From: Case (Case@iSpots.com)
Date: Wed Aug 31 2005 - 15:01:22 BST
[Ian wrote]
Case, I think you missed my point (unless you were just saving up a rant
about "Jargon") I only mentioned jargon in my throwaway final clause. I was
in effect saying ANY word is just jargon at some level.
[Case replies]
I wasn't saving it up but it did kind of tumble out.
[Ian wrote]
What I'm saying applies to any word in any language, is just a label for
what WE believe it to mean, even if we've both read the same dictionary. We
trust that others we communicate with have a similar meaning in mind, when
they hear it or use it, bt we don't really know until some problem of
inconsistency appears to arise. At that point first suspect on the rap
sheet is the understood meaning of the labels (words), not the intelligence
of the hearer / speaker.
[Case replies]
This raises two points the first is that language a system of symbols. I am
saying we are stuck with this indirect form on communication because we are
the kind of creatures that we are. The lack of precision in language or the
lack of agreement over meaning is what most of these MoQ discussions seem to
be about.
Secondly language succeeds or fails, as you point out, depending on the
whether or not a word holds the same meaning for the hearer as the speaker.
In SOM terms: there is intersubjective agreement. Before reading ZMM that
notion of intersubjective (I swear I did not make up that term) was the only
sense in which objectivity made any sense to me. You can work this all out
in Venn diagrams were my perception of tree overlaps yours (correspondence)
but there are areas unique to each of us (ambiguity). The purpose of
mathmatical language at least is to work with terms that are as unambiguous
as possible. This works because Mathmatician don't really care if the
symbols and systems they work with coorespond to anything outside of the
systems themselves. There is no reality check in math. The fact that their
systems and symbol describe nature is a source of awe and wonder.
[DM wrote]
Does nature count, or use a formula to work out where to move the next
particle to? Don't think so. But mathematics does explore the possible, and
so apparently does nature, but only the one uses numbers I suspect.
[Case replies]
I am tempted to answer that we are a part of nature and we work out the
equations, so yes, of course. But we seem to be the only know parts of
nature that find this activity worthwhile and that really isn't the point.
Whether or not particles work out formulas before heading into motion, the
equations describe with a fair degree of accuracy what particles do. The
original point here was the Mandelbrot set of which I am in awe. All of the
really interesting parts are where static and dynamic forces are balanced.
It has an organic quality to it; structured but haphazard. It also looks
great in three dimensions; trees and broccoli, lungs, nerves and veins...
Mathematics provides the most precise description of nature yet developed.
What more would you like from a language of nature?
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 31 2005 - 15:53:30 BST