Re: Pose

nik (
Mon, 13 Oct 1997 09:34:59 -0700

>There is, quite simply, no way to define the difference between
>standing and dancing.
> {[(standing=dancing)=(particle=motion)]=[(x,t)=(p,E)]}

Unless of course one views dancing as a proper subset of motion and standing
as another proper subset; and therefore motion and dancing might overlap or
be mutually exlcusive but not necessarily equal.

>However, physics and maths notation describe the most general
>rules, and hence are incredibly compact without missing ANYTHING (as far
>as one can measure).

This is simply not true. All math that is based in formal logic is incomplete.
That is, there are true things which aren't logical and logical things
which aren't true.

Further, most 'real' problems aren't solvable analytically; this is why
people like me (applied mathematicians/computer scientists) exist. To
simulate and approximate 'real world' physics. Nobody i know believes what
they are doing is true or complete, only useful in a certain range of

For example, calculus can solve 2-body problems exactly; but fails for most
three-body problems.

A thought, with respect, Darren for someone who is interested in math, by
a great logician:

I do not think that there is a God's eye view of nature, that
there is a truth, an accessible truth of this kind. The words that I used
were that, while the universe is totally connected, we cannot extricate
ourselves from our own finiteness. And, therefore, we do this decoding by
a highly imaginative piece of guesswork. But we finish with something
which is only a gigantic metaphor for that part of the universe which we
are decoding.
- Jacob Bronowski, The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination