Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 11:55:11 CST
From:         John Gabriel <gabriel@EID.ANL.GOV>
Subject:      Re: Sciligion; gang of 3 to 5

[From Gabriel 921213 11:40CST, reply to Powers of same date]

I don't know quite how to respond Bill. I am both in agreement, and in
disagreement with you.

Agreement that if the mathematics has a set of axioms that omit an essential
part of the the physical phenomenon, then the mathematical model may
describe something, but it doesn't describe the physical system being
discussed. But this will be found when the mathematics and the reality
are perceived to be disconsonant.

Disagreement with the implied conclusion that mathematics is not a useful
model. If the mathematics and the sense data agree, this is evidence that
the mathematics is a reasonable predictor of things we already know, and so
we CAN, but don't have to, use it to attempt to predict things we DON't
already know, and THEN go and see if they are observed.

It seems to me that that's what "models of reality" are all about, and that's
what your really insightful book deals with.

Two other comments:-

Perhaps what you are saying is "Only a topologist could believe that the
donut and the coffe cup are the same thing." That depends on what you
mean by "same." If by same you something like "If represented in three
dimensions by bounding surfaces within some small distance from the
boundaries between air and material for the donut and coffee cup on the
breakfast table before you, treating the breakfast table as if it were
air, THEN the bounding surfaces may be continuously transformed one
into the other without tearing." the topologist is speaking the truth.

All this gets you into Avery Andrews' "aforesaid" problem, and it only
gets worse the more you try to say, because there are more aforesaids.

There is a good mathematical model of this issue, but it's not very
accessible, so perhaps it's not very good after all. But as my father
was fond of pointing out, people only directly perceived acceleration
and deceleration regularly without coming to harm (like falling off
a cliff) after automobiles were invented. Before that Newton's Law of
Acceleration was just about as academic an experience as topology is
today.

About burning people to death. Let's debate that off line. Perhaps
we may find we agree more than you at present perceive. My choice of
words was unfortunate - but I am short of time, and not as good as
you and Martin at expressing myself. Sorry if I hit a sore spot.
That's one of the reasons why the "gang of five" converse mainly off
line. You and I have both experienced war - I was bombed in Britain,
and you were in the Navy, and we probably neither of us liked it very
much, in spite of the adrenalin rush we likely both know.

One thing I do believe - the Chicago Stockyards used to use everything
but the squeal. If we have experiences, we ought to use them to
illuminate our world. Better to light a candle than to curse the dark.

I don't want ever to shoot anybody, but I still practice with an M1911A1,
and if I have to choose between dying myself, and using lethal force
to stop somebody who was trying to kill me (or anybody else not deserving
to be shot at), I don't intend to hesitate very long.

Nor I think would you, if if your new granddaughter were in mortal
danger.

Well, let me get down off my soapbox. I'm not sure the net is the
proper place for the above discussion. Let's continue off line if
we feel so inclined. I don't think Gary will object.

With Very Best Regards to All, Malice to None, and wishes for a
Joyful, Peaceful, Holiday Season.

        John (gabriel@athens.eid.anl.gov)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU