HiSomeone going on about correspondence (between systems) and normative as matching to reality. I use normative in sarcastic sense, one may say Rylean or TLP overcoming. Normativity just takes what can made to fit with a theory and usually the theory and that use of explanada as explanation keeps it appearing to work.
That's what Boolean does, I don't see that we would fit to a clergyman's attempt, well done of course, to how to think as Biblical exegesis. That some algrebraic moments emerged in the editing and construction to translations is interesting, but humanity probably shouldn't consider it use of thought as summing up to that mereologicality.
This is the problem with trendy talk of plurality in science; it continues openings for the police supported crime as industry, industrial scale crime against humanity and biosphere?
Flack has a good turn around of this with Wheeler's it from bit methodology: you don't need define your terms - supposition of origin, of aim to reduction taken up - to get working on how things work: we won't know ever what got the macaques to this particular coarse graining, we can probably work how coarse grain states have their power (lunkheads using the Macaques as a human practice optimum are not thin on the ground exactly...).
Deutsch, quantum computing shit. Quantum mechanic vibrations, coming at you from every which way, pinch your lips after some hot spice, are going to be that noise. Some chance of getting very far with that as a technology. That's where Wolfram may cut through the noise, but making it is easy. Trying to make not noise is Gernsbackian.
Done for now, more later (or wait as I am for Flack's next paper)
Correction. Was thinking of Bayes. Boole is of course a more interesting person and mathematician. The contension there is with computing, which is important in the context of correspondence. Which is why I was really thinking of Bayes, in the context of normative.
I'm sort of tired. Again.
No comments:
Post a Comment