barrington interview

Here is an interview with Gene that makes fun of symbol hunters and people being identified as Richard Nixon or whatnot in his novels (here's looking at you, navigator as JFK borski theory) ... http://barrington.suntimes.com/2014/10/02/gene-wolfe-legend-novelist-philosopher/ To be fair, we all already know why speculation abounds ... He is a symbolist. _______________________________________________

Q: “The Land Across” is your newest novel. What did this book allow you to explore that previous ones had not? Wolfe: What I did in that book particularly was to take a tyrannical, political setup and show it from the inside: The reason that the people who were involved considered a dictatorship necessary. We seem to think of that sort of thing as an unmitigated evil. But democracy depends upon individuals being willing to contribute and take part in the democratic process. In other words, they have to look at the people who are running for office and in some cases running for office themselves and make reasoned judgments on the thing and then write letters and protest and so on. And if they are not willing to do that, if they resign from the whole process of government, then you can’t really get anywhere with a democracy. The democracy naturally lapses into some sort of a tyrannical setup.

On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Gwern Branwen <gwern at gwern.net> wrote: An interesting bit about the politics of The Land Across:

Q: “The Land Across” is your newest novel. What did this book allow you to explore that previous ones had not? Wolfe: What I did in that book particularly was to take a tyrannical, political setup and show it from the inside: The reason that the people who were involved considered a dictatorship necessary. We seem to think of that sort of thing as an unmitigated evil. But democracy depends upon individuals being willing to contribute and take part in the democratic process. In other words, they have to look at the people who are running for office and in some cases running for office themselves and make reasoned judgments on the thing and then write letters and protest and so on. And if they are not willing to do that, if they resign from the whole process of government, then you can’t really get anywhere with a democracy. The democracy naturally lapses into some sort of a tyrannical setup.

-- gwern http://www.gwern.net _______________________________________________

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: That's actually a really sweet interview.

Rick Norwood: What a wonderful interview.

Marc Aramini: Here is an interview with Gene that makes fun of symbol hunters and people

being identified as Richard Nixon or whatnot in his novels (here's looking at you, navigator

as JFK borski theory) ...

To be fair, we all already know why speculation abounds ... He is a symbolist.

On 10/5/2014 8:08 AM, Lee wrote: In this interview, Wolfe suggests that he'd like to go Shakespearean and pound on Borski's (or or Wright's or whomever's) door, sword in hand, to challenge him to a duel for demeaning his work. It is tongue-in-cheek of course but, hey...if Wolfe really cared that much about his work being read correctly, why not publish notes on how to read it correctly?

Jeffrey Wilson: I believe Wolfe's stated in at least two previous interviews that he doesn't give that information out because it would cheat the careful reader of the pleasure of discovering it for himself. But that doesn't mean he finds the necessary consequences entirely satisfactory.

On Sunday, October 5, 2014, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: Jeffrey Wilson: I believe Wolfe's stated in at least two previous interviews that he doesn't give that information out because it would cheat the careful reader of the pleasure of discovering it for himself. But that doesn't mean he finds the necessary consequences entirely satisfactory.

That sounds reasonable on the surface. But consider the real world results. We have a few published analysts and many on this board who are more than careful, and often excruciatingly exacting in their detailed reading of Wolfe's work. Yet each one still seems to come to quite differing and individualized understandings. I have full respect for the intelligence of all avid Wolfe readers, so how can this divergence in understanding be explained? Either Wolfe is deliberately making his work ambiguous and subject to individualized understanding or he is doing it by accident. I think one of these is more likely than the other. Some might argue that Wolfe's latest work is less ambiguous than his previous work. I'm not sure. I'd be interested in the opinions of others on the overall trend. Just in regard to the 12 volume Sun Series, written over the course of some 10-15 years, I'd have to say with some confidence that the writing became more ambiguous as it progressed. I find the WTF moments in Return To The Whorl to be far more frequent than they were in reading Shadow of the Torturer. _______________________________________________

On 10/5/2014 9:15 PM, Lee wrote: Jeffrey Wilson: I believe Wolfe's stated in at least two previous interviews that he doesn't give that information out because it would cheat the careful reader of the pleasure of discovering it for himself. But that doesn't mean he finds the necessary consequences entirely satisfactory.

That sounds reasonable on the surface. But consider the real world results. We have a few published analysts and many on this board who are more than careful, and often excruciatingly exacting in their detailed reading of Wolfe's work. Yet each one still seems to come to quite differing and individualized understandings.

Jeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me.

There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same difficulty or the answers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may have the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on them.

On 6 October 2014 12:18, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: Jeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me.

There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same difficulty or the answers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may have the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on them.

For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is: Who is right? In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists of his work but that there were some readers who basically understood all his work. There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought trying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct understanding? Who are the ones who are way off base? Without an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and wrong, we are each given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does get Wolfe correctly is, of course, ourselves. If Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide multiple reasons for why he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of assessment of correct interpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a firm majority consensus to base it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see either. _______________________________________________

On 6 October 2014 12:18, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com<mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>> wrote: Jeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me.

There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same difficulty or the answers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may have the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on them.

On Monday, October 6, 2014, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: Jeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me.

There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same difficulty or the answers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may have the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on them.

For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is: Who is right? In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists of his work but that there were some readers who basically understood all his work. There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought trying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct understanding? Who are the ones who are way off base? Without an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and wrong, we are each given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does get Wolfe correctly is, of course, ourselves. If Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide multiple reasons for why he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of assessment of correct interpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a firm majority consensus to base it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see either. _______________________________________________

On Monday, October 6, 2014, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: Jeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me.

There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same difficulty or the answers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may have the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on them.

For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is: Who is right? In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists of his work but that there were some readers who basically understood all his work. There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought trying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct understanding? Who are the ones who are way off base? Without an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and wrong, we are each given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does get Wolfe correctly is, of course, ourselves. If Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide multiple reasons for why he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of assessment of correct interpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a firm majority consensus to base it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see either. _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story itself. Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all.

Rick Norwood: Also, I find Wolfe enjoyable on a first read. The depths are fun to probe,

but the surface is fun, too. Thus I do not see Wolfe as a puzzle game, where unless you

solve the boss puzzle you lose. Rather as many layered fiction, with something extra for

those who read the classics.

Marc Aramini: Whoever explains the most narrative events and patterns without resorting to

misprision is right. Some people are better at logic puzzles than others....There is plenty of

evidence. Some readings are right. Some are often consistently wrong. We don't need Wolfe's

consent, though at times it would be nice.

Richard Simon: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on

the story.

I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the

story.

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: Rick Norwood: Also, I find Wolfe enjoyable on a first read. The depths are fun to probe,

but the surface is fun, too. Thus I do not see Wolfe as a puzzle game, where unless you

solve the boss puzzle you lose. Rather as many layered fiction, with something extra for

those who read the classics.

Thanks Rick. I agree and I suspect most here agree. I think our discussions are skewed toward the more difficult puzzles and away from the superficially enjoyable aspects of Wolfe's work just because there is more to discuss. "Severian met a giant.." or "Sir Able fought a dragon.." "..wasn't that cool?" "Yeah, it was". What more can be said than that? Perhaps a sad truth of human discourse is that disagreement is often a more compelling subject than agreement.

Marc Aramini: Whoever explains the most narrative events and patterns without resorting to

misprision is right. Some people are better at logic puzzles than others....There is plenty of

evidence. Some readings are right. Some are often consistently wrong. We don't need Wolfe's

consent, though at times it would be nice.

Marc you say this without acknowledgement that the terms "misprision", "better", "logic", "evidence", "right" and "wrong" are all subjective judgments, especially in regard to fiction. How do you know something is evidence? How do you know someone is right or wrong or misunderstanding the text? The answer is, invariably, because you say so. This ends up being a fancy way of saying "I'm right". After all, are you prepared to say that any of your own current theories are wrong? It would be absurd for you to say that. And just as absurd for anyone else to say it about their own theories. You may think others are wrong, just as you always think you are right. Such thoughts don't make it universally so. There is no scientific method for understanding fiction for the same reason there is no scientific method for belief in God. The concept of a Creator and the presence of Intelligent Design tosses out scientific method. Take Occam's Razor. It doesn't apply to fiction or God because the author/Creator may well have decided that the most complex explanation is the right one. Take statistics. A penny doesn't have a 50/50 chance of heads or tails in fiction. A fictional penny has only the 100% chance of falling however the author writes it as falling. Throw out experimentation and repeatability etc. They don't work on fiction. It is tempting to put the author in the role of Creator in this analogy but it should be noted that fiction exists in the minds of all involved parties. Thus, each reader becomes a Creator also, as soon as a fictional mental image is created in each mind. Perhaps there are those who have such pure utter faith in their own judgment of a work of fiction that they are willing to claim all others are wrong. But just like personal religious faith, it is rather unrealistic to actually expect all others to share the minutiae of what you personally believe in.

Richard Simon: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on

the story.

I agree.

I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the

story.

I disagree. While I agree that Wolfe's puzzles and symbolism almost always bear on the storyline, I think they sometimes have multiple levels of meaning which can extend outside the story. Perhaps the classic example is Wolfe's own admission that the name of the main members of Number 5's family in 5HoC is "Gene Wolfe". I don't think he really means to imply that he, personally, is in the story. Similarly, Andre-Driussi has spent significant research showing that the events of BotNS seem to parallel the life of Gene Wolfe. And I think the family dynamics of Horn's family in Short Sun are too similar to Wolfe family dynamics to dismiss them as purely and entirely fictional. As I recently quoted from the Larry McCaffrey interview, Gene Wolfe notes that BotNS serves as a way of expressing the ramifications of his own personal religious beliefs. It isn't just a rippingly good yarn. At least not to Gene Wolfe. There are real world personal elements to it. _______________________________________________

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen <jurisper at gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story itself. Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all.

Wholehearted agreement! Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or she act well or badly in the circumstances? _______________________________________________

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014, Norwood, Frederick Hudson < NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> wrote: “the terms "misprision", "better", "logic", "evidence", "right" and "wrong" are all subjective judgments?” — Marc Aramini. Ah. No. These words can be used subjectively but all have perfectly good objective meanings. 7 x 8 = 21 is a misprision, not better than 7 x 8 = 56, not logical, lacking evidence, not right, and, most importantly, is wrong. I think Lee addresses this very well. Wolfe is not a postmodernist. Rick Norwood

Marc Aramini: Well, Lee, let me give you an example of a misreading.

On Tuesday, October 7, 2014, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: Marc Aramini: Well, Lee, let me give you an example of a misreading.

Marc, I'm sure there are many examples upon which WE can agree are a misreading of fiction by someone else. But the assessment of error remains our opinion not scientific fact. What if there is an "error" (Wolfe's or editor's) in the text such as Wolfe's spelling of Quadrifrons as Quadrifons? Is the misspelling deliberate on Wolfe's part, serving a hidden purpose? Or is it just an error? What if Wolfe makes an error and a reader makes an assumption based on that error. Who is actually right, the reader who is in concord with Wolfe within the text or the scholar who has spotted Wolfe's error? There are varying levels of agreement when it comes to fiction. Relatively few disagree on the meaning of a Stephen King novel. But when an author such as Wolfe writes in deliberately ambiguous fashion (Shadow Children are degenerate humans/No, they are native shapeshifters) there is going to be disagreement with no firm way to establish universal correctness, as your discussions with Gerry Quinn demonstrate. _______________________________________________

Marc Aramini: And inevitably some readings will be closer to authorial intention,

some further away. Wolfe knows if his shadow children are parasites and the

relationship, if any, between the Abos and the trees.

No one has ever really talked about my Latro story (probably because it sucked,

I suppose)

Whether the story works outside of the mystery is the difference between Wolfe and me.

My story clearly doesn't work, his do, but I can tell you if your guesses were right or wrong

in my work.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: Marc Aramini: And inevitably some readings will be closer to authorial intention,

some further away. Wolfe knows if his shadow children are parasites and the

relationship, if any, between the Abos and the trees.

Let's pretend Gene Wolfe follows this List. Why do you think he continues to not chime in and tell you that you are right and others are wrong? What is his motivation?

No one has ever really talked about my Latro story (probably because it sucked,

I suppose)

It is probably good. I didn't know it existed. Also, as an amateur Wolfe fan, I find keeping up just with Wolfe's work to be enough of a challenge. Also, the Latro series never interested me enough for a second read, for some reason.

Whether the story works outside of the mystery is the difference between Wolfe and me.

My story clearly doesn't work, his do, but I can tell you if your guesses were right or wrong

in my work.

I think you would tell us if our guesses were correct in identifying your intentions. Another difference between you and Wolfe. You truly WANT to be understood. He doesn't. Otherwise he would make the effort to ensure he was understood. _______________________________________________

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course, possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological exploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for allusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant fact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have spiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction, longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being content to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely entertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do more. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question. -DOJP On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen <jurisper at gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story itself. Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all.

Wholehearted agreement! Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or she act well or badly in the circumstances? _______________________________________________

Marc Aramini: "Marc used a math problem"??????????????????????????????

Rick Norwood: First, let me apologize for getting Marc and Lee mixed up. When I read an amalgam

of many posts, I sometimes get confused about who is doing what, with what, and to whom.

Aliens who use a different number base is a red herring. The math is the same, independently of

the language in which it is written.

And I really do think there are right and wrong interpretations of literature. As somebody said

(Marc? Lee?), the ghost of Hamlet’s father is not an alien. That interpretation would be just plain

wrong.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: I've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely science/mathematically minded. But math isn't really "universal". It a system of calculation created by the human mind which is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian ancestors. Our brains may organize the search patterns of bees or the spiral shape of a conch shell or the galaxy into a mathematical pattern. But I am confident in stating that bees and mollusks and stars are not doing math. We are, as we seek to organize the universe into patterns our brains can understand.

It is not necessary for a "conch to do math" for its spiral shell-shape to be mathematically based. Its genes, an incredibly powerful computing system (whose results are expressed in proteins which then control cellular behavior), "does" the math. Likewise the shape of the galaxy; stars aren't "doing math," they are obeying natural law, which is mathematical in nature

I've corresponded with him for about 14 years now ... he thinks dropping the definitive answer is cheating, but once upon a time he was sure to correct me on a very important point. He then apologized to me, saying it "wasn't fair." His purpose is complex, but Wolfe's creative system is perhaps best understood in the amusement park designer of "The Adopted Father" - in that story, his children aren't his because they don't think like he does - he creates an elaborate park maze design and his son can't navigate it, he becomes lost, because he doesn't pay attention to the clue his father gives him, so his father seeks out someone who actually does think as he does. As I've said, his acknowledgments are also extremely indirect. When I told him what I thought about "the Changeling", he said, "I've always loved Lil' Abner. So many great characters, so many great stories and situations." That's about the most indirect way one could ever say that my explication was correct. Wolfe wants to make you work to solve his puzzles ... he almost has the contradictory impulse in his introductions to put forth that he writes for the common reader to entertain, but he can't stop being cryptic. Certainly his idea of "good" construction and engineering involves creating a text worth re-reading. On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

Marc Aramini: And inevitably some readings will be closer to authorial intention,

some further away. Wolfe knows if his shadow children are parasites and the

relationship, if any, between the Abos and the trees.

Let's pretend Gene Wolfe follows this List. Why do you think he continues to not chime in and tell you that you are right and others are wrong? What is his motivation?

No one has ever really talked about my Latro story (probably because it sucked,

I suppose)

It is probably good. I didn't know it existed. Also, as an amateur Wolfe fan, I find keeping up just with Wolfe's work to be enough of a challenge. Also, the Latro series never interested me enough for a second read, for some reason.

Whether the story works outside of the mystery is the difference between Wolfe and me.

My story clearly doesn't work, his do, but I can tell you if your guesses were right or wrong

in my work.

I think you would tell us if our guesses were correct in identifying your intentions. Another difference between you and Wolfe. You truly WANT to be understood. He doesn't. Otherwise he would make the effort to ensure he was understood. _______________________________________________

Antonio Marques: Lee's example is perhaps not the best, .... he was pointing out that math itself

even with a shared mind structure (human) has conventions and you're at sea without them.

The square root of -1 is something which started as pure convention, no matter the interpretations

that were developed later on. Now imagine an alien mind, dividing the same physical world in a

different way...

Lee is absolutely right when he points out that everything in communication hinges on shared assumptions.

Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:19 PM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview Antonio Marques: Lee's example is perhaps not the best, .... he was pointing out that math itself

even with a shared mind structure (human) has conventions and you're at sea without them.

The square root of -1 is something which started as pure convention, no matter the interpretations

that were developed later on. Now imagine an alien mind, dividing the same physical world in a

different way...

Lee is absolutely right when he points out that everything in communication hinges on shared assumptions.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: I've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely science/mathematically minded. But math isn't really "universal". It a system of calculation created by the human mind which is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian ancestors.

This isn’t the place for this debate, since I have no doubt that Gene Wolfe accepts the fact that math is universal, but I will point out that your mode of debate (the suggestion that I don’t accept your assertion not because I disagree with it but because I find it “disturbing”) is, as Mr. Spock would say, “Highly illogical.” Rick Norwood From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Thomas Bitterman Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:36 AM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: I've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely science/mathematically minded. But math isn't really "universal". It a system of calculation created by the human mind which is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian ancestors. Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? _______________________________________________

It is not necessary for a "conch to do math" for its spiral shell-shape to be mathematically based. Its genes, an incredibly powerful computing system (whose results are expressed in proteins which then control cellular behavior), "does" the math. Likewise the shape of the galaxy; stars aren't "doing math," they are obeying natural law, which is mathematical in nature

Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:19 PM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview Antonio Marques: Lee's example is perhaps not the best, .... he was pointing out that math itself

even with a shared mind structure (human) has conventions and you're at sea without them.

The square root of -1 is something which started as pure convention, no matter the interpretations

that were developed later on. Now imagine an alien mind, dividing the same physical world in a

different way...

Lee is absolutely right when he points out that everything in communication hinges on shared assumptions.

"as long as it is a reading, then it is a reading, and there is no truth criterion that can be applied to such a thing" So, just to make sure I understand you, if I choose to read the statement quoted above as meaning "I agree with everything Rick Norwood says", that is just as "true" an interpretation of what you said as any other interpretation.

Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Pedro Marques Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 9:30 PM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 01:05, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com> escreveu:

It is not necessary for a "conch to do math" for its spiral shell-shape to be mathematically based. Its genes, an incredibly powerful computing system (whose results are expressed in proteins which then control cellular behavior), "does" the math. Likewise the shape of the galaxy; stars aren't "doing math," they are obeying natural law, which is mathematical in nature

That is not only confusing the model with reality, but reifying physics. Lee's example is perhaps not the best, not because it's wrong but because it lends itself to misunderstanding. He was not saying (tho he could) that math doesn't have definite answers, he was pointing out that math itself even with a shared mind structure (human) has conventions and you're at sea without them. The square root of -1 is something which started as pure convention, no matter the interpretations that were developed later on. Now imagine an alien mind, dividing the same physical world in a different way. Our math is consistent and helps us deal with the outside world, but it reflects the organisation of our mind. Addition, multiplication and subtraction don't exist in the outside world, they're the way our mind copes with complexity. Other minds might work in completely different ways, handling the outside world with the help of some consistent tool that bore very little resemblance to our math. And at the end of the day, who's to say that 7x8 was meant to be math, even? Math says that there should have been MS Word 3, 4 and 5 for Windows, and there should be a Windows 9 before 10, not to mention that Windows 8 should be the 8th major version of the OS. Lee is absolutely right when he points out that everything in communication hinges on shared assumptions. I began to make such a point in a conversation with Gerry some weeks ago, but decided not to push forward. Incidentally, I'm not being ironic when I say I like Gerry's Daleks in NS and the Third Policeman reading of FHC. He meant them as parody, but they've worked out well. What you can sometimes say is that a given reading is decidedly NOT what the author currently says they had in mind at the time. That can't make the reading incorrect. It can even be a stupid reading, but as long as it is a reading, then it is a reading, and there is no truth criterion that can be applied to such a thing. _______________________________________________

Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]

Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

Rick Norwood: I will point out that your mode of debate (the suggestion

that I don’t accept your assertion not because I disagree with it but because

I find it “disturbing”) is, as Mr Spock would say, “Highly illogical.”

This isn’t the place for this debate, since I have no doubt that Gene Wolfe accepts the

fact that math is universal.

Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]

Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

The question goes back to this: is there such a thing as the meaning of a statement which is independent of the symbols in which the statement is written. People in math and science would usually say yes, I think. I know I often have the experience of groping for the words to express an idea that seems very clear to me, even before I find the right words. Also, I can express exactly the same idea in many different ways. People in the arts often say no — there is no such thing as meaning without symbols. The medium is the message. What I mean by the universality of math is that there are universal truths (7*8 = 56 is one) which remain true independent of the symbols in which those truths are expressed. If by “I had one grunch but the eggplant over there.” I mean ?7*8 = 56?, then the statement is true. (The question of communicating with another mind is another question. Understanding ideas in your own mind is hard enough, communicating those ideas to another mind is even harder. Rick Norwood From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Pedro Marques Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:29 AM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview Could you gentlemen pinpoint what you're labelling as the universality of math? No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:01, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" <NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu: This isn’t the place for this debate, since I have no doubt that Gene Wolfe accepts the fact that math is universal, but I will point out that your mode of debate (the suggestion that I don’t accept your assertion not because I disagree with it but because I find it “disturbing”) is, as Mr. Spock would say, “Highly illogical.” Rick Norwood From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Thomas Bitterman Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:36 AM

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: Apologies. I didn't mean to imply any particular person in this discussion is speaking entirely from emotional motivation..

On the universality of math:

I disagree. I find ample evidence to the contrary in his literary work and to some degree his interviews. But that's just my opinion. Still, perhaps we can agree that Gene Wolfe believes in God? If so and if Gene Wolfe believes in the universality of math, wouldn't that mean the Gene Wolfe believes God can be described by a mathematical equation? _______________________________________________

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote: Gene was an engineer. AN ENGINEER. Engineering is not a soft science. Angles, physical properties, stress analyses, knowledge of quantifiable variables, structural integrity which might not be universals but are rigidly adhered to - just because Wolfe believes in God doesn't mean he thinks a modern playdough cross section will support a tile roof on our planet at room temperatures. As far as your last statement, I have a feeling it is more likely he feels God is outside the ability of man to circumscribe by any rational or irrational means and cannot be limited by language (the tale of the cock and the angel, for example. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

Apologies. I didn't mean to imply any particular person in this discussion is speaking entirely from emotional motivation..

On the universality of math:

I disagree. I find ample evidence to the contrary in his literary work and to some degree his interviews. But that's just my opinion. Still, perhaps we can agree that Gene Wolfe believes in God? If so and if Gene Wolfe believes in the universality of math, wouldn't that mean the Gene Wolfe believes God can be described by a mathematical equation? _______________________________________________

"I know my view pisses some people off" -- Lee Like Ant?nio, you people's reactions as emotional.

Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview

Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]

Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just from the perspective of planet earth. But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that one planet. I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able to encounter. In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded to me. Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. _______________________________________________

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote: The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:

Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview

Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]

Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just from the perspective of planet earth. But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that one planet. I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able to encounter. In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded to me. Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. _______________________________________________

"I know my view pisses some people off" -- Lee Like Ant?nio, you people's reactions as emotional.

On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: Antonio - I think that that is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:

Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview

Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]

Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just from the perspective of planet earth. But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that one planet. I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able to encounter. In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded to me. Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. _______________________________________________

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote: I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if it is anything like our own math. For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in some meta-language, we won't know. (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Antonio - I think that that is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:

Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual"

by H. Beam Piper.

Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview

Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]

Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just from the perspective of planet earth. But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that one planet. I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able to encounter. In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded to me. Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. _______________________________________________

On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I just can't go there. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if it is anything like our own math. For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in some meta-language, we won't know. (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Antonio - I think that that is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com wrote:

The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:

Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual"

by H. Beam Piper.

Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview

Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]

Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just from the perspective of planet earth. But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that one planet. I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able to encounter. In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded to me. Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. _______________________________________________

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote: You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I just can't go there. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if it is anything like our own math. For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in some meta-language, we won't know. (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Antonio - I think that that is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques < entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:

Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual"

by H. Beam Piper.

Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview

Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]

Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just from the perspective of planet earth. But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that one planet. I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able to encounter. In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded to me. Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. _______________________________________________

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be similar in structure to our math. The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar. A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is the short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought he'd come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists are trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. The first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - not exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable similarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they have the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical Universe. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I just can't go there. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if it is anything like our own math. For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in some meta-language, we won't know. (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Antonio - I think that that is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques < entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:

Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview

Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]

Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just from the perspective of planet earth. But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that one planet. I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able to encounter. In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded to me. Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. _______________________________________________

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Brendon Fuhs <brendon.fuhs at gmail.com> wrote: Just jumping in here as a math guy even though I haven't been following the whole convo. You can have two descriptions which successfully and completely model a given phenomenon, which which are structurally different. As an over-simple example, the descriptions (x^2)-1 and (x+1)(x-1) are equal, but emphasize different ways of thinking about polynomials. In physics, there are Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian approaches to classical mechanics I think. Now consider that our mathematical models do not precisely describe the universe.There's even more room for divergence, depending on what part of empirical reality we are using our limited resources to best model. Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics are all tools which have been crafted by human minds that take different views of physics, and are more applicable in different situations, despite the fact that they are all attempting to model the same universe in some respect. Even more divergent examples can be found in the corpus of human science, such as when discrete vs continuous models are used. Limit resources even more, and consider an even more alien perspective. How might animals or aliens or isolated cultures differ in their models of the universe? Here's what I think. 1) The math may look similar or very very different. Just because the same universe is modeled doesn't mean it will be done in a way similar to how we do it. 2) It would be possible to translate between maths. I believe there's a theorem that guarantees that it is possible to translate between different formal languages (while preserving the Big O number). Doesn't mean that it would be readily apparent or easily understandable. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be similar in structure to our math. The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar. A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is the short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought he'd come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists are trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. The first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - not exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable similarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they have the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical Universe. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I just can't go there. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if it is anything like our own math. For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in some meta-language, we won't know. (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Antonio - I think that that is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques < entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:

Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview

Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]

Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just from the perspective of planet earth. But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that one planet. I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able to encounter. In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded to me. Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. _______________________________________________

On 8 October 2014 18:48, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: Brendon, it is your point 2) that I am defending. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Brendon Fuhs <brendon.fuhs at gmail.com> wrote:

Just jumping in here as a math guy even though I haven't been following the whole convo. You can have two descriptions which successfully and completely model a given phenomenon, which which are structurally different. As an over-simple example, the descriptions (x^2)-1 and (x+1)(x-1) are equal, but emphasize different ways of thinking about polynomials. In physics, there are Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian approaches to classical mechanics I think. Now consider that our mathematical models do not precisely describe the universe.There's even more room for divergence, depending on what part of empirical reality we are using our limited resources to best model. Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics are all tools which have been crafted by human minds that take different views of physics, and are more applicable in different situations, despite the fact that they are all attempting to model the same universe in some respect. Even more divergent examples can be found in the corpus of human science, such as when discrete vs continuous models are used. Limit resources even more, and consider an even more alien perspective. How might animals or aliens or isolated cultures differ in their models of the universe? Here's what I think. 1) The math may look similar or very very different. Just because the same universe is modeled doesn't mean it will be done in a way similar to how we do it. 2) It would be possible to translate between maths. I believe there's a theorem that guarantees that it is possible to translate between different formal languages (while preserving the Big O number). Doesn't mean that it would be readily apparent or easily understandable. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be similar in structure to our math. The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar. A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is the short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought he'd come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists are trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. The first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - not exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable similarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they have the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical Universe. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I just can't go there. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if it is anything like our own math. For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in some meta-language, we won't know. (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Antonio - I think that that is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques < entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:

Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house.

Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty.

I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview

Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]

Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just from the perspective of planet earth. But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that one planet. I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able to encounter. In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded to me. Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. _______________________________________________

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote: But Dan'l, neither Lee nor I said anything against point (2). In fact, at least for me, what Brendon says is quite how I see it myself, tho I'm by no means a math guy. What I'm saying is that the structure need not at all be similar, which is, after all, how all this started. Brendon's point about Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics is, I think, to be read carefully. Normally, these are brought up as examples of how an old model (classical Physics) can still have produce good results in practice, even if later ones showed the world is more complex than it thinks. But the point here, in my opinion, is a different one: Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics are brutally different from each other in their basic concepts and, precisely, structure. They're not refinements or variants, they are ways to look at the world that are very alien to each other. Even though they're trying to model the same reality. Their alienness from each other is perhaps not so evident because they all use math, and they all refer to common high-level concepts (such as electron), and also because they reuse terminology to refer to non-comparable things when that doesn't result in confusion, and lastly because we're used to see each one applied to their preferred scope. On 8 October 2014 18:48, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Brendon, it is your point 2) that I am defending. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Brendon Fuhs <brendon.fuhs at gmail.com> wrote:

Just jumping in here as a math guy even though I haven't been following the whole convo. You can have two descriptions which successfully and completely model a given phenomenon, which which are structurally different. As an over-simple example, the descriptions (x^2)-1 and (x+1)(x-1) are equal, but emphasize different ways of thinking about polynomials. In physics, there are Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian approaches to classical mechanics I think. Now consider that our mathematical models do not precisely describe the universe.There's even more room for divergence, depending on what part of empirical reality we are using our limited resources to best model. Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics are all tools which have been crafted by human minds that take different views of physics, and are more applicable in different situations, despite the fact that they are all attempting to model the same universe in some respect. Even more divergent examples can be found in the corpus of human science, such as when discrete vs continuous models are used. Limit resources even more, and consider an even more alien perspective. How might animals or aliens or isolated cultures differ in their models of the universe? Here's what I think. 1) The math may look similar or very very different. Just because the same universe is modeled doesn't mean it will be done in a way similar to how we do it. 2) It would be possible to translate between maths. I believe there's a theorem that guarantees that it is possible to translate between different formal languages (while preserving the Big O number). Doesn't mean that it would be readily apparent or easily understandable. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be similar in structure to our math. The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar. A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is the short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought he'd come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists are trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. The first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - not exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable similarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they have the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical Universe. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I just can't go there. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if it is anything like our own math. For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in some meta-language, we won't know. (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Antonio - I think that that is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques < entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:

Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house.

Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty.

I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview

Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]

Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just from the perspective of planet earth. But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that one planet. I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able to encounter. In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded to me. Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. _______________________________________________

On 8 October 2014 18:20, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be similar in structure to our math. The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar. A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is the short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought he'd come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists are trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. The first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - not exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable similarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they have the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical Universe. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I just can't go there. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if it is anything like our own math. For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in some meta-language, we won't know. (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Antonio - I think that that is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques < entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:

Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview

Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]

Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just from the perspective of planet earth. But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that one planet. I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able to encounter. In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded to me. Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. _______________________________________________

Rick Norwood: Lee: In saying mathematics is universal, I mean that

a true mathematical statement is true everywhere in the universe,

not that everything in the universe can be expressed mathematically.

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe

is independent of the mind in which that description takes place.

Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net<mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net>] On Behalf Of Lee Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM To: urth at urth.net<mailto:urth at urth.net> Subject: (urth) barrington interview

Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]

Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just from the perspective of planet earth. But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that one planet. I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able to encounter. In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded to me. Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net<mailto:urth at urth.net> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net<mailto:urth at urth.net> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 7:45 AM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview Rick Norwood: Lee: In saying mathematics is universal, I mean that

a true mathematical statement is true everywhere in the universe,

not that everything in the universe can be expressed mathematically.

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe

is independent of the mind in which that description takes place.

On 9 October 2014 13:01, Norwood, Frederick Hudson <NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> wrote: We have to be a little careful when we extend math to physics. In a universe with different physical laws, we would have different physics, but the same math. Math is the knowledge that can be arrived at by pure reason. Physics requires reason plus observation. Of course, there is multiplication in the real world. We call it area. Rick Norwood From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] *On Behalf Of *Ant?nio Marques Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:58 PM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview I like H Beam Piper! (I actually have read only a couple of stories I got for free from feedbooks back when Stanza was king, but I liked them.) The comparison with the periodic table is nice, but not convincing. No matter how one looks at it, there are things element-like out there, and anything remotely like chemistry will have to come up with them. But algebra isn't inherent in the structure of the universe. There is no such thing as multiplication on the real world. There is a thing called multiplication in our mind that is awesome at helping us understand the real world. It works quite well, but what it reflects is how our mind works. Of course, our mind being a tool to respond to the Universe, the math it produces had better work well and consistently. But it is still an internal tool, not a description of what's outside, even though it is essential to the descriptions of the outside that we develop (such as chemistry or physics). On 8 October 2014 18:20, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be similar in structure to our math. The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar. A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is the short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought he'd come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists are trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. The first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - not exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable similarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they have the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical Universe. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote: You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I just can't go there. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote: I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if it is anything like our own math. For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in some meta-language, we won't know. (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: Antonio - I think that that is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote: The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:

Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview

Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:

The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]

Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on

something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just from the perspective of planet earth. But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that one planet. I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able to encounter. In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded to me. Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. _______________________________________________

On 9 October 2014 12:44, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: Rick Norwood: Lee: In saying mathematics is universal, I mean that

a true mathematical statement is true everywhere in the universe,

not that everything in the universe can be expressed mathematically.

I see. This is a quite a departure from what I thought you were saying. Within this framework, I find math to be far less universal than I previously thought you were claiming. You are only claiming that 3+4= 7 must be true everywhere in the universe and acknowledge that the universe might contain many things, from God and angels to superdark matter which cannot be described by math. Sadly, I find myself even disagreeing with that lesser statement of universality, though only in the absolute qualifier that 3+4 =7 MUST be true everywhere in the universe. I think the question remains open. For example, I find it plausible (even likely?) that if you were travelling through a black hole or experiencing the Big Bang that the laws of physics as we know them might not apply. If so, I can further extrapolate that the principles of math that we humans have determined might also be rendered null and void under those conditions. Math relies on numbers, a concept which assumes the universe can be divided and packaged into discrete, countable units. I suspect there may be conditions under which that is not the case. If, say, in pre-Big Bang conditions there existed a universal state in which everything was unified and there were no "numbers" of anything then 3+4 would cease to have any meaning, and certainly wouldn't = 7.

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe

is independent of the mind in which that description takes place.

At risk of being overly argumentative, I absolutely cannot go along with this statement. The reason being it seems (to me) an impossible statement to make. Every thought and perception and calculation you have ever made in your entire life has taken place within your human mind. Every scholarly article you have read every scientific theory you have pondered and every photo of distant galaxies you have seen has been processed entirely by your human mind. I just don't see how you can make a statement that anything is universal, independent of the human mind when you have never been there. You can't go outside the human mind. Every minute detail of your understanding the universe is entirely dependent on your mind with no way of becoming detached from it. How can you do anything outside the confines of the human mind? It is all you (we) have. _______________________________________________

On 06/10/2014 12:18, Lee wrote: In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists of his work but that there were some readers who basically understood all his work. There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought trying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct understanding?

Gerry Quinn: Has Neil Gaiman ever done any criticism? I seem to recall Wolfe saying that he wouldn't mind if Gaiman wrote further works in his universes after he was dead.

Of course, as a writer, Gaiman most likely shies clear of criticism...

On 07/10/2014 04:12, Richard Simon wrote: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story itself. Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding.

I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author --- 'great' as in 'for the ages' --- but he is not a preacher or a philosophical huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all.

Antonio Marques: And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from

observing the universe, whereas math comes from reason. Our reason

could be different. There is no such thing as multiplication outside our

minds.

Rick Norwood: In a universe with different physical laws, we would have

different physics, but the same math. Math is the knowledge that can

be arrived at by pure reason.

On 08/10/2014 01:05, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: It is not necessary for a "conch to do math" for its spiral shell-shape to be mathematically based. Its genes, an incredibly powerful computing system (whose results are expressed in proteins which then control cellular behavior), "does" the math. Likewise the shape of the galaxy; stars aren't "doing math," they are obeying natural law, which is mathematical in nature. The evidence (I hesitate to say "proof," as that would be unscientific) for this is that just about everywhere we turn in nature, we find that mathematics provides predictability and explanatory power. It isn't a joke when cosmologists talk about the universe being potentially a huge "computer" "simulation" (I think both words are too loose here); the Universe itself seems to "do math" as you would put it.

On 08/10/2014 14:35, Thomas Bitterman wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com <mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>> wrote: I've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely science/mathematically minded. But math isn't really "universal". It a system of calculation created by the human mind which is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian ancestors. Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?

On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote: On 06/10/2014 12:18, Lee wrote:

In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists of his work but that there were some readers who basically understood all his work. There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought trying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct understanding?

Has Neil Gaiman ever done any criticism? I seem to recall Wolfe saying that he wouldn't mind if Gaiman wrote further works in his universes after he was dead. Of course, as a writer, Gaiman most likely shies clear of criticism... - Gerry Quinn _______________________________________________

On 08/10/2014 16:07, Norwood, Frederick Hudson wrote: Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three.

On 07/10/2014 23:25, Lee wrote: It reminds me of a quote I heard from somebody in Mississippi back in 2012. He said that he knew Barack Obama couldn't be re-elected because everybody he knew was voting against him.

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: Antonio Marques: And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from

observing the universe, whereas math comes from reason. Our reason

could be different. There is no such thing as multiplication outside our

minds.

I could generally, theoretically agree with this, though in the real world, I question the idea of "pure reason". How can a human mind possibly reason if it had been deprived of all external sensory input since birth/conception of the person in question. I don't think we are built to function that way.

Rick Norwood: In a universe with different physical laws, we would have

different physics, but the same math. Math is the knowledge that can

be arrived at by pure reason.

Again, I question this concept of "pure reason" as a real world item. How could a human mind ever engage in "pure reason", unpolluted by any real world experience or perception? I submit that math was, in its original conception and in its continued use, the combination of real world perception and experience and internal logic/reason, like everything else in our brains. And this is the essential reason I question the universality of math. Because math is inextricably tied to the human, real world experience on planet earth, and thus is inherently limited by it. A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so. The adult human brain is a product of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with decades of personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life. The suggestion that the human brain can somehow decide to operate independently from its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like saying a automobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and construction and start running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can possibly make sense. (is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an example of "Genetic Fallacy"?) Even if, maybe, by some wild random chance, humanity, in math, actually did stumble upon the one universal describing system, that all possible intelligences must agree upon. I still don't see how we could possibly know that. How are in the position to make that judgment? Human beings are not universal. All we know is our own intelligence and what we can "see" from our own planet.. To me it seems the height of hubris to think the system we invented here a few thousand years ago applies everywhere, to everything and every form of intelligence. (A little voice in my head is saying someone will argue that we didn't invent math; it is something we discovered. If so I'll just say "I disagree" and leave it at that) _______________________________________________

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Re. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' et al. Obviously there will be cultural references — I mean to our culture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their presentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense of humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is pretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious constructions like Terminus Est = cross symbol. They aren't hidden deep within the text. I recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of flowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a flower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll while he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and at the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in that discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum relating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers seems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there, it's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a lot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was? On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: I'm with Daniel here. "Nothing more" applies only in the sense it would apply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for the ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with someone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a "select" audience. On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course, possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological exploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for allusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant fact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have spiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction, longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being content to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely entertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do more. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question. -DOJP On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen <jurisper at gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story itself. Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. Wholehearted agreement! Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or she act well or badly in the circumstances? _______________________________________________

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: Antonio Marques: And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from

observing the universe, whereas math comes from reason. Our reason

could be different. There is no such thing as multiplication outside our

minds.

I could generally, theoretically agree with this, though in the real world, I question the idea of "pure reason". How can a human mind possibly reason if it had been deprived of all external sensory input since birth/conception of the person in question. I don't think we are built to function that way.

Rick Norwood: In a universe with different physical laws, we would have

different physics, but the same math. Math is the knowledge that can

be arrived at by pure reason.

Again, I question this concept of "pure reason" as a real world item. How could a human mind ever engage in "pure reason", unpolluted by any real world experience or perception? I submit that math was, in its original conception and in its continued use, the combination of real world perception and experience and internal logic/reason, like everything else in our brains. And this is the essential reason I question the universality of math. Because math is inextricably tied to the human, real world experience on planet earth, and thus is inherently limited by it. A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so. The adult human brain is a product of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with decades of personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life. The suggestion that the human brain can somehow decide to operate independently from its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like saying a automobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and construction and start running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can possibly make sense. (is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an example of "Genetic Fallacy"?) Even if, maybe, by some wild random chance, humanity, in math, actually did stumble upon the one universal describing system, that all possible intelligences must agree upon. I still don't see how we could possibly know that. How are in the position to make that judgment? Human beings are not universal. All we know is our own intelligence and what we can "see" from our own planet.. To me it seems the height of hubris to think the system we invented here a few thousand years ago applies everywhere, to everything and every form of intelligence. (A little voice in my head is saying someone will argue that we didn't invent math; it is something we discovered. If so I'll just say "I disagree" and leave it at that) _______________________________________________

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so. The adult human brain is a product of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with decades of personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life. The suggestion that the human brain can somehow decide to operate independently from its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like saying a automobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and construction and start running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can possibly make sense. (is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an example of "Genetic Fallacy"?)

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Brendon Fuhs <brendon.fuhs at gmail.com> wrote: "A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so." This is one of those wild statements that calls for an example. If mathematicians are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing some imperfect brain mechanics, and brains and thinking differ from person-to-person then surely there should be some mathematical statements that different groups of mathematicians are convinced have been demonstrated to be true, while others are convinced they have been demonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an agreement on the matter. It is also a statement that represents a difficult (or impossible) place for drawing the line between the subjective and the objective. Math, the concept, is viewed as a material construct, rather than something which accesses objective truths and falsehoods. Why not go all the way and say that true and false are constructions? After all, the notion of truth and falseness is fundamentally mathematical, prior to being empirical. Or are you saying that it's possible for there to be a universe so alien to our own, epistemologically, that even its logic is unimaginable to us? Different not just in physical laws but in a deeper way that demonstrates that logic is only universal and not multiversal? Like there's some sort of logical ether in which our universe lives that could be different? That is interesting, but not falsifiable. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

Antonio Marques: And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from

observing the universe, whereas math comes from reason. Our reason

could be different. There is no such thing as multiplication outside our

minds.

I could generally, theoretically agree with this, though in the real world, I question the idea of "pure reason". How can a human mind possibly reason if it had been deprived of all external sensory input since birth/conception of the person in question. I don't think we are built to function that way.

Rick Norwood: In a universe with different physical laws, we would have

different physics, but the same math. Math is the knowledge that can

be arrived at by pure reason.

Again, I question this concept of "pure reason" as a real world item. How could a human mind ever engage in "pure reason", unpolluted by any real world experience or perception? I submit that math was, in its original conception and in its continued use, the combination of real world perception and experience and internal logic/reason, like everything else in our brains. And this is the essential reason I question the universality of math. Because math is inextricably tied to the human, real world experience on planet earth, and thus is inherently limited by it. A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so. The adult human brain is a product of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with decades of personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life. The suggestion that the human brain can somehow decide to operate independently from its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like saying a automobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and construction and start running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can possibly make sense. (is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an example of "Genetic Fallacy"?) Even if, maybe, by some wild random chance, humanity, in math, actually did stumble upon the one universal describing system, that all possible intelligences must agree upon. I still don't see how we could possibly know that. How are in the position to make that judgment? Human beings are not universal. All we know is our own intelligence and what we can "see" from our own planet.. To me it seems the height of hubris to think the system we invented here a few thousand years ago applies everywhere, to everything and every form of intelligence. (A little voice in my head is saying someone will argue that we didn't invent math; it is something we discovered. If so I'll just say "I disagree" and leave it at that) _______________________________________________

On 10/9/2014 7:04 AM, Norwood, Frederick Hudson wrote: I think you are also confusing math with its applications. Pure mathematics consists of a set of axioms, a set of definitions, and the theorems that follow logically from those axioms and definitions. The logic involved is called a mathematical proof. For mathematics to be untrue, you need a case where the following happens. You know that if A is true, then B must be true. You know A is true. But it turns out B is false.

On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: All right, I'll bite. If it is 'far from merely ornamental' what is its purpose in the books? Is Gene Wolfe preaching a sermon? Clearly not when he leaves the interpretation so ambiguous that it could be taken in two completely opposite ways. No, he's writing a novel, and his manner of writing novels is to make puzzles of them. So — what purpose, besides the ornamental, does all this 'theological' imagery serve? Aside from helping us to the conclusion that Severian is a Christ-like figure in some sense, what is its functional end? On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 20:44, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com');>> wrote: The Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely ornamental. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk');>> wrote: Re. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' *et al.* Obviously there will be cultural references — I mean to our culture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their presentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense of humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is pretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious constructions like Terminus Est = cross symbol. They aren't hidden deep within the text. I recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of flowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a flower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll while he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and at the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in that discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum relating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers seems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there, it's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a lot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was? On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','danldo at gmail.com');>> wrote: I'm with Daniel here. "Nothing more" applies only in the sense it would apply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for the ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with someone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a "select" audience. On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com');>> wrote: I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course, possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological exploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for allusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant fact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have spiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction, longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being content to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely entertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do more. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question. -DOJP On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen <jurisper at gmail.com <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jurisper at gmail.com');>> wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk');>> wrote: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story itself. Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. Wholehearted agreement! Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or she act well or badly in the circumstances? _______________________________________________

On Friday, October 10, 2014, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote: He may not be referring to new sun specifically. In short sun the Eucharist with Silk is observed (he is in a clearing surrounded only by trees). It represents the transformation of grapes into a mystical blood during an act of consumption. The final imagery of short sun involves the story of Hyacinthus, whose blood is spilled and transforms into a flower and lives on. This pagan and Christian reference show is what is happening with Silk's unacknowledged congregation: vegetable matter becomes blood through consumption and death, and the vanished gods (the cannibal trees of green) create the vanished people by consuming the flesh of sentient organic matter and combining with it in a Eucharistic transfomation of "fruit" to blood. It's symbolism is a huge plot clue. There are other uses in new sun, but it is more important to show an alien mechanism of hybridization and transubstantiation (presaged in the play eschatology and genesis, when the winter killed stalks of man are mixed with new seed, and in the second chapter of shadow of the torturer, when the new sun engenders life in a brush, which opens it's eyes and runs up a tree, and in the story of quetzal in long sun in which man goes up a tree but has not yet come down) On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk');>> wrote:

All right, I'll bite. If it is 'far from merely ornamental' what is its purpose in the books? Is Gene Wolfe preaching a sermon? Clearly not when he leaves the interpretation so ambiguous that it could be taken in two completely opposite ways. No, he's writing a novel, and his manner of writing novels is to make puzzles of them. So — what purpose, besides the ornamental, does all this 'theological' imagery serve? Aside from helping us to the conclusion that Severian is a Christ-like figure in some sense, what is its functional end? On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 20:44, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: The Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely ornamental. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Re. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' *et al.* Obviously there will be cultural references — I mean to our culture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their presentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense of humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is pretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious constructions like Terminus Est = cross symbol. They aren't hidden deep within the text. I recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of flowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a flower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll while he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and at the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in that discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum relating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers seems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there, it's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a lot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was? On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: I'm with Daniel here. "Nothing more" applies only in the sense it would apply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for the ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with someone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a "select" audience. On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course, possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological exploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for allusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant fact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have spiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction, longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being content to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely entertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do more. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question. -DOJP On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen <jurisper at gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story itself. Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. Wholehearted agreement! Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or she act well or badly in the circumstances? _______________________________________________

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote: He may not be referring to new sun specifically. In short sun the Eucharist with Silk is observed (he is in a clearing surrounded only by trees). It represents the transformation of grapes into a mystical blood during an act of consumption. The final imagery of short sun involves the story of Hyacinthus, whose blood is spilled and transforms into a flower and lives on. This pagan and Christian reference show is what is happening with Silk's unacknowledged congregation: vegetable matter becomes blood through consumption and death, and the vanished gods (the cannibal trees of green) create the vanished people by consuming the flesh of sentient organic matter and combining with it in a Eucharistic transfomation of "fruit" to blood. It's symbolism is a huge plot clue. There are other uses in new sun, but it is more important to show an alien mechanism of hybridization and transubstantiation (presaged in the play eschatology and genesis, when the winter killed stalks of man are mixed with new seed, and in the second chapter of shadow of the torturer, when the new sun engenders life in a brush, which opens it's eyes and runs up a tree, and in the story of quetzal in long sun in which man goes up a tree but has not yet come down) On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

All right, I'll bite. If it is 'far from merely ornamental' what is its purpose in the books? Is Gene Wolfe preaching a sermon? Clearly not when he leaves the interpretation so ambiguous that it could be taken in two completely opposite ways. No, he's writing a novel, and his manner of writing novels is to make puzzles of them. So — what purpose, besides the ornamental, does all this 'theological' imagery serve? Aside from helping us to the conclusion that Severian is a Christ-like figure in some sense, what is its functional end? On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 20:44, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: The Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely ornamental. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Re. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' *et al.* Obviously there will be cultural references — I mean to our culture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their presentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense of humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is pretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious constructions like Terminus Est = cross symbol. They aren't hidden deep within the text. I recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of flowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a flower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll while he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and at the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in that discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum relating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers seems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there, it's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a lot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was? On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: I'm with Daniel here. "Nothing more" applies only in the sense it would apply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for the ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with someone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a "select" audience. On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course, possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological exploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for allusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant fact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have spiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction, longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being content to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely entertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do more. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question. -DOJP On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen <jurisper at gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story itself. Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. Wholehearted agreement! Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or she act well or badly in the circumstances? _______________________________________________

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote: Also, these two symbols show HOW the mystical change occurs - for human or animal to floral, it requires the spilling of blood and possible death (for Horn this death is not permanent in the pit of the giant "herb" island), and for floral to animal, it requires the Eucharistic act of consumption. Yum. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Marc Aramini <marcaramini at gmail.com> wrote:

He may not be referring to new sun specifically. In short sun the Eucharist with Silk is observed (he is in a clearing surrounded only by trees). It represents the transformation of grapes into a mystical blood during an act of consumption. The final imagery of short sun involves the story of Hyacinthus, whose blood is spilled and transforms into a flower and lives on. This pagan and Christian reference show is what is happening with Silk's unacknowledged congregation: vegetable matter becomes blood through consumption and death, and the vanished gods (the cannibal trees of green) create the vanished people by consuming the flesh of sentient organic matter and combining with it in a Eucharistic transfomation of "fruit" to blood. It's symbolism is a huge plot clue. There are other uses in new sun, but it is more important to show an alien mechanism of hybridization and transubstantiation (presaged in the play eschatology and genesis, when the winter killed stalks of man are mixed with new seed, and in the second chapter of shadow of the torturer, when the new sun engenders life in a brush, which opens it's eyes and runs up a tree, and in the story of quetzal in long sun in which man goes up a tree but has not yet come down) On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

All right, I'll bite. If it is 'far from merely ornamental' what is its purpose in the books? Is Gene Wolfe preaching a sermon? Clearly not when he leaves the interpretation so ambiguous that it could be taken in two completely opposite ways. No, he's writing a novel, and his manner of writing novels is to make puzzles of them. So — what purpose, besides the ornamental, does all this 'theological' imagery serve? Aside from helping us to the conclusion that Severian is a Christ-like figure in some sense, what is its functional end? On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 20:44, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: The Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely ornamental. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: Re. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' *et al.* Obviously there will be cultural references — I mean to our culture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their presentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense of humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is pretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious constructions like Terminus Est = cross symbol. They aren't hidden deep within the text. I recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of flowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a flower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll while he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and at the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in that discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum relating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers seems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there, it's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a lot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was? On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes < danldo at gmail.com> wrote: I'm with Daniel here. "Nothing more" applies only in the sense it would apply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for the ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with someone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a "select" audience. On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course, possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological exploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for allusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant fact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have spiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction, longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being content to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely entertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do more. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question. -DOJP On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen <jurisper at gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon <gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk> wrote: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story itself. Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. Wholehearted agreement! Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or she act well or badly in the circumstances? _______________________________________________

On 10/9/2014 7:04 AM, Norwood, Frederick Hudson wrote: I think you are also confusing math with its applications. Pure mathematics consists of a set of axioms, a set of definitions, and the theorems that follow logically from those axioms and definitions. The logic involved is called a mathematical proof. For mathematics to be untrue, you need a case where the following happens. You know that if A is true, then B must be true. You know A is true. But it turns out B is false.

Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic

of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane.

Brandon Fuchs: This is one of those wild statements that calls for an example. If mathematicians

are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing some imperfect brain mechanics.....

....then surely there should be some mathematical statements that different groups of

mathematicians are convinced have been demonstrated to be true, while others are convinced

they have been demonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an agreement on the matter.

Thomas Bitterman: No, but claiming that a brain cannot work purely in the realm of

symbolic logic and reason because it is the product of millions of years of evolution on

Earth is.

Rick Norwood: I am not saying that mathematics can solve everything, just that what it solves is

solved once and for all. There are no four-sided triangles.

Rick Norwood: Of course God has free will.

There is a Psalm where God fights a dragon.

and another Psalm where God sits in a pantheon of Gods, sort of like a primitive Justice

League.

I trust you are all familiar with the South Park pantheon which, if memory serves, consists of

Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, and Aquaman.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic

of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane.

A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of numbers was meaningless. "A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so."

Brandon Fuchs: This is one of those wild statements that calls for an example. If mathematicians

are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing some imperfect brain mechanics.....

Let's stop there. My statement was that mathematician cannot be doing PURELY symbolic logic. All thoughts within a human brain are animal thoughts with inherent animal biases installed from the material world during evolution and development. (the assumption of the validity "numbers" being one of them). Of course the human brain can work with symbolic logic. We invented it. But the suggestion that our brains can work purely with symbology with no impingement from the material world is unsupportable. There are no human brains which have been entirely shielded from the material world. (Something like Severian's Mandragora? But of course even that brain had telepathic input affecting it).

....then surely there should be some mathematical statements that different groups of

mathematicians are convinced have been demonstrated to be true, while others are convinced

they have been demonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an agreement on the matter.

Aren't there? I am not a mathematician but I was under the impression it is an evolving discipline. But even in the unlikely event that every mathematician in history were in perfect agreement on every mathematical permutation of the field, it would not demonstrate true universality. It would only demonstrate congruence among one group of people from one species on one planet. Just because a human astronomer on earth collects data from the Andromeda galaxy it does not mean they are from Andromeda or even that they have been to Andromeda. It just means data from there has been plugged into a human matrix of understanding here on earth. If an Andromedan came here using math, I would consider that evidence that math is universal. But even then, I would prefer a sample size greater than two before I'd be willing to grant the hypothesis "math is universal" anything like scientific theory status. Again, my opinion is not that math isn't universal. Only that we have no means of determining such a thing. We are stuck in the narrow perspective of one species on one planet and have no means for stepping outside it . Before I have confidence in the universality of math, I need to hear from the rest of the universe. _______________________________________________

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: "Is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an example of "Genetic Fallacy"?"

Thomas Bitterman: No, but claiming that a brain cannot work purely in the realm of

symbolic logic and reason because it is the product of millions of years of evolution on

Earth is.

I truly don't understand the difference. A gasoline power car cannot turn itself into a nuclear powered device but a human brain can turn itself into a cosmically universal logic machine unrestricted by its origins in an animal skull on planet earth? Is the argument that the human brain is an independent, self-constructed device which can completely supersede and separate from its own biological design and construction? Or that the human brain is the product of Special Creation, endowed by God and made in His image, thus possessing a measure of His universality? Other?

Rick Norwood: I am not saying that mathematics can solve everything, just that what it solves is

solved once and for all. There are no four-sided triangles.

I just don't see how that statement is justified without access to "all" there is in the universe. Perhaps my difficulty would be resolved if the statement was restated to: "Math is universal to everything within foreseeable human experience." THAT I could agree with. (Unless I saw this movie ;- ) http://www.oldfutures.com/Images/foursidedtriangle.jpg) _______________________________________________

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com<mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>> wrote: Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic

of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane.

Brandon Fuchs: This is one of those wild statements that calls for an example. If mathematicians

are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing some imperfect brain mechanics.....

....then surely there should be some mathematical statements that different groups of

mathematicians are convinced have been demonstrated to be true, while others are convinced

they have been demonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an agreement on the matter.

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: Actually, math doesn't require numbers as such.

All of number theory can be reduced to set theory.

Lee: No, not a human brain. A human soul.

Rick Norwood: I’m enjoying talking about God and math and all, but is

this too off-topic for this list?

On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote: Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic

of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane.

A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of numbers was meaningless.

Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 12:31 PM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: Actually, math doesn't require numbers as such.

All of number theory can be reduced to set theory.

Lee: No, not a human brain. A human soul.

Rick Norwood: I'm enjoying talking about God and math and all, but is

this too off-topic for this list?

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com < jwilson at clueland.com> wrote: On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote:

Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic

of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane.

A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of numbers was meaningless.

Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are always notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number two, for instance. However, that also does not prevent mathematics from being used to speculate on what happens if the number two can be touched, and other "impossible" things. The best we can do is to show it makes a contradiction, but that could mean only that the premise is flawed. You might be interested to explore the history of David Hilbert and Kurt Goedel. Godel discovered the inherently incomplete nature of math, which made him somehting of a Voltairean figure: a devil set on destroying mathemtical science as completists like Hilbert may have felt, but also a figure of grace and liberty freeing it from the need to be complete and all encompassing and eventually finite. -- Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > _______________________________________________

On 10 October 2014 18:05, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com <jwilson at clueland.com> wrote: On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote:

Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic

of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane.

A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of numbers was meaningless.

Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are always notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number two, for instance.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote: On 10 October 2014 18:05, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com < jwilson at clueland.com> wrote:

On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote:

Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic

of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane.

A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of numbers was meaningless.

Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are always notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number two, for instance.

It's not a matter of the concept not depending on the actuality. It's a matter of what you call 'concept' being how the human mind responds to actuality. Other minds might respond to the same actuality with different concepts. We've been saying this for days and folks still come back with misdirected replies. (Lee has also been making the additional point that this mind wouldn't necessarily have evolved without this actuality.) _______________________________________________

On 10 October 2014 18:43, Brad Henry <bradhenry101 at gmail.com> wrote: as interesting as the theological and mathematics discussion is, could you perhaps take this off the Urth list as it doesn't pertain to Wolfe? On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com < jwilson at clueland.com> wrote:

On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote:

Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic

of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane.

A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of numbers was meaningless.

Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are always notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number two, for instance. However, that also does not prevent mathematics from being used to speculate on what happens if the number two can be touched, and other "impossible" things. The best we can do is to show it makes a contradiction, but that could mean only that the premise is flawed. You might be interested to explore the history of David Hilbert and Kurt Goedel. Godel discovered the inherently incomplete nature of math, which made him somehting of a Voltairean figure: a devil set on destroying mathemtical science as completists like Hilbert may have felt, but also a figure of grace and liberty freeing it from the need to be complete and all encompassing and eventually finite. -- Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > _______________________________________________

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: "Is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an example of "Genetic Fallacy"?"

Thomas Bitterman: No, but claiming that a brain cannot work purely in the realm of symbolic logic and reason because it is the product of millions of years of evolution on Earth is.

I truly don't understand the difference. A gasoline power car cannot turn itself into a nuclear powered device but a human brain can turn itself into a cosmically universal logic machine unrestricted by its origins in an animal skull on planet earth?

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: Rick Norwood: Of course God has free will.

I disagree.

Antonio, as a Catholic I simply can't accept it because I believe there is such thing as an absolute truth. Logic plays a part in this, and mathematics (which is independent of any particular notion of "number") falls directly out of logic. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote: On 10 October 2014 18:05, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com <jwilson at clueland.com> wrote: On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote: Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane. A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of numbers was meaningless. Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are always notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number two, for instance. It's not a matter of the concept not depending on the actuality. It's a matter of what you call 'concept' being how the human mind responds to actuality. Other minds might respond to the same actuality with different concepts. We've been saying this for days and folks still come back with misdirected replies. (Lee has also been making the additional point that this mind wouldn't necessarily have evolved without this actuality.) _______________________________________________

On 10/10/2014 1:13 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote: On 10 October 2014 18:05, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com <http://clueland.com> <jwilson at clueland.com <mailto:jwilson at clueland.com>> wrote: On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote: Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane. A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of numbers was meaningless. Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are always notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number two, for instance. It's not a matter of the concept not depending on the actuality. It's a matter of what you call 'concept' being how the human mind responds to actuality. Other minds might respond to the same actuality with different concepts. We've been saying this for days and folks still come back with misdirected replies.

On 10/10/2014 2:54 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote: No. It cant be taken off list because the list os the sole point of contact between the participants. What would be nice would be to bring it to an end because it has reached a point of severely diminished returns. Before I started writing here there was this rule that any one could only post 5 messages per day or something like that - maybe we could get back to it?

On 10/10/2014 5:42 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: Math may be derivable from logic, I don't know. I know it stared off as counting, and that is in no way independent of 'number'.

But a significant number of you keep mixing up 'reality' with the tool our mind uses to process it.

Antonio Marques: It's not a matter of the concept not depending on the actuality. It's a matter

of what you call 'concept' being how the human mind responds to actuality. We've been saying

this for days and folks still come back with misdirected replies.

Rick Norwood: You keep talking about the universe! Math doesn't give a fig for the universe.

Thomas Bitterman: The argument about [the limitation of] brains seems to rest solely on their historical development.

This is the Genetic Fallacy. If you could provide some justification for your conclusions based on the current properties

of the brain, and not how it got to be that way, that would be different.

Jeffrey Wilson: As for Lee, up above he postulates that the actuality is different in places and that will give rise to different concepts to which ours will not relate. However, he still calls these circumstances history and geography, which implicitly means they are relateable to us.

On Sat, October 11, 2014 08:21, Lee wrote: Jeffrey Wilson: As for Lee, up above he postulates that the actuality is different in places and that will give rise to different concepts to which ours will not relate. However, he still calls these circumstances history and geography, which implicitly means they are relateable to us.

Of course, because I am human and have human limitations :- ). This sort of makes the point I was trying to make. I must think in terms of space and time. How could I coherently describe a scenario which doesn't possess these features?

There are better wordsmiths than I who have attempted it (Wolfe and Frank Herbert come to mind). There are passages in their books which hint at meaning but are ultimately best described as incomprehensible. What makes them good authors are the hints as much as the sense of incomprehensibility.

But surely there exist some things in some universe somewhere which are completely and without the slightest hint, utterly incomprehensible to the human mind (including mathematical models).

In an infinite cosmos, why wouldn't such things exist?

Jeff Wilson: Apparently equivocation is part of your limitation. Using, or rather mis-using a word like "incomprehensible" in a discussison of cognitive science and then revealing you really mean it in the literary prose sense is akin to what we in the mathematical community call "abuse of notation".

Are you saying there is an unknowable mathematical model somewhere? Of that something exists that is unknowable despite the existence of mathematical models?

Robert Pirkola:

Math is universal in the same way that the physics of our universe (which is

based in observations describable mathematically) is universal. In other words,

math and physics apply in every corner of the universe just as they do in our

tiny corner.

how it is that one part of the universe could be exempt from laws and principles that, I think we can all agree apply in great swathes of the universe, while not directly

influencing those areas at the immediate border between the regions.

Why would observations made in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to all other corners?

Why would observations made in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to all other corners?

On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Gerry Quinn <gerry at bindweed.com> wrote: If logic didn't apply in a given realm, it would be logically correct to deduce that logic did in fact apply there, because a false statement implies the truth of all statements. Therefore logic applies everywhere. Q.E.D. And maths is just an extension of logic. It is not possible to make a logical argument against logic. - Gerry Quinn _______________________________________________

Antonio Marques: scientism-ites, for all their championing of science, have been

able to produce a pretty little amount of it. Science doesn't like to be worshipped!

Gerry Quinn: If logic didn't apply in a given realm, it would be logically correct to deduce that logic did in fact apply there, because a false statement implies the truth of all statements. Therefore logic applies everywhere. Q.E.D. And maths is just an extension of logic.

It is not possible to make a logical argument against logic

Dave Lebling: We have made observations that extend throughout the

electromagnetic spectrum in wavelength and in distance/time almost as

far back as the Big Bang and thus an equivalent number of light-years away.

That is not a "tiny corner."

We have seen no evidence that the laws of physics are different anywhere in

the universe.

On 10/14/2014 2:50 PM, Lee wrote: Perhaps true. But all those observations were made from earth or nearby and relayed to earth. Furthermore all the data was collected by human-constructed machines. Then all the data was processed and translated into pictures and numbers and other human tools which help us understand things. You are impressed with our mastery of the electro-magnetic spectrum. But what lies beyond gamma rays? And what other spectrums exist which we cannot perceive in the slightest? The answer must be, "We don't know". Both coming and going, the data you cite has human bias stamped all over it. We cannot escape or transcend our own basic humanity. Everything we do and everything we think is intrinsically human and limited by the limitations of being human. There is no way to avoid that. Math and science were invented by and are used exclusively by humans.

Absence of evidence does not prove a negative. That's a pretty basic tenet of science/ logic. Especially in such a sparsely explored realm as "the universe".

On 15/10/2014 01:03, Dave Lebling wrote: You can never prove a negative. Show some evidence that there is something that indicates the positive (as you propose it) might be true. Just saying "we don't know" is both untrue for large swathes of the universe, and basically tendentious without proposing any other view. Sure, you might say "God can do anything" (and I forget if you are in that camp) but show something that indicates that's something that has happened.

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote: Your discussions remain meaningless, and, quite frankly, boring, while you don't clarify what point of view you are defending. Lee is making two separate points (which have some points of contact) while most of the rest of you are chasing your tails. Please, first think what your point is, then check in what way it is even relevant to the discussion, and only then proceed to explain it. _______________________________________________

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Dave Lebling <dlebling at hyraxes.com> wrote: What then are those two points and why are the responses to it tail-chasing? Making such a claim without explicating it is less than helpful. Dave On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

Your discussions remain meaningless, and, quite frankly, boring, while you don't clarify what point of view you are defending. Lee is making two separate points (which have some points of contact) while most of the rest of you are chasing your tails. Please, first think what your point is, then check in what way it is even relevant to the discussion, and only then proceed to explain it. _______________________________________________

What then are those two points and why are the responses to it tail-chasing? Making such a claim without explicating it is less than helpful. Dave

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote: Your discussions remain meaningless, and, quite frankly, boring, while you don't clarify what point of view you are defending. Lee is making two separate points (which have some points of contact) while most of the rest of you are chasing your tails. Please, first think what your point is, then check in what way it is even relevant to the discussion, and only then proceed to explain it. _______________________________________________

There's an irony here: my understanding of tail chasing is that it describes one being lost in self-absorbed subjectivity - the claim that we can only know the self, falling into the Cartesian trap, assertion of the self and complete inability to extend to the external physical world, is the quintessential act of tail chasing. The entire debate is moot. Scientific types assert that we have accomplished much in understanding the mechanism of the world even if we cannot manipulate it at the subatomic level with reliability, unscientific types assert, hey man ... what do we really know? As it turns out, ridiculous, incredible amounts that can be reliably replicated even with variable conditions. Ultimately ... whatever.

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Dave Lebling <dlebling at hyraxes.com> wrote: What then are those two points and why are the responses to it tail-chasing? Making such a claim without explicating it is less than helpful. Dave

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote: Your discussions remain meaningless, and, quite frankly, boring, while you don't clarify what point of view you are defending. Lee is making two separate points (which have some points of contact) while most of the rest of you are chasing your tails. Please, first think what your point is, then check in what way it is even relevant to the discussion, and only then proceed to explain it. _______________________________________________

The only unknowable areas are those beyond our light horizon.

and if those areas are magically different simply because they have

been rendered unobservable

Merryn: "There is no magic. There is only knowledge, more or less hidden."

Cumeaean: "Words are symbols. Merryn chooses to delimit magic as that which does not exist . . .

and so it does not exist. If you choose to call what we are about to do here magic then

magic lives while we do it.

then fine but those are likewise areas upon which math and physics are no longer useful

tools and can be safely disregarded.

it is not an argument against the universality of math to simply state that that math’s non-universality

is possible. If that were so, then St. Anselm’s ontological proof of God’s existence would be irrefutable.

It goes something like: ?I can imagine an infinitely perfect, powerful, knowledgeable, being and therefore

God must exist.

Dave Lebling: You can never prove a negative. Show some evidence that there is something that indicates the positive (as you propose it) might be true.

Gerry Quinn: When you talk about a world where logic doesn't apply, then by definition you aren't making sense.

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: Robert Pirkoka:

The only unknowable areas are those beyond our light horizon.

An infinitely large area, yes?

and if those areas are magically different simply because they have

been rendered unobservable

Yes! Magic! That which cannot be explained by math or science, yes? Merryn and the Cumaean discuss the issue quite well, I think:

Merryn: "There is no magic. There is only knowledge, more or less hidden."

Cumeaean: "Words are symbols. Merryn chooses to delimit magic as that which does not exist . . .

and so it does not exist. If you choose to call what we are about to do here magic then

magic lives while we do it.

then fine but those are likewise areas upon which math and physics are no longer useful

tools and can be safely disregarded.

This is the crux. You, like Merryn, define anything which cannot be understood or perceived by humans as non-existent. I can't, in good philosophical conscience, do that.

it is not an argument against the universality of math to simply state that that math’s non-universality

is possible. If that were so, then St. Anselm’s ontological proof of God’s existence would be irrefutable.

It goes something like: ?I can imagine an infinitely perfect, powerful, knowledgeable, being and therefore

God must exist.

For me it IS a valid argument. And St. Anselm's pronouncement is not a good comparison to my position. I do not argue that math cannot be universal. Only that it may not be. Like the existence of God, I consider the universality of math to be unknowable fact. I remain agnostic regarding both God and math. There are those who find their observations during their life on planet earth to be sufficient evidence to believe in God. Likewise there are those who find sufficient evidence for the universality of math. I respect the faith but cannot share in it.

Dave Lebling: You can never prove a negative. Show some evidence that there is something that indicates the positive (as you propose it) might be true.

There is no need to prove my statement that math may not be universally applicable. There is need to disprove it. Saying math is universal IS a negative assertion in that it claims there are no exceptions to math in the universe. "No exceptions in an infinite universe" is a negative statement which can never be proven", rendering the statement "math is universal" to be null in that it cannot be verified or falsified. Departing from logic and moving to science, we might treat "math is universal" as a "hypothesis" which has been collecting evidence for an upgrade to "theory". Then it becomes a matter of opinion I guess. Keep in mind that most scientific theories are predicated on being applicable to earth (and surrounding areas). The assertion of "universality" is an infinitely larger claim. You and Robert and Gerry and others are satisfied with the current body of evidence regarding math. Count me as a skeptic if you like but I am not satisfied. I am a much more difficult sell. At least one non-human, extra- terrestrial reporting of evidence of math applicability is something I'd need to even consider upgrading "math is universal" up to "theory" status.

Gerry Quinn: When you talk about a world where logic doesn't apply, then by definition you aren't making sense.

Agreed (sort of). But it still doesn't mean that math is universal just because the reverse concept doesn't make sense to us. As previously noted, what makes sense to an ape-derived brain on planet earth seems a poor measure of "universal reality". At least to me and I am using the same limited tool to make that assessment. _______________________________________________

Dave Lebling: What then are those two points

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: think the observation of the limits of the human brain and the earth as a vantage point should be apparent to anyone considering this issue. How can such obvious limits simply be dismissed in a discussion of an infinite universe?

Dan'l: Lee, as far as I can tell, your argument comes down to "I can imagine someplace

where logic and math don't apply, therefore we must assume that they exist until we

can prove they don't."

Dan'l: While I might concede the limits of the human brain (given sufficient evidence

to do so), it has been demonstrated (note I do not say "proven") repeatedly that the

vantage point does not matter - that the universe looks the same from wherever you look

at it. This is, among other things, one of the basic assumptions of relativistic physics.

On 10/14/2014 1:24 PM, Dave Lebling wrote: Why would observations made in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to all other corners?

We have made observations that extend throughout the electromagnetic spectrum in wavelength and in distance/time almost as far back as the Big Bang and thus an equivalent number of light-years away. That is not a "tiny corner." We have seen no evidence that the laws of physics are different anywhere in the universe.

On 10/14/2014 1:50 PM, Lee wrote: Both coming and going, the data you cite has human bias stamped all over it. We cannot escape or transcend our own basic humanity. Everything we do and everything we think is intrinsically human and limited by the limitations of being human. There is no way to avoid that. Math and science were invented by and are used exclusively by humans.

On 10/15/2014 4:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: Your discussions remain meaningless, and, quite frankly, boring, while you don't clarify what point of view you are defending. Lee is making two separate points (which have some points of contact) while most of the rest of you are chasing your tails. Please, first think what your point is, then check in what way it is even relevant to the discussion, and only then proceed to explain it.

On 10/15/2014 1:06 PM, Lee wrote: In more scientific terms, I am willing to accept that gravity accelerates objects everywhere on earth at 9.8m/sec/sec because we have been to most places on earth, we have good evidence earth is a sphere, we've done massive experimentation in a variety of conditions, etc.

Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:51 PM To: urth at urth.net Subject: (urth) barrington interview Rick Norwood: Humans and pre-humans have made numerous constructions that transcend the limitations of the homind condition. Cave paintings, however fanciful, record the existence of people with culture and behaviors that are discernable across a gap of tens of thousands of years, utterly beyond an oral tradition.

Telescopes made by Galileo allowed humans to see far beyond their natural

capacity for sight.

Robert Pirkola: Mathematics is a developing body of knowledge, technique and application

that is by no means closed at this point and cannot be talked about as though it is a

fully-known "thing".

b. If we are in the dark about their [null-math areas] existence, then they must have no influence over

the portions of the universe that we are aware of, and if that is the case, I feel obliged to call their

existence, "existence".

On 10/16/2014 2:50 PM, Lee wrote: Rick Norwood: Humans and pre-humans have made numerous constructions that transcend the limitations of the homind condition. Cave paintings, however fanciful, record the existence of people with culture and behaviors that are discernable across a gap of tens of thousands of years, utterly beyond an oral tradition.

You are saying humans are not capable of art or history. I truly do not understand that statement.

You are saying humans are not capable of art or history. I truly do not understand that statement

Jeffrey Wilson: I wrote that, not Rick. On the contrary, I am saying that art transcends the flaws of history, because the cave paintings implicitly record things about people who did not yet have the ability to record explicit, written history.

Humans and pre-humans have made numerous constructions that transcend the limitations of the homind condition.

I recall now that you apparently use some crap misconfigured e-mail program that doesn't properly quote and attribute forcing you to do it by flawed hand and flawed memory, and I think your poor technology experience in general may be coloring your attitudes about all human products.

On 10/17/2014 7:12 AM, Lee wrote: Quite a different statement to say that art is a superhuman ability.

Dan'l made the suggestion that some human endeavors (including prayer?) can put humans in touch with the superhuman/infinite, as an article of his faith. I have no problem with that belief, stated that way. But I can't see how statements about art or math transcending the human condition make sense, without invoking belief in God.