Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Myth of the monolithic

Venturing on T-issues, somewhat, let's lay out a few concepts, to be handled further later (the usual punt). In certain discussions (say, Hitch), the use of 'monolithic' comes (or can come) about. But, the term projects (embeds) itself geometrically. As in, some structural affair that is part of our getup comes to fore (we're only human after all -- also, think Brouwer).


Ah, earlier, we ventured upon 'symmetry' as necessary for these discussions, as it is an essential property. If there is anything monolithic, it's that we, as humans, span something that is polar at its extremes (to be defined), yet integrated when seen in its own being. And people just exult themselves on finding what they think is the 'highest' peak.

Aside: little ants running around Creations Mystery (hint here is that I'll give Krauss the benefit of the doubt (and will get back to this) -- the only issue that he needs to consider is the self-referential nature of what he is doing and its basis -- okay? Lawrence -- those thinking of computability are chasing part of the problem) and trying to collect all of their little truths into the large Truth (never to be). The peaks? Even having the thought of 'highest' will prevent one from attaining the state.


So, why this? Well, it has to do with trying to understand that against which Hitch railed? Of course, we have all of those silly humans playing their games, putting on their ritualistic garments and messing up our stage (yes, the world is linear and Hilbert). But, it's their right to do so. Again, being human, there are social norms which keep peace in the large.

Actually, either/or would argue for a basic respect for other's thinking, as long as they're not trampling on the rights (ah so, what are those? -- unfortunately, that is an unsettled question in modern America) of others (get it?). If the thing were done correctly, would not my rights then be protected if I'm looking out for my neighbor and he/she is looking out for me -- the bro-hood thing approximated in the military context? We do not need the 'big brother' (who assessed that he is adult enough for the responsibility?).


Now, it must be said that this line of reasoning is not suggesting that there is not Something behind that which Krauss labels as Mystery (his capitalization). It is just that the Something is more than we can comprehend -- we've known that for many 1000s of years, folks.

Just what is the problem? Power! People poking their nose, for a myriad of motivations. It's way more than the glass-house. As I've said with CEOs, we clean their damn diapers (yes, Jamie, you, too). That is, they crap on the world; we're supposed to think that the crap is the best smelling thing. Wait! Sorry, fell off the wagon here, for a moment.

In other words, idiotic, childish (all sorts of characterizations) behavior on the part of supposed adult humans (Hitch was right to rail against this -- clergy? you guys are the biggest pokers -- unfortunately, that use of 'poke' has more connotations now than we ever thought possible).


So, I'll retract the sarcastic remark about rituals. Dress up all you want; don't try to get me pulled into the thing, though, okay [me, in this case, substitutes for 'we' in order to prevent notions of royal selves -- rephrased, don't try to gather into your fold those who have their own fold - you see, flock (as in, those of a fold) fracases are the problem]?


So, finally, we'll have to rephrase a whole bunch of stuff in order to get out of the knee-jerk mode. Science has tried to use mathematics for this. It is not sufficient. First of all, there is the computer issue. Secondly, it's not as 'intuitive' (not knocking Luitzen) as we might like (as von Neumann said, we don't understand it, we just get used to it -- ah, so! ... equational yada yada).

How long will it take? There are certain steps that will be necessary (I'll be bold enough -- audacious -- to attempt an itemization -- at some point) that will be more clear when the basis is better known (meaning that there is a lack now? ...).


06/25/2015 -- ACM Communications had an article (Created Computed Universe) that suggest that our computional prowess ought to lead to agnosticism rather than to anything else. Of course, my initial remark: So many modern minds conjure and contort in order to introduce what is not much different than what some knew many millennia ago in the desert.

02/09/2013 -- This year, we'll get more into t-issues. Plenty of people are looking at science/religion topics. Too, Dawkins was quoted as saying that the existence of God ought to be subject to a scientific test. This can be arranged, given the right framework. Perhaps, I'm too old to see it, but its day will come. And, with its advent, we would not have an explanation, necessarily (as in, no monolith - lose that idea). The benefit? Progress of a nature not seen due to the dampening related to not allowing the broader views. Mind you, science getting into religion may help root out all of those accumulated bits of dross which are so problematic (too many to name here, but I would attempt such an enumeration if there were interest).

08/04/2012 -- Nice look at either/or. We'll start to look at why 'decidable' is going to be an important concept. Nods to Turing

07/23/2012 -- Didn't mention one aspect of the new thrust, yesterday. Essentially, I'll be pulling, from 45 years ago, some work into modern jargon as the work's focus is apropos to the discussions.

07/22/2012 -- Now looking at applied mathematics, from several senses. Some of it will be computationally oriented. Yet, we have to know what is behind the use. Do you not see? So, we'll have to look at why particular decisions have been made over the past century or so. Prof Osgood looks at that briefly within the context that he is covering. Another domain would deal with our basic problems of cosmology and quanta (large juxtaposition there, however the thinking is the same -- of course, same boundaries that are inherited by being humanly constrained). So, let's put out one notion, to be discussed. The whole thing of the 'monolith' seems to revolve around a deeply held idea that there is some overall, universal, frame of reference. After all, we use the earth to base some types of relativistic calculations. Unconsciously, we do the same thing with ourselves (yes, hubris abounds is about the only fact that we can see at the moment) as we push our cosmological, and other, knowledge far beyond any type of reasonable basis.

07/08/2012 -- Watching Prof Osgood's lectures, up to 15, which is half-way, and will continue to the end (at a faster pace, hopefully). Why is this important? These types of mapping (classically, most date from the period of expansion in the late 18th/early 19th century) move 'something' from space to space in order to help resolve calculation (in the classic sense of computing to a result that is usable). In the case of this class, Fourier Transforms, the approach's deal with the core of how we know. That is, signals (either from nature or from our interpretation - as in sensor/lense/filter, etc. -- okay?) are processed until noise is diminished. Now to the crux:
  • Prof Osgood uses distributions to proof theorems at a fairly high-level. Of course, this looks powerful, magical, and is useful. 
  • The ease comes from carefully defining what is necessary (or, I might add, essential). Yet, residue (to be discussed further) must be there at various places. Are these not of significance (pun intended)? 
  • Part of the magic deals with quasi-empirical concerns about which we will always pay attention. That is, from whence the fact that mathematics can (and does, in many, cases) work? 
06/26/2012 -- T-issues will be addressed from time to time. In the meantime, one person to read about is Elijah who continues to have much appeal to this day. Too, going back to the lecture series that is much more interesting than those Ben did earlier this year, we see a demarcation early in Lecture 11, after Prof Osgood clears up some issue about the Central Limit Theorem's proof (using techniques discussed in the lectures), where the Prof talks about things talked about so far (problems solved) were correct, but not of use. Why? Mainly, there are issues related to special techniques (mostly ad-hoc) and to redoing foundational views. And, we're talking, in this case, about something that is 200+ years old, has had a lot of attention by smart people over all of this time, and deals with things that are, at least, amenable to analysis. Too, the synthesis involved doesn't make grand assumptions. Now, similar types of methods have been applied all across the wide horizon of advanced cognition (as in science and more) and practice, yet, how firm can we call the basis? Not as developed as we would like to believe (when we can believe politicians, perhaps, that'll be the day). Not enough for all of the wool-pulling that I've seen. But, we'll continue in the effort to make this plain as is the sun in the sky at noon (on a clear day).

06/21/2012 -- Yesterday's remark mentioned some difference between the processing of the language of mathematics and a natural language. We talk about God (and much more) in the latter. One thing different is the 'functional' nature of mathematics (wait, let me explain, before PTIME, I hope). Yet, people's reactions to words can be approximated in that same manner (note, some type of limit required). We'll get to it. As an aside, the universities are offering their courses on line. Example: Prof Osgood's look at Fourier's work. Notice, please, that there are 300K reads for Lecture 1. Lecture 2 has 100K while Lecture 30 has reduced to 10K. But, look at Lectures 28 and 29 with only 6K reads (some people jumped to the end, methinks). As the Prof says, these things are hard and take a lot of work. Mathematicians? They do their own work. Politicians (kings, et al)? Others do their work for them.

06/21/2012 -- Listened to a math professor, by video yesterday, talk (in the context of a fairly complicated application area -- which is used quite a lot) about his having to qualify statements as he talked about things as it seems to be an interminable activity. Why? Any statement (provable, type) needs to be explicit. Yet (my put, here), that it's processed through human cognition brings in the implicit (you see, that's the key). The use of 'monolith' denotes physical being (oh, you will tell me that applying 'Monolithic' to God does not say something about Being, with some notion of physicality -- let me remind you of a major conflict over the past 1200+ years on just this subject -- hopefully, I won't have to be specific here -- oh yes, I will, at some point). Now, if the statements are processed by a system (as in, code), we still don't get our arms around the whole thing (hence, all of the holes in the cloud-ish types of things).

06/20/2012 -- Also, hidden beneath the above is the fact that several human traits are going to become more important, and better used, than we've seen before. In fact, part of the knee-jerk is recoiling from these since they are universally found, not just given to the 'gifted' (that class, who throughout our history (and even before the recorded type) have used their talents to 'lord' it over others and to, basically, run the world as they have seen fit). All this leads me to start to think of STEM (what it might mean, in the several senses).

06/20/2012 -- Now, after all of that, why pick the monolith? Well, more reasons than that it played a role in 2001 (yes, the movie, old stuff). But, true, 'monolithic' would be only one attribute. Would not all attributes be encompassed by the Unknowable? Oh? You ask about the negative ones? By symmetry, we would have a way to view anything 'negative' in another light. Actually, since we're dealing with Being (define as you will, but know that in doing so, you're trying to limit that beyond limit), we have to be careful with words. And, it's already been said that mathematics doesn't carry us any further; it, too, is language based, in part. After all, those who interpret systems do so in a manner not dissimilar to reading. Just because there may be more density in the approach (as in, what meaning may be in a simple symbol) does not change that fact. But, another aspect comes to fore. Computing. And, it is a fact, now, that systems can be processed artificially, almost ad infinitum given sufficient energy. Therein is another problem (nod to Turing).

Modified: 06/25/2015

No comments: