[MD] Metaphysics

[MarshaV]

Mark,

This is the corrected question to Krimel:


On Jan 16, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Krimel wrote:
> 
> [Krimel]
> The notions of math can't be wrong if you accept the assumptions that the
> mathematician specifies at the outset. However, as a mathematician you are
> free to offer other premises, like Lobachevsky and Riemann. But again I
> would see this as a problem for the deductive method that does not
> necessarily apply to the inductive method.
> 



Krimel,

I think I remember that Einstein used Riemannian geometry in the general theory of relativity. 
Is the general theory of relativity science?   


Marsha  















On Jan 16, 2010, at 8:08 PM, markhsmit wrote:

> Marsha,
> The general theory of reality can be science if you want it to be.
> Regards,
> Mark
> 
> On Jan 16, 2010, at 1:17:29 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> From:   MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> Subject:    Re: [MD] Metaphysics
> Date:   January 16, 2010 1:17:29 PM PST
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> 
> corrected... 
> 
> 
> Krimel,
> 
> I think I remember that Einstein used Riemannian geometry in the general theory of relativity. 
> Is the general theory of relativy science? 
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> On Jan 16, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Krimel wrote:
> 
>> [Mark]
>> I think the concept of intelligent design depends on the definition
>> of intelligence. We have been through this before so I won't 
>> belabor it, but doesn't the trial and errors and learning that
>> occurs in evolution represent a form of intelligence? Semantically
>> at least?
>>  
>> [Krimel]
>> When atmospheric conditions produce a hurricane, is that a form of
>> intelligence? After all how does each new storm know which way to spin and
>> where to put its eye? Is it "like" intelligence? In some ways, yes, but to
>> identify it "as" intelligence ignores the myriad of ways it is nothing at
>> all like intelligence. For example, there is no agency, purpose, intention
>> or reflection involved; all of which seem to me at least to have some
>> barring on intelligence.
>>  
>> [Mark]
>> Thermodynamics is a self-contained system in physics which defines all terms
>> with reference to each other. There is no possible way for it to be wrong.
>> If I set up a system of definitions, it cannot be wrong because I make the
>> definitions. 
>>  
>> [Krimel]
>> Here I think you are highlighting the difference between inductive and
>> deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning begins with its definitions and
>> proceeds to make sense from there. For the most part this is the kind of
>> closed system the Gödel claims must contain elements that cannot be proven
>> within the system.
>>  
>> Deductive reasoning is our gift from the Greeks. Inductive reasoning, which
>> is the foundation of scientific thought, doesn't work that way. When we use
>> it, we are seeking to build our definitions from our observations. In a
>> sense the system we are trying to build is entiring composed of elements
>> brought into the system from outside.
>>  
>> This method demands that when those outside elements fit, we assimilate
>> them. When they don't fit we must adjust the way we account for them, we
>> accommodate to them.
>>  
>> [Mark]
>> This is similar to the notions that math cannot be wrong. Of course it
>> can't. If I say The sun is hot, because heat comes from the sun, that can't
>> be wrong either.
>>  
>> [Krimel]
>> The notions of math can't be wrong if you accept the assumptions that the
>> mathematician specifies at the outset. However, as a mathematician you are
>> free to offer other premises, like Lobachevsky and Riemann. But again I
>> would see this as a problem for the deductive method that does not
>> necessarily apply to the inductive method.
>>  
>> Saying "the sun is hot" seems to me, at least, to be derived from
>> experience. It is what Kant would call synthetic truth. The math examples
>> reveal analytic truth.
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 
> Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

  
_______________________________________________________________________
   
Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...