Re: [Fis] Reply to Ted Goranson: levels of description

John Collier wrote on 6/10/06:
>At 05:35 PM 6/10/2006, Stanley N. Salthe wrote:
>
>>John said:
>>
>> > Hmm. You should read Barwise and Seligman, Information Flow...
...
>>It depends what you mean by logic. The issue is too complicated to
>>get into here and now, but the simple answer is that there is no
>>non-arbitrary distinction between mathematics and logic. Exactly
>>the same reasons apply to the limits of both, and the only way to
>>get one more powerful than the other is to apply a double standard
>>for proofs and/or acceptability.

Thank you, John. Good insight.

I sponsored a workshop on a topic near to this, during which Barwise
said much the same thing. It seems to me that mathematics and logic
are siblings, perhaps cojoined. I suppose there are other siblings
not so human-friendly, used by natural objects. Information seems to
be the light by which we might see them by their shadows.

I'm not surprised that most physicists want to ontologically flatten
everything into a QM-described truth. What does surprise me is that
no one has mentioned the inconvenient fact that gravity, that most
prevalent force in physics, is notably unfriendly to QM.

Best, Ted

-- 
__________
Ted Goranson
Sirius-Beta
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis