Wed Apr 17 11:07:12 CDT 2013

That's cool! and that's the extent of my scientific lingo, so I should
excuse myself.

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Prashant Kumar <
siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com> wrote:

> Bandwraith, I'll give you a proper response tomorrow morning. Thanks for
> the argument.
>
> "The more science tells us about how the universe works, the less
> arbitrary things seem."
>
> What you say is true - up to a point. Consider this: the laws of physics
> are the way they are because of 25 constants, which determine the strengths
> of the fundamental forces and their range, among other things. They are not
> predicted by any theory; we just have to measure them, and plug em into our
> models which then spit out predictions. They are, arbitrary.
>
> I would say that science reduces the arbitrary content in our
> understanding of nature, but that which is still arbitrary is disturbingly
> so.
>
> P.
>
>
> On 18 April 2013 01:23, Antonin Scriabin <kierkegaurdian at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Arbitrariness is almost always superficial.  The more science tells us
>> about how the universe works, the less arbitrary things seem.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't science trying to reconcile the seeming arbitrariness? Maybe it is
>>> all mathematical?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:14 AM, <bandwraith at aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Clarifying my position a bit, I guess I would say that science
>>>> sometimes seems to legitimize itself by appealing to mathematical formulae,
>>>> as if those were somehow the key to the real relationships between the
>>>> phenomenon under scrutiny. The mathematics itself, however, while true from
>>>> a logical perspective, might not reflect reality, which can be damn
>>>> arbitrary. It is in that sense- the overly exhuberant faith in mathematics-
>>>> that I'm suggesting science may be open to criticism, and why I found
>>>> malign's comment that criticizing science is like criticizing algebra, to
>>>> be interesting. Math and Science both have a stake in the description of
>>>> reality, and they are both self-correcting, either through logical or
>>>> empirical testing, and they are somehow co-dependent, but they resist being
>>>> equated, and must stand on there own.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: bandwraith <bandwraith at aol.com>
>>>> To: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>> Sent: Wed, Apr 17, 2013 10:25 am
>>>> Subject: Re:
>>>>
>>>>  I don't necessarily accept your somewhat arbitrary division of
>>>> mathematics into "the realised and the counterfactual." I don't assume
>>>> mathematical Platonism, I was criticizing it. I'm fine with
>>>> Constructivism/Intuitionism, but most mathematicians and scientists,
>>>> whether they admit it or not, are Platonists- it's just more convenient to
>>>> accept The Law of The Excluded Middle.
>>>>
>>>> I'm also fine with the empirical nature of science. It's the dependence
>>>> of science on mathematics, especially a Platonic based mathematics, that
>>>> bothers me. A physical theory can be thoroughly vetted from a
>>>> logical/mathematical point of view and turn out to be wrong. The
>>>> adjustments then made by scientists to accommodate the "new reality" may
>>>> inspire new mathematics, so maybe the two are co-dependent. Any new
>>>> mathematics, however, will be proven true or false or undecidable according
>>>> to the rules of logic, which do not demand the specification of initial
>>>> events, so necessary for an empirical explanation of reality. Platonism
>>>> remains outside of time- no beginning, no end. It can't determine initial
>>>> events, that can only be done empirically, by measurement.
>>>>  You can test a scientific theorem by doing an experiment and refine a
>>>> law of physics with the outcome. I'm fine with that. Attempting to prove a
>>>> mathematical theorem experimentally- with a quantum based computer- might
>>>> be dragging us over the bleeding edge. I would say you are still doing
>>>> physics. You would still have to arbitrarily set the initial starting point
>>>> of the computation. I'm also fine with the notion of computation as a
>>>> physical process- as an aid in studying mathematical processes- no problem.
>>>> I'm not sure that all mathematical truths can be determined by physical
>>>> computation, however.
>>>>
>>>>  -----Original Message---
>>>> From: Prashant Kumar <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com>
>>>> To: alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>; bandwraith <
>>>> bandwraith at aol.com>; pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>> Sent: Wed, Apr 17, 2013 12:12 am
>>>> Subject: Re:
>>>>
>>>>  I of course agree that science needs critics, critics who look at its
>>>> cultural *as well as* conceptual dimensions. My point is just that in
>>>> doing so, we have to respect the conceptual divides which obtain in
>>>> science.
>>>>
>>>>  As to comments above on mathematics, mathematics is *not* independent
>>>> of science. Physical theory relies on mathematics, and if we accept results
>>>> following from physics, then we need to admit that mathematical
>>>> structures have some empirical basis<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structural-realism/>.
>>>> Let's take this argument further still, and say that mathematics which
>>>> isn't invoked in physics constitutes a giant archive of (unrealised)
>>>> possibilities. In other words, one can argue that *quantitative* *
>>>> representation* is contingent, and divides into the realised and the
>>>> counterfactual. In such a picture, mathematics is a formalised way of
>>>> making counterfactual statements about physical reality. This a variant of
>>>> Constructivism, and is counter to the mathematical Platonism you seem to
>>>> assume, bandwraith. Now, the truth statements made in mathematics are of a
>>>> different class than those made by science: mathematical truths which do
>>>> not have empirical basis are riffs on reality. And, all of mathematics is
>>>> just possible (counterfactually speaking) physics. The concept of rigor
>>>> goes out the window, since it is easy to make rigorous statements if they
>>>> are epistemic, rather than ontic. The truth criteria of science and maths
>>>> are, in the account just given, incommensurable.
>>>>
>>>>  This opens up an interesting possibility. Consider quantitative
>>>> truths which *do* have some basis in reality; that is, they describe
>>>> some physical phenomenon. Well, why can't we test a theorem by doing an
>>>> experiment? If theorem T_1 is true, then phenomenon P_1 will occur, else
>>>> P_2. In quantum physics, it is now possible to conceive of a kind of
>>>> quantum computer which could prove theorems through experiment, in just
>>>> this fashion. The subtle cheat is that we are not proceeding inductively,
>>>> but deductively. Indeed, parts of string theory (the sci am article I
>>>> linked in the gravity thread; "the thing" is called AdS/CFT) have been
>>>> tested in a similar fashion.
>>>>
>>>>  Prashant
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17 April 2013 11:36, <bandwraith at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Interesting you should mention that. Arguing against "science" is like
>>>>> arguing that there's no such thing as gravity. Which is fine to do, but
>>>>> what is the counter-explanation for all the phenomenon that General
>>>>> Relativity explains? Until one comes up with a better explanation, GR
>>>>> stands. That's the beauty of science. Unlike religion, it's open to
>>>>> challenge. There is a backdoor way to attack the scientific process,
>>>>> however, that is less boneheaded, and that's to attack the language, after
>>>>> Gallileo, in which it finds expression- mathematics, which is often taken
>>>>> for granted. Statistics is the obvious but not the most fundamental
>>>>> example. Many scientific hypothesis are accepted or rejected on the
>>>>> strength of a statistical analysis of measurements of some kind. The
>>>>> assumptions behind statistical validity can be faulty, but science protects
>>>>> itself from this by admitting that possibility and allowing for
>>>>> reinterpretation and possible rejection of previously accepted results. The
>>>>> final description however will still generally be in mathematical terms.
>>>>> Biology, which has resisted this trend for a long time, in favor of a
>>>>> purely descriptive approach, is also becoming more and more computational.
>>>>> And even if biological meaning demands a qualitative framework, many of the
>>>>> techniques involved in biological science are heavily dependent on
>>>>> mathematical inferences.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Mathematics is completely un-empirical and completely independent
>>>>> of science! Truth, as it is understood mathematically, does not require a
>>>>> single empirical observation. It is a purely logical exercise, and much
>>>>> more rigorous in its proofs than science. Mathematics would never settle
>>>>> for an empirical proof. It may be that reality, in a scientific sense,
>>>>> happens to be perfectly congruent and consistent with a mathematical
>>>>> description, but that possibility is not a given, otherwise String Theory,
>>>>> for example, would be true on the basis of mathematics alone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, mathematics itself, as Pynchon has humorously indicated,
>>>>> is by no means a closed case- with all its questions locked up. Science, by
>>>>> keeping close to the empirical, avoids these problems. It is a question
>>>>> that is suggested by the current cover of The Bleeding Edge- the vanishing
>>>>> point- where all dichotomy comes to a final resolution, in this case, the
>>>>> divide between description and the described, or, epistemology and
>>>>> ontology. Choose your complementary terms.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the end it is a question of how we know. Mathematics, the chosen
>>>>> language of science, is as close to art and music and poetry, as it is
>>>>> to dirt and air and stardust- and just as prone to flights of fantasy.
>>>>> Algebra is perfectly logical. No such proof exists for reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> p.s. Anybody made it to The Museum of Mathematics yet? Worth the trip?
>>>>>
>>>>>      http://momath.org/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: malignd <malignd at aol.com>
>>>>> To: pynchon-l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>>> Sent: Tue, Apr 16, 2013 5:59 pm
>>>>> Subject: Re:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a smart post with which I agree.  I would add that science is
>>>>> a method -- of investigation and discovery.  To rail against science is
>>>>> like railing against algebra.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Prashant Kumar <siva.prashant.kumar at gmail.com>
>>>>> Cc: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>>>>> Sent: Mon, Apr 15, 2013 7:36 pm
>>>>> Subject: Re:
>>>>>
>>>>>  So, a couple of things; a two-step if you like: reification and
>>>>> generalisation.
>>>>>
>>>>>  First: science is not a contiguous set of practices. It is not
>>>>> monolithic, and therefore its meat and method is not isolable in the way
>>>>> our dear interlocutors have presumed. So, whatever you say about the
>>>>> ethical colour of man or machine depends peculiarly on man, machine, and
>>>>> the way the former uses and is changed by, the latter. *See also*:
>>>>> technologies of the self. Variegated of course by a soupcon of historicism.
>>>>>
>>>>>  What I'm saying maybe does seem irrelevant, but consider that the
>>>>> kind of science we get -- from methods to what specifically is studied, and
>>>>> how -- depends on the medley of personalities, funding and need one finds
>>>>> in modern scientific contexts. To call it "science" and then sort it into
>>>>> the right morality-bin is to discuss a  *popular, a layman's, version* of
>>>>> science. It's fine, but don't expect such an analysis to say anything about
>>>>> "real science". Prejudice, greed, and the fleshandblood motivations of
>>>>> modern scientists are *indispensable *to discovery. *See also:* *Against
>>>>> Method 4th ed., *Paul Feyerabend.
>>>>>
>>>>>  To say "science gave us computers" is to say quite literally
>>>>> nothing. How? What sequence of discoveries produces a computer? and, now,
>>>>> should I permute the order? What then? One more: how can we be sure of
>>>>> counterfactuals: *"**devices which wouldn't exist were it not for
>>>>> science." *?* *This is a stronger statement than it appears. Is
>>>>> science a* *unique historical process, with equally unique material
>>>>> correlates? *See also:* *Historical Ontology, *Ian Hacking.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Let me say as well, this discussion calls on a particularly Western
>>>>> suppressed premise: the moral rectitude of progress itself. So what if we
>>>>> don't have computers? Fuck 'em.
>>>>>
>>>>>  And now to generalisation. I'm sure you see where I'm going by now,
>>>>> so let me just say this. The choices scientists are presented with, and the
>>>>> decisions which they make, differ in substance between disciplines. And
>>>>> technological innovation from scientific discovery *is a process
>>>>> distinct from science itself.  **See also:* You figure it out...
>>>>>
>>>>>  P
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 16 April 2013 08:04, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't say anyone attacked me. I don't think anyone did.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Rev'd Seventy-Six <revd.76 at gmail.com
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  "...rather than argue against what I've argued, which is, that
>>>>>>> science is the new religion, the greatest risk to life on Earth, the
>>>>>>> P-Lister elected to distort my argument and recast it as an atack on people
>>>>>>> who work in science or scientists."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  For starters, it wasn't an attack on you personally; point of fact,
>>>>>>> it wasn't an attack at all.  It was a ramble and probably poorly written,
>>>>>>> sparked by confusion which caused me to ask you to clarify your position--
>>>>>>>  which I couldn't quite tell was farcical or not, considering we're having
>>>>>>> this little chat on devices that allow to communicate over vast distances
>>>>>>>  --devices which wouldn't exist were it not for science.  For as many
>>>>>>> hazards as you might argue science has produced, it has produced an equal
>>>>>>> number of benefits.  I don't see it as being particularly sacred, but I do
>>>>>>> think it's taken an unfair number of knocks over the last little while
>>>>>>> because there's this weird tendency to characterize a vast, fascinating
>>>>>>> field encompassing a scintillating number of disciplines as somehow being
>>>>>>> Against Humanity.  In P there's a certain cautiousness throughout to the
>>>>>>> uses of science, and that's what I thought we were discussing, not whether
>>>>>>> or not capital-S science were going to stomp us with Karloff size twelves
>>>>>>> for our failure to be god-fearing enough.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  You've again stated science is the greatest risk to life on earth,
>>>>>>> which I don't hold to be any more or less true than the statement that
>>>>>>> human greed is the greatest risk to life on earth.  We're at an impasse, is
>>>>>>> all.  Not a matter of fault if we disagree.  Again, sorry for any offense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  -David
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.innergroovemusic.com
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
www.innergroovemusic.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130417/70deb229/attachment.html>