Re: Will this be useful?

[John M <***>]

Hi, Judith and Jamie

While I bow for the achievements of the human mind
with the aid of mathematical thinking, Jamie expressed
it perfectly in his 1st par. We are glad to expand our
knowledege into relations so far unspecified - ..but..
all this within the (limited to topic) mathematical
model of the ONE plane started with quanitizing.
Blinders. 
It misses the world outside the math-model. Gives a
superiority feeling to those cursed with mathematical
understanding and an 'awe' to those who are not.
I should find an essay (stashed somewhere) with the
title 'terror' or 'slavery' or what of math. The
model.
Is this what we salute?

John Mikes

--- James N Rose <***>
wrote:

> Yes, it will be useful.  Because relationships
> will be discovered that are currently unknown
> or unspecified.  And those relations will help
> achieved some measure of correspondence even if
> not perfect complete mapping.
> 
> 
> Take a look at some of today's cinema. Think
> of what OSU is doing as a science version of 
> anime and computer graphic movies.
> 
> A developed set of math equations -is- able
> to mimic to satisfactory degree, observed
> gross scale natural world behaviors.
> 
> The demanding entertainment-public spends 
> good money on not-exact replications and
> analogues.  Roadrunner and Coyote events
> aren't reality, but the general relations
> are close enough that we identify useful
> relational phenomena there and appreciate
> the dis-reality and the close-enough to 
> reality.
> 
> In the recent willie wonka (johhny depp)
> movie, my daughter and I remarked that the 
> German boy character -- at some moments
> we couldn't tell if he was a live actor or
> a CG product.  The lines blurred.  It was
> weird.
> 
> 
> Point being ... the math being looked for 
> IS -NOT- EXPECTED TO MAP the whole body
> of chemistry and metabolisms going on, but
> to just better-sufficiently map the net
> observed behaviors.  The "surface" as it were,
> of events.
> 
> Fractal math was a 'new math' of this sort, and
> in fact is the 'substance' the CG animation is
> made of.
> 
> Developing a 'newer math' is not so much to ask for
> or anticipate achieving.  
> 
> They aren't going after (yet) a math to completely
> replicate existence.  
> 
> Which, if you carry it to extreme analysis, would
> have
> to be a math more complete than existence.
> 
> At some extreme state of modeling, the 'model' would
> have
> to include itself - the act of modeling being
> performed -
> with exact depiction of all its behaviors choices
> and outcomes.
> The ultimate Urobos.  And more so.  Because the
> system would 
> be both completely open -and- completely closed -
> simultaneously.
> 
> An outside-the-system perspective, achieved in
> performance while
> residing totally inside the system.
> 
> So in some final-analysis, all natural systems are
> safe from being
> 'replicated' perfectly, even if to a great extent of
> they -will-
> be able to be 'described' .. "perfectly" (sic) ...
> ie, 
> sufficiently/utilely .. well.  
> 
> 
> Jamie
> 30 Nov 2005
>