[Edu-sig] Entering Squeakland

[Arthur]

kirby urner wrote:

>>We turn on the television and pictures appear and we are lost in the
>>pictures - the magic that is beyond our understanding or interest on
>>what is making them appear is suitably left as magic.  *That's* the
>>fallacy that's going to bring us down, IMO.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Yes, and I think Squeakland helps fight that "take it all for granted"
>mentality.  Because you're in a cartoon-like space, and it it's *up to
>you* to make stuff happen (your the TV *producer* not just the
>potato).
>  
>
Please Kirby, I am talking physics, not cartoons.  And as much as I 
admire Mr. J. Moose - I try not to confuse the two things.

>>And the funny thing is I don't really disagree with him.  Except that I
>>would express it a little differently - believing that the most profound
>>thing that computers will do for us is teach us what computers cannot do
>>for us. And I do think that is a profound lesson.
>>    
>>
>
>Yes.  Wittgenstein took the same approach to logic:  yes it's true,
>but so is 0 = 0.
>  
>
Not sure what you mean.  If I sound like I am talking sematically, I 
certainly don't mean to be.  I am thinking literally and  in terms of 
practicalities, even if I am not successful in expressing it as such.

We count the roses in Shakespeares.  Know the exact number.  Now what?

Wittgenstein played a major role in the book I just finished. 

"The Proof and Paradox of Kurt Godel"  by Rebecca Goldstein.

Goldstein is a novelist with a heavy weight philosophy background.  
Godel and Wittgenstein were not on contemporaries, but moved in the same 
circles for a good part of these lives - The Vienna Circle.  Goldstein 
does a brilliant job of describing the nature of the problem they had 
with each other. And yes it is wonderful to have a brilliant woman's 
perspective here.

Also no question that Einstein and Godel were peers - just by the fact 
they chose to spend so much of their timing hanging out with each other. 
We all need folks to chat with ;)

Art



Art