- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "John J. Gagne"
> --- In email@example.com, "Peter D Jones"the
> <peterdjones@y...> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "John J. Gagne"
> > > All continuums are infinite. Analytically true. Falsifiable by
> > > observation of a finite continuum
> > Continua are not finite, by definition. Observations have to be
> > stated within a language. can an observation tell us we have
> > got our definitions wrong.
> Yes, as long as we ask the questions in a testable manor. That was
> point I was trying to make in the original "Oil Drop" thread.Two points:
> That we can ask about continua because we can't test for them.
firstly, you seem to be assuming that a test must be a single smoking-
gun datum. However, the case *for* continua is not any single
piece of evidence, but the fact that physics as a whole uses real
Secondly, you are also assuming that the test must be direct;
however, we can test for continuity vs disconitinuity by their
consequences. For instance, if the energy-levels of atoms were
a continuous specrum, the laws of thermodynamics would break.
> But weto "charge
> can ask about "linear" and "nonlinear" and determine the "depth of
> linearity". These would be meaningful questions as apposed
> is discrete" which is meaningless IMHO.I don't see why.
- --- In email@example.com, Marvin Minsky <minsky@m...>
>On a slight tangent, but also in that archive [or rather a mirror] is
> >--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "John J. Gagne"
> ><fitness4eb@c...> wrote:
> >> While we are at it, let us/me be clear the there are at least
> >> three "concepts" on my pet peeve list:
> >> Random
> >> Emergent
> >I have found a good discussion of emergence here
an interesting paper related to small-world nets, as discussed
several months ago .... strangely stored in the archive on condensed
matter ??? ... and which answers several of the fundamental questions
I've had regarding dynamics in such nets.
Fast Response and Temporal Coding on Coherent Oscillations in Small-