Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2016 - 09:15am PT
|
This thread is a fractal. Perfect representation of ___
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2016 - 09:17am PT
|
This thread is a fractal. Perfect representation of ___
Mental speculators in action masquerading as authoritative .......
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2016 - 09:31am PT
|
Yes ... 100%
But you can't agree with me because you ultimately can't see the real absolute reason this holds true.
back to your corner rascal .......
:-)
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2016 - 09:43am PT
|
an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being
So everything is not a thing.
But what about every thing?
Are there any parts of living sentient beings that are things?
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2016 - 09:58am PT
|
Are there any parts of living sentient beings that are things?
That has to be a trick question. The first "thing" that comes to mind is that thing that has an awkward time being named. Kind of ironic.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2016 - 03:22pm PT
|
That has to be a trick question.
Motivated by curiosity. We are told that a living sentient being is not a thing. But is the water inside the living sentient being a thing? How well can this living sentience be located? Or would the attempt chase away the unicorns and rainbows?
Another thing: The Living Sentient Being From Another World does not have the same effect as
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2016 - 03:49pm PT
|
OK, I had no idea that "metaphor" could have so many interpretations. In Wiki the article on "Conceptual Metaphors" does indeed include the example I cited previously.
"The principle of unidirectionality states that the metaphorical process typically goes from the more concrete to the more abstract, and not the other way around. Accordingly, abstract concepts are understood in terms of prototype concrete processes." (Wiki)
And guess what? Lakoff and colleagues have championed if not created this interpretation. So, if I am speaking of Trips John takes, I may link John drives to Denver, thus metaphorically illuminating the larger category. Or not.
For me, a metaphor is defined in what I suspect is a traditional way as "a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable" (Wiki)
For example, John drives to Denver, weaving in and out of traffic.
Our resident expert, Sycorax, needs to chime in and offer direction.
This thread is a fractal
Not even close.
And your assessment is not surprising, either. Yeah, they must be stupid mathematicians. Berkeley. Pffftttttt!
Has nothing to do with being "stupid mathematicians". Your comment, not mine.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2016 - 08:25pm PT
|
. . . the gross materialists never vibrate the transcendental vibrations to benefit all living entities
This just about says it all. The mind on vacation.
Nevertheless, I agree wholeheartedly.
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2016 - 09:17pm PT
|
^and your hungry aren't you
Not even close.
It does go it circles my friend
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2016 - 09:59pm PT
|
You know!
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2016 - 10:04pm PT
|
If Dr Ed ever returns he might discuss the use of metaphors in physics, in the discovery process as well as the instructional arena. Are Einstein's thought experiments metaphorical?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2016 - 11:39pm PT
|
thought experiments are just that...
for the types of things discussed above, we used to call them analogies
not sure when metaphor was appropriated to describe everything (and even nothing, apparently)
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2016 - 07:20am PT
|
*Large O ? What are you working on?*
*Have you read the Prow Trip Report?*
*Maybe it deserves your attention ?*
http://www.supertopo.com/tr/Disabled-Is-a-Stupid-Word-Up-and-Down-The-Prow-Slowly/t13081n.html#comments
THIS COULD BE A BIG DEAL , At least help get it into the hands of producers at Hallmark?
Ronny Howard? You are the professional with Holleeewierd Conections . . . .
"Disabled" Is a Stupid Word: Up and Down The Prow, Slowly
by notdisabled
Sunday November 13, 2016 11:10am
I’m a flatlander and a vegetable farmer, and for years life had been moving away from climbing. My wife and I have a farm in Nebraska, we’ve got three young daughters, and we don’t have a lot of disposable income so regular climbing trips haven’t been in the money or energy budget. Since leaving the mountain west in 2010, I got my vertical kicks as an arborist, but even that was tapering.
Then I got rear-ended on January 7th, 2014 and found myself in a Lincoln, NE rehabilitation hospital paralyzed from the waist down. “Time to start climbing again,” I figured…well, not quite. But after a therapist heard I was a climber she gave me Mark Wellman’s book “Climbing Back,” about the first paraplegic ascent of El Cap in 1989, I started thinking a lot more about climbing.
Fast-forward 3 years and I’ve been to the Valley 4 times and finally got a wall done last month.
I am fortunate to have an “incomplete” spinal cord injury, and more fortunate still to have significant recovery of leg function, so I differ from other adaptive climbers like Mark Wellman and Sean O’Neill. While I have the same level of spinal cord injury as those two beasts, my less-severe injury allows me to stand and walk with crutches. Unfortunately, I’m not terribly time or energy efficient on my feet so use a wheelchair most of the time. I feel like walking for me would be like able-bodied folks jogging backwards all the time – you could probably do it, but what’s the point?
On the other hand, my limited leg function has allowed me to really push the limits of adaptive climbing and on this recent trip I led and hauled three pitches on The Prow, as well as cleaning the remaining 8 pitches that I seconded. I was stoked to be able to contribute as a nearly full partner, and glad I didn’t have to carry the haul bags on the approach or descent! Best of both worlds ;-) * COM'ON NOW!* |
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2016 - 09:17am PT
|
Isn't any verbal description of physics a metaphor?
no, in lieu of the purely mathematical description (which is symbolic, an attribute that some here will claim to be "metaphorical") physicists use a precise language appropriating commonly used words to new meanings. This causes no end of confusion among those who don't know (or who ignore) these new definitions.
Language, including verbal language, can be made precise through propositional logic (which, by the way, may have an entirely physical origin), especially for the purpose of physics (but also mathematics, etc.). The mathematical considerations of propositions and propositional logic are very well explored (perhaps made famous by Hofstadter's book Gödel, Escher, Bach, which features the celebrity theorem by Gödel, showing how mathematical propositions could be made equivalent to propositions in language).
The proposition set forth in this thread recently that "everything is a metaphor" could be viewed as facetious, as no evidence is brought forth to support it...
it is certainly true that propositional statements can be made that do not have clear resolution, and that the interpretation of those statements are left ambiguous, purposefully, in order to evoke a particular thought, or feeling. But that is not to say all propositions fall under this category.
Two things of relevance to this thread: 1) language changes, and especially in science (or at least in physics, e.g. the language that we currently use to discuss Newton's physics is not the same as Newton's language, even if the words used look the same) and 2) recognizing common behavioral attributes, identified as analogous behavior, sometimes points to a significant commonality that can be used to obtain deeper physical insight, but sometimes only reveals a common way of describing the phenomenon.
On this second point we find that Hilbert's early 20th century program to rid mathematics of "proof though analogy" is an example where analogy does not result in a deeper understanding (in this case, e.g. the behavior of actual hydrodynamic systems does not lead to deeper mathematical understanding of multidimensional differential-integral systems).
The major difficulty with using the word "metaphor" is that there is an intention when creating a literary metaphor, and that intention is different then the one employing a simile. It is a device used in writing, a tool of conveyance for ideas. The way "metaphor" is used in the thread divorces it from this intention, and makes it into a description of the creation of symbols, a process for which there are no alternatives and for which the intent is quite different.
While I applaud the evolution of language, there are already many ways of describing this process, my own personal opinion is that appropriating "metaphor" to this end, without being precise about its meaning, is just lazy thinking.
Perhaps someone can provide a more precise definition of the newly expanded meaning of metaphor?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2016 - 03:48pm PT
|
. . . the language that we currently use to discuss Newton's physics is not the same as Newton's language
Ditto for the calculus. Differentials or Derivatives and Fluxions, e.g. Newton also referred to a varying, flowing quantity as a Fluent . . . what we now call a function. Meanwhile, Leibniz established much of the notation used today, like the integral sign and his notion of an Infinitesimal. When one looks up the last item, a definition is sometimes given as "a span too short to measure" or " a number too small to measure". So, in physics when one studies phenomena below the Planck Scale, does one use infinitesimals or other aspects on non-standard analysis?
;>)
Up until the beginning of the 20th century much mathematical thought in analysis revolved about special functions, like the Bessel Function. Then, as the work in foundations progressed, many mathematicians were attracted to the idea of generalizing mathematical concepts and results, leading to abstractions of familiar, fairly simple math entities. For example, the classical Riemann integral - which had its roots in the work of Archimedes - failed in rather extreme situations. So the Lebesgue integral appeared and gave the value for "area under a curve" for the function f(x) defined on [0,1] having value one for x rational and value zero for x irrational. There was more of course, and measure theory allowed investigations to proceed where simpler techniques failed or were inapplicable.
My colleague at Trondheim and I worked independently years ago to extend the Banach contraction theorem into unexplored territory regarding analytic functions. She looked at an idea I had introduced about inner compositions, deriving theory beyond what I had done, and I looked at outer compositions, obtaining comparable results. Unfortunately, these were in a sense terminal results and few if any noticed, since they didn't really allow continued investigations other than polishing the apple. They weren't very important either. But in both investigations we first looked at examples, then generalized . . . conceptual metaphors in current language.
The following is what pops up as definitions of metaphor:
A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable:
"“I had fallen through a trapdoor of depression,” said Mark, who was fond of theatrical metaphors"
synonyms: figure of speech, image, trope, analogy, comparison, symbol, word painting/picture
"the profusion of metaphors in her everyday speech has gotten pretty tiresome"
A thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else, especially something abstract.
"the amounts of money being lost by the company were enough to make it a metaphor for an industry that was teetering"
This is a word game, so pinning down anything exact is a wayward effort IMO.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2016 - 07:59pm PT
|
Metaphor: a figure of speech in which an implicit comparison is made between two things essentially unlike
That's what I've thought. "Conceptual metaphor" seems to attempt to illuminate the abstract by citing an example that is less abstract. The use of examples to conjecture the higher abstraction, however, is commonplace in mathematics and doesn't seem to be quite the same. So I guess I was wrong. Word play.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2016 - 09:23pm PT
|
Less metaphor, more zeugma.
“Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears.”
William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
Histories make men wise; poets, witty; the mathematics, subtle; natural philosophy, deep; moral, grave; logic and rhetoric, able to contend.
Francis Bacon, Of Studies
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2016 - 09:01am PT
|
So, in physics when one studies phenomena below the Planck Scale, does one use infinitesimals or other aspects on non-standard analysis?
absent a quantum theory of gravity, physics at the Planck scale is a rather dicey speculation. The Planck scale itself may not have any real physical significance, being, essentially, a numerological result of dimensional analysis. It is the answer to the question: how do you build a length scale out of the Planck constant?
That question isn't motivated by any particular physical phenomenon.
Quantum gravity is important at this scale because space-time, whose structure is the dynamical result of the stress-energy tensor, would be significantly "curved" at the sub-atomic level, requiring a quantum treatment. So far the mystery of the absence of such a theory has not been solved (though there is a considerable amount of work in that direction over the last couple of decades).
I can't comment on "non-standard analysis" as I don't quite know what this means. Physicists are often working in mathematics to develop tools with which to solve physical problems. String-theory is at least a contribution to some mathematical areas, even if it eventually fails the physics program.
Quantum mechanics already poses challenges at scales smaller than the "quantum limit" set by the Planck constant. It isn't at all clear that mathematics is needed.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2016 - 09:41am PT
|
no, in lieu of the purely mathematical description (which is symbolic, an attribute that some here will claim to be "metaphorical") physicists use a precise language appropriating commonly used words to new meanings. This causes no end of confusion among those who don't know (or who ignore) these new definitions.
While this is true, it also applies to other fields as well, since each field has its jargon and jargon is the refinement of language for the purpose of increased precision. This is certainly true in the arts, resulting in no end of confusion for the public.
It's nice to see so many coming to terms with the idea of metaphor. Now perhaps a rereading of the Bible with that in mind for the purpose of extracting/understanding its wisdom, a wisdom wrapped in an easily revealed, often perfectly diaphanous, metaphor: "In the beginning was the word...".
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!