Re: [OPE-L] dynamic theories and the "drive to formalize"

From: Ian Wright (wrighti@ACM.ORG)
Date: Sun Sep 09 2007 - 14:01:16 EDT

Next message: paul bullock: "Re: [OPE-L] Credit crunch"
Previous message: Ian Wright: "Re: [OPE-L] equilibrium and simultaneous vs. sequential determination"
In reply to: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "Re: [OPE-L] dynamic theories and the "drive to formalize""
Next in thread: ajit sinha: "Re: [OPE-L] dynamic theories (Gravitation Mechanism)"
Reply: ajit sinha: "Re: [OPE-L] dynamic theories (Gravitation Mechanism)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

Hi Jerry

I think that understanding "a complex dynamic process in which there
are tendencies and counter-tendencies and *lots and lots* of variables
(and hence uncertain outcomes)" requires a formal (e.g. mathematical
or computational) approach. Natural language theorizing can encompass
a lot of material without really getting to grips with the underlying
causality. But there's room for many approaches.

Best wishes,
-Ian.

Next message: paul bullock: "Re: [OPE-L] Credit crunch"
Previous message: Ian Wright: "Re: [OPE-L] equilibrium and simultaneous vs. sequential determination"
In reply to: glevy@PRATT.EDU: "Re: [OPE-L] dynamic theories and the "drive to formalize""
Next in thread: ajit sinha: "Re: [OPE-L] dynamic theories (Gravitation Mechanism)"
Reply: ajit sinha: "Re: [OPE-L] dynamic theories (Gravitation Mechanism)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Sep 30 2007 - 00:00:05 EDT