OK, I vowed not to respond to so much stuff but I gave in. The
dialogue is just too rich for me. Please complain to me or to Rick
if its too much and I'll just work out my own stuff from your
wonderful stimulation.
I do *not* mean to imply anything about "truth or accuracy". I do
not purport to know about such things. "Richer and more varied
interpretations" means just what it says.
In my view of the world - more accurately our representation of it -
there are an infinite number of interpretations. This is good
because that means there is infinite possibility and infinite
diversity - without implying agreement, similarity or even
convergence.
What I mean is that there can always be added more colour, flavour,
taste - distinction - to everything that we perceive, experience or
think. We are left with profound choices about what to pursue
without any fear of running out. The only fear is that we will
choose a sterile path and miss some of the richness we might have
samples or created.
Depth, for me, is another matter. Depth is something that provides a
compression of information that, when applied to future (and
unknowable in advance) circumstances will allow a greater variety or
richness to emerge. This is generally something that is more
abstract than was previously available. I think this is what Murray
Gell-Mann is referring to when he talks about "effective complexity".
"Deeper" in a linguistic sense means that a single term or sentence
captures more complexity than any previous one. What that means to
me is that when the term is applied to the present, to what occurs,
we get a greater variety of possibility than if we had not generated
the new term.
Deeper does not mean truth, validity or even closer to the source or
to reality. It means that it is a greater level of abstraction *buy
still connected to experience and action*. The point I am making
here is that it is not *merely* abstract - say for the sake of
intellectual brilliance.
-- Michael McMaster Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk