Re: Objects and Relations
Date: 16 Feb 2007 18:27:00 -0800
On Feb 17, 9:37 am, "Keith H Duggar" <dug..._at_alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> David BL wrote:
> > Bob Badour wrote:
> > > If you have x, y, z, deltaX, deltaY, and deltaZ you
> > > won't need orientation. The location of a piece is
> > > actually an interval
> > Yes, because Lego blocks can only be rotated about the
> > vertical axis z by 0,90,180,270 degrees. The interval
> > approach also brings out their symmetry under rotation by
> > 180 degrees. Also square shaped blocks (deltaX = deltaY)
> > are symmetric under rotation by 90 degrees.
> I would like to claim that this very discussion reveals one
> of the advantages of trying to think without entities. It
> encourages us to think about the /problem/ instead. That is
> to think about our goals, our requirements, our knowledge,
> etc. It forces us to consider the facts at hand and those
> that may arise and design solutions for handling them.
> Is this part of what DB professionals do for a living?
> What lingo is used to describe this process?
> Keith -- Fraud 6
I'm still unsure about this. Let me pose an alternative view, to see whether you can persuade me...
Is it possible for the human mind to reason about how to represent Lego configurations without having some awareness of Lego blocks as entities? This is a subject that is outside mathematics and depends on our "belief systems" that the human mind seems to depend on. In that sense this whole discussion is surely meta-physical. In fact I would say that meta-physics largely concerns the study of the mind. This is what I mean when I justify Platonism. It seems to be the closest fit to how the mind works. Received on Sat Feb 17 2007 - 03:27:00 CET