behind us. But experiments
like that could be done more easily now.
So we can only sigh at the lack of history details.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ravi Sharma
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 2:22 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Watch out Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine
Learning - ZDNet - 2015.04.10
- All our recent or useful discoveries and products
are based on engineering which are ultimately dependent on physics
approximations. Physics attempts to include life sciences phenomena but
not yet convincingly till we can synthesize Life reliably! But otherwise
physics is attempt at description of at least non-life matter.
- Scientists / Engineers know their models are
based on Range of Validity and approximations related to desired accuracy,
deviations from mean, etc.
- Reality and truth get us into the fuzzy areas
where knowledge of how the brain works could help us better define the
context or meaning. All Cosmic skylight (e.g. at night) falling on retina
- does it describe reality? What kind?
- when individual photons from different
sources impinged on retina but actually originated from different objects
at different times some of which in our local-time may not
even exist now.
- how long after photon entered retina - i.e.
to individual subject's brain processing time?
- as believed in some philosophies that what
appears in senses is not-real the reality is Only One.Thomas Johnson's
description in email thread: that Being is One (and so an explanation of
Being should be one) it goes earlier to Parmenidian - centuries
earlier than 600BC.
- your earlier comments relating to models of
objects perceived by individual brain and connectionism and including
referenced URL- your work with Majumdar.
- Now my Question - How does math or logic help us
all with different philosophic and linguistic backgrounds to help
converge towards universal understanding? At least Physicists
understand Relativity and Symmetry models through mathematical
"language"?
On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:46 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4/22/2015 2:45 PM, Thomas Johnston wrote:
> But two theories are not better than one, as regimented attempts
> to understand things. I think the underlying intuition which pushes
> physicists towards a unified theory...
Tom, physics is the *worst* example. Almost nobody ever uses the
most general theories. For any particular example, they *always*
use a special-case approximation that is tailored for that example.
And most of them, even for the same project, are *inconsistent*
with one another.
Physicists have known for over a century that Newtonian physics
is only an approximation, but it is still the most widely used
theory. But even then, there are huge numbers of special cases
of Newtonian mechanics: supersonic fluids; subsonic fluids;
turbulent flow; viscous flow; incompressible fluids (which really
aren't). The biggest examples are the incredible number of
approximations for computing the global weather -- different
versions for multiple levels of the atmosphere, different regions
of the earth, different terrains, geographies, ocean currents,
times of day, seasons of the year, etc., etc., etc...
The total number of widely used approximations is in the thousands.
The number of detailed approximations is in the billions -- every
engineer for every project takes a large number of general-purpose
approximations and specializes them for different parts of the project.
Every large system -- ranging from your cell phone to your car to the
trains, planes, and road systems you use every day -- is based on a
large collection of mutually inconsistent approximations to the basic
laws of physics -- all of which are *known* to be false when pushed
to the limits.
Fundamental principle: The human brain is the most complex natural
system known. It is far more complex than the global weather, the
Large Hadron Collider, or the global collection of all the human
constructions on earth.
Analogy: The Greek theories of the cosmos by the pre-Socratics
are closer to modern physics than any current theory of the brain
is to the way it actually works.
John
--
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile
|
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
|