Re: LIMITS TO BRAINS

Boris,
            No, I don't like geometrically or any other, the point is, and
this has been covered at length, is the adaptation of methods that have been
found useful in science and if geometric or arithmetic or whatever fits some
'social' problem it proves the point. Nearly all relationships are
approximate but these are known to the operator working on the problem.
            The matter of thermodynamics is of interest since it is entirely
abstract, it is a theoretical backdrop whereby comparisons can be made with
the real world. Also, having understood a few basic ideas it is relatively
easy to build up or extend them, unlike the social sciences where there is
complexity beyond belief. Or at least that's how I see it.
            Having a few basics in science it is like knowing the laws and
if you work within the law then you can discover, invent, describe
processes, predict, and so on. What I'd like to know is the few basics that
cover this curious world of 'social science', where basic ideas have been
stated and can extended. For about twenty years I've been trying to find
some 'science' in economics but so far nothing has come up.

W. Kirk.
----- Original Message -----
From: Boris Stremlin <bc70219@binghamton.edu>
To: Wiliam Kirk <WILLIAM@maybee15.freeserve.co.uk>
Cc: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Sent: 26 August 1999 06:34
Subject: Re: LIMITS TO BRAINS



>
> > There is a problem here with the notion of exponential.
>
> Fine.  Do you like "geometrically" better?
>
> --
> Boris Stremlin
> bc70219@binghamton.edu
>
>