{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6679", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 6679, "subject": "barrington interview", "messages": 139, "voices": 18, "first": "2014-10-02T18:51:04+00:00", "last": "2014-10-17T15:02:31+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-02T18:51:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Here is an interview with Gene that makes fun of symbol hunters and people\nbeing identified as Richard Nixon or whatnot in his novels (here's looking\nat you, navigator as JFK borski theory) ...\n\nhttp://barrington.suntimes.com/2014/10/02/gene-wolfe-legend-novelist-philosopher/\n\nTo be fair, we all already know why speculation abounds ... He is a\nsymbolist." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Piotr Szczęsny", "address": "neternalz at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-02T19:14:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Damn, can't wait for A Borrowed Man! And the sequel too!\n\n\n2014-10-02 20:51 GMT+02:00 Marc Aramini :" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Here is an interview with Gene that makes fun of symbol hunters and people\nbeing identified as Richard Nixon or whatnot in his novels (here's looking\nat you, navigator as JFK borski theory) ...\n\n\nhttp://barrington.suntimes.com/2014/10/02/gene-wolfe-legend-novelist-philosopher/\n\nTo be fair, we all already know why speculation abounds ... He is a\nsymbolist.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Gwern Branwen", "address": "gwern at gwern.net" }, "date": "2014-10-02T19:20:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An interesting bit about the politics of _The Land Across_:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Q: “The Land Across” is your newest novel. What did this book allow you to explore that previous ones had not?\n\nWolfe: 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.\n\nIn 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." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "gwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-02T20:13:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's actually a really sweet interview." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote:\nAn interesting bit about the politics of _The Land Across_:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Q: “The Land Across” is your newest novel. What did this book allow you\nto explore that previous ones had not?\n\nWolfe: What I did in that book particularly was to take a tyrannical,\npolitical setup and show it from the inside: The reason that the people who\nwere involved considered a dictatorship necessary. We seem to think of that\nsort of thing as an unmitigated evil. But democracy depends upon\nindividuals being willing to contribute and take part in the democratic\nprocess.\n\nIn other words, they have to look at the people who are running for\noffice and in some cases running for office themselves and make reasoned\njudgments on the thing and then write letters and protest and so on. And if\nthey are not willing to do that, if they resign from the whole process of\ngovernment, then you can’t really get anywhere with a democracy. The\ndemocracy naturally lapses into some sort of a tyrannical setup." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "--\ngwern\nhttp://www.gwern.net\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D010FA2@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-03T12:00:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What a wonderful interview.\n\nRick Norwood\n\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Piotr Szczesny\nSent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 3:15 PM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List\nSubject: Re: (urth) barrington interview\n\nDamn, can't wait for A Borrowed Man! And the sequel too!\n\n\n2014-10-02 20:51 GMT+02:00 Marc Aramini >:\nHere 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) ...\n\nhttp://barrington.suntimes.com/2014/10/02/gene-wolfe-legend-novelist-philosopher/\n\nTo be fair, we all already know why speculation abounds ... He is a symbolist." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-05T13:08:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D010FA2@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: That's actually a really sweet interview." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rick Norwood: What a wonderful interview." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree. Thanks for posting that, Marc." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Marc Aramini: Here is an interview with Gene that makes fun of symbol hunters and people " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "being identified as Richard Nixon or whatnot in his novels (here's looking at you, navigator " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "as JFK borski theory) ..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ouch. That's borderline catty, Marc! ;- )" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "To be fair, we all already know why speculation abounds ... He is a symbolist." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Exactly. Wolfe isn't making fun of those who try to understand his symbolism; only those\n\nwho get it wrong. \n\n\n\nWhich, in my opinion, isn't really fair on Wolfe's part, because he obviously puts\n\nquite difficult puzzles and symbology into his work and (with a few exceptions) refuses to \n\never offer any guidance on when his readers are getting it right or wrong.\n\n\n\nI certainly think Borski often errs on the side of over-exhuberance in his symbol interpretations.\n\nBut I'll take his bold attempts over being overly cautious for fear of being wrong. I think he has a \n\ngood eye for detail and in spotting where SOME veiled meaning is intended, even if I don't agree \n\nwith what he thinks the meaning is.\n\n\n\nIn regard to the passage you cite, he takes the line \"When the navigator was buried there were \n\nblack wagons and people in black clothes walking\" as referring to Kennedy's funeral based on \n\nWolfe being Catholic and that being a significant event for all Americans living in the 60's. The\n\nApollo moon landing was a similar event and that is referenced in BotNS, so hey, I don't fault\n\nBorski for taking a stab at that one.\n\n\n\nSince Severian notes in the next paragraph that people in the Commonwealth don't wear fuligin\n\nto funerals, it could be that the passage is meant as no more than an addition to the evidence \n\nthat the people in the antechamber come from some other, far-away place. Considering a \n\nKennedy reference may go too far, but given the earlier moon landing reference, it does no harm.\n\n\n\nIn this interview, Wolfe suggests that he'd like to go Shakespearean and pound on Borski's (or\n\nor Wright's or whomever's) door, sword in hand, to challenge him to a duel for demeaning his work.\n\nIt is tongue-in-cheek of course but, hey...if Wolfe really cared that much about his work being read\n\ncorrectly, why not publish notes on how to read it correctly? Without that, poetic and artistic license\n\nis granted to whomever chooses to publish a Wolfe analysis. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<5431CD3D.3040808@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeffery Wilson clueland.com", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2014-10-05T22:59:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/5/2014 8:08 AM, Lee wrote:\nIn this interview, Wolfe suggests that he'd like to go Shakespearean and pound on Borski's (or\n\nor Wright's or whomever's) door, sword in hand, to challenge him to a duel for demeaning his work.\n\nIt is tongue-in-cheek of course but, hey...if Wolfe really cared that much about his work being read\n\ncorrectly, why not publish notes on how to read it correctly?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I believe Wolfe's stated in at least two previous interviews that he \ndoesn't give that information out because it would cheat the careful \nreader of the pleasure of discovering it for himself. But that doesn't \nmean he finds the necessary consequences entirely satisfactory." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-06T02:15:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<5431CD3D.3040808@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeffrey Wilson: I believe Wolfe's stated in at least two previous interviews that he \ndoesn't give that information out because it would cheat the careful \nreader of the pleasure of discovering it for himself. But that doesn't \nmean he finds the necessary consequences entirely satisfactory." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That sounds reasonable on the surface. But consider the real world results.\n\n\nWe have a few published analysts and many on this board who are more than \n\ncareful, and often excruciatingly exacting in their detailed reading of Wolfe's \n\nwork. Yet each one still seems to come to quite differing and individualized\n\nunderstandings.\n\n\nI have full respect for the intelligence of all avid Wolfe readers, so how can this\n\ndivergence in understanding be explained? Either Wolfe is deliberately making\n\nhis work ambiguous and subject to individualized understanding or he is doing \n\nit by accident. I think one of these is more likely than the other.\n\n\nSome might argue that Wolfe's latest work is less ambiguous than his previous \n\nwork. I'm not sure. I'd be interested in the opinions of others on the overall\n\ntrend.\n\n\nJust in regard to the 12 volume Sun Series, written over the course of some 10-15\n\nyears, I'd have to say with some confidence that the writing became more ambiguous\n\nas it progressed. I find the WTF moments in Return To The Whorl to be far more \n\nfrequent than they were in reading Shadow of the Torturer. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-06T02:41:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Scientific reproducibility lurks under all of his fictions. For example,\nin doctor of death island, every time someone dies the three fingered\ndoctor shows up. Borski notices this and STILL sees him showing up at the\nend of the story as a sign of hope, a blatant and unscientific breaking of\npattern. His return is a sure sign of Alvard's death. Wolfe sets up\npatterns that are usually fair, but undisciplined speculation runs contrary\nto Wolfe's engineering mind.\n\nI think Home Fires is as subtextually cryptic as anything he has written\nbut in general his reluctance to provide closure peaked at short sun. His\n80s short fiction is less dense than his 70s fiction and less obscure than\nthe short stories he produced in the 90s. I had to wrack my brain to see\nthe c.b. pattern in Home Fires and figure out who controlled the puppet\nagent Skip." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Sunday, October 5, 2014, Lee wrote:\nJeffrey Wilson: I believe Wolfe's stated in at least two previous\ninterviews that he\ndoesn't give that information out because it would cheat the careful\nreader of the pleasure of discovering it for himself. But that doesn't\nmean he finds the necessary consequences entirely satisfactory." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That sounds reasonable on the surface. But consider the real world results.\n\n\nWe have a few published analysts and many on this board who are more than\n\ncareful, and often excruciatingly exacting in their detailed reading of\nWolfe's\n\nwork. Yet each one still seems to come to quite differing and\nindividualized\n\nunderstandings.\n\n\nI have full respect for the intelligence of all avid Wolfe readers, so how\ncan this\n\ndivergence in understanding be explained? Either Wolfe is deliberately\nmaking\n\nhis work ambiguous and subject to individualized understanding or he is\ndoing\n\nit by accident. I think one of these is more likely than the other.\n\n\nSome might argue that Wolfe's latest work is less ambiguous than his\nprevious\n\nwork. I'm not sure. I'd be interested in the opinions of others on the\noverall\n\ntrend.\n\n\nJust in regard to the 12 volume Sun Series, written over the course of\nsome 10-15\n\nyears, I'd have to say with some confidence that the writing became more\nambiguous\n\nas it progressed. I find the WTF moments in Return To The Whorl to be far\nmore\n\nfrequent than they were in reading Shadow of the Torturer.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<54322187.5090806@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeffery Wilson clueland.com", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2014-10-06T04:58:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 10/5/2014 9:15 PM, Lee wrote:\nJeffrey Wilson: I believe Wolfe's stated in at least two previous interviews that he\ndoesn't give that information out because it would cheat the careful\nreader of the pleasure of discovering it for himself. But that doesn't\nmean he finds the necessary consequences entirely satisfactory." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That sounds reasonable on the surface. But consider the real world results.\n\n\nWe have a few published analysts and many on this board who are more than\n\ncareful, and often excruciatingly exacting in their detailed reading of Wolfe's\n\nwork. Yet each one still seems to come to quite differing and individualized\n\nunderstandings." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me. There is no \nparticular need for all the puzzles to be of the same difficulty or the \nanswers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may \nhave the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on \nthem." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-06T11:18:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<54322187.5090806@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same difficulty or the \nanswers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may \nhave the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on \nthem." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is:\n\n\nWho is right?\n\n\nIn another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists of his\n\nwork but that there were some readers who basically understood all his work.\n\n\nThere are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought\n\ntrying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct understanding?\n\nWho are the ones who are way off base?\n\n\nWithout an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and wrong, we are \n\neach given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does get Wolfe\n\ncorrectly is, of course, ourselves.\n\n\nIf Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide multiple reasons for \n\nwhy he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of assessment of correct \n\n interpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a firm majority consensus to\n\nbase it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see either. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-06T11:30:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At the end of the day there must be more to a Correct Reading than that the\nauthor saying that's how he thought it out, which is an external factoid." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 6 October 2014 12:18, Lee wrote:\nJeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same\ndifficulty or the\nanswers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may\nhave the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on\nthem." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is:\n\n\nWho is right?\n\n\nIn another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists\nof his\n\nwork but that there were some readers who basically understood all his\nwork.\n\n\nThere are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought\n\ntrying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct\nunderstanding?\n\nWho are the ones who are way off base?\n\n\nWithout an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and\nwrong, we are\n\neach given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does\nget Wolfe\n\ncorrectly is, of course, ourselves.\n\n\nIf Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide\nmultiple reasons for\n\nwhy he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of\nassessment of correct\n\n interpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a firm\nmajority consensus to\n\nbase it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see\neither.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011A66@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-06T12:08:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The readers who spotted Richard Nixon are clearly wrong.\n\nMore generally, I think most allusions and symbols in Wolfe are classical rather than modern. His comments on modern politics seem blunt and obvious — the world is going to Hell in a handbasket. No puzzles there.\n\nAlso, 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.\n\nRick Norwood\n\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Marques\nSent: Monday, October 06, 2014 7:30 AM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List\nSubject: Re: (urth) barrington interview\n\nAt the end of the day there must be more to a Correct Reading than that the author saying that's how he thought it out, which is an external factoid." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 6 October 2014 12:18, Lee > wrote:\nJeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same difficulty or the\nanswers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may\nhave the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on\nthem." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is:\n\n\nWho is right?\n\n\nIn another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists of his\n\nwork but that there were some readers who basically understood all his work.\n\n\nThere are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought\n\ntrying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct understanding?\n\nWho are the ones who are way off base?\n\n\nWithout an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and wrong, we are\n\neach given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does get Wolfe\n\ncorrectly is, of course, ourselves.\n\n\nIf Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide multiple reasons for\n\nwhy he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of assessment of correct\n\n interpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a firm majority consensus to\n\nbase it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see either." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-06T14:08:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Whoever explains the most narrative events and patterns without resorting\nto misprision is right. Some people are better at logic puzzles than\nothers. Thus, the Wolfe wiki analysis of Cherry Jubilee was right even\nthough it doesn't mention the speech patterns of cherry and merry, the most\nobvious \"proof\". Tallman's explanation of where the seventh night is\nexcised in the journal of Seven American Nights is right because he can\nnarratively show that on the same evening the sun has already set and is\nlater setting , logically impossible. Wolfe is not postmodern. There is\nplenty of evidence. Some readings are right. Some are often consistently\nwrong. We don't need Wolfe's consent, though at times it would be nice." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Monday, October 6, 2014, Lee wrote:\nJeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same\ndifficulty or the\nanswers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may\nhave the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on\nthem." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is:\n\n\nWho is right?\n\n\nIn another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists\nof his\n\nwork but that there were some readers who basically understood all his\nwork.\n\n\nThere are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought\n\ntrying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct\nunderstanding?\n\nWho are the ones who are way off base?\n\n\nWithout an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and\nwrong, we are\n\neach given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does\nget Wolfe\n\ncorrectly is, of course, ourselves.\n\n\nIf Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide\nmultiple reasons for\n\nwhy he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of\nassessment of correct\n\n interpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a firm\nmajority consensus to\n\nbase it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see\neither.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1412651538.92302.YahooMailNeo@web171306.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Richard Simon", "address": "gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk" }, "date": "2014-10-07T03:12:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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.\n\nOccasionally, 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.\n\nI 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.\n\nSalutations to all.\n\n\nOn Monday, 6 October 2014, 19:38, Marc Aramini wrote:\n \n\n\nWhoever explains the most narrative events and patterns without resorting to misprision is right. Some people are better at logic puzzles than others. Thus, the Wolfe wiki analysis of Cherry Jubilee was right even though it doesn't mention the speech patterns of cherry and merry, the most obvious \"proof\". Tallman's explanation of where the seventh night is excised in the journal of Seven American Nights is right because he can narratively show that on the same evening the sun has already set and is later setting , logically impossible. Wolfe is not postmodern. 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. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Monday, October 6, 2014, Lee wrote:\nJeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same difficulty or the\nanswers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may\nhave the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on\nthem." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is:\n\n\nWho is right?\n\n\nIn another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists of his\n\nwork but that there were some readers who basically understood all his work.\n\n\nThere are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought\n\ntrying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct understanding?\n\nWho are the ones who are way off base?\n\n\nWithout an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and wrong, we are\n\neach given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does get Wolfe\n\ncorrectly is, of course, ourselves.\n\n\nIf Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide multiple reasons for\n\nwhy he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of assessment of correct\n\ninterpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a firm majority consensus to\n\nbase it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see either.\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Andrew Bollen", "address": "jurisper at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-07T03:29:32+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<1412651538.92302.YahooMailNeo@web171306.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon wrote:\nMy own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct\nbearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could\nhelp the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters,\nthe subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story\nitself.\n\nOccasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without\nendangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic\nconceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to\nthe reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding.\n\nI do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any\nrelevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters\npresent some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think\nthey have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at\nthat point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some\nextra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of\npopular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ?\n'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical\nhuckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Wholehearted agreement!\n\nAlso: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of\ncharacter and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or\nshe act well or badly in the circumstances?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-07T04:02:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rick Norwood: Also, I find Wolfe enjoyable on a first read. The depths are fun to probe, " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "but the surface is fun, too. Thus I do not see Wolfe as a puzzle game, where unless you " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "solve the boss puzzle you lose. Rather as many layered fiction, with something extra for " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "those who read the classics." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks Rick. I agree and I suspect most here agree. I think our discussions are skewed toward\n\n the more difficult puzzles and away from the superficially enjoyable aspects of Wolfe's work\n\njust because there is more to discuss. \"Severian met a giant..\" or \"Sir Able fought a dragon..\"\n\n\"..wasn't that cool?\" \"Yeah, it was\". What more can be said than that? Perhaps a sad truth of \n\nhuman discourse is that disagreement is often a more compelling subject than agreement." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Marc Aramini: Whoever explains the most narrative events and patterns without resorting to " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "misprision is right. Some people are better at logic puzzles than others....There is plenty of " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "evidence. Some readings are right. Some are often consistently wrong. We don't need Wolfe's " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "consent, though at times it would be nice." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Marc you say this without acknowledgement that the terms \"misprision\", \"better\", \"logic\", \n\n\"evidence\", \"right\" and \"wrong\" are all subjective judgments, especially in regard to fiction.\n\nHow do you know something is evidence? How do you know someone is right or wrong or \n\nmisunderstanding the text? The answer is, invariably, because you say so. This ends up being\n\na fancy way of saying \"I'm right\". After all, are you prepared to say that any of your own current\n\ntheories are wrong? It would be absurd for you to say that. And just as absurd for anyone else\n\nto say it about their own theories. You may think others are wrong, just as you always think\n\nyou are right. Such thoughts don't make it universally so.\n\n\n\nThere is no scientific method for understanding fiction for the same reason there is no scientific\n\nmethod for belief in God. The concept of a Creator and the presence of Intelligent Design \n\ntosses out scientific method. Take Occam's Razor. It doesn't apply to fiction or God because the \n\nauthor/Creator may well have decided that the most complex explanation is the right one. Take\n\nstatistics. A penny doesn't have a 50/50 chance of heads or tails in fiction. A fictional penny has\n\nonly the 100% chance of falling however the author writes it as falling. Throw out experimentation \n\nand repeatability etc. They don't work on fiction.\n\n\n\nIt is tempting to put the author in the role of Creator in this analogy but it should be noted that \n\nfiction exists in the minds of all involved parties. Thus, each reader becomes a Creator also, as\n\nsoon as a fictional mental image is created in each mind. \n\n\n\nPerhaps there are those who have such pure utter faith in their own judgment of a work of fiction\n\n that they are willing to claim all others are wrong. But just like personal religious faith, it is rather \n\nunrealistic to actually expect all others to share the minutiae of what you personally believe in." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Richard Simon: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "the story." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "story." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I disagree. While I agree that Wolfe's puzzles and symbolism almost always bear on the storyline, I think\n\nthey sometimes have multiple levels of meaning which can extend outside the story.\n\n\n\nPerhaps the classic example is Wolfe's own admission that the name of the main members of Number 5's\n\nfamily in 5HoC is \"Gene Wolfe\". I don't think he really means to imply that he, personally, is in the story.\n\n\n\nSimilarly, Andre-Driussi has spent significant research showing that the events of BotNS seem to parallel \n\nthe life of Gene Wolfe. And I think the family dynamics of Horn's family in Short Sun are too similar to\n\nWolfe family dynamics to dismiss them as purely and entirely fictional.\n\n\n\nAs I recently quoted from the Larry McCaffrey interview, Gene Wolfe notes that BotNS serves as a way of\n\nexpressing the ramifications of his own personal religious beliefs. It isn't just a rippingly good yarn.\n\nAt least not to Gene Wolfe. There are real world personal elements to it. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-07T05:22:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, Lee, let me give you an example of a misreading. In \"Look at the\nEvidence\", Clute mentions a theme anthology of British literature in which\nthe editors note collections of this type's scarcity. They then say that\nhopefully this scarcity will become a thing of the past. Clute misreads\nthis as indicating that somewhere during the construction of the anthology,\nthe editors wearied of it and hoped that no more anthologies like it would\nbe produced, though in fact they were saying the exact opposite - they\nwanted the scarcity to vanish, not \"the scarcity\" as a replacement\nappositive for the concept of anthologies like it. Even intelligent men\nmisread on occasion, as I did during one of my explications of \"When I was\nming the merciless\" - when I was corrected, I saw that obviously the\nobjective words meant something else and readily admitted it. I have been\nwrong, but when I am, I acknowledge it.\n\nNot all opinions are valid, not all explications work. Have you ever had\nto grade literary analysis papers? I have, and some people are right,\nothers are just plain wrong. Hamlet's father is not an alien because the\ntext doesn't support that interpretation, no matter how you argue it. Some\nexplications rely on the text and explain features of it, other's don't.\n \"The Changeling\" is a prime example - James Jordan's exegesis of faith and\nworks was interesting, but it just wasn't in the text. What was? an\nindication of exactly when the ageless child appeared, which could be\ncorroborated by external reference to the birth date of a little known\nactor and the etymology of the word oaf, which described that actors most\nfamous role (objective facts which Wolfe expects us to know in order to\nfigure out what happened in the story). I don't just \"say so\", it can be\nverified and explain mysteries in the text (like why our narrator isn't in\nthat fourth grade picture and how he is old enough at the supposed age of\n15 to be in the military).\n\nWolfe's symbolism has a HUGE impact on plot interpretation (especially in\nnew sun - Sev nearly drowning but being saved from the water at the start,\nthe water conflated over and over with death and resurrection (Dorcas\nsubmerged)/ the flooding of genesis, the play eschatology and genesis,\ntyphon as satan talking about how water brings renewed life, ad nauseum -\nthe future was clearly going to be a deluge - we didn't need Urth of the\nNew Sun to tell us that).\n\nNot all interpretations are valid, and I never bought into the death of the\nauthor's intentions. Sloppy stuff. The best explication fits every detail\nfor a text or explains inconsistencies thematically." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Lee wrote:\nRick Norwood: Also, I find Wolfe enjoyable on a first read. The depths\nare fun to probe," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "but the surface is fun, too. Thus I do not see Wolfe as a puzzle game,\nwhere unless you" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "solve the boss puzzle you lose. Rather as many layered fiction, with\nsomething extra for" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "those who read the classics." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Thanks Rick. I agree and I suspect most here agree. I think our\ndiscussions are skewed toward\n\n the more difficult puzzles and away from the superficially enjoyable\naspects of Wolfe's work\n\njust because there is more to discuss. \"Severian met a giant..\" or \"Sir\nAble fought a dragon..\"\n\n\"..wasn't that cool?\" \"Yeah, it was\". What more can be said than that?\nPerhaps a sad truth of\n\nhuman discourse is that disagreement is often a more compelling subject\nthan agreement." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Marc Aramini: Whoever explains the most narrative events and patterns\nwithout resorting to" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "misprision is right. Some people are better at logic puzzles than\nothers....There is plenty of" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "evidence. Some readings are right. Some are often consistently wrong. We\ndon't need Wolfe's" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "consent, though at times it would be nice." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Marc you say this without acknowledgement that the terms \"misprision\",\n\"better\", \"logic\",\n\n\"evidence\", \"right\" and \"wrong\" are all subjective judgments, especially\nin regard to fiction.\n\nHow do you know something is evidence? How do you know someone is right or\nwrong or\n\nmisunderstanding the text? The answer is, invariably, because you say so.\nThis ends up being\n\na fancy way of saying \"I'm right\". After all, are you prepared to say that\nany of your own current\n\ntheories are wrong? It would be absurd for you to say that. And just as\nabsurd for anyone else\n\nto say it about their own theories. You may think others are wrong, just\nas you always think\n\nyou are right. Such thoughts don't make it universally so.\n\n\n\nThere is no scientific method for understanding fiction for the same\nreason there is no scientific\n\nmethod for belief in God. The concept of a Creator and the presence of\nIntelligent Design\n\ntosses out scientific method. Take Occam's Razor. It doesn't apply to\nfiction or God because the\n\nauthor/Creator may well have decided that the most complex explanation is\nthe right one. Take\n\nstatistics. A penny doesn't have a 50/50 chance of heads or tails in\nfiction. A fictional penny has\n\nonly the 100% chance of falling however the author writes it as falling.\nThrow out experimentation\n\nand repeatability etc. They don't work on fiction.\n\n\n\nIt is tempting to put the author in the role of Creator in this analogy\nbut it should be noted that\n\nfiction exists in the minds of all involved parties. Thus, each reader\nbecomes a Creator also, as\n\nsoon as a fictional mental image is created in each mind.\n\n\n\nPerhaps there are those who have such pure utter faith in their own\njudgment of a work of fiction\n\n that they are willing to claim all others are wrong. But just like\npersonal religious faith, it is rather\n\nunrealistic to actually expect all others to share the minutiae of what\nyou personally believe in." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Richard Simon: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's\n'puzzles' have a direct bearing on" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "the story." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I agree." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any\nrelevance outside the frame of the" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "story." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I disagree. While I agree that Wolfe's puzzles and symbolism almost always\nbear on the storyline, I think\n\nthey sometimes have multiple levels of meaning which can extend outside\nthe story.\n\n\n\nPerhaps the classic example is Wolfe's own admission that the name of the\nmain members of Number 5's\n\nfamily in 5HoC is \"Gene Wolfe\". I don't think he really means to imply\nthat he, personally, is in the story.\n\n\n\nSimilarly, Andre-Driussi has spent significant research showing that the\nevents of BotNS seem to parallel\n\nthe life of Gene Wolfe. And I think the family dynamics of Horn's family\nin Short Sun are too similar to\n\nWolfe family dynamics to dismiss them as purely and entirely fictional.\n\n\n\nAs I recently quoted from the Larry McCaffrey interview, Gene Wolfe notes\nthat BotNS serves as a way of\n\nexpressing the ramifications of his own personal religious beliefs. It\nisn't just a rippingly good yarn.\n\nAt least not to Gene Wolfe. There are real world personal elements to it.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Otto Jack Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-07T10:49:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course,\npossible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also\nfor Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as\nwell. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological\nexploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way\nconsistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for\nallusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short\nSun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the\nnarrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant\nfact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have\nspiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it\ndeepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of\nintentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction,\nlongstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being\ncontent to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely\nentertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do\nmore. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question.\n\n-DOJP" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen wrote:\n\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a\ndirect bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that\ncould help the reader understand something more about the plot, the\ncharacters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics\nof the story itself.\n\nOccasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without\nendangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic\nconceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to\nthe reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding.\n\nI do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any\nrelevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters\npresent some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think\nthey have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at\nthat point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some\nextra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of\npopular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ?\n'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical\nhuckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Wholehearted agreement!\n\nAlso: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of\ncharacter and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or\nshe act well or badly in the circumstances?\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011C8F@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-07T12:12:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "“the terms \"misprision\", \"better\", \"logic\", \"evidence\", \"right\" and \"wrong\" are all subjective judgments?” — Marc Aramini.\n\nAh. 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.\n\nI think Lee addresses this very well. Wolfe is not a postmodernist.\n\nRick Norwood" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-07T13:27:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011C8F@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Are you attributing what I said with with what Lee said?. I believe they\nare objective, Lee that they are entirely subjective." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tuesday, October 7, 2014, Norwood, Frederick Hudson <\nNORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> wrote:\n “the terms \"misprision\", \"better\", \"logic\", \"evidence\", \"right\" and\n\"wrong\" are all subjective judgments?” — Marc Aramini.\n\n\n\nAh. No. These words can be used subjectively but all have perfectly good\nobjective meanings. 7 x 8 = 21 is a misprision, not better than 7 x 8 =\n56, not logical, lacking evidence, not right, and, most importantly, is\nwrong.\n\n\n\nI think Lee addresses this very well. Wolfe is not a postmodernist.\n\n\n\nRick Norwood" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-07T13:28:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Marc Aramini: Well, Lee, let me give you an example of a misreading." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Marc, I'm sure there are many examples upon which WE can agree are a misreading\n\nof fiction by someone else. But the assessment of error remains our opinion not scientific \n\nfact.\n\n\nWhat if there is an \"error\" (Wolfe's or editor's) in the text such as Wolfe's spelling of \n\nQuadrifrons as Quadrifons? Is the misspelling deliberate on Wolfe's part, serving a\n\nhidden purpose? Or is it just an error?\n\n\nWhat if Wolfe makes an error and a reader makes an assumption based on that error.\n\nWho is actually right, the reader who is in concord with Wolfe within the text or the scholar \n\nwho has spotted Wolfe's error?\n\n\nThere are varying levels of agreement when it comes to fiction. Relatively few disagree\n\non the meaning of a Stephen King novel. But when an author such as Wolfe writes in\n\ndeliberately ambiguous fashion (Shadow Children are degenerate humans/No, they are\n\nnative shapeshifters) there is going to be disagreement with no firm way to establish\n\nuniversal correctness, as your discussions with Gerry Quinn demonstrate. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-07T13:48:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And inevitably some readings will be closer to authorial intention, some\nfurther away. Wolfe knows if his shadow children are parasites and the\nrelationship, if any, between the Abos and the trees.\n\nNo one has ever really talked about my Latro story (probably because it\nsucked, I suppose) but there is an intended solution set up by symbolic\npatterns (who does a black dog represent? What does a boar signify in\nLatro's world? Why is the present day narrator called by two different\nfirst names?) or outside information (what does zalmoxis' name mean? Who\nboxed a man and thought about shooting him during the Korean War?). There\nis an objective explanation. Whether the story works outside of the mystery\nis the difference between Wolfe and me. My story clearly doesn't work, his\ndo, but I can tell you if your guesses were right or wrong in my work.\n\nWolfe is human and occasionally makes mistakes, but copy editors are far\nmore often to blame for reversing his decisions (turning Horn's first\nperson entrance to a third person one - this infuriated Wolfe when he found\nout - his artistic vision requires Horn's \"I\" at that point in the\nnarrative of Exodus.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Tuesday, October 7, 2014, Lee wrote:\nMarc Aramini: Well, Lee, let me give you an example of a misreading." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Marc, I'm sure there are many examples upon which WE can agree are a\nmisreading\n\nof fiction by someone else. But the assessment of error remains our\nopinion not scientific\n\nfact.\n\n\nWhat if there is an \"error\" (Wolfe's or editor's) in the text such as\nWolfe's spelling of\n\nQuadrifrons as Quadrifons? Is the misspelling deliberate on Wolfe's part,\nserving a\n\nhidden purpose? Or is it just an error?\n\n\nWhat if Wolfe makes an error and a reader makes an assumption based on\nthat error.\n\nWho is actually right, the reader who is in concord with Wolfe within the\ntext or the scholar\n\nwho has spotted Wolfe's error?\n\n\nThere are varying levels of agreement when it comes to fiction. Relatively\nfew disagree\n\non the meaning of a Stephen King novel. But when an author such as Wolfe\nwrites in\n\ndeliberately ambiguous fashion (Shadow Children are degenerate humans/No,\nthey are\n\nnative shapeshifters) there is going to be disagreement with no firm way\nto establish\n\nuniversal correctness, as your discussions with Gerry Quinn demonstrate.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-07T14:07:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Marc Aramini: And inevitably some readings will be closer to authorial intention, " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "some further away. Wolfe knows if his shadow children are parasites and the " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "relationship, if any, between the Abos and the trees." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Let's pretend Gene Wolfe follows this List. Why do you think he continues to not\n\nchime in and tell you that you are right and others are wrong? What is his \n\nmotivation?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No one has ever really talked about my Latro story (probably because it sucked," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I suppose)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It is probably good. I didn't know it existed. Also, as an amateur Wolfe fan, I find\n\nkeeping up just with Wolfe's work to be enough of a challenge. Also, the Latro\n\nseries never interested me enough for a second read, for some reason." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Whether the story works outside of the mystery is the difference between Wolfe and me. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "My story clearly doesn't work, his do, but I can tell you if your guesses were right or wrong" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "in my work." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think you would tell us if our guesses were correct in identifying your intentions. Another\n\ndifference between you and Wolfe. You truly WANT to be understood. He doesn't. Otherwise\n\nhe would make the effort to ensure he was understood. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-07T14:37:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've corresponded with him for about 14 years now ... he thinks dropping\nthe definitive answer is cheating, but once upon a time he was sure to\ncorrect me on a very important point. He then apologized to me, saying it\n\"wasn't fair.\" His purpose is complex, but Wolfe's creative system is\nperhaps best understood in the amusement park designer of \"The Adopted\nFather\" - in that story, his children aren't his because they don't think\nlike he does - he creates an elaborate park maze design and his son can't\nnavigate it, he becomes lost, because he doesn't pay attention to the clue\nhis father gives him, so his father seeks out someone who actually does\nthink as he does. As I've said, his acknowledgments are also extremely\nindirect. When I told him what I thought about \"the Changeling\", he said,\n\"I've always loved Lil' Abner. So many great characters, so many great\nstories and situations.\" That's about the most indirect way one could ever\nsay that my explication was correct.\n\nWolfe wants to make you work to solve his puzzles ... he almost has the\ncontradictory impulse in his introductions to put forth that he writes for\nthe common reader to entertain, but he can't stop being cryptic. Certainly\nhis idea of \"good\" construction and engineering involves creating a text\nworth re-reading." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Lee wrote:\nMarc Aramini: And inevitably some readings will be closer to authorial\nintention," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "some further away. Wolfe knows if his shadow children are parasites and\nthe" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "relationship, if any, between the Abos and the trees." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Let's pretend Gene Wolfe follows this List. Why do you think he continues\nto not\n\nchime in and tell you that you are right and others are wrong? What is his\n\nmotivation?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "No one has ever really talked about my Latro story (probably because it\nsucked," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I suppose)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It is probably good. I didn't know it existed. Also, as an amateur Wolfe\nfan, I find\n\nkeeping up just with Wolfe's work to be enough of a challenge. Also, the\nLatro\n\nseries never interested me enough for a second read, for some reason." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Whether the story works outside of the mystery is the difference between\nWolfe and me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "My story clearly doesn't work, his do, but I can tell you if your guesses\nwere right or wrong" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "in my work." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think you would tell us if our guesses were correct in identifying your\nintentions. Another\n\ndifference between you and Wolfe. You truly WANT to be understood. He\ndoesn't. Otherwise\n\nhe would make the effort to ensure he was understood.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-07T15:57:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm with Daniel here. \"Nothing more\" applies only in the sense it would\napply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for\nthe ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with\nsomeone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a \"select\" audience." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\nI agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course,\npossible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also\nfor Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as\nwell. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological\nexploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way\nconsistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for\nallusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short\nSun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the\nnarrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant\nfact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have\nspiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it\ndeepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of\nintentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction,\nlongstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being\ncontent to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely\nentertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do\nmore. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a\ndirect bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that\ncould help the reader understand something more about the plot, the\ncharacters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the\nmechanics of the story itself.\n\nOccasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without\nendangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic\nconceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to\nthe reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding.\n\nI do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any\nrelevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters\npresent some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think\nthey have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at\nthat point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some\nextra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of\npopular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ?\n'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical\nhuckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Wholehearted agreement!\n\nAlso: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations\nof character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he\nor she act well or badly in the circumstances?\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-07T22:25:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Marc Aramini: \"Marc used a math problem\"??????????????????????????????" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rick Norwood: First, let me apologize for getting Marc and Lee mixed up. When I read an amalgam " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "of many posts, I sometimes get confused about who is doing what, with what, and to whom." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Same here. It's the reason I try to assign names to quotes in my posts." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Aliens who use a different number base is a red herring. The math is the same, independently of " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "the language in which it is written." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not a red herring; and don't think I didn't notice how you cleverly focused on the alien's 12 fingers\n\nand ignored \"his\" silicon brain. :- )\n\n \n\nI've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely science/mathematically\n\nminded. But math isn't really \"universal\". It a system of calculation created by the human mind \n\nwhich is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian ancestors.\n\n\n\nOur brains may organize the search patterns of bees or the spiral shape of a conch shell or the\n\ngalaxy into a mathematical pattern. But I am confident in stating that bees and mollusks and stars\n\nare not doing math. We are, as we seek to organize the universe into patterns our brains can \n\nunderstand." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And I really do think there are right and wrong interpretations of literature. As somebody said" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(Marc? Lee?), the ghost of Hamlet’s father is not an alien. That interpretation would be just plain " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "wrong." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not me. I am on the other side of the fence on this debate. I can find at least a couple ways of \n\nunderstanding \"ghost of Hamlet's father is an alien\" to be a true statement.\n\n\n\n1. The author, William Shakespeare, was from England. Hamlet's father was Danish.\n\n\n\n2. We live in a material world. Ghosts, by definition, are from another sort of world who happen\n\nto be visiting this one.\n\n\n\nOf course I am not trying to be right about Hamlet's father, per se. I am only saying that anytime you \n\nmake a statement of absolute or universal rightness or wrongness, you are unconsciously operating \n\nwithin a system of assumptions shared by the people you are talking to. Those assumptions can and\n\nsometimes should be questioned, especially when \"universality\" is the claim.\n\n\n\nIt reminds me of a quote I heard from somebody in Mississippi back in 2012. He said that he knew\n\nBarack Obama couldn't be re-elected because everybody he knew was voting against him. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T00:05:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Lee wrote:\nI've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely\nscience/mathematically\nminded. But math isn't really \"universal\". It a system of calculation\ncreated by the human mind\nwhich is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian\nancestors.\n\nOur brains may organize the search patterns of bees or the spiral shape of\na conch shell or the\ngalaxy into a mathematical pattern. But I am confident in stating that\nbees and mollusks and stars\nare not doing math. We are, as we seek to organize the universe into\npatterns our brains can\nunderstand." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thy herring is red, and it stinketh.\n\nIt is not necessary for a \"conch to do math\" for its spiral shell-shape to\nbe mathematically based. Its genes, an incredibly powerful computing system\n(whose results are expressed in proteins which then control cellular\nbehavior), \"does\" the math. Likewise the shape of the galaxy; stars aren't\n\"doing math,\" they are obeying natural law, which is mathematical in nature.\n\nThe evidence (I hesitate to say \"proof,\" as that would be unscientific) for\nthis is that just about everywhere we turn in nature, we find that\nmathematics provides predictability and explanatory power. It isn't a joke\nwhen cosmologists talk about the universe being potentially a huge\n\"computer\" \"simulation\" (I think both words are too loose here); the\nUniverse itself seems to \"do math\" as you would put it.\n\nBy the bye, I am not a \"purely science/mathematically minded\" sort. I am a\nRoman Catholic, and believe in the supernatural; when I write fiction, it's\nmostly fantasy. For what that's worth." } ] }, { "message_id": "<7A84F7F6-BB36-4931-954B-341CDC408595@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T01:30:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 01:05, \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "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" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That is not only confusing the model with reality, but reifying physics.\n\nLee'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. \n\nLee 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.\n\nWhat 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." } ] }, { "message_id": "<9DF1C74E-035E-4E6F-A05F-6E29448CF17D@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T01:50:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The problem is that people may be discussing Wolfe centuries from now and still not have progressed more than we. Unless there is writ yet to be revealed that will help sort out some things, what is it about later generations that will make them able to go significantly further? Without intermediate validation?\nMan has come far in understanding the natural world because new experiments can be thought out and verified against unlimited data. But with a body of literature, the data is limited. So how will they get more definite answers out of it?\nIt's impossible that Wolfe hasn't thought this out, so either he intends it all to be ultimately open ended, not in a lazy way but by careful design, or he wants validation to be in the form of your chances of finding the intended reading depending on your being in tune with Wolfe's own ways of seeing things. (I don't believe, I know, or is it the reverse.)\n\nWhat I am certain of is that 1) Wolfe had a very definite reading of each of his words when he wrote it, nothing there is a vague half baked allusion, tho not everything needs to be crucial towards understanding the whole, and 2) his work is not literal preaching, tho it may emergently constitute a sermon.\n\n\nNo dia 07/10/2014, ?s 15:37, Marc Aramini escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "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.\n\nWolfe 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.\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Lee wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Marc Aramini: And inevitably some readings will be closer to authorial intention," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "some further away. Wolfe knows if his shadow children are parasites and the" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "relationship, if any, between the Abos and the trees." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Let's pretend Gene Wolfe follows this List. Why do you think he continues to not\n\nchime in and tell you that you are right and others are wrong? What is his\n\nmotivation?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "No one has ever really talked about my Latro story (probably because it sucked," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I suppose)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It is probably good. I didn't know it existed. Also, as an amateur Wolfe fan, I find\n\nkeeping up just with Wolfe's work to be enough of a challenge. Also, the Latro\n\nseries never interested me enough for a second read, for some reason." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Whether the story works outside of the mystery is the difference between Wolfe and me." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "My story clearly doesn't work, his do, but I can tell you if your guesses were right or wrong" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "in my work." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think you would tell us if our guesses were correct in identifying your intentions. Another\n\ndifference between you and Wolfe. You truly WANT to be understood. He doesn't. Otherwise\n\nhe would make the effort to ensure he was understood.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T02:19:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<9DF1C74E-035E-4E6F-A05F-6E29448CF17D@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Marques: Lee's example is perhaps not the best, .... he was pointing out that math itself" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "even with a shared mind structure (human) has conventions and you're at sea without them. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The square root of -1 is something which started as pure convention, no matter the interpretations " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "that were developed later on. Now imagine an alien mind, dividing the same physical world in a " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "different way..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks, Antonio. I think you explained my thinking better than I could.\n\n\n I was going to try responding to Dan'l with possible examples of dark matter or\n\nsub-quarkian physics or pre-Big Bang questions to illustrate items that seem to be at the very limits of\n\nour math-based peripheral vision and then to speculate there is much beyond those things we\n\ncannot see or even conceive of because of our human limitations, among which is math. But your example \n\nmay be even more illustrative.\n\n\nAs you suggest, neither I nor any other human can count to the square root of -1. But I can hypothesize an alien\n\nintelligence which can. Perhaps such a race can \"see\" gravity and \"see\" dark matter. Conversely, \n\nperhaps such a race would be incapable of seeing or counting nine (erm, eight) planets in our solar system or \n\neven understanding what numbers mean.\n\n\nI truly think this is what Wolfe is trying to get at with some of his plural, uncountable or otherwise rather\n\nincomprehensible beings in his work. I find the descriptions he gives us of Shadow Children and The Neighbors\n\nto be frustrating in their lack of ability to inspire a clear mental, visual picture of them and I think that\n\nfrustration is deliberately inspired by Wolfe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee is absolutely right when he points out that everything in communication hinges on shared assumptions." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thus, I think the frustration we and Severian feel as he converses with Tzadkiel. There is a\n\ndesire from both parties to achieve communication and understanding but there is an essential difference in\n\nperspective between pawns and queens on the space-time chessboard, which limits how much understanding\n\nthere can be. And I think that's exactly what Wolfe wants us to feel in this literary situation.\n\n\nI know my view pisses some people off and I apologize for that. But I think math is a primate-brain function\n\nwhich is awesome in its scope, but ultimately does not give us the potential to understand all there is to know in \n\nthe universe. I suspect math is actually a limitation we are going to have to leave behind if our understanding and \n\nawareness of the cosmos is ever to reach true universal levels. In contradiction to the movie Pi, I don't think we'll\n\nfind a full understanding of God in mathematics. Whatever God might mean, I suspect it is beyond numbers. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011EAD@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-08T12:11:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A statement that is absolutely true: All that is is not utterly devoid of any content what-so-ever. (In mathematical language, the universal set is not the empty set.)\n\nRick\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:19 PM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview\nAntonio Marques: Lee's example is perhaps not the best, .... he was pointing out that math itself" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "even with a shared mind structure (human) has conventions and you're at sea without them. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The square root of -1 is something which started as pure convention, no matter the interpretations " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "that were developed later on. Now imagine an alien mind, dividing the same physical world in a " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "different way..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks, Antonio. I think you explained my thinking better than I could.\n\n\n I was going to try responding to Dan'l with possible examples of dark matter or\n\nsub-quarkian physics or pre-Big Bang questions to illustrate items that seem to be at the very limits of\n\nour math-based peripheral vision and then to speculate there is much beyond those things we\n\ncannot see or even conceive of because of our human limitations, among which is math. But your example \n\nmay be even more illustrative.\n\n\nAs you suggest, neither I nor any other human can count to the square root of -1. But I can hypothesize an alien\n\nintelligence which can. Perhaps such a race can \"see\" gravity and \"see\" dark matter. Conversely, \n\nperhaps such a race would be incapable of seeing or counting nine (erm, eight) planets in our solar system or \n\neven understanding what numbers mean.\n\n\nI truly think this is what Wolfe is trying to get at with some of his plural, uncountable or otherwise rather\n\nincomprehensible beings in his work. I find the descriptions he gives us of Shadow Children and The Neighbors\n\nto be frustrating in their lack of ability to inspire a clear mental, visual picture of them and I think that\n\nfrustration is deliberately inspired by Wolfe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee is absolutely right when he points out that everything in communication hinges on shared assumptions." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thus, I think the frustration we and Severian feel as he converses with Tzadkiel. There is a\n\ndesire from both parties to achieve communication and understanding but there is an essential difference in\n\nperspective between pawns and queens on the space-time chessboard, which limits how much understanding\n\nthere can be. And I think that's exactly what Wolfe wants us to feel in this literary situation.\n\n\nI know my view pisses some people off and I apologize for that. But I think math is a primate-brain function\n\nwhich is awesome in its scope, but ultimately does not give us the potential to understand all there is to know in \n\nthe universe. I suspect math is actually a limitation we are going to have to leave behind if our understanding and \n\nawareness of the cosmos is ever to reach true universal levels. In contradiction to the movie Pi, I don't think we'll\n\nfind a full understanding of God in mathematics. Whatever God might mean, I suspect it is beyond numbers. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2014-10-08T13:35:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Lee wrote:\nI've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely\nscience/mathematically\nminded. But math isn't really \"universal\". It a system of calculation\ncreated by the human mind\nwhich is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian\nancestors." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics that isn't\n just the Genetic Fallacy?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011ECD@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-08T14:01:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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.”\n\nRick Norwood\n\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Thomas Bitterman\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:36 AM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List\nSubject: Re: (urth) barrington interview\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Lee > wrote:\nI've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely science/mathematically\nminded. But math isn't really \"universal\". It a system of calculation created by the human mind\nwhich is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian ancestors.\n\nIs there an argument against the universality of mathematics that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" } ] }, { "message_id": "<6BCECB94-07F5-4F34-AC18-01D2A566B75A@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T14:28:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011ECD@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Could you gentlemen pinpoint what you're labelling as the universality of math?\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:01, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "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.”\n \nRick Norwood\n \nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Thomas Bitterman\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:36 AM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List\nSubject: Re: (urth) barrington interview\n \nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Lee wrote:\nI've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely science/mathematically\nminded. But math isn't really \"universal\". It a system of calculation created by the human mind\nwhich is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian ancestors.\n \nIs there an argument against the universality of mathematics that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?\n \n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011F0B@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-08T14:32:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<7A84F7F6-BB36-4931-954B-341CDC408595@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"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.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Pedro Marques\nSent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 9:30 PM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List\nSubject: Re: (urth) barrington interview\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 01:05, \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "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" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That is not only confusing the model with reality, but reifying physics.\n\nLee'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. \n\nLee 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.\n\nWhat 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." } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011F36@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-08T14:46:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"I know my view pisses some people off\" -- Lee\n\nLike Ant?nio, you people's reactions as emotional. I find this too common in discussing topics such as science and math. If it disagree with you, it must be because I am pissed off, not because I think you're wrong. The implication is that, if I could only overcome my negative emotions, I would realize that you are right.\n\nFirst, I am not pissed off at you or at your ideas. I enjoy intellectual discussions. My emotions right now are happy ones.\n\nSecond, making statements about how another person feels is risky business. I can't even reliably predict how the people I'm closest to feel. I can't even reliably predict how my cat feels! I think she's happy one second before she hisses at me and bites. This experience has made me deeply suspicious about people who argue based on assumptions about how other people feel.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:19 PM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview\nAntonio Marques: Lee's example is perhaps not the best, .... he was pointing out that math itself" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "even with a shared mind structure (human) has conventions and you're at sea without them. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The square root of -1 is something which started as pure convention, no matter the interpretations " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "that were developed later on. Now imagine an alien mind, dividing the same physical world in a " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "different way..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thanks, Antonio. I think you explained my thinking better than I could.\n\n\n I was going to try responding to Dan'l with possible examples of dark matter or\n\nsub-quarkian physics or pre-Big Bang questions to illustrate items that seem to be at the very limits of\n\nour math-based peripheral vision and then to speculate there is much beyond those things we\n\ncannot see or even conceive of because of our human limitations, among which is math. But your example \n\nmay be even more illustrative.\n\n\nAs you suggest, neither I nor any other human can count to the square root of -1. But I can hypothesize an alien\n\nintelligence which can. Perhaps such a race can \"see\" gravity and \"see\" dark matter. Conversely, \n\nperhaps such a race would be incapable of seeing or counting nine (erm, eight) planets in our solar system or \n\neven understanding what numbers mean.\n\n\nI truly think this is what Wolfe is trying to get at with some of his plural, uncountable or otherwise rather\n\nincomprehensible beings in his work. I find the descriptions he gives us of Shadow Children and The Neighbors\n\nto be frustrating in their lack of ability to inspire a clear mental, visual picture of them and I think that\n\nfrustration is deliberately inspired by Wolfe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee is absolutely right when he points out that everything in communication hinges on shared assumptions." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thus, I think the frustration we and Severian feel as he converses with Tzadkiel. There is a\n\ndesire from both parties to achieve communication and understanding but there is an essential difference in\n\nperspective between pawns and queens on the space-time chessboard, which limits how much understanding\n\nthere can be. And I think that's exactly what Wolfe wants us to feel in this literary situation.\n\n\nI know my view pisses some people off and I apologize for that. But I think math is a primate-brain function\n\nwhich is awesome in its scope, but ultimately does not give us the potential to understand all there is to know in \n\nthe universe. I suspect math is actually a limitation we are going to have to leave behind if our understanding and \n\nawareness of the cosmos is ever to reach true universal levels. In contradiction to the movie Pi, I don't think we'll\n\nfind a full understanding of God in mathematics. Whatever God might mean, I suspect it is beyond numbers. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T14:51:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011F0B@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:32, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"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." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If you have you reasons for it, who can tell you otherwise?\nThat's not the same as saying that any reading can be assumed to be consensual. Others are free to have their own, too. And often you are required to obey the consensus rather than your own view ('hey, I thought that traffic sign was there for another reason' - 'but you know everyone else disagrees, right?'). " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Pedro Marques\nSent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 9:30 PM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List\nSubject: Re: (urth) barrington interview\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 01:05, \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "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" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That is not only confusing the model with reality, but reifying physics.\n\nLee'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. \n\nLee 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.\n\nWhat 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.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011F59@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-08T14:55:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<6BCECB94-07F5-4F34-AC18-01D2A566B75A@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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.\n\nPeople 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.\n\nPeople in the arts often say no — there is no such thing as meaning without symbols. The medium is the message.\n\nWhat 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.\n\nRick Norwood\n\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Pedro Marques\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:29 AM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List\nSubject: Re: (urth) barrington interview\n\nCould you gentlemen pinpoint what you're labelling as the universality of math?\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:01, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" > escreveu:\nThis 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.”\n\nRick Norwood\n\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Thomas Bitterman\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:36 AM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List\nSubject: Re: (urth) barrington interview\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Lee > wrote:\nI've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely science/mathematically\nminded. But math isn't really \"universal\". It a system of calculation created by the human mind\nwhich is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian ancestors.\n\nIs there an argument against the universality of mathematics that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T14:57:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011F59@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because\n\nmath originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small\n\ncorner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies.\n\n\nAs I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside\n\nthat original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of \n\nanother species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled\n\nto all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just\n\nfrom the perspective of planet earth.\n\n\nBut currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that\n\none planet.\n\n\nI wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it \n\nseems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described \n\nmathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able \n\nto encounter. \n\n\nIn other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic \n\nuniversality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded\n\nto me.\n\n\nOf course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for \n\nunderstanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T15:03:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rick Norwood: I will point out that your mode of debate (the suggestion " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "that I don’t accept your assertion not because I disagree with it but because" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I find it “disturbing”) is, as Mr Spock would say, “Highly illogical.”" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Apologies. I didn't mean to imply any particular person in this discussion is\n\nspeaking entirely from emotional motivation." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This isn’t the place for this debate, since I have no doubt that Gene Wolfe accepts the " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "fact that math is universal." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I disagree. I find ample evidence to the contrary in his literary work and to some degree\n\nhis interviews. But that's just my opinion.\n\n\n\nStill, perhaps we can agree that Gene Wolfe believes in God? If so and if Gene Wolfe believes\n\nin the universality of math, wouldn't that mean the Gene Wolfe believes God can be\n\ndescribed by a mathematical equation? \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011FA5@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-08T15:07:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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.\n\nI do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. \n\nFor a good science fiction story on this subject, read \"Omnilingual\" by H. Beam Piper.\n\nRick Norwood \n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview\nThomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because\n\nmath originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small\n\ncorner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies.\n\n\nAs I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside\n\nthat original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of \n\nanother species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled\n\nto all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just\n\nfrom the perspective of planet earth.\n\n\nBut currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that\n\none planet.\n\n\nI wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it \n\nseems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described \n\nmathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able \n\nto encounter. \n\n\nIn other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic \n\nuniversality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded\n\nto me.\n\n\nOf course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for \n\nunderstanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011FB8@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-08T15:09:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ant?nio: Oh, good. I like it when we can all agree.\n\nLee: 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.\n\nRick Norwood" } ] }, { "message_id": "<64D9FE78-9E0C-41C6-81A0-525E3AD5211B@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T15:12:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011F59@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In that case I don't think either me or Lee disagree with you, and you've expressed it very well. We're not questioning the external universality of a mathematical statement, we're saying that its internals are human-specific (for one) and that in other cases what you think is a math statement may not be one. \n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:55, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "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. \n \nPeople 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. \n \nPeople in the arts often say no — there is no such thing as meaning without symbols. The medium is the message. \n \nWhat 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.\n \nRick Norwood\n \nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Pedro Marques\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:29 AM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List\nSubject: Re: (urth) barrington interview\n \nCould you gentlemen pinpoint what you're labelling as the universality of math?\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:01, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" escreveu:\n\nThis 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.”\n \nRick Norwood\n \nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Thomas Bitterman\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:36 AM" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T15:17:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gene was an engineer. AN ENGINEER. Engineering is not a soft science.\nAngles, physical properties, stress analyses, knowledge of quantifiable\nvariables, structural integrity which might not be universals but are\nrigidly adhered to - just because Wolfe believes in God doesn't mean he\nthinks a modern playdough cross section will support a tile roof on our\nplanet at room temperatures.\n\nAs far as your last statement, I have a feeling it is more likely he feels\nGod is outside the ability of man to circumscribe by any rational or\nirrational means and cannot be limited by language (the tale of the cock\nand the angel, for example." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Lee wrote:\n\n\n\n\nApologies. I didn't mean to imply any particular person in this discussion\nis\n\nspeaking entirely from emotional motivation.." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On the universality of math:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I disagree. I find ample evidence to the contrary in his literary work and\nto some degree\n\nhis interviews. But that's just my opinion.\n\n\n\nStill, perhaps we can agree that Gene Wolfe believes in God? If so and if\nGene Wolfe believes\n\nin the universality of math, wouldn't that mean the Gene Wolfe believes\nGod can be\n\ndescribed by a mathematical equation?\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T15:20:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thus the paradox of dualism, to which Wolfe definitely adheres." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Marc Aramini wrote:\nGene was an engineer. AN ENGINEER. Engineering is not a soft science.\nAngles, physical properties, stress analyses, knowledge of quantifiable\nvariables, structural integrity which might not be universals but are\nrigidly adhered to - just because Wolfe believes in God doesn't mean he\nthinks a modern playdough cross section will support a tile roof on our\nplanet at room temperatures.\n\nAs far as your last statement, I have a feeling it is more likely he feels\nGod is outside the ability of man to circumscribe by any rational or\nirrational means and cannot be limited by language (the tale of the cock\nand the angel, for example.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Lee wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Apologies. I didn't mean to imply any particular person in this\ndiscussion is\n\nspeaking entirely from emotional motivation.." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On the universality of math:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I disagree. I find ample evidence to the contrary in his literary work\nand to some degree\n\nhis interviews. But that's just my opinion.\n\n\n\nStill, perhaps we can agree that Gene Wolfe believes in God? If so and if\nGene Wolfe believes\n\nin the universality of math, wouldn't that mean the Gene Wolfe believes\nGod can be\n\ndescribed by a mathematical equation?\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T15:34:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011F36@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:46, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"I know my view pisses some people off\" -- Lee\n\nLike Ant?nio, you people's reactions as emotional." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Eh? I think you've got me and Lee mixed up. Your earlier reply in the same vein is to him as well, not me.\n\nIt may sound surprising, but I've had my number of violent clashes with Lee in the past. It was due to one of the things you complain about - he sometimes adopts a patronising tone that is neither warranted nor pullable - and to a tendency he had, but has lately avoided, of passing off his often borderline views as consensual.\n\nBut not every time people seem to be doing those two things are they really doing them. One must be careful and not lose sight of context. " } ] }, { "message_id": "<1469476C-191B-45C8-AF3D-7804E887D02B@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T15:38:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011FA5@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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. \n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "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.\n\nI do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. \n\nFor a good science fiction story on this subject, read \"Omnilingual\" by H. Beam Piper.\n\nRick Norwood \n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because\n\nmath originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small\n\ncorner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies.\n\n\nAs I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside\n\nthat original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of \n\nanother species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled\n\nto all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just\n\nfrom the perspective of planet earth.\n\n\nBut currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that\n\none planet.\n\n\nI wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it \n\nseems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described \n\nmathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able \n\nto encounter. \n\n\nIn other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic \n\nuniversality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded\n\nto me.\n\n\nOf course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for \n\nunderstanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. \n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T16:07:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<1469476C-191B-45C8-AF3D-7804E887D02B@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding\nthe evidence of the crow because of where it comes from." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques \nwrote:\nThe point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may\nlook at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a\ndifferent enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal\napplicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool.\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" <\nNORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and\nthree come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four\nhunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in,\nnineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference\nbetween three and four but not between nineteen and twenty.\n\nI do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not\nthe symbol) is less than three.\n\nFor a good science fiction story on this subject, read \"Omnilingual\" by\nH. Beam Piper.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of\nmathematics" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of\nvirtue,[1]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based\nsolely on" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is\nbecause\n\nmath originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very\nsmall\n\ncorner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of\ngalaxies.\n\n\nAs I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been\nfound outside\n\nthat original context. For example, if we found math being used by\nmembers of\n\nanother species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had\ntravelled\n\nto all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not\njust\n\nfrom the perspective of planet earth.\n\n\nBut currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species\non that\n\none planet.\n\n\nI wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only\nsay that it\n\nseems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be\ndescribed\n\nmathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are\nable\n\nto encounter.\n\n\nIn other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption\nof a cosmic\n\nuniversality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems\nunfounded\n\nto me.\n\n\nOf course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special\nmastery for\n\nunderstanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a\ndifferent story.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D012809@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-08T16:23:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, I got you (Ant?nio) and Thomas Bitterman mixed up. I apologize. I'm new to this (very interesting) discussion group. I hope after time I'll get who is who more clearly fixed in my mind.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Pedro Marques\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 11:34 AM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List\nSubject: Re: (urth) barrington interview\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:46, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"I know my view pisses some people off\" -- Lee\n\nLike Ant?nio, you people's reactions as emotional." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Eh? I think you've got me and Lee mixed up. Your earlier reply in the same vein is to him as well, not me.\n\nIt may sound surprising, but I've had my number of violent clashes with Lee in the past. It was due to one of the things you complain about - he sometimes adopts a patronising tone that is neither warranted nor pullable - and to a tendency he had, but has lately avoided, of passing off his often borderline views as consensual.\n\nBut not every time people seem to be doing those two things are they really doing them. One must be careful and not lose sight of context. " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T16:36:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm\nsaying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if\nit is anything like our own math.\nFor the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being\nonly a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that\nMollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math\nisn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in\nsome meta-language, we won't know.\n\n(*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best\nto avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan\nphylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nAntonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding\nthe evidence of the crow because of where it comes from.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may\nlook at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a\ndifferent enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal\napplicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool.\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" <\nNORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and\nthree come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four\nhunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in,\nnineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference\nbetween three and four but not between nineteen and twenty.\n\nI do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept,\nnot the symbol) is less than three.\n\nFor a good science fiction story on this subject, read \"Omnilingual\" by\nH. Beam Piper.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of\nmathematics" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of\nvirtue,[1]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based\nsolely on" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or\ncontext" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is\nbecause\n\nmath originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very\nsmall\n\ncorner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of\ngalaxies.\n\n\nAs I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been\nfound outside\n\nthat original context. For example, if we found math being used by\nmembers of\n\nanother species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had\ntravelled\n\nto all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere,\nnot just\n\nfrom the perspective of planet earth.\n\n\nBut currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species\non that\n\none planet.\n\n\nI wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would\nonly say that it\n\nseems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be\ndescribed\n\nmathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we\nare able\n\nto encounter.\n\n\nIn other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption\nof a cosmic\n\nuniversality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems\nunfounded\n\nto me.\n\n\nOf course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special\nmastery for\n\nunderstanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a\ndifferent story.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T16:44:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on\nthe same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar\nstructure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has\nbeen suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe.\n\nUnless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I\njust can't go there." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:\nI'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm\nsaying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if\nit is anything like our own math.\nFor the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being\nonly a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that\nMollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math\nisn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in\nsome meta-language, we won't know.\n\n(*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best\nto avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan\nphylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really).\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding\nthe evidence of the crow because of where it comes from.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may\nlook at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a\ndifferent enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal\napplicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool.\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" <\nNORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and\nthree come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four\nhunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in,\nnineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference\nbetween three and four but not between nineteen and twenty.\n\nI do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept,\nnot the symbol) is less than three.\n\nFor a good science fiction story on this subject, read \"Omnilingual\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "by H. Beam Piper." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Rick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of\nmathematics" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of\nvirtue,[1]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based\nsolely on" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or\ncontext" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is\nbecause\n\nmath originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very\nsmall\n\ncorner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of\ngalaxies.\n\n\nAs I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been\nfound outside\n\nthat original context. For example, if we found math being used by\nmembers of\n\nanother species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had\ntravelled\n\nto all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere,\nnot just\n\nfrom the perspective of planet earth.\n\n\nBut currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species\non that\n\none planet.\n\n\nI wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would\nonly say that it\n\nseems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be\ndescribed\n\nmathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we\nare able\n\nto encounter.\n\n\nIn other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption\nof a cosmic\n\nuniversality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems\nunfounded\n\nto me.\n\n\nOf course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special\nmastery for\n\nunderstanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a\ndifferent story.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T17:01:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what it\ntries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nSince any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on\nthe same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar\nstructure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has\nbeen suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe.\n\nUnless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I\njust can't go there.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm\nsaying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if\nit is anything like our own math.\nFor the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially\nbeing only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen\nthat Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of\nmath isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it\nin some meta-language, we won't know.\n\n(*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best\nto avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan\nphylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really).\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding\nthe evidence of the crow because of where it comes from.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house\nand three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four\nhunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in,\nnineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference\nbetween three and four but not between nineteen and twenty.\n\nI do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept,\nnot the symbol) is less than three.\n\nFor a good science fiction story on this subject, read \"Omnilingual\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "by H. Beam Piper." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Rick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of\nmathematics" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of\nvirtue,[1]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based\nsolely on" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or\ncontext" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is\nbecause\n\nmath originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very\nsmall\n\ncorner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of\ngalaxies.\n\n\nAs I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been\nfound outside\n\nthat original context. For example, if we found math being used by\nmembers of\n\nanother species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had\ntravelled\n\nto all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere,\nnot just\n\nfrom the perspective of planet earth.\n\n\nBut currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one\nspecies on that\n\none planet.\n\n\nI wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would\nonly say that it\n\nseems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be\ndescribed\n\nmathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we\nare able\n\nto encounter.\n\n\nIn other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The\nassumption of a cosmic\n\nuniversality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems\nunfounded\n\nto me.\n\n\nOf course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special\nmastery for\n\nunderstanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a\ndifferent story.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T17:20:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of\nthe mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will\nbe similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an\nalien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be\nsimilar in structure to our math.\n\nThe symbols will vary. The structure will be similar.\n\nA good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is the\nshort story \"Omnilingual,\" by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought _he'd_\ncome up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists are\ntrying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. The\nfirst clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - not\nexactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable similarity\nto ours. The aliens don't have words like \"Hydrogen,\" but they have the\nconcept, because it's universal to any study of the physical Universe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:\nYou are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what\nit tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on.\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based\non the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar\nstructure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has\nbeen suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe.\n\nUnless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and\nI just can't go there.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm\nsaying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if\nit is anything like our own math.\nFor the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially\nbeing only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen\nthat Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of\nmath isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it\nin some meta-language, we won't know.\n\n(*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's\nbest to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan\nphylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really).\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are\ndiscarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <\nentonio at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow\nmay look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a\ndifferent enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal\napplicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool.\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" <\nNORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house\nand three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four\nhunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in,\nnineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference\nbetween three and four but not between nineteen and twenty.\n\nI do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept,\nnot the symbol) is less than three.\n\nFor a good science fiction story on this subject, read \"Omnilingual\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "by H. Beam Piper." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "Rick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of\nmathematics" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of\nvirtue,[1]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based\nsolely on" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or\ncontext" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable\nis because\n\nmath originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very\nsmall\n\ncorner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of\ngalaxies.\n\n\nAs I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been\nfound outside\n\nthat original context. For example, if we found math being used by\nmembers of\n\nanother species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we\nhad travelled\n\nto all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere,\nnot just\n\nfrom the perspective of planet earth.\n\n\nBut currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one\nspecies on that\n\none planet.\n\n\nI wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would\nonly say that it\n\nseems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be\ndescribed\n\nmathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we\nare able\n\nto encounter.\n\n\nIn other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The\nassumption of a cosmic\n\nuniversality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems\nunfounded\n\nto me.\n\n\nOf course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special\nmastery for\n\nunderstanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's\na different story.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Brendon Fuhs", "address": "brendon.fuhs at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T17:45:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Just jumping in here as a math guy even though I haven't been following the\nwhole convo. You can have two descriptions which successfully and\ncompletely model a given phenomenon, which which are structurally\ndifferent. As an over-simple example, the descriptions (x^2)-1 and\n(x+1)(x-1) are equal, but emphasize different ways of thinking about\npolynomials. In physics, there are Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian\napproaches to classical mechanics I think. Now consider that our\nmathematical models do not precisely describe the universe.There's even\nmore room for divergence, depending on what part of empirical reality we\nare using our limited resources to best model. Newtonian physics,\nrelativity, and quantum mechanics are all tools which have been crafted by\nhuman minds that take different views of physics, and are more applicable\nin different situations, despite the fact that they are all attempting to\nmodel the same universe in some respect. Even more divergent examples can\nbe found in the corpus of human science, such as when discrete vs\ncontinuous models are used. Limit resources even more, and consider an even\nmore alien perspective. How might animals or aliens or isolated cultures\ndiffer in their models of the universe? Here's what I think.\n\n1) The math may look similar or very very different. Just because the same\nuniverse is modeled doesn't mean it will be done in a way similar to how we\ndo it.\n\n2) It would be possible to translate between maths. I believe there's a\ntheorem that guarantees that it is possible to translate between different\nformal languages (while preserving the Big O number). Doesn't mean that it\nwould be readily apparent or easily understandable." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nI am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of\nthe mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will\nbe similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an\nalien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be\nsimilar in structure to our math.\n\nThe symbols will vary. The structure will be similar.\n\nA good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is\nthe short story \"Omnilingual,\" by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought\n_he'd_ come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists\nare trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture.\nThe first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements -\nnot exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable\nsimilarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like \"Hydrogen,\" but they\nhave the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical\nUniverse.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what\nit tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on.\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based\non the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar\nstructure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has\nbeen suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe.\n\nUnless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and\nI just can't go there.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm\nsaying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if\nit is anything like our own math.\nFor the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially\nbeing only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen\nthat Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of\nmath isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it\nin some meta-language, we won't know.\n\n(*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's\nbest to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan\nphylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really).\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are\ndiscarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <\nentonio at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow\nmay look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a\ndifferent enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal\napplicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool.\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" <\nNORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house\nand three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four\nhunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in,\nnineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference\nbetween three and four but not between nineteen and twenty.\n\nI do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the\nconcept, not the symbol) is less than three.\n\nFor a good science fiction story on this subject, read\n\"Omnilingual\" by H. Beam Piper.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of\nmathematics" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of\nvirtue,[1]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based\nsolely on" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or\ncontext" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable\nis because\n\nmath originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a\nvery small\n\ncorner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number\nof galaxies.\n\n\nAs I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had\nbeen found outside\n\nthat original context. For example, if we found math being used by\nmembers of\n\nanother species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we\nhad travelled\n\nto all corners of the universe and found math applicable\neverywhere, not just\n\nfrom the perspective of planet earth.\n\n\nBut currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one\nspecies on that\n\none planet.\n\n\nI wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would\nonly say that it\n\nseems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be\ndescribed\n\nmathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what\nwe are able\n\nto encounter.\n\n\nIn other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The\nassumption of a cosmic\n\nuniversality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts\nseems unfounded\n\nto me.\n\n\nOf course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special\nmastery for\n\nunderstanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's\na different story.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T17:48:00+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Brendon, it is your point 2) that I am defending." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Brendon Fuhs \nwrote:\nJust jumping in here as a math guy even though I haven't been following\nthe whole convo. You can have two descriptions which successfully and\ncompletely model a given phenomenon, which which are structurally\ndifferent. As an over-simple example, the descriptions (x^2)-1 and\n(x+1)(x-1) are equal, but emphasize different ways of thinking about\npolynomials. In physics, there are Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian\napproaches to classical mechanics I think. Now consider that our\nmathematical models do not precisely describe the universe.There's even\nmore room for divergence, depending on what part of empirical reality we\nare using our limited resources to best model. Newtonian physics,\nrelativity, and quantum mechanics are all tools which have been crafted by\nhuman minds that take different views of physics, and are more applicable\nin different situations, despite the fact that they are all attempting to\nmodel the same universe in some respect. Even more divergent examples can\nbe found in the corpus of human science, such as when discrete vs\ncontinuous models are used. Limit resources even more, and consider an even\nmore alien perspective. How might animals or aliens or isolated cultures\ndiffer in their models of the universe? Here's what I think.\n\n1) The math may look similar or very very different. Just because the same\nuniverse is modeled doesn't mean it will be done in a way similar to how we\ndo it.\n\n2) It would be possible to translate between maths. I believe there's a\ntheorem that guarantees that it is possible to translate between different\nformal languages (while preserving the Big O number). Doesn't mean that it\nwould be readily apparent or easily understandable.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent\nof the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure\nwill be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed\nby an alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will\nbe similar in structure to our math.\n\nThe symbols will vary. The structure will be similar.\n\nA good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is\nthe short story \"Omnilingual,\" by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought\n_he'd_ come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists\nare trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture.\nThe first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements -\nnot exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable\nsimilarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like \"Hydrogen,\" but they\nhave the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical\nUniverse.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what\nit tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on.\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based\non the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar\nstructure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has\nbeen suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe.\n\nUnless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality,\nand I just can't go there.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute.\nI'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically\nif it is anything like our own math.\nFor the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially\nbeing only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen\nthat Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of\nmath isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it\nin some meta-language, we won't know.\n\n(*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's\nbest to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan\nphylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really).\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are\ndiscarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <\nentonio at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow\nmay look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a\ndifferent enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal\napplicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool.\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" <\nNORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house\nand three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four\nhunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in,\nnineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference\nbetween three and four but not between nineteen and twenty.\n\nI do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the\nconcept, not the symbol) is less than three.\n\nFor a good science fiction story on this subject, read\n\"Omnilingual\" by H. Beam Piper.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 9, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality\nof mathematics" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 9, "text": "that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 9, "text": "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of\nvirtue,[1]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 9, "text": "Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based\nsolely on" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 9, "text": "something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or\ncontext" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable\nis because\n\nmath originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a\nvery small\n\ncorner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number\nof galaxies.\n\n\nAs I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had\nbeen found outside\n\nthat original context. For example, if we found math being used by\nmembers of\n\nanother species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we\nhad travelled\n\nto all corners of the universe and found math applicable\neverywhere, not just\n\nfrom the perspective of planet earth.\n\n\nBut currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one\nspecies on that\n\none planet.\n\n\nI wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I\nwould only say that it\n\nseems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be\ndescribed\n\nmathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what\nwe are able\n\nto encounter.\n\n\nIn other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The\nassumption of a cosmic\n\nuniversality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts\nseems unfounded\n\nto me.\n\n\nOf course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a\nspecial mastery for\n\nunderstanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then\nthat's a different story.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T18:44:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But Dan'l, neither Lee nor I said anything against point (2). In fact, at\nleast for me, what Brendon says is quite how I see it myself, tho I'm by no\nmeans a math guy.\n\nWhat I'm saying is that the structure need not at all be similar, which is,\nafter all, how all this started. Brendon's point about Newtonian physics,\nrelativity, and quantum mechanics is, I think, to be read carefully.\nNormally, these are brought up as examples of how an old model (classical\nPhysics) can still have produce good results in practice, even if later\nones showed the world is more complex than it thinks. But the point here,\nin my opinion, is a different one: Newtonian physics, relativity, and\nquantum mechanics are brutally different from each other in their basic\nconcepts and, precisely, structure. They're not refinements or variants,\nthey are ways to look at the world that are very alien to each other. Even\nthough they're trying to model the same reality. Their alienness from each\nother is perhaps not so evident because they all use math, and they all\nrefer to common high-level concepts (such as electron), and also because\nthey reuse terminology to refer to non-comparable things when that doesn't\nresult in confusion, and lastly because we're used to see each one applied\nto their preferred scope." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 8 October 2014 18:48, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nBrendon, it is your point 2) that I am defending.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Brendon Fuhs \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Just jumping in here as a math guy even though I haven't been following\nthe whole convo. You can have two descriptions which successfully and\ncompletely model a given phenomenon, which which are structurally\ndifferent. As an over-simple example, the descriptions (x^2)-1 and\n(x+1)(x-1) are equal, but emphasize different ways of thinking about\npolynomials. In physics, there are Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian\napproaches to classical mechanics I think. Now consider that our\nmathematical models do not precisely describe the universe.There's even\nmore room for divergence, depending on what part of empirical reality we\nare using our limited resources to best model. Newtonian physics,\nrelativity, and quantum mechanics are all tools which have been crafted by\nhuman minds that take different views of physics, and are more applicable\nin different situations, despite the fact that they are all attempting to\nmodel the same universe in some respect. Even more divergent examples can\nbe found in the corpus of human science, such as when discrete vs\ncontinuous models are used. Limit resources even more, and consider an even\nmore alien perspective. How might animals or aliens or isolated cultures\ndiffer in their models of the universe? Here's what I think.\n\n1) The math may look similar or very very different. Just because the\nsame universe is modeled doesn't mean it will be done in a way similar to\nhow we do it.\n\n2) It would be possible to translate between maths. I believe there's a\ntheorem that guarantees that it is possible to translate between different\nformal languages (while preserving the Big O number). Doesn't mean that it\nwould be readily apparent or easily understandable.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent\nof the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure\nwill be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed\nby an alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will\nbe similar in structure to our math.\n\nThe symbols will vary. The structure will be similar.\n\nA good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is\nthe short story \"Omnilingual,\" by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought\n_he'd_ come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists\nare trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture.\nThe first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements -\nnot exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable\nsimilarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like \"Hydrogen,\" but they\nhave the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical\nUniverse.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on\nwhat it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on.\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology\nbased on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a\nsimilar structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc.,\nas has been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical\nuniverse.\n\nUnless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality,\nand I just can't go there.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute.\nI'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically\nif it is anything like our own math.\nFor the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially\nbeing only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen\nthat Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of\nmath isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it\nin some meta-language, we won't know.\n\n(*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's\nbest to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan\nphylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really).\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are\ndiscarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <\nentonio at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow\nmay look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a\ndifferent enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal\napplicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool.\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" <\nNORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 9, "text": "Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a\nhouse and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty\nhunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see\nthe difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 9, "text": "I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the\nconcept, not the symbol) is less than three.\n\nFor a good science fiction story on this subject, read\n\"Omnilingual\" by H. Beam Piper.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 10, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality\nof mathematics" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 10, "text": "that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 9, "text": "By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 10, "text": "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy\nof virtue,[1]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 10, "text": "Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested\nbased solely on" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 10, "text": "something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or\ncontext" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 9, "text": "My objection to the assumption that math is universally\napplicable is because\n\nmath originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a\nvery small\n\ncorner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number\nof galaxies.\n\n\nAs I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had\nbeen found outside\n\nthat original context. For example, if we found math being used\nby members of\n\nanother species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we\nhad travelled\n\nto all corners of the universe and found math applicable\neverywhere, not just\n\nfrom the perspective of planet earth.\n\n\nBut currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one\nspecies on that\n\none planet.\n\n\nI wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I\nwould only say that it\n\nseems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can\nbe described\n\nmathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what\nwe are able\n\nto encounter.\n\n\nIn other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The\nassumption of a cosmic\n\nuniversality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts\nseems unfounded\n\nto me.\n\n\nOf course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a\nspecial mastery for\n\nunderstanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then\nthat's a different story.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T18:51:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, Newtonian physics arises from quantum physics. When the systems\ninvolved are large enough for decoherence to take over...\n\nNonetheless, I take your point. But I would say that any two systems that\ncan be translated into each other share a structural grounding. For\nexample, polar and Cartesian coordinates can be translated because the\nspace they measure is structurally identical..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:\nBut Dan'l, neither Lee nor I said anything against point (2). In fact, at\nleast for me, what Brendon says is quite how I see it myself, tho I'm by no\nmeans a math guy.\n\nWhat I'm saying is that the structure need not at all be similar, which\nis, after all, how all this started. Brendon's point about Newtonian\nphysics, relativity, and quantum mechanics is, I think, to be read\ncarefully. Normally, these are brought up as examples of how an old model\n(classical Physics) can still have produce good results in practice, even\nif later ones showed the world is more complex than it thinks. But the\npoint here, in my opinion, is a different one: Newtonian physics, relativity,\nand quantum mechanics are brutally different from each other in their basic\nconcepts and, precisely, structure. They're not refinements or variants,\nthey are ways to look at the world that are very alien to each other. Even\nthough they're trying to model the same reality. Their alienness from each\nother is perhaps not so evident because they all use math, and they all\nrefer to common high-level concepts (such as electron), and also because\nthey reuse terminology to refer to non-comparable things when that doesn't\nresult in confusion, and lastly because we're used to see each one applied\nto their preferred scope.\n\n\nOn 8 October 2014 18:48, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Brendon, it is your point 2) that I am defending.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Brendon Fuhs \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Just jumping in here as a math guy even though I haven't been following\nthe whole convo. You can have two descriptions which successfully and\ncompletely model a given phenomenon, which which are structurally\ndifferent. As an over-simple example, the descriptions (x^2)-1 and\n(x+1)(x-1) are equal, but emphasize different ways of thinking about\npolynomials. In physics, there are Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian\napproaches to classical mechanics I think. Now consider that our\nmathematical models do not precisely describe the universe.There's even\nmore room for divergence, depending on what part of empirical reality we\nare using our limited resources to best model. Newtonian physics,\nrelativity, and quantum mechanics are all tools which have been crafted by\nhuman minds that take different views of physics, and are more applicable\nin different situations, despite the fact that they are all attempting to\nmodel the same universe in some respect. Even more divergent examples can\nbe found in the corpus of human science, such as when discrete vs\ncontinuous models are used. Limit resources even more, and consider an even\nmore alien perspective. How might animals or aliens or isolated cultures\ndiffer in their models of the universe? Here's what I think.\n\n1) The math may look similar or very very different. Just because the\nsame universe is modeled doesn't mean it will be done in a way similar to\nhow we do it.\n\n2) It would be possible to translate between maths. I believe there's a\ntheorem that guarantees that it is possible to translate between different\nformal languages (while preserving the Big O number). Doesn't mean that it\nwould be readily apparent or easily understandable.\n\n\n\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent\nof the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure\nwill be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed\nby an alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will\nbe similar in structure to our math.\n\nThe symbols will vary. The structure will be similar.\n\nA good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is\nthe short story \"Omnilingual,\" by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought\n_he'd_ come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists\nare trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture.\nThe first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements -\nnot exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable\nsimilarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like \"Hydrogen,\" but they\nhave the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical\nUniverse.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on\nwhat it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on.\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology\nbased on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a\nsimilar structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc.,\nas has been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical\nuniverse.\n\nUnless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality,\nand I just can't go there.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute.\nI'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically\nif it is anything like our own math.\nFor the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially\nbeing only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen\nthat Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of\nmath isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it\nin some meta-language, we won't know.\n\n(*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's\nbest to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan\nphylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really).\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are\ndiscarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <\nentonio at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 9, "text": "The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The\ncrow may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in\na different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal\napplicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool.\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" <\nNORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 10, "text": "Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a\nhouse and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 9, "text": "Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty\nhunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see\nthe difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 10, "text": "I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the\nconcept, not the symbol) is less than three.\n\nFor a good science fiction story on this subject, read\n\"Omnilingual\" by H. Beam Piper.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 11, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality\nof mathematics" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 11, "text": "that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 10, "text": "By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 11, "text": "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy\nof virtue,[1]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 11, "text": "Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested\nbased solely on" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 11, "text": "something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning\nor context" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 10, "text": "My objection to the assumption that math is universally\napplicable is because\n\nmath originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a\nvery small\n\ncorner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite\nnumber of galaxies.\n\n\nAs I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had\nbeen found outside\n\nthat original context. For example, if we found math being used\nby members of\n\nanother species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if\nwe had travelled\n\nto all corners of the universe and found math applicable\neverywhere, not just\n\nfrom the perspective of planet earth.\n\n\nBut currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one\nspecies on that\n\none planet.\n\n\nI wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I\nwould only say that it\n\nseems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can\nbe described\n\nmathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on\nwhat we are able\n\nto encounter.\n\n\nIn other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The\nassumption of a cosmic\n\nuniversality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts\nseems unfounded\n\nto me.\n\n\nOf course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a\nspecial mastery for\n\nunderstanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then\nthat's a different story.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T18:58:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I like H Beam Piper! (I actually have read only a couple of stories I got\nfor free from feedbooks back when Stanza was king, but I liked them.)\n\nThe comparison with the periodic table is nice, but not convincing. No\nmatter how one looks at it, there are things element-like out there, and\nanything remotely like chemistry will have to come up with them. But\nalgebra isn't inherent in the structure of the universe. There is no such\nthing as multiplication on the real world. There is a thing called\nmultiplication in our mind that is awesome at helping us understand the\nreal world. It works quite well, but what it reflects is how our mind\nworks. Of course, our mind being a tool to respond to the Universe, the\nmath it produces had better work well and consistently. But it is still an\ninternal tool, not a description of what's outside, even though it is\nessential to the descriptions of the outside that we develop (such as\nchemistry or physics)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 8 October 2014 18:20, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\nI am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of\nthe mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will\nbe similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an\nalien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be\nsimilar in structure to our math.\n\nThe symbols will vary. The structure will be similar.\n\nA good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is\nthe short story \"Omnilingual,\" by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought\n_he'd_ come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists\nare trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture.\nThe first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements -\nnot exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable\nsimilarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like \"Hydrogen,\" but they\nhave the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical\nUniverse.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what\nit tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on.\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based\non the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar\nstructure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has\nbeen suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe.\n\nUnless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and\nI just can't go there.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm\nsaying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if\nit is anything like our own math.\nFor the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially\nbeing only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen\nthat Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of\nmath isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it\nin some meta-language, we won't know.\n\n(*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's\nbest to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan\nphylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really).\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 5, "text": "Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are\ndiscarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <\nentonio at gmail.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 6, "text": "The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow\nmay look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a\ndifferent enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal\napplicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool.\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" <\nNORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house\nand three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four\nhunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in,\nnineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference\nbetween three and four but not between nineteen and twenty.\n\nI do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the\nconcept, not the symbol) is less than three.\n\nFor a good science fiction story on this subject, read\n\"Omnilingual\" by H. Beam Piper.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of\nmathematics" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of\nvirtue,[1]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based\nsolely on" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 8, "text": "something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or\ncontext" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 7, "text": "My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable\nis because\n\nmath originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a\nvery small\n\ncorner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number\nof galaxies.\n\n\nAs I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had\nbeen found outside\n\nthat original context. For example, if we found math being used by\nmembers of\n\nanother species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we\nhad travelled\n\nto all corners of the universe and found math applicable\neverywhere, not just\n\nfrom the perspective of planet earth.\n\n\nBut currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one\nspecies on that\n\none planet.\n\n\nI wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would\nonly say that it\n\nseems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be\ndescribed\n\nmathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what\nwe are able\n\nto encounter.\n\n\nIn other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The\nassumption of a cosmic\n\nuniversality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts\nseems unfounded\n\nto me.\n\n\nOf course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special\nmastery for\n\nunderstanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's\na different story.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T11:44:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rick Norwood: Lee: In saying mathematics is universal, I mean that " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "a true mathematical statement is true everywhere in the universe, " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "not that everything in the universe can be expressed mathematically." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I see. This is a quite a departure from what I thought you were saying.\n\nWithin this framework, I find math to be far less universal than I \n\npreviously thought you were claiming. You are only claiming that \n\n3+4= 7 must be true everywhere in the universe and acknowledge \n\nthat the universe might contain many things, from God and angels\n\nto superdark matter which cannot be described by math.\n\n\nSadly, I find myself even disagreeing with that lesser statement of\n\nuniversality, though only in the absolute qualifier that 3+4 =7 MUST\n\nbe true everywhere in the universe. I think the question remains open.\n\n\nFor example, I find it plausible (even likely?) that if you were travelling\n\nthrough a black hole or experiencing the Big Bang that the laws of\n\nphysics as we know them might not apply. If so, I can further extrapolate\n\nthat the principles of math that we humans have determined might also\n\nbe rendered null and void under those conditions.\n\n\nMath relies on numbers, a concept which assumes the universe can be\n\ndivided and packaged into discrete, countable units. I suspect there may\n\nbe conditions under which that is not the case. If, say, in pre-Big Bang\n\nconditions there existed a universal state in which everything was unified\n\nand there were no \"numbers\" of anything then 3+4 would cease to have\n\nany meaning, and certainly wouldn't = 7." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "is independent of the mind in which that description takes place." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At risk of being overly argumentative, I absolutely cannot go along with this\n\nstatement. The reason being it seems (to me) an impossible statement to make.\n\n\nEvery thought and perception and calculation you have ever made in your entire\n\nlife has taken place within your human mind. Every scholarly article you have read\n\nevery scientific theory you have pondered and every photo of distant galaxies you\n\nhave seen has been processed entirely by your human mind. I just don't see how \n\nyou can make a statement that anything is universal, independent of the human mind \n\nwhen you have never been there. You can't go outside the human mind. Every minute \n\ndetail of your understanding the universe is entirely dependent on your mind with no \n\nway of becoming detached from it. How can you do anything outside the confines of\n\n the human mind? It is all you (we) have. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D0129EA@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-09T12:01:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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.\n\nOf course, there is multiplication in the real world. We call it area.\n\nRick Norwood\n\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Marques\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:58 PM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List\nSubject: Re: (urth) barrington interview\n\nI 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.)\n\nThe 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).\n\n\nOn 8 October 2014 18:20, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote:\nI 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.\n\nThe symbols will vary. The structure will be similar.\n\nA 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.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques > wrote:\nYou are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on.\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote:\nSince 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.\n\nUnless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I just can't go there.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques > wrote:\nI'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.\nFor 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.\n\n(*) 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).\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote:\nAntonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from.\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques > wrote:\nThe 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.\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" > escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "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.\n\nI do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three.\n\nFor a good science fiction story on this subject, read \"Omnilingual\" by H. Beam Piper.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because\n\nmath originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small\n\ncorner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies.\n\n\nAs I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside\n\nthat original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of\n\nanother species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled\n\nto all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just\n\nfrom the perspective of planet earth.\n\n\nBut currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that\n\none planet.\n\n\nI wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it\n\nseems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described\n\nmathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able\n\nto encounter.\n\n\nIn other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic\n\nuniversality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded\n\nto me.\n\n\nOf course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for\n\nunderstanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story.\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\n\n\n\n\n\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes\n\n\n\n\n\n\n--\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D0129FC@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-09T12:04:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 7:45 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview\nRick Norwood: Lee: In saying mathematics is universal, I mean that " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "a true mathematical statement is true everywhere in the universe, " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "not that everything in the universe can be expressed mathematically." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I see. This is a quite a departure from what I thought you were saying.\n\nWithin this framework, I find math to be far less universal than I \n\npreviously thought you were claiming. You are only claiming that \n\n3+4= 7 must be true everywhere in the universe and acknowledge \n\nthat the universe might contain many things, from God and angels\n\nto superdark matter which cannot be described by math.\n\n\nSadly, I find myself even disagreeing with that lesser statement of\n\nuniversality, though only in the absolute qualifier that 3+4 =7 MUST\n\nbe true everywhere in the universe. I think the question remains open.\n\n\nFor example, I find it plausible (even likely?) that if you were travelling\n\nthrough a black hole or experiencing the Big Bang that the laws of\n\nphysics as we know them might not apply. If so, I can further extrapolate\n\nthat the principles of math that we humans have determined might also\n\nbe rendered null and void under those conditions.\n\n\nMath relies on numbers, a concept which assumes the universe can be\n\ndivided and packaged into discrete, countable units. I suspect there may\n\nbe conditions under which that is not the case. If, say, in pre-Big Bang\n\nconditions there existed a universal state in which everything was unified\n\nand there were no \"numbers\" of anything then 3+4 would cease to have\n\nany meaning, and certainly wouldn't = 7." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "is independent of the mind in which that description takes place." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At risk of being overly argumentative, I absolutely cannot go along with this\n\nstatement. The reason being it seems (to me) an impossible statement to make.\n\n\nEvery thought and perception and calculation you have ever made in your entire\n\nlife has taken place within your human mind. Every scholarly article you have read\n\nevery scientific theory you have pondered and every photo of distant galaxies you\n\nhave seen has been processed entirely by your human mind. I just don't see how \n\nyou can make a statement that anything is universal, independent of the human mind \n\nwhen you have never been there. You can't go outside the human mind. Every minute \n\ndetail of your understanding the universe is entirely dependent on your mind with no \n\nway of becoming detached from it. How can you do anything outside the confines of\n\n the human mind? It is all you (we) have. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T12:09:57+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D0129EA@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from observing the universe,\nwhereas math comes from reason. Our reason could be different.\nThere is no such thing as multiplication outside our minds. There is a\nthing in our minds called multiplication which enables us to make sense of\nareas. Areas are physics, not math." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 9 October 2014 13:01, Norwood, Frederick Hudson \nwrote:\n We have to be a little careful when we extend math to physics. In a\nuniverse with different physical laws, we would have different physics, but\nthe same math. Math is the knowledge that can be arrived at by pure\nreason. Physics requires reason plus observation.\n\n\n\nOf course, there is multiplication in the real world. We call it area.\n\n\n\nRick Norwood\n\n\n\n*From:* Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] *On Behalf Of *Ant?nio\nMarques\n*Sent:* Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:58 PM\n*To:* The Urth Mailing List\n*Subject:* Re: (urth) barrington interview\n\n\n\nI like H Beam Piper! (I actually have read only a couple of stories I got\nfor free from feedbooks back when Stanza was king, but I liked them.)\n\n\n\nThe comparison with the periodic table is nice, but not convincing. No\nmatter how one looks at it, there are things element-like out there, and\nanything remotely like chemistry will have to come up with them. But\nalgebra isn't inherent in the structure of the universe. There is no such\nthing as multiplication on the real world. There is a thing called\nmultiplication in our mind that is awesome at helping us understand the\nreal world. It works quite well, but what it reflects is how our mind\nworks. Of course, our mind being a tool to respond to the Universe, the\nmath it produces had better work well and consistently. But it is still an\ninternal tool, not a description of what's outside, even though it is\nessential to the descriptions of the outside that we develop (such as\nchemistry or physics).\n\n\n\n\n\nOn 8 October 2014 18:20, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n\nI am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of\nthe mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will\nbe similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an\nalien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be\nsimilar in structure to our math.\n\n\n\nThe symbols will vary. The structure will be similar.\n\n\n\nA good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is\nthe short story \"Omnilingual,\" by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought\n_he'd_ come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists\nare trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture.\nThe first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements -\nnot exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable\nsimilarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like \"Hydrogen,\" but they\nhave the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical\nUniverse.\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques \nwrote:\n\nYou are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what\nit tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on.\n\n\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n\nSince any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on\nthe same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar\nstructure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has\nbeen suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe.\n\n\n\nUnless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I\njust can't go there.\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:\n\nI'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm\nsaying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if\nit is anything like our own math.\n\nFor the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being\nonly a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that\nMollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math\nisn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in\nsome meta-language, we won't know.\n\n\n\n(*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best\nto avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan\nphylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really).\n\n\n\nOn 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n\nAntonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding\nthe evidence of the crow because of where it comes from.\n\n\n\nOn Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques \nwrote:\n\nThe point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may\nlook at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a\ndifferent enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal\napplicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool.\n\nNo dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, \"Norwood, Frederick Hudson\" <\nNORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and\nthree come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four\nhunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in,\nnineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference\nbetween three and four but not between nineteen and twenty.\n\nI do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not\nthe symbol) is less than three.\n\nFor a good science fiction story on this subject, read \"Omnilingual\" by\nH. Beam Piper.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of\nmathematics" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of\nvirtue,[1]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based\nsolely on" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is\nbecause\n\nmath originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very\nsmall\n\ncorner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of\ngalaxies.\n\n\nAs I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been\nfound outside\n\nthat original context. For example, if we found math being used by\nmembers of\n\nanother species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had\ntravelled\n\nto all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not\njust\n\nfrom the perspective of planet earth.\n\n\nBut currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species\non that\n\none planet.\n\n\nI wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only\nsay that it\n\nseems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be\ndescribed\n\nmathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are\nable\n\nto encounter.\n\n\nIn other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption\nof a cosmic\n\nuniversality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems\nunfounded\n\nto me.\n\n\nOf course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special\nmastery for\n\nunderstanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a\ndifferent story.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T12:18:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Now it's both Lee and Dan'l who are taking the physical applications of\nmath for math.\n3 + 4 = 7 can be math or physics or something else. As math, it is\nuniversal, since it refers to nothing else outside it (pace Godel), but on\nthe other hand it's our own math, and it may be incomprehensible to other\nminds (tho eventually translatable, as Brendon notices). As physics, it may\nor may not be applicable, as Lee points out. As something else, all bets\nare off." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 9 October 2014 12:44, Lee wrote:\nRick Norwood: Lee: In saying mathematics is universal, I mean that" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "a true mathematical statement is true everywhere in the universe," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "not that everything in the universe can be expressed mathematically." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I see. This is a quite a departure from what I thought you were saying.\n\nWithin this framework, I find math to be far less universal than I\n\npreviously thought you were claiming. You are only claiming that\n\n3+4= 7 must be true everywhere in the universe and acknowledge\n\nthat the universe might contain many things, from God and angels\n\nto superdark matter which cannot be described by math.\n\n\nSadly, I find myself even disagreeing with that lesser statement of\n\nuniversality, though only in the absolute qualifier that 3+4 =7 MUST\n\nbe true everywhere in the universe. I think the question remains open.\n\n\nFor example, I find it plausible (even likely?) that if you were travelling\n\nthrough a black hole or experiencing the Big Bang that the laws of\n\nphysics as we know them might not apply. If so, I can further extrapolate\n\nthat the principles of math that we humans have determined might also\n\nbe rendered null and void under those conditions.\n\n\nMath relies on numbers, a concept which assumes the universe can be\n\ndivided and packaged into discrete, countable units. I suspect there may\n\nbe conditions under which that is not the case. If, say, in pre-Big Bang\n\nconditions there existed a universal state in which everything was unified\n\nand there were no \"numbers\" of anything then 3+4 would cease to have\n\nany meaning, and certainly wouldn't = 7." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: I am saying that an accurate description of the\nUniverse" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "is independent of the mind in which that description takes place." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "At risk of being overly argumentative, I absolutely cannot go along with\nthis\n\nstatement. The reason being it seems (to me) an impossible statement to\nmake.\n\n\nEvery thought and perception and calculation you have ever made in your\nentire\n\nlife has taken place within your human mind. Every scholarly article you\nhave read\n\nevery scientific theory you have pondered and every photo of distant\ngalaxies you\n\nhave seen has been processed entirely by your human mind. I just don't see\nhow\n\nyou can make a statement that anything is universal, independent of the\nhuman mind\n\nwhen you have never been there. You can't go outside the human mind. Every\nminute\n\ndetail of your understanding the universe is entirely dependent on your\nmind with no\n\nway of becoming detached from it. How can you do anything outside the\nconfines of\n\n the human mind? It is all you (we) have.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<54368975.60201@bindweed.com>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T13:11:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 06/10/2014 12:18, Lee wrote:\nIn another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy \ntheorists of his work but that there were some readers who basically \nunderstood all his work. There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have \nspent much time and thought trying to understand his work. Which are \nthe ones who have the correct understanding?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Has Neil Gaiman ever done any criticism? I seem to recall Wolfe saying \nthat he wouldn't mind if Gaiman wrote further works in his universes \nafter he was dead.\n\nOf course, as a writer, Gaiman most likely shies clear of criticism...\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T13:37:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<54368975.60201@bindweed.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: Has Neil Gaiman ever done any criticism? I seem to recall Wolfe saying \nthat he wouldn't mind if Gaiman wrote further works in his universes \nafter he was dead." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Of course, as a writer, Gaiman most likely shies clear of criticism..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I was thinking these exact same thoughts, Gerry.\n\n\nI'll guess that Wolfe might also put Michael Andre-Driussi on his \"mostly gets it\"\n\nlist. As \"Mantis\" he contributed quite a bit of speculation and analysis to the early\n\ndays of this list, but in his published work he has leaned away from going out on a \n\nlimb and more toward just cataloging Lupine information.\n\n\n(I was quite convinced by one Andre-Driussi essay refuting a Borski theory and \n\nproposing that Hethor's mirrors are (Tzadkiel's) Ship sail scraps. I was less swayed by\n\nanother he wrote about bear and cat figures in BotNS) \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<54368FB9.1050608@bindweed.com>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T13:38:01+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<1412651538.92302.YahooMailNeo@web171306.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 07/10/2014 04:12, Richard Simon wrote:\nMy own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a \ndirect bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information \nthat could help the reader understand something more about the plot, \nthe characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the \nmechanics of the story itself.\n\nOccasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without \nendangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a \npoetic conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add \nsomething to the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In the main I agree with this, as regards the interpretation of names \nand events." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any \nrelevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters \npresent some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or \nthink they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe \nis up to at that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to \nconvey some extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a \ncreator of popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a \ngreat author --- 'great' as in 'for the ages' --- but he is not a \npreacher or a philosophical huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman \nabove all." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps this goes too far, or it could be that I am mistaking what you \nare trying to express. We are certainly intended to consider many of \nhis works in the light of Christianity, or perhaps to consider \nChristianity in the light of his works.. But maybe you are including \nthat in the 'mechanics'.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T13:40:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<54368FB9.1050608@bindweed.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Marques: And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "observing the universe, whereas math comes from reason. Our reason " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "could be different. There is no such thing as multiplication outside our " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "minds." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I could generally, theoretically agree with this, though in the real world,\n\nI question the idea of \"pure reason\". How can a human mind possibly\n\nreason if it had been deprived of all external sensory input since \n\nbirth/conception of the person in question. I don't think we are \n\nbuilt to function that way." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rick Norwood: In a universe with different physical laws, we would have " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "different physics, but the same math. Math is the knowledge that can " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "be arrived at by pure reason." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Again, I question this concept of \"pure reason\" as a real world item.\n\nHow could a human mind ever engage in \"pure reason\", unpolluted \n\nby any real world experience or perception?\n\n\n\n I submit that math was, in its original conception and in its \n\ncontinued use, the combination of real world perception and experience\n\nand internal logic/reason, like everything else in our brains.\n\n\n\nAnd this is the essential reason I question the universality of math. Because\n\nmath is inextricably tied to the human, real world experience on planet earth,\n\nand thus is inherently limited by it.\n\n\n\nA theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm\n\nof symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so. The adult human brain is a \n\nproduct of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with decades\n\nof personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life. \n\n\n\nThe suggestion that the human brain can somehow decide to operate independently \n\nfrom its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like saying a \n\nautomobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and construction and \n\nstart running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can possibly make \n\nsense.\n\n\n\n(is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an example\n\nof \"Genetic Fallacy\"?)\n\n\n\nEven if, maybe, by some wild random chance, humanity, in math, actually did stumble \n\nupon the one universal describing system, that all possible intelligences must agree upon.\n\nI still don't see how we could possibly know that. How are in the position to make that \n\njudgment?\n\n\n\n Human beings are not universal. All we know is our own intelligence and what we can \"see\"\n\n from our own planet.. To me it seems the height of hubris to think the system we invented\n\nhere a few thousand years ago applies everywhere, to everything and every form of intelligence.\n\n\n\n(A little voice in my head is saying someone will argue that we didn't invent math; it is \n\nsomething we discovered. If so I'll just say \"I disagree\" and leave it at that) \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<54369437.7030209@bindweed.com>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T13:57:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 08/10/2014 01:05, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n\nIt is not necessary for a \"conch to do math\" for its spiral \nshell-shape to be mathematically based. Its genes, an incredibly \npowerful computing system (whose results are expressed in proteins \nwhich then control cellular behavior), \"does\" the math. Likewise the \nshape of the galaxy; stars aren't \"doing math,\" they are obeying \nnatural law, which is mathematical in nature.\n\nThe evidence (I hesitate to say \"proof,\" as that would be \nunscientific) for this is that just about everywhere we turn in \nnature, we find that mathematics provides predictability and \nexplanatory power. It isn't a joke when cosmologists talk about the \nuniverse being potentially a huge \"computer\" \"simulation\" (I think \nboth words are too loose here); the Universe itself seems to \"do math\" \nas you would put it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't really agree. I think \"the unreasonable effectiveness of \nmathematics\" in science is a result of science being based on repetitive \naspects of the world that can be mathematically modelled. The \nmathematics describes the model, but the model is generally - perhaps \nalways - an imperfect and incomplete description of the world. Science \nspeaks about models, but models are not actually the world, they just \ntrack some parts of it.\n\nSnail shells are repetitive and model easily, snail trails not so much. \nA scientist will make predictions based on the percentage of the sky \nthat is overcast. But the *number* of clouds in the sky is relatively \nunamenable and thus useless to science - to study that aspect of the \nworld, you would require a painter, or perhaps a mystic.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<5436956D.2070006@bindweed.com>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T14:02:21+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 08/10/2014 14:35, Thomas Bitterman wrote:\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Lee > wrote:\n\n I've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the\n purely science/mathematically\n minded. But math isn't really \"universal\". It a system of\n calculation created by the human mind\n which is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive\n mammalian ancestors.\n\n\nIs there an argument against the universality of mathematics that \nisn't just the Genetic Fallacy?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think it's universal. Basically mathematics is a fractal set of \nstrings made from other strings by following rules, and it's possible to \nembed the rules in the fractal. All mathematics can be encoded entirely \ninside the standard arithmetic of the natural numbers, or simple \ngeometry on a plane.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T14:05:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<54368975.60201@bindweed.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gaiman is Wolfe's friend, and one with a legion of fans. His insight into\nthe stories and his advice for reading Wolfe is useful primarily in\nacknowledging Wolfe's cleverness and greatness and getting that idea to his\nfan base. As far as critics go, he dedicated a book to andre-driussi and\none to Nigel Price.\n\nNo one understands everything in Wolfe (at this point perhaps not even\nWolfe himself - some of those things were written over forty years ago)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\nOn 06/10/2014 12:18, Lee wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists\nof his work but that there were some readers who basically understood all\nhis work. There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and\nthought trying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the\ncorrect understanding?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Has Neil Gaiman ever done any criticism? I seem to recall Wolfe saying\nthat he wouldn't mind if Gaiman wrote further works in his universes after\nhe was dead.\n\nOf course, as a writer, Gaiman most likely shies clear of criticism...\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<54369708.5010904@bindweed.com>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T14:09:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011FA5@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 08/10/2014 16:07, Norwood, Frederick Hudson wrote:\nActually, 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.\n\nI do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think Wolfe would largely agree. His humanoid aliens - and robots - \nseem to be mostly different to humans, but capable of mutual \nunderstanding. Loyal To The group Of Seventeen is an attack on the idea \nthat our minds are constructed by our language.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<54369867.5030307@bindweed.com>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T14:15:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 07/10/2014 23:25, Lee wrote:\nIt reminds me of a quote I heard from somebody in Mississippi back in \n2012. He said that he knew Barack Obama couldn't be re-elected because \neverybody he knew was voting against him." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's a deliberate or accidental riff on something similar that Pauline \nKael said about Nixon.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1109505024.17870.1412864123705.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11128.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Richard Simon", "address": "gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk" }, "date": "2014-10-09T14:15:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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.\nI 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? \n\n On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n \n\n 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.\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen wrote:\n\nI 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\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen wrote:\n\n\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon wrote:\n\nMy 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.\nOccasionally, 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.\nI 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.\n\n“Wholehearted agreement! \nAlso: 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” " }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Daniel Otto Jack Petersen\n\n\n\n\n-- \nDan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Thornton", "address": "athornton at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T14:17:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Not much to do with Wolfe, but Lakoff and Nunez's book *Where Mathematics\nComes From* may be of some interest from a philosophical standpoint." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Lee wrote:\nAntonio Marques: And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "observing the universe, whereas math comes from reason. Our reason" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "could be different. There is no such thing as multiplication outside our" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "minds." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I could generally, theoretically agree with this, though in the real world,\n\nI question the idea of \"pure reason\". How can a human mind possibly\n\nreason if it had been deprived of all external sensory input since\n\nbirth/conception of the person in question. I don't think we are\n\nbuilt to function that way." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Rick Norwood: In a universe with different physical laws, we would have" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "different physics, but the same math. Math is the knowledge that can" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "be arrived at by pure reason." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again, I question this concept of \"pure reason\" as a real world item.\n\nHow could a human mind ever engage in \"pure reason\", unpolluted\n\nby any real world experience or perception?\n\n\n\n I submit that math was, in its original conception and in its\n\ncontinued use, the combination of real world perception and experience\n\nand internal logic/reason, like everything else in our brains.\n\n\n\nAnd this is the essential reason I question the universality of math.\nBecause\n\nmath is inextricably tied to the human, real world experience on planet\nearth,\n\nand thus is inherently limited by it.\n\n\n\nA theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm\n\nof symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so. The adult human brain\nis a\n\nproduct of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with\ndecades\n\nof personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life.\n\n\n\nThe suggestion that the human brain can somehow decide to operate\nindependently\n\nfrom its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like\nsaying a\n\nautomobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and\nconstruction and\n\nstart running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can\npossibly make\n\nsense.\n\n\n\n(is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an\nexample\n\nof \"Genetic Fallacy\"?)\n\n\n\nEven if, maybe, by some wild random chance, humanity, in math, actually\ndid stumble\n\nupon the one universal describing system, that all possible intelligences\nmust agree upon.\n\nI still don't see how we could possibly know that. How are in the position\nto make that\n\njudgment?\n\n\n\n Human beings are not universal. All we know is our own intelligence and\nwhat we can \"see\"\n\n from our own planet.. To me it seems the height of hubris to think the\nsystem we invented\n\nhere a few thousand years ago applies everywhere, to everything and every\nform of intelligence.\n\n\n\n(A little voice in my head is saying someone will argue that we didn't\ninvent math; it is\n\nsomething we discovered. If so I'll just say \"I disagree\" and leave it at\nthat)\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Daniel Otto Jack Petersen", "address": "danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T15:14:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<1109505024.17870.1412864123705.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11128.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely\nornamental." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon wrote:\nRe. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' *et\nal.* Obviously there will be cultural references — I mean to our\nculture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their\npresentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense\nof humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is\npretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious\nconstructions like *Terminus Est* = cross symbol. They aren't hidden deep\nwithin the text.\n\nI recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of\nflowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a\nflower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll\nwhile he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and\nat the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in\nthat discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum\nrelating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers\nseems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there,\nit's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a\nlot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was?\n\n\n On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:\n\n\nI'm with Daniel here. \"Nothing more\" applies only in the sense it would\napply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for\nthe ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with\nsomeone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a \"select\" audience.\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\n\nI agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course,\npossible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also\nfor Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as\nwell. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological\nexploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way\nconsistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for\nallusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short\nSun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the\nnarrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant\nfact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have\nspiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it\ndeepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of\nintentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction,\nlongstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being\ncontent to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely\nentertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do\nmore. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen wrote:\n\n\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon \nwrote:\n\nMy own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct\nbearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could\nhelp the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters,\nthe subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story\nitself.\n\nOccasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without\nendangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic\nconceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to\nthe reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding.\n\nI do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any\nrelevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters\npresent some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think\nthey have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at\nthat point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some\nextra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of\npopular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ?\n'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical\nhuckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all.\n\n\nWholehearted agreement!\n\nAlso: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of\ncharacter and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or\nshe act well or badly in the circumstances?\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Brendon Fuhs", "address": "brendon.fuhs at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T16:55:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "\"A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm\nof symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so.\"\n\nThis is one of those wild statements that calls for an example. If\nmathematicians are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing\nsome imperfect brain mechanics, and brains and thinking differ from\nperson-to-person then surely there should be some mathematical statements\nthat different groups of mathematicians are convinced have been\ndemonstrated to be true, while others are convinced they have been\ndemonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an agreement on the\nmatter.\n\nIt is also a statement that represents a difficult (or impossible) place\nfor drawing the line between the subjective and the objective. Math, the\nconcept, is viewed as a material construct, rather than something which\naccesses objective truths and falsehoods. Why not go all the way and say\nthat true and false are constructions? After all, the notion of truth and\nfalseness is fundamentally mathematical, prior to being empirical.\n\nOr are you saying that it's possible for there to be a universe so alien to\nour own, epistemologically, that even its logic is unimaginable to us?\nDifferent not just in physical laws but in a deeper way that demonstrates\nthat logic is only universal and not multiversal? Like there's some sort of\nlogical ether in which our universe lives that could be different?\n\nThat is interesting, but not falsifiable." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Lee wrote:\nAntonio Marques: And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "observing the universe, whereas math comes from reason. Our reason" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "could be different. There is no such thing as multiplication outside our" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "minds." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I could generally, theoretically agree with this, though in the real world,\n\nI question the idea of \"pure reason\". How can a human mind possibly\n\nreason if it had been deprived of all external sensory input since\n\nbirth/conception of the person in question. I don't think we are\n\nbuilt to function that way." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Rick Norwood: In a universe with different physical laws, we would have" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "different physics, but the same math. Math is the knowledge that can" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "be arrived at by pure reason." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Again, I question this concept of \"pure reason\" as a real world item.\n\nHow could a human mind ever engage in \"pure reason\", unpolluted\n\nby any real world experience or perception?\n\n\n\n I submit that math was, in its original conception and in its\n\ncontinued use, the combination of real world perception and experience\n\nand internal logic/reason, like everything else in our brains.\n\n\n\nAnd this is the essential reason I question the universality of math.\nBecause\n\nmath is inextricably tied to the human, real world experience on planet\nearth,\n\nand thus is inherently limited by it.\n\n\n\nA theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm\n\nof symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so. The adult human brain\nis a\n\nproduct of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with\ndecades\n\nof personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life.\n\n\n\nThe suggestion that the human brain can somehow decide to operate\nindependently\n\nfrom its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like\nsaying a\n\nautomobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and\nconstruction and\n\nstart running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can\npossibly make\n\nsense.\n\n\n\n(is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an\nexample\n\nof \"Genetic Fallacy\"?)\n\n\n\nEven if, maybe, by some wild random chance, humanity, in math, actually\ndid stumble\n\nupon the one universal describing system, that all possible intelligences\nmust agree upon.\n\nI still don't see how we could possibly know that. How are in the position\nto make that\n\njudgment?\n\n\n\n Human beings are not universal. All we know is our own intelligence and\nwhat we can \"see\"\n\n from our own planet.. To me it seems the height of hubris to think the\nsystem we invented\n\nhere a few thousand years ago applies everywhere, to everything and every\nform of intelligence.\n\n\n\n(A little voice in my head is saying someone will argue that we didn't\ninvent math; it is\n\nsomething we discovered. If so I'll just say \"I disagree\" and leave it at\nthat)\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2014-10-09T18:30:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Lee wrote:\nA theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm\nof symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so. The adult human brain\nis a\nproduct of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with\ndecades\nof personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life.\n\nThe suggestion that the human brain can somehow decide to operate\nindependently\nfrom its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like\nsaying a\nautomobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and\nconstruction and\nstart running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can\npossibly make\nsense.\n\n(is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an\nexample\nof \"Genetic Fallacy\"?)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, but claiming that a brain cannot work purely in the realm of symbolic\nlogic and reason because it is the product of millions of years of\nevolution on Earth is." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "\"Language gives us everything - except the ability to talk, or even think,\nabout what it took from us in exchange.\" - Justin Boland" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Thornton", "address": "athornton at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T20:12:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The Continuum Hypothesis (more or less, there are no infinite sets larger\nthan the set of integers and smaller than the set of reals) is independent\nof ZFC (Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms adjoined to the Axiom of Choice, which\ntogether give something that seems to be coterminous with the standard\nmodel of mathematical reality). Actual mathematicians (at least in certain\nfields) deal with this sort of question all the time, and following the\nlogic can take you to some very strange--but, if you believe your axioms,\ntrue--places.\n\nhttp://mathworld.wolfram.com/ContinuumHypothesis.html is a pretty decent\nnontechnical overview.\n\nThis argument is orthogonal to the Lakoff-Nunez argument that the\nconceptualization of mathematics is embedded in our anatomy and sensory\nperception.\n\nAdam" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Brendon Fuhs \nwrote:\n\"A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the\nrealm of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so.\"\n\nThis is one of those wild statements that calls for an example. If\nmathematicians are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing\nsome imperfect brain mechanics, and brains and thinking differ from\nperson-to-person then surely there should be some mathematical statements\nthat different groups of mathematicians are convinced have been\ndemonstrated to be true, while others are convinced they have been\ndemonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an agreement on the\nmatter.\n\nIt is also a statement that represents a difficult (or impossible) place\nfor drawing the line between the subjective and the objective. Math, the\nconcept, is viewed as a material construct, rather than something which\naccesses objective truths and falsehoods. Why not go all the way and say\nthat true and false are constructions? After all, the notion of truth and\nfalseness is fundamentally mathematical, prior to being empirical.\n\nOr are you saying that it's possible for there to be a universe so alien\nto our own, epistemologically, that even its logic is unimaginable to us?\nDifferent not just in physical laws but in a deeper way that demonstrates\nthat logic is only universal and not multiversal? Like there's some sort of\nlogical ether in which our universe lives that could be different?\n\nThat is interesting, but not falsifiable.\n\n\n\n\nOn Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Lee wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Antonio Marques: And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "observing the universe, whereas math comes from reason. Our reason" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "could be different. There is no such thing as multiplication outside our" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "minds." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I could generally, theoretically agree with this, though in the real\nworld,\n\nI question the idea of \"pure reason\". How can a human mind possibly\n\nreason if it had been deprived of all external sensory input since\n\nbirth/conception of the person in question. I don't think we are\n\nbuilt to function that way." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Rick Norwood: In a universe with different physical laws, we would have" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "different physics, but the same math. Math is the knowledge that can" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "be arrived at by pure reason." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Again, I question this concept of \"pure reason\" as a real world item.\n\nHow could a human mind ever engage in \"pure reason\", unpolluted\n\nby any real world experience or perception?\n\n\n\n I submit that math was, in its original conception and in its\n\ncontinued use, the combination of real world perception and experience\n\nand internal logic/reason, like everything else in our brains.\n\n\n\nAnd this is the essential reason I question the universality of math.\nBecause\n\nmath is inextricably tied to the human, real world experience on planet\nearth,\n\nand thus is inherently limited by it.\n\n\n\nA theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm\n\nof symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so. The adult human brain\nis a\n\nproduct of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with\ndecades\n\nof personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life.\n\n\n\nThe suggestion that the human brain can somehow decide to operate\nindependently\n\nfrom its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like\nsaying a\n\nautomobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and\nconstruction and\n\nstart running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can\npossibly make\n\nsense.\n\n\n\n(is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device\nan example\n\nof \"Genetic Fallacy\"?)\n\n\n\nEven if, maybe, by some wild random chance, humanity, in math, actually\ndid stumble\n\nupon the one universal describing system, that all possible intelligences\nmust agree upon.\n\nI still don't see how we could possibly know that. How are in the\nposition to make that\n\njudgment?\n\n\n\n Human beings are not universal. All we know is our own intelligence and\nwhat we can \"see\"\n\n from our own planet.. To me it seems the height of hubris to think the\nsystem we invented\n\nhere a few thousand years ago applies everywhere, to everything and every\nform of intelligence.\n\n\n\n(A little voice in my head is saying someone will argue that we didn't\ninvent math; it is\n\nsomething we discovered. If so I'll just say \"I disagree\" and leave it at\nthat)\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<5436F5A7.10604@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeffery Wilson clueland.com", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2014-10-09T20:52:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D0129FC@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/9/2014 7:04 AM, Norwood, Frederick Hudson wrote:\nI 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." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We have that now, it's the difference of validity (true in every \ncircumstance under consideration) to satisfiability (true in some \ncircumstances). There are various algorithms to work these out in modern \nlogical theory, though not every conjecture's provability can decided, \nwhich is part of what separates it from the classical logic theory." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<2111448350.30815.1412910487836.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11144.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Richard Simon", "address": "gallebuck at yahoo.co.uk" }, "date": "2014-10-10T03:08:07+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "All right, I'll bite. If it is 'far from merely ornamental' what is its purpose in the books?\nIs 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? \n\n On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 20:44, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen wrote:\n \n\n The Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely ornamental.\nOn Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon wrote:\n\nRe. '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.\nI 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? \n\n On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:\n \n\n 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.\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen wrote:\n\nI 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\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen wrote:\n\n\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon wrote:\n\nMy 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.\nOccasionally, 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.\nI 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.\n\n“Wholehearted agreement! \nAlso: 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” " }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Daniel Otto Jack Petersen\n\n\n\n\n-- \nDan'l Danehy-Oakes\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T09:51:56+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<2111448350.30815.1412910487836.JavaMail.yahoo@jws11144.mail.ir2.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He may not be referring to new sun specifically. In short sun the\nEucharist with Silk is observed (he is in a clearing surrounded only by\ntrees). It represents the transformation of grapes into a mystical blood\nduring an act of consumption. The final imagery of short sun involves the\nstory of Hyacinthus, whose blood is spilled and transforms into a flower\nand lives on. This pagan and Christian reference show is what is happening\nwith Silk's unacknowledged congregation: vegetable matter becomes blood\nthrough consumption and death, and the vanished gods (the cannibal trees of\ngreen) create the vanished people by consuming the flesh of sentient\norganic matter and combining with it in a Eucharistic transfomation of\n\"fruit\" to blood.\n\nIt's symbolism is a huge plot clue. There are other uses in new sun, but\nit is more important to show an alien mechanism of hybridization and\ntransubstantiation (presaged in the play eschatology and genesis, when the\nwinter killed stalks of man are mixed with new seed, and in the second\nchapter of shadow of the torturer, when the new sun engenders life in a\nbrush, which opens it's eyes and runs up a tree, and in the story of\nquetzal in long sun in which man goes up a tree but has not yet come down)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Richard Simon wrote:\nAll right, I'll bite. If it is 'far from merely ornamental' what is its\npurpose in the books?\n\nIs Gene Wolfe preaching a sermon? Clearly not when he leaves the\ninterpretation so ambiguous that it could be taken in two completely\nopposite ways. No, he's writing a novel, and his manner of writing novels\nis to make puzzles of them. So — what purpose, besides the ornamental, does\nall this 'theological' imagery serve? Aside from helping us to the\nconclusion that Severian is a Christ-like figure in some sense, what is its\nfunctional end?\n\n\n On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 20:44, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com\n> wrote:\n\n\nThe Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely\nornamental.\n\nOn Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon > wrote:\n\nRe. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' *et\nal.* Obviously there will be cultural references — I mean to our\nculture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their\npresentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense\nof humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is\npretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious\nconstructions like *Terminus Est* = cross symbol. They aren't hidden deep\nwithin the text.\n\nI recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of\nflowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a\nflower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll\nwhile he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and\nat the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in\nthat discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum\nrelating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers\nseems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there,\nit's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a\nlot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was?\n\n\n On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote:\n\n\nI'm with Daniel here. \"Nothing more\" applies only in the sense it would\napply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for\nthe ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with\nsomeone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a \"select\" audience.\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com\n> wrote:\n\nI agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course,\npossible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also\nfor Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as\nwell. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological\nexploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way\nconsistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for\nallusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short\nSun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the\nnarrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant\nfact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have\nspiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it\ndeepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of\nintentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction,\nlongstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being\ncontent to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely\nentertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do\nmore. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen > wrote:\n\n\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon > wrote:\n\nMy own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct\nbearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could\nhelp the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters,\nthe subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story\nitself.\n\nOccasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without\nendangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic\nconceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to\nthe reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding.\n\nI do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any\nrelevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters\npresent some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think\nthey have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at\nthat point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some\nextra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of\npopular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ?\n'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical\nhuckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all.\n\n\nWholehearted agreement!\n\nAlso: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of\ncharacter and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or\nshe act well or badly in the circumstances?\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T09:54:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That should be \"the Christian and pagan references show what is happening\"\nand later its rather than it's, of course. Sorry." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Friday, October 10, 2014, Marc Aramini wrote:\nHe may not be referring to new sun specifically. In short sun the\nEucharist with Silk is observed (he is in a clearing surrounded only by\ntrees). It represents the transformation of grapes into a mystical blood\nduring an act of consumption. The final imagery of short sun involves the\nstory of Hyacinthus, whose blood is spilled and transforms into a flower\nand lives on. This pagan and Christian reference show is what is happening\nwith Silk's unacknowledged congregation: vegetable matter becomes blood\nthrough consumption and death, and the vanished gods (the cannibal trees of\ngreen) create the vanished people by consuming the flesh of sentient\norganic matter and combining with it in a Eucharistic transfomation of\n\"fruit\" to blood.\n\nIt's symbolism is a huge plot clue. There are other uses in new sun, but\nit is more important to show an alien mechanism of hybridization and\ntransubstantiation (presaged in the play eschatology and genesis, when the\nwinter killed stalks of man are mixed with new seed, and in the second\nchapter of shadow of the torturer, when the new sun engenders life in a\nbrush, which opens it's eyes and runs up a tree, and in the story of\nquetzal in long sun in which man goes up a tree but has not yet come down)\n\nOn Thursday, October 9, 2014, Richard Simon > wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "All right, I'll bite. If it is 'far from merely ornamental' what is its\npurpose in the books?\n\nIs Gene Wolfe preaching a sermon? Clearly not when he leaves the\ninterpretation so ambiguous that it could be taken in two completely\nopposite ways. No, he's writing a novel, and his manner of writing novels\nis to make puzzles of them. So — what purpose, besides the ornamental, does\nall this 'theological' imagery serve? Aside from helping us to the\nconclusion that Severian is a Christ-like figure in some sense, what is its\nfunctional end?\n\n\n On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 20:44, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\n\n\nThe Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely\nornamental.\n\nOn Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon \nwrote:\n\nRe. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' *et\nal.* Obviously there will be cultural references — I mean to our\nculture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their\npresentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense\nof humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is\npretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious\nconstructions like *Terminus Est* = cross symbol. They aren't hidden\ndeep within the text.\n\nI recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of\nflowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a\nflower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll\nwhile he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and\nat the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in\nthat discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum\nrelating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers\nseems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there,\nit's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a\nlot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was?\n\n\n On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:\n\n\nI'm with Daniel here. \"Nothing more\" applies only in the sense it would\napply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for\nthe ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with\nsomeone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a \"select\" audience.\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\n\nI agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course,\npossible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also\nfor Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as\nwell. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological\nexploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way\nconsistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for\nallusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short\nSun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the\nnarrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant\nfact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have\nspiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it\ndeepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of\nintentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction,\nlongstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being\ncontent to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely\nentertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do\nmore. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen wrote:\n\n\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon \nwrote:\n\nMy own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a\ndirect bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that\ncould help the reader understand something more about the plot, the\ncharacters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics\nof the story itself.\n\nOccasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without\nendangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic\nconceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to\nthe reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding.\n\nI do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any\nrelevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters\npresent some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think\nthey have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at\nthat point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some\nextra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of\npopular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ?\n'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical\nhuckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all.\n\n\nWholehearted agreement!\n\nAlso: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations\nof character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he\nor she act well or badly in the circumstances?\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T10:38:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Also, these two symbols show HOW the mystical change occurs - for human or\nanimal to floral, it requires the spilling of blood and possible death (for\nHorn this death is not permanent in the pit of the giant \"herb\" island),\nand for floral to animal, it requires the Eucharistic act of consumption.\nYum." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Marc Aramini wrote:\nHe may not be referring to new sun specifically. In short sun the\nEucharist with Silk is observed (he is in a clearing surrounded only by\ntrees). It represents the transformation of grapes into a mystical blood\nduring an act of consumption. The final imagery of short sun involves the\nstory of Hyacinthus, whose blood is spilled and transforms into a flower\nand lives on. This pagan and Christian reference show is what is happening\nwith Silk's unacknowledged congregation: vegetable matter becomes blood\nthrough consumption and death, and the vanished gods (the cannibal trees of\ngreen) create the vanished people by consuming the flesh of sentient\norganic matter and combining with it in a Eucharistic transfomation of\n\"fruit\" to blood.\n\nIt's symbolism is a huge plot clue. There are other uses in new sun, but\nit is more important to show an alien mechanism of hybridization and\ntransubstantiation (presaged in the play eschatology and genesis, when the\nwinter killed stalks of man are mixed with new seed, and in the second\nchapter of shadow of the torturer, when the new sun engenders life in a\nbrush, which opens it's eyes and runs up a tree, and in the story of\nquetzal in long sun in which man goes up a tree but has not yet come down)\n\n\nOn Thursday, October 9, 2014, Richard Simon wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "All right, I'll bite. If it is 'far from merely ornamental' what is its\npurpose in the books?\n\nIs Gene Wolfe preaching a sermon? Clearly not when he leaves the\ninterpretation so ambiguous that it could be taken in two completely\nopposite ways. No, he's writing a novel, and his manner of writing novels\nis to make puzzles of them. So — what purpose, besides the ornamental, does\nall this 'theological' imagery serve? Aside from helping us to the\nconclusion that Severian is a Christ-like figure in some sense, what is its\nfunctional end?\n\n\n On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 20:44, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\n\n\nThe Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely\nornamental.\n\nOn Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon \nwrote:\n\nRe. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' *et\nal.* Obviously there will be cultural references — I mean to our\nculture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their\npresentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense\nof humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is\npretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious\nconstructions like *Terminus Est* = cross symbol. They aren't hidden\ndeep within the text.\n\nI recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of\nflowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a\nflower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll\nwhile he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and\nat the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in\nthat discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum\nrelating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers\nseems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there,\nit's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a\nlot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was?\n\n\n On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes \nwrote:\n\n\nI'm with Daniel here. \"Nothing more\" applies only in the sense it would\napply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for\nthe ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with\nsomeone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a \"select\" audience.\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\n\nI agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course,\npossible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also\nfor Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as\nwell. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological\nexploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way\nconsistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for\nallusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short\nSun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the\nnarrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant\nfact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have\nspiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it\ndeepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of\nintentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction,\nlongstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being\ncontent to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely\nentertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do\nmore. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen wrote:\n\n\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon \nwrote:\n\nMy own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a\ndirect bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that\ncould help the reader understand something more about the plot, the\ncharacters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics\nof the story itself.\n\nOccasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without\nendangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic\nconceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to\nthe reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding.\n\nI do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any\nrelevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters\npresent some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think\nthey have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at\nthat point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some\nextra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of\npopular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ?\n'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical\nhuckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all.\n\n\nWholehearted agreement!\n\nAlso: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations\nof character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he\nor she act well or badly in the circumstances?\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T10:42:42+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In addition, this is reinforced in the idea behind the name Ash - the last\nman of the Ragnarook future who is actually the first man in Norse\nmythology, brought to life from a tree. According to Wolfe, Ash is derived\nfrom Ask and Embla (his vine wife). In this way the first and last man are\nunited in one symbol, a man who happens to be brought to life from a tree.\nThis tying together of beginning and endings is vital to many aspects of\nthe Urth cycle." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Marc Aramini wrote:\nAlso, these two symbols show HOW the mystical change occurs - for human or\nanimal to floral, it requires the spilling of blood and possible death (for\nHorn this death is not permanent in the pit of the giant \"herb\" island),\nand for floral to animal, it requires the Eucharistic act of consumption.\nYum.\n\nOn Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Marc Aramini \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "He may not be referring to new sun specifically. In short sun the\nEucharist with Silk is observed (he is in a clearing surrounded only by\ntrees). It represents the transformation of grapes into a mystical blood\nduring an act of consumption. The final imagery of short sun involves the\nstory of Hyacinthus, whose blood is spilled and transforms into a flower\nand lives on. This pagan and Christian reference show is what is happening\nwith Silk's unacknowledged congregation: vegetable matter becomes blood\nthrough consumption and death, and the vanished gods (the cannibal trees of\ngreen) create the vanished people by consuming the flesh of sentient\norganic matter and combining with it in a Eucharistic transfomation of\n\"fruit\" to blood.\n\nIt's symbolism is a huge plot clue. There are other uses in new sun, but\nit is more important to show an alien mechanism of hybridization and\ntransubstantiation (presaged in the play eschatology and genesis, when the\nwinter killed stalks of man are mixed with new seed, and in the second\nchapter of shadow of the torturer, when the new sun engenders life in a\nbrush, which opens it's eyes and runs up a tree, and in the story of\nquetzal in long sun in which man goes up a tree but has not yet come down)\n\n\nOn Thursday, October 9, 2014, Richard Simon \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "All right, I'll bite. If it is 'far from merely ornamental' what is its\npurpose in the books?\n\nIs Gene Wolfe preaching a sermon? Clearly not when he leaves the\ninterpretation so ambiguous that it could be taken in two completely\nopposite ways. No, he's writing a novel, and his manner of writing novels\nis to make puzzles of them. So — what purpose, besides the ornamental, does\nall this 'theological' imagery serve? Aside from helping us to the\nconclusion that Severian is a Christ-like figure in some sense, what is its\nfunctional end?\n\n\n On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 20:44, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\n\n\nThe Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely\nornamental.\n\nOn Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon \nwrote:\n\nRe. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' *et\nal.* Obviously there will be cultural references — I mean to our\nculture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their\npresentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense\nof humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is\npretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious\nconstructions like *Terminus Est* = cross symbol. They aren't hidden\ndeep within the text.\n\nI recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of\nflowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a\nflower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll\nwhile he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and\nat the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in\nthat discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum\nrelating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers\nseems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there,\nit's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a\nlot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was?\n\n\n On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <\ndanldo at gmail.com> wrote:\n\n\nI'm with Daniel here. \"Nothing more\" applies only in the sense it would\napply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for\nthe ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with\nsomeone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a \"select\" audience.\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen <\ndanielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote:\n\nI agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of\ncourse, possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and\nyet also for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central\nas well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological\nexploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way\nconsistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for\nallusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short\nSun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the\nnarrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant\nfact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have\nspiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it\ndeepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of\nintentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction,\nlongstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being\ncontent to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely\nentertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do\nmore. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question.\n\n-DOJP\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen \nwrote:\n\n\n\nOn Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon \nwrote:\n\nMy own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a\ndirect bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that\ncould help the reader understand something more about the plot, the\ncharacters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the\nmechanics of the story itself.\n\nOccasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without\nendangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic\nconceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to\nthe reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding.\n\nI do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any\nrelevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters\npresent some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think\nthey have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at\nthat point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some\nextra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of\npopular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ?\n'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical\nhuckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all.\n\n\nWholehearted agreement!\n\nAlso: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations\nof character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he\nor she act well or badly in the circumstances?\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D012C04@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-10T12:12:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<5436F5A7.10604@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As with my comment on the universality of mathematics, 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.\n\nI notice that none of the people who think logic is relative, or a product of evolution, have commented on my challenge: can it be possible, in any context what-so-ever, for a statement \"If A is true then B is always true,\" to be true; and A to be true; and B to be false?\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Jeffery Wilson clueland.com\nSent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:53 PM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List\nSubject: Re: (urth) barrington interview" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/9/2014 7:04 AM, Norwood, Frederick Hudson wrote:\nI 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." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We have that now, it's the difference of validity (true in every circumstance under consideration) to satisfiability (true in some circumstances). There are various algorithms to work these out in modern logical theory, though not every conjecture's provability can decided, which is part of what separates it from the classical logic theory." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T13:09:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D012C04@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the \n\nuniverse in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there\n\nare places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of\n\nnumbers was meaningless.\n\n\n\"A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm of symbolic\n\n logic and reason but it cannot be so.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Brandon Fuchs: This is one of those wild statements that calls for an example. If mathematicians " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing some imperfect brain mechanics....." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Let's stop there. My statement was that mathematician cannot be doing PURELY symbolic logic. \n\nAll thoughts within a human brain are animal thoughts with inherent animal biases installed from\n\nthe material world during evolution and development. (the assumption of the validity \"numbers\" \n\nbeing one of them). Of course the human brain can work with symbolic logic. We invented it.\n\n\nBut the suggestion that our brains can work purely with symbology with no impingement from\n\nthe material world is unsupportable. There are no human brains which have been entirely shielded\n\nfrom the material world. (Something like Severian's Mandragora? But of course even that brain\n\nhad telepathic input affecting it)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "....then surely there should be some mathematical statements that different groups of " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "mathematicians are convinced have been demonstrated to be true, while others are convinced" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "they have been demonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an agreement on the matter." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Aren't there? I am not a mathematician but I was under the impression it is an evolving discipline.\n\n\nBut even in the unlikely event that every mathematician in history were in perfect agreement on\n\nevery mathematical permutation of the field, it would not demonstrate true universality. It would\n\nonly demonstrate congruence among one group of people from one species on one planet.\n\n\nJust because a human astronomer on earth collects data from the Andromeda galaxy it does not \n\nmean they are from Andromeda or even that they have been to Andromeda. It just means \n\ndata from there has been plugged into a human matrix of understanding here on earth. If an \n\nAndromedan came here using math, I would consider that evidence that math is universal. But even \n\nthen, I would prefer a sample size greater than two before I'd be willing to grant the hypothesis \n\n\"math is universal\" anything like scientific theory status.\n\n\nAgain, my opinion is not that math isn't universal. Only that we have no means of determining such\n\na thing. We are stuck in the narrow perspective of one species on one planet and have no means for \n\nstepping outside it . Before I have confidence in the universality of math, I need to hear from the rest of\n\nthe universe. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T13:51:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \"Is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an example\n of \"Genetic Fallacy\"?\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: No, but claiming that a brain cannot work purely in the realm of " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "symbolic logic and reason because it is the product of millions of years of evolution on " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Earth is." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I truly don't understand the difference. A gasoline power car cannot turn itself into a\n\nnuclear powered device but a human brain can turn itself into a cosmically universal\n\nlogic machine unrestricted by its origins in an animal skull on planet earth?\n\n\nIs the argument that the human brain is an independent, self-constructed device which can \n\ncompletely supersede and separate from its own biological design and construction?\n\n\nOr that the human brain is the product of Special Creation, endowed by God and made\n\nin His image, thus possessing a measure of His universality?\n\n\nOther?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rick Norwood: I am not saying that mathematics can solve everything, just that what it solves is " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "solved once and for all. There are no four-sided triangles." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I just don't see how that statement is justified without access to \"all\" there is in the universe.\n\n\nPerhaps my difficulty would be resolved if the statement was restated to:\n\n\n\"Math is universal to everything within foreseeable human experience.\"\n\n\nTHAT I could agree with.\n\n\n(Unless I saw this movie ;- ) http://www.oldfutures.com/Images/foursidedtriangle.jpg) \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T14:45:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rick Norwood: Of course God has free will." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I disagree. \n\n\n\nFree Will, like shame, doubt (Tree Of Knowledge), procreation and death (Tree of Life)\n\nis a purely human curse/blessing. We are who we from eating fruit from one tree but not\n\nthe other.\n\n\n\nGod, being perfect in all aspects does not have Choice, any more than He can experience Shame\n\nDoubt or Death. (otoh, God's procreation.....now there's an interesting discussion topic...)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There is a Psalm where God fights a dragon." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think the connection between dragons and fallen angel/demons is made in BotNS.\n\nUrth abounds with megatherians, Typhons, Mandragoras, giant snakes, eels, wyrms etc. \n\nThe role of dragons is drawn even more clearly in Wizard/Knight." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "and another Psalm where God sits in a pantheon of Gods, sort of like a primitive Justice " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "League. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think the early chapters of the Old Testament clearly acknowledge that God is only the\n\nforemost among other gods. Hence the wording of the First Commandment." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I trust you are all familiar with the South Park pantheon which, if memory serves, consists of " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, and Aquaman." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Heh. Perhaps it is organized like the U.N. Security Council, with permanent and rotating\n\nmembers? \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T15:24:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Actually, math *doesn't* require numbers as such. All of number theory can\nbe reduced to set theory." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Lee wrote:\nGerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard\narithmetic" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the\n\nuniverse in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible\nthat there\n\nare places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the\nconcept of\n\nnumbers was meaningless.\n\n\n\"A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the\nrealm of symbolic\n\n logic and reason but it cannot be so.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Brandon Fuchs: This is one of those wild statements that calls for an\nexample. If mathematicians" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing some imperfect\nbrain mechanics....." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Let's stop there. My statement was that mathematician cannot be doing\nPURELY symbolic logic.\n\nAll thoughts within a human brain are animal thoughts with inherent animal\nbiases installed from\n\nthe material world during evolution and development. (the assumption of\nthe validity \"numbers\"\n\nbeing one of them). Of course the human brain can work with symbolic\nlogic. We invented it.\n\n\nBut the suggestion that our brains can work purely with symbology with no\nimpingement from\n\nthe material world is unsupportable. There are no human brains which have\nbeen entirely shielded\n\nfrom the material world. (Something like Severian's Mandragora? But of\ncourse even that brain\n\nhad telepathic input affecting it)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "....then surely there should be some mathematical statements that\ndifferent groups of" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "mathematicians are convinced have been demonstrated to be true, while\nothers are convinced" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "they have been demonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an\nagreement on the matter." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Aren't there? I am not a mathematician but I was under the impression it\nis an evolving discipline.\n\n\nBut even in the unlikely event that every mathematician in history were\nin perfect agreement on\n\nevery mathematical permutation of the field, it would not demonstrate true\nuniversality. It would\n\nonly demonstrate congruence among one group of people from one species on\none planet.\n\n\nJust because a human astronomer on earth collects data from the Andromeda\ngalaxy it does not\n\nmean they are from Andromeda or even that they have been to Andromeda. It\njust means\n\ndata from there has been plugged into a human matrix of understanding here\non earth. If an\n\nAndromedan came here using math, I would consider that evidence that math\nis universal. But even\n\nthen, I would prefer a sample size greater than two before I'd be willing\nto grant the hypothesis\n\n\"math is universal\" anything like scientific theory status.\n\n\nAgain, my opinion is not that math isn't universal. Only that we have no\nmeans of determining such\n\na thing. We are stuck in the narrow perspective of one species on one\nplanet and have no means for\n\nstepping outside it . Before I have confidence in the universality of\nmath, I need to hear from the rest of\n\nthe universe.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T15:24:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Lee: No, not a human brain. A human *soul*." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Lee wrote:\n\n \"Is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device\nan example\n of \"Genetic Fallacy\"?\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: No, but claiming that a brain cannot work purely in the\nrealm of" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "symbolic logic and reason because it is the product of millions of years\nof evolution on" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Earth is." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I truly don't understand the difference. A gasoline power car cannot turn\nitself into a\n\nnuclear powered device but a human brain can turn itself into a cosmically\nuniversal\n\nlogic machine unrestricted by its origins in an animal skull on planet\nearth?\n\n\nIs the argument that the human brain is an independent, self-constructed\ndevice which can\n\ncompletely supersede and separate from its own biological design and\nconstruction?\n\n\nOr that the human brain is the product of Special Creation, endowed by God\nand made\n\nin His image, thus possessing a measure of His universality?\n\n\nOther?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Rick Norwood: I am not saying that mathematics can solve everything, just\nthat what it solves is" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "solved once and for all. There are no four-sided triangles." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I just don't see how that statement is justified without access to \"all\"\nthere is in the universe.\n\n\nPerhaps my difficulty would be resolved if the statement was restated to:\n\n\n\"Math is universal to everything within foreseeable human experience.\"\n\n\nTHAT I could agree with.\n\n\n(Unless I saw this movie ;- )\nhttp://www.oldfutures.com/Images/foursidedtriangle.jpg)\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D012CBF@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-10T15:57:22+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I’m enjoying talking about God and math and all, but it this too off-topic for this list? If so, I’ll shut up. (Like Bugs Bunny, I’m very good at shutting up.)\n\nAll math can be reduced to logic. As David Hilbert is reported to have said, “One must be able to say at all times--instead of points, straight lines, and planes--tables, chairs, and beer mugs.” Math can be done without any numbers. Numbers are one of the most successful applications of math. But, if you’ll permit me another quote, this time from Einstein, “As far of the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.” In other words, when you protest that the universe may not be either discrete nor continuous, you are talking about applications of mathematics, not about mathematics.\n\nScience is only the second most reliable body of knowledge we possess.\n\nThere is a famous article “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics” that remarks on how astonishingly successful imperfect human beings have been in applying perfect mathematics to a recalcitrant physical universe. But to me the question of the universality of mathematics come down to the question I asked about A implies B.\n\nAs for math continuing to grow, that is (I’m glad to say) true. There are many conjectures that are not yet theorems. And, of course, people sometimes make mistakes. And sometimes mathematicians argue about the philosophy of mathematics, and about whether we create mathematics or discover mathematics. But there are no mathematicians I know of who “doubt” the Pythagorean Theorem.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n\nSent: Friday, October 10, 2014 11:24 AM\nTo: The Urth Mailing List\nSubject: Re: (urth) barrington interview\n\nActually, math *doesn't* require numbers as such. All of number theory can be reduced to set theory." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Lee > wrote:\nGerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the\n\nuniverse in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there\n\nare places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of\n\nnumbers was meaningless.\n\n\n\"A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm of symbolic\n\n logic and reason but it cannot be so.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Brandon Fuchs: This is one of those wild statements that calls for an example. If mathematicians" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing some imperfect brain mechanics....." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Let's stop there. My statement was that mathematician cannot be doing PURELY symbolic logic.\n\nAll thoughts within a human brain are animal thoughts with inherent animal biases installed from\n\nthe material world during evolution and development. (the assumption of the validity \"numbers\"\n\nbeing one of them). Of course the human brain can work with symbolic logic. We invented it.\n\n\nBut the suggestion that our brains can work purely with symbology with no impingement from\n\nthe material world is unsupportable. There are no human brains which have been entirely shielded\n\nfrom the material world. (Something like Severian's Mandragora? But of course even that brain\n\nhad telepathic input affecting it)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "....then surely there should be some mathematical statements that different groups of" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "mathematicians are convinced have been demonstrated to be true, while others are convinced" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "they have been demonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an agreement on the matter." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Aren't there? I am not a mathematician but I was under the impression it is an evolving discipline.\n\n\nBut even in the unlikely event that every mathematician in history were in perfect agreement on\n\nevery mathematical permutation of the field, it would not demonstrate true universality. It would\n\nonly demonstrate congruence among one group of people from one species on one planet.\n\n\nJust because a human astronomer on earth collects data from the Andromeda galaxy it does not\n\nmean they are from Andromeda or even that they have been to Andromeda. It just means\n\ndata from there has been plugged into a human matrix of understanding here on earth. If an\n\nAndromedan came here using math, I would consider that evidence that math is universal. But even\n\nthen, I would prefer a sample size greater than two before I'd be willing to grant the hypothesis\n\n\"math is universal\" anything like scientific theory status.\n\n\nAgain, my opinion is not that math isn't universal. Only that we have no means of determining such\n\na thing. We are stuck in the narrow perspective of one species on one planet and have no means for\n\nstepping outside it . Before I have confidence in the universality of math, I need to hear from the rest of\n\nthe universe." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T16:30:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D012CBF@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: Actually, math *doesn't* require numbers as such. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "All of number theory can be reduced to set theory." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Fair enough. But you probably know where this is going. It remains true\n\n that for places/times in the universe where the concept of sets\n\ndoes not apply (during the Big Bang? sub-quarkian physics?) then math is\n\nnot applicable and thus is not universal." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee: No, not a human brain. A human *soul*." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If math is derived from the human soul, then like the case of it being \n\npart of Special Creation, math is at least partially supernatural in nature \n\nand thus, might apply universally to both to the natural realm and \n\neverything in the supernatural realm also." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rick Norwood: I’m enjoying talking about God and math and all, but is " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "this too off-topic for this list?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think so . I think it is a miracle that this relic from the early days\n\nof the internet still survives and grows. So almost any topic we discuss\n\nis rendered saintly and spiritual by simply by its existence.\n\n\n\nI think discussion of Wolfe's work leads naturally to religion. And I think\n\nthe math discussion is more germane than it seems on the surface.\n\n\n\nI personally think much of Wolfe's writing was inspired by working with\n\nengineers who were likely a very materialist if not entirely atheist lot. I \n\ncan imagine him engaging in many conversations in which the universality \n\nof math was discussed.\n\n\n\nAs I see it, his work can usually be read at a basic materialist level in which\n\nyou can \"calculate\" what is happening. But I think his work also requires\n\noccasional leaps of faith to catch the deeper levels, in the same manner \n\nthat having an understanding of God does. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<543811EB.2010102@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeffery Wilson clueland.com", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T17:05:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote:\nGerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the\n\nuniverse in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there\n\nare places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of\n\nnumbers was meaningless." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The \nnumbers necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the \nnumbers are *always* notional and abstract. There is no place you can \ntouch the number two, for instance.\n\nHowever, that also does not prevent mathematics from being used to \nspeculate on what happens *if* the number two can be touched, and other \n\"impossible\" things. The best we can do is to show it makes a \ncontradiction, but that could mean only that the premise is flawed.\n\nYou might be interested to explore the history of David Hilbert and Kurt \nGoedel. Godel discovered the inherently incomplete nature of math, which \nmade him somehting of a Voltairean figure: a devil set on destroying \nmathemtical science as completists like Hilbert may have felt, but also \na figure of grace and liberty freeing it from the need to be complete \nand all encompassing and eventually finite." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D012CE7@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-10T17:42:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You keep talking about the universe! Math doesn't give a fig for the universe.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 12:31 PM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview\nDan'l Danehy-Oakes: Actually, math *doesn't* require numbers as such. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "All of number theory can be reduced to set theory." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Fair enough. But you probably know where this is going. It remains true\n\n that for places/times in the universe where the concept of sets\n\ndoes not apply (during the Big Bang? sub-quarkian physics?) then math is\n\nnot applicable and thus is not universal." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee: No, not a human brain. A human *soul*." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If math is derived from the human soul, then like the case of it being \n\npart of Special Creation, math is at least partially supernatural in nature \n\nand thus, might apply universally to both to the natural realm and \n\neverything in the supernatural realm also." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rick Norwood: I'm enjoying talking about God and math and all, but is " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "this too off-topic for this list?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't think so . I think it is a miracle that this relic from the early days\n\nof the internet still survives and grows. So almost any topic we discuss\n\nis rendered saintly and spiritual by simply by its existence.\n\n\n\nI think discussion of Wolfe's work leads naturally to religion. And I think\n\nthe math discussion is more germane than it seems on the surface.\n\n\n\nI personally think much of Wolfe's writing was inspired by working with\n\nengineers who were likely a very materialist if not entirely atheist lot. I \n\ncan imagine him engaging in many conversations in which the universality \n\nof math was discussed.\n\n\n\nAs I see it, his work can usually be read at a basic materialist level in which\n\nyou can \"calculate\" what is happening. But I think his work also requires\n\noccasional leaps of faith to catch the deeper levels, in the same manner \n\nthat having an understanding of God does. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Brad Henry", "address": "bradhenry101 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T17:43:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<543811EB.2010102@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "as interesting as the theological and mathematics discussion is, could you\nperhaps take this off the Urth list as it doesn't pertain to Wolfe?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com <\njwilson at clueland.com> wrote:\nOn 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard\narithmetic" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the\n\nuniverse in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible\nthat there\n\nare places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the\nconcept of\n\nnumbers was meaningless." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers\nnecessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are\n*always* notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number\ntwo, for instance.\n\nHowever, that also does not prevent mathematics from being used to\nspeculate on what happens *if* the number two can be touched, and other\n\"impossible\" things. The best we can do is to show it makes a\ncontradiction, but that could mean only that the premise is flawed.\n\nYou might be interested to explore the history of David Hilbert and Kurt\nGoedel. Godel discovered the inherently incomplete nature of math, which\nmade him somehting of a Voltairean figure: a devil set on destroying\nmathemtical science as completists like Hilbert may have felt, but also a\nfigure of grace and liberty freeing it from the need to be complete and all\nencompassing and eventually finite.\n\n--\nJeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T18:13:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<543811EB.2010102@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10 October 2014 18:05, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com \nwrote:\nOn 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard\narithmetic" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the\n\nuniverse in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible\nthat there\n\nare places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the\nconcept of\n\nnumbers was meaningless." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers\nnecessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are\n*always* notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number\ntwo, for instance." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It's not a matter of the concept not depending on the actuality. It's a\nmatter of what you call 'concept' being how the human mind responds to\nactuality. Other minds might respond to the same actuality with different\nconcepts. We've been saying this for days and folks still come back with\nmisdirected replies. (Lee has also been making the additional point that\nthis mind wouldn't necessarily have evolved without this actuality.)" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T18:42:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Antonio, as a Catholic I simply can't accept it because I believe there is\nsuch thing as an absolute truth. Logic plays a part in this, and\nmathematics (which is independent of any particular notion of \"number\")\nfalls directly out of logic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:\nOn 10 October 2014 18:05, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com <\njwilson at clueland.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard\narithmetic" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": " of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the\n\nuniverse in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible\nthat there\n\nare places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the\nconcept of\n\nnumbers was meaningless." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers\nnecessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are\n*always* notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number\ntwo, for instance." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's not a matter of the concept not depending on the actuality. It's a\nmatter of what you call 'concept' being how the human mind responds to\nactuality. Other minds might respond to the same actuality with different\nconcepts. We've been saying this for days and folks still come back with\nmisdirected replies. (Lee has also been making the additional point that\nthis mind wouldn't necessarily have evolved without this actuality.)\n\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "António Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T19:54:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No. It cant be taken off list because the list os the sole point of contact\nbetween the participants.\nWhat would be nice would be to bring it to an end because it has reached a\npoint of severely diminished returns.\nBefore I started writing here there was this rule that any one could only\npost 5 messages per day or something like that - maybe we could get back to\nit?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10 October 2014 18:43, Brad Henry wrote:\nas interesting as the theological and mathematics discussion is, could you\nperhaps take this off the Urth list as it doesn't pertain to Wolfe?\n\nOn Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com <\njwilson at clueland.com> wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard\narithmetic" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": " of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the\n\nuniverse in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible\nthat there\n\nare places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the\nconcept of\n\nnumbers was meaningless." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers\nnecessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are\n*always* notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number\ntwo, for instance.\n\nHowever, that also does not prevent mathematics from being used to\nspeculate on what happens *if* the number two can be touched, and other\n\"impossible\" things. The best we can do is to show it makes a\ncontradiction, but that could mean only that the premise is flawed.\n\nYou might be interested to explore the history of David Hilbert and Kurt\nGoedel. Godel discovered the inherently incomplete nature of math, which\nmade him somehting of a Voltairean figure: a devil set on destroying\nmathemtical science as completists like Hilbert may have felt, but also a\nfigure of grace and liberty freeing it from the need to be complete and all\nencompassing and eventually finite.\n\n--\nJeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2014-10-10T20:18:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Lee wrote:\n\n \"Is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device\nan example\n of \"Genetic Fallacy\"?\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: No, but claiming that a brain cannot work purely in the\nrealm of\nsymbolic logic and reason because it is the product of millions of years\nof evolution on\nEarth is." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I truly don't understand the difference. A gasoline power car cannot turn\nitself into a\nnuclear powered device but a human brain can turn itself into a cosmically\nuniversal\nlogic machine unrestricted by its origins in an animal skull on planet\nearth?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am unsure what my car can do. Perhaps it is a Transformer. But at least\nthe argument about cars appears to have some basis in how cars are actually\nconstituted currently, not where they came from.\n\nThe argument about brains seems to rest solely on their historical\ndevelopment. This is the Genetic Fallacy. If you could provide some\njustification for your conclusions based on the current properties of the\nbrain, and not how it got to be that way, that would be different.\n\nAs an example of a counter-argument to demonstrate the fallacy: perhaps the\nhuman brain would not have been the cosmically universal logic machine it\nis today, unrestricted by its origins in an animal skull on planet Earth,\nhad the Hieros not intervened as part of their plan to get some payback." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Thomas Bitterman", "address": "tom at bitterman.net" }, "date": "2014-10-10T20:25:28+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Lee wrote:\nRick Norwood: Of course God has free will." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I disagree." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/creator.html - point 295." } ] }, { "message_id": "<770728D4-4AEF-47DF-B96F-668D25F93A78@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-10T22:42:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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.\n\nNo dia 10/10/2014, ?s 19:42, \"Dan'l Danehy-Oakes\" escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "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.\n\nOn Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:\nOn 10 October 2014 18:05, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com wrote:\nOn 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote:\nGerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic\n\nof the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane.\n\n\nA nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the\n\nuniverse in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there\n\nare places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of\n\nnumbers was meaningless.\n\nEr, 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.\n\nIt'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.)\n\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<54389D24.8090400@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeffery Wilson clueland.com", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2014-10-11T02:59:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/10/2014 1:13 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:\nOn 10 October 2014 18:05, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com\n > wrote:\n\n On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote:\n\n Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside\n the standard arithmetic\n\n\n of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane.\n\n\n\n A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers\n describe the\n\n universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite\n possible that there\n\n are places/times in geography and history of the universe in\n which the concept of\n\n numbers was meaningless.\n\n\n Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The\n numbers necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the\n numbers are *always* notional and abstract. There is no place you\n can touch the number two, for instance.\n\n\nIt's not a matter of the concept not depending on the actuality. It's a\nmatter of what you call 'concept' being how the human mind responds to\nactuality. Other minds might respond to the same actuality with\ndifferent concepts. We've been saying this for days and folks still come\nback with misdirected replies." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But your justifications for what you are saying are crap. We know other \nminds might respond to the same actuality with different concepts \nbecause *human* minds already respond to the same actuality with \ndifferent concepts right here on the list, but that doesn't mean the \ndifference is known to be utterly intractible, else why are we still \ntrying to get traction?\n\nAs for Lee, up above he postulates that the actuality is different in \nplaces and that will give rise to different concepts to which ours will \nnot relate. However, he still calls these circumstances history and \ngeography, which implicitly means they are relateable to us.\n\nSuppose some conscious mind arises in some place where there are no \ndiscrete phenomena: would it have no conception of discrete math, nor \nuse? How would it possess mind-like qualities without being able to make \ndistinct, binary decisions? Would it only decide on a sliding scale, \ngiving analog responses? Could it change its mind, going from one value \nto another? If it does, this mind-changing behavior is then rising or \nfalling which are distinct, binary phenomena." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<54389EE0.3030700@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeffery Wilson clueland.com", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2014-10-11T03:07:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/10/2014 2:54 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote:\nNo. It cant be taken off list because the list os the sole point of\ncontact between the participants.\nWhat would be nice would be to bring it to an end because it has reached\na point of severely diminished returns.\nBefore I started writing here there was this rule that any one could\nonly post 5 messages per day or something like that - maybe we could get\nback to it?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Indeed, I was directing traffic to the history of Godel and Hilbert, so \nmore effort could be devoted to being more informed and less to blather.\n\nx messages a day is a problem, in that if it can accumulated it ceases \nto be a meaningful limitation; if it cannot, it lets the vocal minority \nbe shouted down by the vocal majority. It also retards earnest \nconversations where one poster might need to answer more than x amicable \nposts in a day rather than refute x adversarial ones." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<5438A180.90807@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeffery Wilson clueland.com", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2014-10-11T03:18:24+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<770728D4-4AEF-47DF-B96F-668D25F93A78@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/10/2014 5:42 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nMath may be derivable from logic, I don't know. I know it stared off as\ncounting, and that is in no way independent of 'number'." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It can go either way with the invention/discovery of Peano arithmetic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But a\nsignificant number of you keep mixing up 'reality' with the tool our\nmind uses to process it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Can you show us some place gravity as we process it here does not work \nthat way?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-11T13:12:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<5438A180.90807@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Marques: It's not a matter of the concept not depending on the actuality. It's a matter " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "of what you call 'concept' being how the human mind responds to actuality. We've been saying" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "this for days and folks still come back with misdirected replies." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wonder if this might boil down to the mind-body debate. When I think of the concept of math\n\nbeing done or even contemplated, I think of it as being done by others whom I perceive to be using\n\ntheir primate brains encased within skull and skin. Not the sort of tool that has the obvious potential \n\nto produce a universally applicable scheme of understanding. From the outside, the brain seems to\n\nbe a tool designed for solving primate living problems right here on earth.\n\n\nPerhaps others think of math more in terms of mind than brain. And when we use our own minds\n\nwe don't feel the limits of primate structure and flesh and blood construction. In our own minds we can\n\nfeel limitless in our perceptions. A \"mind\" person can think of math as something we have discovered\n\nout there, rather than something we invented.\n\n\nI like Dan'l's answer a lot because he acknowledges his belief in a universal truth to be part of his\n\nspiritual beliefs. It is easy to view spiritual beliefs as a function of mind rather than a brain function." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Rick Norwood: You keep talking about the universe! Math doesn't give a fig for the universe." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Makes sense to me. As Antonio suggested, math originated as a tool for counting stuff and no matter how\n\nelaborate it may have become, that essentially remains what math is doing. We may try to use math to \n\nunderstand the universe but I see this as inherently a means of taking what we can see of the universe \n\nand putting it into a packaging we can understand." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Thomas Bitterman: The argument about [the limitation of] brains seems to rest solely on their historical development. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is the Genetic Fallacy. If you could provide some justification for your conclusions based on the current properties " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "of the brain, and not how it got to be that way, that would be different." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The discussion of the human brain's evolutionary origin and developmental process was meant only to illustrate\n\nthe \"current properties\" of the brain. To describe not only that the human brain has limits but what those\n\nlimits might be (as related to solving mammalian living problems on earth).\n\n\nI could say the human brain is incapable of directly perceiving the strong and weak nuclear forces. And it seems\n\nillustrative to point out that we can't because it either isn't possible or because it served no evolutionary or \n\ndevelopmental purpose for us to perceive these forces directly. But the key concept remains \"limitations\".\n\n\nI guess I could just skip all that and make the simple statement that we can only understand what we can understand.\n\nMath is a great tool for helping us humans understand things that are difficult to understand. But it can't explain to us\n\nthings which are impossible for us to understand.\n\n\nPerhaps it boils down to what I suggested above. I think math is a tool invented by the human brain, while others\n\nthink math is a universal principle which has been discovered by the human mind. I'm not sure there is a common\n\nground of understanding between these two views, but perhaps just identifying them helps. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-11T13:21:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeffrey Wilson: As for Lee, up above he postulates that the actuality is different in \nplaces and that will give rise to different concepts to which ours will \nnot relate. However, he still calls these circumstances history and \ngeography, which implicitly means they are relateable to us." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of course, because I am human and have human limitations :- ). This sort of makes\n\nthe point I was trying to make.\n\n\nI must think in terms of space and time. How could I coherently describe\n\na scenario which doesn't possess these features?\n\n\nThere are better wordsmiths than I who have attempted it (Wolfe and Frank Herbert \n\ncome to mind). There are passages in their books which hint at meaning but are\n\nultimately best described as incomprehensible. What makes them good authors are\n\nthe hints as much as the sense of incomprehensibility. \n\n\nBut surely there exist some things in some universe somewhere which are completely and\n\nwithout the slightest hint, utterly incomprehensible to the human mind (including mathematical \n\nmodels). In an infinite cosmos, why wouldn't such things exist? \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2014-10-12T01:54:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Sat, October 11, 2014 08:21, Lee wrote:\nJeffrey Wilson: As for Lee, up above he postulates that the actuality is\ndifferent in\nplaces and that will give rise to different concepts to which ours will\nnot relate. However, he still calls these circumstances history and\ngeography, which implicitly means they are relateable to us." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Of course, because I am human and have human limitations :- ). This sort\nof makes\n\nthe point I was trying to make.\n\n\nI must think in terms of space and time. How could I coherently describe\n\na scenario which doesn't possess these features?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The catechism writes manage it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There are better wordsmiths than I who have attempted it (Wolfe and Frank\nHerbert\n\ncome to mind). There are passages in their books which hint at meaning\nbut are\n\nultimately best described as incomprehensible. What makes them good\nauthors are\n\nthe hints as much as the sense of incomprehensibility." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Apparently equivocation is part of your limitation. Using, or rather\nmis-using a word like \"incomprehensible\" in a discussison of cognitive\nscience and then revealing you really mean it in the literary prose sense\nis akin to what we in the mathematical community call \"abuse of notation\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "But surely there exist some things in some universe somewhere which are\ncompletely and\n\nwithout the slightest hint, utterly incomprehensible to the human mind\n(including mathematical\n\nmodels)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Are you saying there is an unknowable mathematical model somewhere? Of\nthat something exists that is unknowable despite the existence of\nmathematical models? Or something else?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In an infinite cosmos, why wouldn't such things exist?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Infinite quantity doesn't imply infinite variety. Even people who\npooh-pooh math as counting stipulate to this because for example, when you\nbegin counting 1,2,3, and so forth, you can do so for an unlimited series\nof numbers without encountering a number less than the one before, nor\nzero, nor anything negative, just the next larger integer after the last,\nalways." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-12T11:52:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeff Wilson: Apparently equivocation is part of your limitation. Using, or rather\nmis-using a word like \"incomprehensible\" in a discussison of cognitive\nscience and then revealing you really mean it in the literary prose sense\nis akin to what we in the mathematical community call \"abuse of notation\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It was an attempt to connect the discussion to Gene Wolfe's work, as some\n\nhad requested. Apologies if it offended you in reverse." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Are you saying there is an unknowable mathematical model somewhere? Of\nthat something exists that is unknowable despite the existence of\nmathematical models?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "How could I defensibly say there ARE such things? I think that would be making\n\nthe same error as those who claim there are not. Who can claim to know the \n\nunknowable? I only consider the possibility of existence of such things, which, \n\nfor me, is enough to question the universality of math.\n\n\nAs I noted in a previous post, if the statement is qualified as, \"math is universally\n\napplicable, as far as we can currently see\", I have no argument with it. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robert Pirkola", "address": "rpirkola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-13T21:32:02+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Math is universal in the same way that the physics of our\nuniverse (which is based in observations describable mathematically)is\nuniversal. In other words, math and\nphysics apply in every corner of the universe just as they do in our tiny\ncorner. If one were to make the\nconjecture that some area of the observable universe did not abide by the\nstrictures of physical law or mathematicallogic then one would have to explain\n(1) how they made this observation, (2) how one could confirm the observation withoutresorting to the use of mathematics and (3) how it is that one part of the universe\ncould be exempt from laws and principles that,I think we can all agree apply in\ngreat swathes of the universe, while not directly influencing those areas at\nthe immediate border between the regions. \nPart of the problem appears to be that some will invoke different\nperiods of *time* as possibly not beholden to mathematical/physical\nuniversality. However, this is\nfallacious because mathematics requires a universe that is at least partially divided and not uniform. Pre-Big Bang,\nthe universe was undifferentiated at best and wholly unknowable at worst. Only after the singularity became less than infinitely\ndense (which is a fancy way of saying the universe became more than Nothing) does mathematics/physics as a tool have anything to “wrench on” so to speak. This is because they are tools only useful\nwhen there *is* interaction. Likewise\nthe heat-death scenario our ever-expanding universe seems hell-bent on\nachieving will create a universe of no interaction (and thus physics or mathematics\nwill be rendered useless by the conditions then pertaining). Which is not to saythat mathematics/physics\nwill not be able to point out the very fact of their uselessness in the extreme\nedges of the universe’s temporal spectrum. \nWhat’s more, individualized areas of the universe where\nmathematics/physics break down (black holes, perhaps other phenomena), do not\nrequire that we abandon their universality, but merely acknowledge that black\nholes for example at some point cease to provide nuts and bolts in our universe. (Beyond the event horizon we can still “observe”\nthings by referencing Hawking radiation but at some point, our lights go dark).\n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-14T11:59:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " Sigh, okay, I'll bite the bait one more time." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Robert Pirkola: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Math is universal in the same way that the physics of our universe (which is" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "based in observations describable mathematically) is universal. In other words, " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "math and physics apply in every corner of the universe just as they do in our " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "tiny corner." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Who told you this? To be a credible source for making such a statement wouldn't\n\nthis person have to have been to every corner of the universe to test the statement?\n\n\nWhy would observations made in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to all other \n\ncorners?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "how it is that one part of the universe could be exempt from laws and principles that,\nI think we can all agree apply in great swathes of the universe, while not directly " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "influencing those areas at the immediate border between the regions." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "How can we make statements regarding great swaths of the universe when we haven't\n\nobserved great swaths? Perhaps math and science represent minority exemptions from\n\nthe real laws which govern most of the universe. Is there a way to know? I don't see it.\n\n\nHuman thought and perception is undeniably a form of tunnel vision. We used to think\n\ncolors ranged from red to violet. Now we know there are additional \"colors\" from radio\n\nwaves to gamma waves. We used to think there were three dimensions. Then four.\n\nCurrent mathematical models of the universe suggest double that, far exceeding the \n\nboundaries of human comprehension.\n\n\nPerhaps we could take these examples as hints. For all that math and science show us of\n\nthe universe, there is likely far more out there it doesn't and cannot show us. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<42CAC7C6-9AAA-4C9B-B0DE-50861B2A285D@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-14T13:07:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No dia 14/10/2014, ?s 12:59, Lee escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Why would observations made in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to all other corners?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The problem is that people take science to be philosophy, which it is not (and ethics, which it is not). Thus they interpret the reasonable scientific claim 'this theory fits nice with every observation we have' as the ascientific 'the observations we have are a consequence of this theory (and so, any other future observations will be in accordance with it)'. This confusion is denied or encouraged by scientism, but 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!" } ] }, { "message_id": "<543D31AD.90305@bindweed.com>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2014-10-14T14:22:37+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If logic didn't apply in a given realm, it would be logically correct to \ndeduce that logic did in fact apply there, because a false statement \nimplies the truth of all statements. Therefore logic applies \neverywhere. Q.E.D.\n\nAnd maths is just an extension of logic.\n\nIt is not possible to make a logical argument against logic.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dave Lebling", "address": "dlebling at hyraxes.com" }, "date": "2014-10-14T18:24:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<543D31AD.90305@bindweed.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Why would observations made in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to\nall other corners?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We have made observations that extend throughout the electromagnetic\nspectrum in wavelength and in distance/time almost as far back as the Big\nBang and thus an equivalent number of light-years away. That is not a \"tiny\ncorner.\" We have seen no evidence that the laws of physics are different\nanywhere in the universe.\n\nDave Lebling" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:\n\nIf logic didn't apply in a given realm, it would be logically correct to\ndeduce that logic did in fact apply there, because a false statement\nimplies the truth of all statements. Therefore logic applies everywhere.\nQ.E.D.\n\nAnd maths is just an extension of logic.\n\nIt is not possible to make a logical argument against logic.\n\n- Gerry Quinn\n\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-14T18:28:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Marques: scientism-ites, for all their championing of science, have been " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "able to produce a pretty little amount of it. Science doesn't like to be worshipped!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Interesting point. I do get the sense that most productive scientists are too busy with \n\ntheir work here to worry or claim their work is applicable on the other side of the universe." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: If logic didn't apply in a given realm, it would be logically correct to \ndeduce that logic did in fact apply there, because a false statement \nimplies the truth of all statements. Therefore logic applies \neverywhere. Q.E.D. And maths is just an extension of logic." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It is not possible to make a logical argument against logic" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Thus quoth a naked ape upon planet earth. It's an opinion.\n\n\nI'll need a concurring opinion from a representative from each galaxy in the universe\n\nbefore I can take such a claim seriously. Otherwise it's all in our heads. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-14T18:50:09+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dave Lebling: We have made observations that extend throughout the " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "electromagnetic spectrum in wavelength and in distance/time almost as " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "far back as the Big Bang and thus an equivalent number of light-years away. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "That is not a \"tiny corner.\" " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps true. But all those observations were made from earth or nearby and relayed\n\nto earth. Furthermore all the data was collected by human-constructed machines.\n\nThen all the data was processed and translated into pictures and numbers and \n\nother human tools which help us understand things.\n\n\nYou are impressed with our mastery of the electro-magnetic spectrum. But what\n\nlies beyond gamma rays? And what other spectrums exist which we cannot\n\nperceive in the slightest?\n\n\nThe answer must be, \"We don't know\".\n\n\nBoth coming and going, the data you cite has human bias stamped all over it. We cannot\n\nescape or transcend our own basic humanity. Everything we do and everything we\n\nthink is intrinsically human and limited by the limitations of being human. There is no way \n\nto avoid that. Math and science were invented by and are used exclusively by humans." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We have seen no evidence that the laws of physics are different anywhere in " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "the universe." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Absence of evidence does not prove a negative. That's a pretty basic tenet of science/\n\nlogic. Especially in such a sparsely explored realm as \"the universe\". \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robert Pirkola", "address": "rpirkola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-14T22:10:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Psi. I'll wave towards your bright light.\nLee’s statements will be given in brackets, my unbracketed\nresponses follow:\n\n\n\n[Who told you this? To\nbe a credible source for making such a statement wouldn't this person have to\nhave been to every corner of the universe to test the statement?]\n\n\n\nNo. Physics has been *observed*\nto apply in all areas of the universe to which we have pointed our instruments\nof measurement. The only unknowable areas\nare those beyond our light horizon, and if those areas are magically different\nsimply because they have been rendered unobservable then fine but those are\nlikewise areas upon which math and physics are no longer useful tools and canbe safely disregarded. If some future circumstance\nallows us to interact with those areas of the universe, then we can revisit the issue but it is not an argument against the universality of math to simply\nstate that that math’s non-universality is possible. If that were so, then St. Anselm’s ontological\nproof of God’s existence would be irrefutable. \nIt goes something like: ?I can imagine an infinitely perfect, powerful,\nknowledgeable, being and therefore God must exist. Gaunilo of Marmoutier put paid to that almost as soon as it passed Anselm’s lips.\n \n\nThe universality of math and physics is not demonstrable in\nareas outside of observation but it likewise gets us nowhere to postulate that\nthey are non-universal. Thus, we go\nalong building evidence for their universality while at all times keeping an\nopen mind for the facts and observations which might discredit such a belief.\n\n\n\n[Why would observations\nmade in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to all other corners?]\n\n\n\nBecause we have observed it to be so everywhere we have\nlooked and thus proceed as though it applies everywhere while always opento\nthe possibility that we will be shocked later. \nThe problem with your argument against universality is that it assumes\nthat at some point this will indeed happen merely because we can imagine it\nmight.\n\n\n\n[How can we make\nstatements regarding great swaths of the universe when we haven't observed\ngreat swaths? Perhaps math and science represent minority exemptions from the\nreal laws which govern most of the universe. Is there a way to know? I don't\nsee it.]\n\n\n\nWe have observed great swaths. Look up at the night sky. What portions of the universe do you know to\nexist that we have not observed either directly or indirectly? If different principles apply in areas of the\nuniverse inaccessible to observation or travel, then it does us no good to assume that math/physics apply there, nor does it do us any good to assume that they\ndon’t apply there. The problem with\nuniversality is what it means to be universal. \nUniversal in my conception, and that of science if I understand\ncorrectly, is that it uniformly applies in the observable universe.\n\n\n\n[For all that math and\nscience show us of the universe, there is likely far more out there it doesn't\nand cannot show us.]\n\n\n\nBut you have cited only examples of misunderstandings of\nwhat the observable universe is showing us, which are duly corrected and\nrefined through application of scientific principles and tools (e.g.\nmathematics). If there is more out there\nthat it cannot show us, then it must be so because we are incapable of having\nany interaction with that part of the universe. \nAnd if we (and by “we” I mean the stuff of the observable universe, not necessarily the sub-set of stuff called *Homo sapiens*) are incapable of\ninteracting with that part of the universe then it might as well not exist and we needn’t worry about whether math applies there. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<543DB9EE.2000004@hyraxes.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Lebling", "address": "dlebling at hyraxes.com" }, "date": "2014-10-15T00:03:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/14/2014 2:50 PM, Lee wrote:\nPerhaps true. But all those observations were made from earth or \nnearby and relayed to earth. Furthermore all the data was collected by \nhuman-constructed machines. Then all the data was processed and \ntranslated into pictures and numbers and other human tools which help \nus understand things. You are impressed with our mastery of the \nelectro-magnetic spectrum. But what lies beyond gamma rays? And what \nother spectrums exist which we cannot perceive in the slightest? The \nanswer must be, \"We don't know\". Both coming and going, the data you \ncite has human bias stamped all over it. We cannot escape or transcend \nour own basic humanity. Everything we do and everything we think is \nintrinsically human and limited by the limitations of being human. \nThere is no way to avoid that. Math and science were invented by and \nare used exclusively by humans." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I would appreciate a theory of why this makes a difference. Machines are \nnot human, even if made by humans, so why should they be subject to any \nimaginary human biases?\n\nLet me also chime in with those who suggest that the idea that \nmathematics isn't universally true are utterly wrong.\n\nReally, seriously, Plato's Cave is not exactly a hill you should wish to \ndie on." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Absence of evidence does not prove a negative. That's a pretty basic \ntenet of science/ logic. Especially in such a sparsely explored realm \nas \"the universe\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You can never prove a negative. Show some evidence that there is \nsomething that indicates the positive (as you propose it) might be true. \nJust saying \"we don't know\" is both untrue for large swathes of the \nuniverse, and basically tendentious without proposing any other view. \nSure, you might say \"God can do anything\" (and I forget if you are in \nthat camp) but show something that indicates that's something that has \nhappened.\n\nDave Lebling" } ] }, { "message_id": "<543DBC30.8000500@bindweed.com>", "from": { "name": "Gerry Quinn", "address": "gerry at bindweed.com" }, "date": "2014-10-15T00:13:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<543DB9EE.2000004@hyraxes.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 15/10/2014 01:03, Dave Lebling wrote:\nYou can never prove a negative. Show some evidence that there is \nsomething that indicates the positive (as you propose it) might be \ntrue. Just saying \"we don't know\" is both untrue for large swathes of \nthe universe, and basically tendentious without proposing any other \nview. Sure, you might say \"God can do anything\" (and I forget if you \nare in that camp) but show something that indicates that's something \nthat has happened." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I thought of that earlier. Saying there can be parts of the universe \nwhere logic doesn't apply is like saying \"God is omnipotent, so he must \nbe able to make a stone he can't lift\". The best answer seems to be \nthat definitions of omnipotence that allow logical contradictions are \nill-formed. When the irresistable force meets the immovable object... \nthen you must have described at least one of them wrong.\n\nWhen you talk about a world where logic doesn't apply, then by \ndefinition you aren't making sense.\n\n- Gerry Quinn" } ] }, { "message_id": "<0A8977EF-A61D-4CF9-8590-9CD458215F2B@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-15T09:29:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<543DB9EE.2000004@hyraxes.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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. " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dave Lebling", "address": "dlebling at hyraxes.com" }, "date": "2014-10-15T14:20:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0A8977EF-A61D-4CF9-8590-9CD458215F2B@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "What then are those two points and why are the responses to it\ntail-chasing? Making such a claim without explicating it is less than\nhelpful.\n\nDave" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques \nwrote:\nYour discussions remain meaningless, and, quite frankly, boring, while you\ndon't clarify what point of view you are defending. Lee is making two\nseparate points (which have some points of contact) while most of the rest\nof you are chasing your tails. Please, first think what your point is, then\ncheck in what way it is even relevant to the discussion, and only then\nproceed to explain it.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Marc Aramini", "address": "marcaramini at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-15T14:43:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's an irony here: my understanding of tail chasing is that it\ndescribes one being lost in self-absorbed subjectivity - the claim that we\ncan only know the self, falling into the Cartesian trap, assertion of the\nself and complete inability to extend to the external physical world, is\nthe quintessential act of tail chasing. The entire debate is moot.\nScientific types assert that we have accomplished much in understanding the\nmechanism of the world even if we cannot manipulate it at the subatomic\nlevel with reliability, unscientific types assert, hey man ... what do we\nreally know? As it turns out, ridiculous, incredible amounts that can be\nreliably replicated even with variable conditions. Ultimately ... whatever." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Dave Lebling wrote:\nWhat then are those two points and why are the responses to it\ntail-chasing? Making such a claim without explicating it is less than\nhelpful.\n\nDave\n\nOn Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques \nwrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Your discussions remain meaningless, and, quite frankly, boring, while\nyou don't clarify what point of view you are defending. Lee is making two\nseparate points (which have some points of contact) while most of the rest\nof you are chasing your tails. Please, first think what your point is, then\ncheck in what way it is even relevant to the discussion, and only then\nproceed to explain it.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4CE2E76F-A708-4632-AFB3-9C654ACDF0B5@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-15T15:16:39+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've been complaining about it perhaps for a week now. It's not nice to pretend it's news. \n\nIf you are not aware of what his two points are, how can you conduct a meaningful discussion with him?\n\nNo dia 15/10/2014, ?s 15:20, Dave Lebling escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "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.\n\nDave" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nYour 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.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-15T15:19:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "They're self-absorbed to the point of professing not to know what points the person they've been arguing with is defending. Yet they keep arguing!\n\nNo dia 15/10/2014, ?s 15:43, Marc Aramini escreveu:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "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." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Dave Lebling wrote:\nWhat 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.\n\nDave" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nYour 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.\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-15T17:33:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Robert Pirkoka: " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The only unknowable areas are those beyond our light horizon." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An infinitely large area, yes?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "and if those areas are magically different simply because they have " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "been rendered unobservable" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes! Magic! That which cannot be explained by math or science, yes?\n\n\nMerryn and the Cumaean discuss the issue quite well, I think:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Merryn: \"There is no magic. There is only knowledge, more or less hidden.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Cumeaean: \"Words are symbols. Merryn chooses to delimit magic as that which does not exist . . . " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "and so it does not exist. If you choose to call what we are about to do here magic then " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "magic lives while we do it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "then fine but those are likewise areas upon which math and physics are no longer useful " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "tools and can be safely disregarded." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is the crux. You, like Merryn, define anything which cannot be understood or perceived by\n\nhumans as non-existent. I can't, in good philosophical conscience, do that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "it is not an argument against the universality of math to simply state that that math’s non-universality" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "is possible. If that were so, then St. Anselm’s ontological proof of God’s existence would be irrefutable. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It goes something like: ?I can imagine an infinitely perfect, powerful, knowledgeable, being and therefore " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "God must exist. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "For me it IS a valid argument. And St. Anselm's pronouncement is not a good comparison to my position.\n\nI do not argue that math cannot be universal. Only that it may not be. Like the existence of God, I \n\nconsider the universality of math to be unknowable fact. I remain agnostic regarding both God and math.\n\n\nThere are those who find their observations during their life on planet earth to be sufficient evidence\n\nto believe in God. Likewise there are those who find sufficient evidence for the universality of math. I \n\nrespect the faith but cannot share in it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dave Lebling: You can never prove a negative. Show some evidence that there is \nsomething that indicates the positive (as you propose it) might be true." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There is no need to prove my statement that math may not be universally applicable. There is need to \n\ndisprove it. Saying math is universal IS a negative assertion in that it claims there are no exceptions to\n\nmath in the universe. \"No exceptions in an infinite universe\" is a negative statement which can never be \n\nproven\", rendering the statement \"math is universal\" to be null in that it cannot be verified or falsified.\n\n\nDeparting from logic and moving to science, we might treat \"math is universal\" as a \"hypothesis\" which has\n\nbeen collecting evidence for an upgrade to \"theory\". Then it becomes a matter of opinion I guess. Keep in mind\n\nthat most scientific theories are predicated on being applicable to earth (and surrounding areas). The assertion\n\nof \"universality\" is an infinitely larger claim.\n\n\nYou and Robert and Gerry and others are satisfied with the current body of evidence regarding math. Count\n\nme as a skeptic if you like but I am not satisfied. I am a much more difficult sell. At least one non-human, extra- \n\nterrestrial reporting of evidence of math applicability is something I'd need to even consider upgrading \"math is \n\nuniversal\" up to \"theory\" status." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Gerry Quinn: When you talk about a world where logic doesn't apply, then by \ndefinition you aren't making sense." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Agreed (sort of). But it still doesn't mean that math is universal just because the reverse concept doesn't make \n\nsense to us. As previously noted, what makes sense to an ape-derived brain on planet earth seems a poor measure\n\nof \"universal reality\". At least to me and I am using the same limited tool to make that assessment. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-15T17:45:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Lee, as far as I can tell, your argument comes down to \"I can imagine\nsomeplace where logic and math don't apply, therefore we must assume that\nthey exist until we can prove they don't.\"\n\nOf course such a place *might* exist. But you are positing something (the\nexistence of such a place) with no evidence or other argument in its favor.\nThat's a vast form of question-begging, assuming the conclusion as a\npremise.\n\nNow. Do you have any *evidence* that such a place exists? (And please,\nlet's not argue about what I mean by \"place\" and assume that it might not\nbe space-time as we know it.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Lee wrote:\nRobert Pirkoka:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "The only unknowable areas are those beyond our light horizon." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "An infinitely large area, yes?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "and if those areas are magically different simply because they have" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "been rendered unobservable" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yes! Magic! That which cannot be explained by math or science, yes?\n\n\nMerryn and the Cumaean discuss the issue quite well, I think:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Merryn: \"There is no magic. There is only knowledge, more or less hidden.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Cumeaean: \"Words are symbols. Merryn chooses to delimit magic as that\nwhich does not exist . . ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "and so it does not exist. If you choose to call what we are about to do\nhere magic then" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "magic lives while we do it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "then fine but those are likewise areas upon which math and physics are no\nlonger useful" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "tools and can be safely disregarded." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is the crux. You, like Merryn, define anything which cannot be\nunderstood or perceived by\n\nhumans as non-existent. I can't, in good philosophical conscience, do that." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "it is not an argument against the universality of math to simply state\nthat that math’s non-universality" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "is possible. If that were so, then St. Anselm’s ontological proof of\nGod’s existence would be irrefutable." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "It goes something like: ?I can imagine an infinitely perfect, powerful,\nknowledgeable, being and therefore" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "God must exist." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For me it IS a valid argument. And St. Anselm's pronouncement is not a\ngood comparison to my position.\n\nI do not argue that math cannot be universal. Only that it may not be.\nLike the existence of God, I\n\nconsider the universality of math to be unknowable fact. I remain agnostic\nregarding both God and math.\n\n\nThere are those who find their observations during their life on planet\nearth to be sufficient evidence\n\nto believe in God. Likewise there are those who find sufficient evidence\nfor the universality of math. I\n\nrespect the faith but cannot share in it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dave Lebling: You can never prove a negative. Show some evidence that\nthere is\nsomething that indicates the positive (as you propose it) might be true." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There is no need to prove my statement that math may not be universally\napplicable. There is need to\n\ndisprove it. Saying math is universal IS a negative assertion in that it\nclaims there are no exceptions to\n\nmath in the universe. \"No exceptions in an infinite universe\" is a\nnegative statement which can never be\n\nproven\", rendering the statement \"math is universal\" to be null in that it\ncannot be verified or falsified.\n\n\nDeparting from logic and moving to science, we might treat \"math is\nuniversal\" as a \"hypothesis\" which has\n\nbeen collecting evidence for an upgrade to \"theory\". Then it becomes a\nmatter of opinion I guess. Keep in mind\n\nthat most scientific theories are predicated on being applicable to earth\n(and surrounding areas). The assertion\n\nof \"universality\" is an infinitely larger claim.\n\n\nYou and Robert and Gerry and others are satisfied with the current body of\nevidence regarding math. Count\n\nme as a skeptic if you like but I am not satisfied. I am a much more\ndifficult sell. At least one non-human, extra-\n\nterrestrial reporting of evidence of math applicability is something I'd\nneed to even consider upgrading \"math is\n\nuniversal\" up to \"theory\" status." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gerry Quinn: When you talk about a world where logic doesn't apply, then\nby\ndefinition you aren't making sense." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Agreed (sort of). But it still doesn't mean that math is universal just\nbecause the reverse concept doesn't make\n\nsense to us. As previously noted, what makes sense to an ape-derived brain\non planet earth seems a poor measure\n\nof \"universal reality\". At least to me and I am using the same limited\ntool to make that assessment.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-15T17:52:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dave Lebling: What then are those two points" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I am hoping my last post clarified two points that Antonio has mentioned, \n\none more logic based and one more science based.\n\n\n1. \"Math is universal\" is a disguised version of the unprovable negative \n\nstatement: \"There are no exceptions to math application in the universe\"\n\n\nI keep wondering if those who hold the above position are really meaning\n\nto say \"There are no exceptions to math application in the KNOWN\n\nuniverse\" in which case we may all be able to agree and go home.\n\n\n2. The human brain receiving information on planet earth is not a sufficient\n\ntool which does not have access to enough information to make a claim\n\nabout the infinite universe. This is more subject to opinion than #1 but I \n\nthink the observation of the limits of the human brain and the earth as a\n\nvantage point should be apparent to anyone considering this issue. How\n\ncan such obvious limits simply be dismissed in a discussion of an infinite \n\nuniverse? \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes", "address": "danldo at gmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-15T18:04:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Lee wrote:\n\nthink the observation of the limits of the human brain and the earth as a\nvantage point should be apparent to anyone considering this issue. How\ncan such obvious limits simply be dismissed in a discussion of an infinite\nuniverse?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "While I might concede the limits of the human brain (given sufficient\nevidence to do so), it has been demonstrated (note I do *not* say \"proven\")\nrepeatedly that the vantage point does not matter - that the universe looks\nthe same from wherever you look at it. This is, among other things, one of\nthe basic assumptions of relativistic physics." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-15T18:06:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l: Lee, as far as I can tell, your argument comes down to \"I can imagine someplace " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "where logic and math don't apply, therefore we must assume that they exist until we " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "can prove they don't.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To quote Gene Wolfe, No, No, NO! (sorry if I got that wrong Marc. :- )).\n\n\nStating that alogical, amathematical zones exist in the universe would be just as unsupportable\n\nas those here which say such zones don't exist. Both statements require a leap of faith I, personally, \n\ncannot make.\n\n\nIn more scientific terms, I am willing to accept that gravity accelerates objects everywhere on earth \n\nat 9.8m/sec/sec because we have been to most places on earth, we have good evidence earth is a\n\nsphere, we've done massive experimentation in a variety of conditions, etc.\n\n\nI don't see our knowledge of the universe coming anywhere close to that of our own planet, making \n\nany statement about \"universality\" to be inherently questionable. The pinpricks of radiation we\n\ndetect from distant galaxies don't provide anything close to the information we have regarding earth.\n\nNot to mention all the other pinpricks of energy that we are unable to detect, which presumably \n\nrepresent most of the universe. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-15T18:16:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l: While I might concede the limits of the human brain (given sufficient evidence " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "to do so), it has been demonstrated (note I do *not* say \"proven\") repeatedly that the " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "vantage point does not matter - that the universe looks the same from wherever you look " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "at it. This is, among other things, one of the basic assumptions of relativistic physics." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That is, indeed an assumption which is made. Why is it made? Because that's all we have to\n\nwork with right now. Scientist don't just want to stop doing physics, so they make that\n\nassumption and run with it. For now.\n\n\nKeep in mind, modern scientists are using the exact same tool (the human brain) that \n\nflat earthers, philogiston believers and alchemists were using. Those very intelligent\n\npeople also did their best with what the evidence they had at their disposal.\n\n\nFor some 300 years, Newtonian physics was considered \"universal\". Now it isn't.\n\nSomeday, math may join Newtonian physics in the realm of \"limited applicability\". I don't\n\nsee how that possibility can be denied. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<543F5E98.5070107@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeffery Wilson clueland.com", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2014-10-16T05:58:48+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 10/14/2014 1:24 PM, Dave Lebling wrote:\nWhy would observations made in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to all other corners?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We have made observations that extend throughout the electromagnetic\nspectrum in wavelength and in distance/time almost as far back as the\nBig Bang and thus an equivalent number of light-years away. That is not\na \"tiny corner.\" We have seen no evidence that the laws of physics are\ndifferent anywhere in the universe." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, other than \"dark matter\", a concept invented to explain the \ndiscrepancy between the amount of mass in other galaxies observed by \nquantity of radiation vs that observed by apparent gravitation." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<543F6153.3070503@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeffery Wilson clueland.com", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2014-10-16T06:10:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/14/2014 1:50 PM, Lee wrote:\nBoth coming and going, the data you cite has human bias stamped all over it. We cannot\n\nescape or transcend our own basic humanity. Everything we do and everything we\n\nthink is intrinsically human and limited by the limitations of being human. There is no way\n\nto avoid that. Math and science were invented by and are used exclusively by humans." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is not correct. Humans and pre-humans have made numerous \nconstructions that transcend the limitations of the homind condition. \nCave paintings, however fanciful, record the existence of people with \nculture and behaviors that are discernable across a gap of tens of \nthousands of years, utterly beyond an oral tradition. Telescopes made by \nGalileo allowed humans to see far beyond their natural capacity for \nsight, and when the humans go to these distant, previously unseen \nplaces, what they see is actually in evidence; the same goes for our \nproxies that visited the Galilean moons.\n\nHumans are flawed, but the flaws are not intractable. Your argument \notherwise is self-defeating as it could be judged as flawed as any other \nhuman product and thus equally dismissible." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<543F6206.4080407@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeffery Wilson clueland.com", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2014-10-16T06:13:26+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0A8977EF-A61D-4CF9-8590-9CD458215F2B@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/15/2014 4:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nYour discussions remain meaningless, and, quite frankly, boring,\nwhile you don't clarify what point of view you are defending. Lee is\nmaking two separate points (which have some points of contact) while\nmost of the rest of you are chasing your tails. Please, first think\nwhat your point is, then check in what way it is even relevant to the\ndiscussion, and only then proceed to explain it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To whom are you addressing this brusque rebuke, may I ask?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<543F65B2.3050800@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeffery Wilson clueland.com", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2014-10-16T06:29:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/15/2014 1:06 PM, Lee wrote:\nIn more scientific terms, I am willing to accept that gravity accelerates objects everywhere on earth\n\nat 9.8m/sec/sec because we have been to most places on earth, we have good evidence earth is a\n\nsphere, we've done massive experimentation in a variety of conditions, etc." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The massive experimentation confirms the earth is not a sphere, does not \nhave uniform acceleration due to gravity, and this was first suspected \nby flawed people no later than the 19th century, assuming you are \nwilling to agree to the flawed calendar and the flawed invention of the \nprinting press that was used to publish the flawed papers they wrote \nabout it.\n\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robert Pirkola", "address": "rpirkola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-16T16:44:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<543F65B2.3050800@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I must clarify my position because I believe though I have\nmade several points, I have not explained the reason for having made them.\n\n\n\n1. \nMathematics is a developing body of knowledge,\ntechnique and application that is by no means closed at this point and cannot be talked about as though it is a fully-known “thing”. As has been pointed out by several posters,\nmath has been growing and changing radically in its power and scope from\nEuclid, through Pythagoras, on up to Newton, Russell, G?del, Turing, and\nbeyond. No doubt it shall continue to\ngrow as the mysteries we encounter beg to be solved and those investigating\ncraft stunning and hitherto unknown methods that allow their depths to be\nplumbed.\n\n\n\n2. \n I agree\nthat the intellectually honest individual is probably obliged to be agnostic\nabout the universality of mathematics (or the existence of God) while also\nallowing for a person to profess a belief that is in violation of this seemingly\nforced agnosticism for the sake of Faustian striving if nothing else.\n\n\n\n3. \nI do not however agree that one is likewise obliged\nto be agnostic about the existence of areas of the universe that are not\nsubject to mathematical understanding.\n\n\n\na. \nThis is because if there are such areas of the\nuniverse, and they are not susceptible to our present set of mathematical\ntools, nor susceptible to additional mathematical concepts and techniques that\nmay be developed, then we shall at all times remain in the dark about their\nexistence.\n\n\n\nb. \nIf we are in the dark about their existence,\nthen they must have no influence over the portions of the universe that we are\naware of, and if that is the case, I feel obliged to call their existence, “existence”.\n\n\n\nc. \nIf however, they do have an influence over the\nportions of the universe we can comprehend, experience, and probe with mathematics,\nthen they themselves must be subject to comprehension through mathematics, but\nperhaps mathematics that is yet to be invented.\n\n\n\nd. \nIf some sentient being is operating in the same\nuniverse that we are such that we might one day have interaction between ourselves and them, then there is a means by which our understanding of the\nuniverse through mathematics and their understanding of the universe (through\nwhatever system they have developed) can be translated one into the other.\n\n\n\n4. \nWhat everyone initially started talking about\nwas whether there was a single, correct reading to a Gene Wolfe story, which\ncould probably best be answered “yes and no”: ?yes? in that authorial intention\nis a correct reading if it can be recreated from the text and given the\napproval of the (presumably non-mendacious) author and “no” in that text is\nslippery and even where there is a distinct authorial intention (not always the\ncase) it is prone to the interpretation of those who get hold of it (with almost\nno rules that can be agreed upon to govern the process). This led to the discussion of mathematics,\nwith the universe being the true meaning of the work, mathematics being the text, and the human race as the reader. \nThis analogy, though obviously capable of stirring spirited debate, is a\npoor one. Human language is a group of\nconcepts that need not have any objective manifestation in the world for us to\nunderstand them and as such, they are prone to shades of meaning, words in\nlanguages that are “untranslatable”, and imperfect and widely varying\ntranslations when in fact they are deemed translatable. I am assuming based on the statements made in\nthis debate that everyone agrees at least that the universe itself is an\nobjective reality and we are just debating how one is able to understand that\nreality. This is the difference between\na short story or a novel and the universe (not the only one I suppose). Because there is an objective ground to the study\nof the universe, those who come up with different ways of reaching that ground\nshould be capable of finding some kind of isomorphic operation to translate\nfrom one to the other, or perhaps a synthesis of the two into something else\naltogether, but which both participants in the collaboration can agree\nupon. \n\n\n\nTherefore to make my position explicit I do not believe that\nwe know what the full scope of mathematics is and probably never will be able to say that we have closed it for good. \nI withhold ultimate judgment on whether it is universal but proceed as\nthough it is because of the present evidence and the uselessness of not making\nthat assumption at this point. I believe\nthat texts are both capable of a “correct” interpretation that is in one-to-one\nagreement with authorial intention and agree that that same text has several\nother “correct” interpretations that appear in spite of the authorial\nintention. I believe that the areas of\nthe universe that we know nothing about and cannot understand with our brains\nmay as well not exist because we can know nothing about them, they cannot\ninfluence us, and we can do nothing with the idea except talk and write about\nit (and as Magritte and others have somewhat obviously pointed out, the symbol\nis not the thing). \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D013584@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-16T20:21:33+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "1) I didn't say that.\n2) Whoever said it, I think you misunderstand what it says.\n\nRick Norwood\n\n-----Original Message-----\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:51 PM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) barrington interview\nRick Norwood: Humans and pre-humans have made numerous constructions \nthat transcend the limitations of the homind condition.\nCave paintings, however fanciful, record the existence of people with \nculture and behaviors that are discernable across a gap of tens of \nthousands of years, utterly beyond an oral tradition." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You are saying humans are not capable of art or history. I truly do not\n\nunderstand that statement. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Telescopes made by Galileo allowed humans to see far beyond their natural " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "capacity for sight." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, all tools allow humans to exceed the limitations of their own physical bodies.\n\nMath is also a tool which allows humans to exceed their own physical limitations.\n\n\nBut telescopes do not allow people to see to the ends of the universe or through a\n\nblack hole. Neither can the tool called \"math\". All tools have such limitations and thus \n\nI think human/earthly tools cannot be asserted to be \"universal\" in their application." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Robert Pirkola: Mathematics is a developing body of knowledge, technique and application " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "that is by no means closed at this point and cannot be talked about as though it is a " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "fully-known \"thing\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If math is redefined to mean not just what calculations we do now but also\n\nall possible future versions of math, including what we find alien races are \n\ndoing then I am much more open to the statement that math is universal.\n\n\n\nBut I'm not sure that's a fair definition. I take Rick's \"telescope\" to mean what\n\nwe today call a \"telescope\". If \"telescope\" is redefined as \"all possible future \n\nviewing devices as used by all possible species in the universe\" then I would \n\nalso have to accept the statement that a telescope can see everything in the\n\nuniverse.\n\n\n\nAnd that seems like a different conversation than what we started with." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "b. If we are in the dark about their [null-math areas] existence, then they must have no influence over " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "the portions of the universe that we are aware of, and if that is the case, I feel obliged to call their " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "existence, \"existence\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Robert, I am assuming you meant to say you do NOT feel obliged to call any null-math areas of the universe\n\nas \"existing\".\n\n\nAs Antonio observes, you are making some interesting arguments. So, I presume that if we encountered an\n\nalien species with which we could communicate, and they told us about a null-math portion of the universe,\n\nyou would tell them they are wrong and that it doesn't exist. (at least from our perspective).\n\n\nLet's get metaphysical and observe that we ALREADY have encountered a portion of the universe which is not\n\namenable to math, science or even logic. That place is: \"Your own, subjective subconscious\"\n\n\nWe cannot plausibly use math, science or logic to explain the world of our own dreams. Does the subjective\n\nworld of our own subconscious exist? Or is it imaginary? \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<5440BD02.8050604@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeffery Wilson clueland.com", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2014-10-17T06:53:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D013584@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 10/16/2014 2:50 PM, Lee wrote:\nRick Norwood: Humans and pre-humans have made numerous\nconstructions that transcend the limitations of the homind condition.\nCave paintings, however fanciful, record the existence of people with\nculture and behaviors that are discernable across a gap of tens of\nthousands of years, utterly beyond an oral tradition." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You are saying humans are not capable of art or history. I truly do not\n\nunderstand that statement." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I wrote that, not Rick. On the contrary, I am saying that art transcends \nthe flaws of history, because the cave paintings implicitly record \nthings about people who did not yet have the ability to record explicit, \nwritten history.\n\n\nI recall now that you apparently use some crap misconfigured e-mail \nprogram that doesn't properly quote and attribute forcing you to do it \nby flawed hand and flawed memory, and I think your poor technology \nexperience in general may be coloring your attitudes about all human \nproduct." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-17T12:12:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "<5440BD02.8050604@clueland.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You are saying humans are not capable of art or history. I truly do not\nunderstand that statement" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jeffrey Wilson: I wrote that, not Rick. On the contrary, I am saying that art transcends \nthe flaws of history, because the cave paintings implicitly record \nthings about people who did not yet have the ability to record explicit, \nwritten history." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Apologies for the misidentification.\n\nSaying that art can go beyond history is one thing. But what I quoted was the\n\nstatement:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Humans and pre-humans have made numerous\nconstructions that transcend the limitations of the homind condition." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Quite a different statement to say that art is a superhuman ability. \n\n\nDan'l made the suggestion that some human endeavors (including prayer?)\n\ncan put humans in touch with the superhuman/infinite, as an article of his\n\nfaith. I have no problem with that belief, stated that way.\n\n\nBut I can't see how statements about art or math transcending the human\n\ncondition make sense, without invoking belief in God." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I recall now that you apparently use some crap misconfigured e-mail \nprogram that doesn't properly quote and attribute forcing you to do it \nby flawed hand and flawed memory, and I think your poor technology \nexperience in general may be coloring your attitudes about all human \nproducts." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Very funny.\n\n\nBut no; as computers and the internet are entirely human creations, I do\n\nnot consider them to endow us with superhuman abilities. No more than \n\na stone hand axe does. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<54412F87.3000601@clueland.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeffery Wilson clueland.com", "address": "jwilson at clueland.com" }, "date": "2014-10-17T15:02:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) barrington interview", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 10/17/2014 7:12 AM, Lee wrote:\nQuite a different statement to say that art is a superhuman ability." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Which is one reason I didn't make that statement. I'm saying that \nartifacts can exceed the capabilities of their mortal creators as well \nas lack some of their flaws, which is one of the reasons for making \nartifacts at all." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dan'l made the suggestion that some human endeavors (including prayer?)\n\ncan put humans in touch with the superhuman/infinite, as an article of his\n\nfaith. I have no problem with that belief, stated that way.\n\n\nBut I can't see how statements about art or math transcending the human\n\ncondition make sense, without invoking belief in God." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Do you believe there is no room for improvement of man without \nencountering the divine?" }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >\nA&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab\n< http://www.tamut.edu/cil >" } ] } ] }