# barrington interview *The Urth list — 139 messages, 18 voices, 02 Oct 2014* > 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. --- ### Marc Aramini *02 Oct 2014, 18:51* Here is an interview with Gene that makes fun of symbol hunters and people being identified as Richard Nixon or whatnot in his novels (here's looking at you, navigator as JFK borski theory) ... http://barrington.suntimes.com/2014/10/02/gene-wolfe-legend-novelist-philosopher/ To be fair, we all already know why speculation abounds ... He is a symbolist. --- ### Piotr Szczęsny *02 Oct 2014, 19:14 · in reply to Marc Aramini* Damn, can't wait for A Borrowed Man! And the sequel too! 2014-10-02 20:51 GMT+02:00 Marc Aramini : > Here is an interview with Gene that makes fun of symbol hunters and people > being identified as Richard Nixon or whatnot in his novels (here's looking > at you, navigator as JFK borski theory) ... > > > http://barrington.suntimes.com/2014/10/02/gene-wolfe-legend-novelist-philosopher/ > > To be fair, we all already know why speculation abounds ... He is a > symbolist. > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Gwern Branwen *02 Oct 2014, 19:20 · in reply to Marc Aramini* An interesting bit about the politics of _The Land Across_: > Q: “The Land Across” is your newest novel. What did this book allow you to explore that previous ones had not? > > Wolfe: What I did in that book particularly was to take a tyrannical, political setup and show it from the inside: The reason that the people who were involved considered a dictatorship necessary. We seem to think of that sort of thing as an unmitigated evil. But democracy depends upon individuals being willing to contribute and take part in the democratic process. > > In other words, they have to look at the people who are running for office and in some cases running for office themselves and make reasoned judgments on the thing and then write letters and protest and so on. And if they are not willing to do that, if they resign from the whole process of government, then you can’t really get anywhere with a democracy. The democracy naturally lapses into some sort of a tyrannical setup. ``` gwern http://www.gwern.net ``` --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *02 Oct 2014, 20:13 · in reply to Gwern Branwen* That's actually a really sweet interview. > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Gwern Branwen wrote: > An interesting bit about the politics of _The Land Across_: >> Q: “The Land Across” is your newest novel. What did this book allow you >> to explore that previous ones had not? >> >> Wolfe: What I did in that book particularly was to take a tyrannical, >> political setup and show it from the inside: The reason that the people who >> were involved considered a dictatorship necessary. We seem to think of that >> sort of thing as an unmitigated evil. But democracy depends upon >> individuals being willing to contribute and take part in the democratic >> process. >> >> In other words, they have to look at the people who are running for >> office and in some cases running for office themselves and make reasoned >> judgments on the thing and then write letters and protest and so on. And if >> they are not willing to do that, if they resign from the whole process of >> government, then you can’t really get anywhere with a democracy. The >> democracy naturally lapses into some sort of a tyrannical setup. > -- > gwern > http://www.gwern.net > _______________________________________________ --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *03 Oct 2014, 12:00 · in reply to Piotr Szczęsny* What a wonderful interview. Rick Norwood From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Piotr Szczesny Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2014 3:15 PM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview Damn, can't wait for A Borrowed Man! And the sequel too! 2014-10-02 20:51 GMT+02:00 Marc Aramini >: Here is an interview with Gene that makes fun of symbol hunters and people being identified as Richard Nixon or whatnot in his novels (here's looking at you, navigator as JFK borski theory) ... http://barrington.suntimes.com/2014/10/02/gene-wolfe-legend-novelist-philosopher/ To be fair, we all already know why speculation abounds ... He is a symbolist. --- ### Lee *05 Oct 2014, 13:08 · follows Norwood, Frederick Hudson* > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: That's actually a really sweet interview. > Rick Norwood: What a wonderful interview. I agree. Thanks for posting that, Marc. > Marc Aramini: Here is an interview with Gene that makes fun of symbol hunters and people > being identified as Richard Nixon or whatnot in his novels (here's looking at you, navigator > as JFK borski theory) ... Ouch. That's borderline catty, Marc! ;- ) > To be fair, we all already know why speculation abounds ... He is a symbolist. Exactly. Wolfe isn't making fun of those who try to understand his symbolism; only those who get it wrong. Which, in my opinion, isn't really fair on Wolfe's part, because he obviously puts quite difficult puzzles and symbology into his work and (with a few exceptions) refuses to ever offer any guidance on when his readers are getting it right or wrong. I certainly think Borski often errs on the side of over-exhuberance in his symbol interpretations. But I'll take his bold attempts over being overly cautious for fear of being wrong. I think he has a good eye for detail and in spotting where SOME veiled meaning is intended, even if I don't agree with what he thinks the meaning is. In regard to the passage you cite, he takes the line "When the navigator was buried there were black wagons and people in black clothes walking" as referring to Kennedy's funeral based on Wolfe being Catholic and that being a significant event for all Americans living in the 60's. The Apollo moon landing was a similar event and that is referenced in BotNS, so hey, I don't fault Borski for taking a stab at that one. Since Severian notes in the next paragraph that people in the Commonwealth don't wear fuligin to funerals, it could be that the passage is meant as no more than an addition to the evidence that the people in the antechamber come from some other, far-away place. Considering a Kennedy reference may go too far, but given the earlier moon landing reference, it does no harm. In this interview, Wolfe suggests that he'd like to go Shakespearean and pound on Borski's (or or Wright's or whomever's) door, sword in hand, to challenge him to a duel for demeaning his work. It is tongue-in-cheek of course but, hey...if Wolfe really cared that much about his work being read correctly, why not publish notes on how to read it correctly? Without that, poetic and artistic license is granted to whomever chooses to publish a Wolfe analysis. --- ### Jeffery Wilson clueland.com *05 Oct 2014, 22:59 · in reply to Lee* > On 10/5/2014 8:08 AM, Lee wrote: > In this interview, Wolfe suggests that he'd like to go Shakespearean and pound on Borski's (or > > or Wright's or whomever's) door, sword in hand, to challenge him to a duel for demeaning his work. > > It is tongue-in-cheek of course but, hey...if Wolfe really cared that much about his work being read > > correctly, why not publish notes on how to read it correctly? I believe Wolfe's stated in at least two previous interviews that he doesn't give that information out because it would cheat the careful reader of the pleasure of discovering it for himself. But that doesn't mean he finds the necessary consequences entirely satisfactory. ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` --- ### Lee *06 Oct 2014, 02:15 · follows Jeffery Wilson clueland.com* > Jeffrey Wilson: I believe Wolfe's stated in at least two previous interviews that he > doesn't give that information out because it would cheat the careful > reader of the pleasure of discovering it for himself. But that doesn't > mean he finds the necessary consequences entirely satisfactory. That sounds reasonable on the surface. But consider the real world results. We have a few published analysts and many on this board who are more than careful, and often excruciatingly exacting in their detailed reading of Wolfe's work. Yet each one still seems to come to quite differing and individualized understandings. I have full respect for the intelligence of all avid Wolfe readers, so how can this divergence in understanding be explained? Either Wolfe is deliberately making his work ambiguous and subject to individualized understanding or he is doing it by accident. I think one of these is more likely than the other. Some might argue that Wolfe's latest work is less ambiguous than his previous work. I'm not sure. I'd be interested in the opinions of others on the overall trend. Just in regard to the 12 volume Sun Series, written over the course of some 10-15 years, I'd have to say with some confidence that the writing became more ambiguous as it progressed. I find the WTF moments in Return To The Whorl to be far more frequent than they were in reading Shadow of the Torturer. --- ### Marc Aramini *06 Oct 2014, 02:41 · in reply to Lee* Scientific reproducibility lurks under all of his fictions. For example, in doctor of death island, every time someone dies the three fingered doctor shows up. Borski notices this and STILL sees him showing up at the end of the story as a sign of hope, a blatant and unscientific breaking of pattern. His return is a sure sign of Alvard's death. Wolfe sets up patterns that are usually fair, but undisciplined speculation runs contrary to Wolfe's engineering mind. I think Home Fires is as subtextually cryptic as anything he has written but in general his reluctance to provide closure peaked at short sun. His 80s short fiction is less dense than his 70s fiction and less obscure than the short stories he produced in the 90s. I had to wrack my brain to see the c.b. pattern in Home Fires and figure out who controlled the puppet agent Skip. >> On Sunday, October 5, 2014, Lee wrote: >> Jeffrey Wilson: I believe Wolfe's stated in at least two previous >> interviews that he >> doesn't give that information out because it would cheat the careful >> reader of the pleasure of discovering it for himself. But that doesn't >> mean he finds the necessary consequences entirely satisfactory. > That sounds reasonable on the surface. But consider the real world results. > > > We have a few published analysts and many on this board who are more than > > careful, and often excruciatingly exacting in their detailed reading of > Wolfe's > > work. Yet each one still seems to come to quite differing and > individualized > > understandings. > > > I have full respect for the intelligence of all avid Wolfe readers, so how > can this > > divergence in understanding be explained? Either Wolfe is deliberately > making > > his work ambiguous and subject to individualized understanding or he is > doing > > it by accident. I think one of these is more likely than the other. > > > Some might argue that Wolfe's latest work is less ambiguous than his > previous > > work. I'm not sure. I'd be interested in the opinions of others on the > overall > > trend. > > > Just in regard to the 12 volume Sun Series, written over the course of > some 10-15 > > years, I'd have to say with some confidence that the writing became more > ambiguous > > as it progressed. I find the WTF moments in Return To The Whorl to be far > more > > frequent than they were in reading Shadow of the Torturer. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeffery Wilson clueland.com *06 Oct 2014, 04:58 · in reply to Lee* >> On 10/5/2014 9:15 PM, Lee wrote: >> Jeffrey Wilson: I believe Wolfe's stated in at least two previous interviews that he >> doesn't give that information out because it would cheat the careful >> reader of the pleasure of discovering it for himself. But that doesn't >> mean he finds the necessary consequences entirely satisfactory. > That sounds reasonable on the surface. But consider the real world results. > > > We have a few published analysts and many on this board who are more than > > careful, and often excruciatingly exacting in their detailed reading of Wolfe's > > work. Yet each one still seems to come to quite differing and individualized > > understandings. This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me. There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same difficulty or the answers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may have the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on them. ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` --- ### Lee *06 Oct 2014, 11:18 · follows Jeffery Wilson clueland.com* > Jeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me. > There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same difficulty or the > answers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may > have the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on > them. For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is: Who is right? In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists of his work but that there were some readers who basically understood all his work. There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought trying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct understanding? Who are the ones who are way off base? Without an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and wrong, we are each given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does get Wolfe correctly is, of course, ourselves. If Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide multiple reasons for why he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of assessment of correct interpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a firm majority consensus to base it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see either. --- ### António Marques *06 Oct 2014, 11:30 · in reply to Lee* At 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. >> On 6 October 2014 12:18, Lee wrote: >> Jeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me. >> There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same >> difficulty or the >> answers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may >> have the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on >> them. > For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is: > > > Who is right? > > > In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists > of his > > work but that there were some readers who basically understood all his > work. > > > There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought > > trying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct > understanding? > > Who are the ones who are way off base? > > > Without an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and > wrong, we are > > each given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does > get Wolfe > > correctly is, of course, ourselves. > > > If Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide > multiple reasons for > > why he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of > assessment of correct > > interpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a firm > majority consensus to > > base it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see > either. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *06 Oct 2014, 12:08 · in reply to António Marques* The readers who spotted Richard Nixon are clearly wrong. More 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. Also, I find Wolfe enjoyable on a first read. The depths are fun to probe, but the surface is fun, too. Thus I do not see Wolfe as a puzzle game, where unless you solve the boss puzzle you lose. Rather as many layered fiction, with something extra for those who read the classics. Rick Norwood From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Marques Sent: Monday, October 06, 2014 7:30 AM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview At 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. > On 6 October 2014 12:18, Lee > wrote: > Jeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me. > There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same difficulty or the > answers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may > have the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on > them. For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is: Who is right? In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists of his work but that there were some readers who basically understood all his work. There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought trying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct understanding? Who are the ones who are way off base? Without an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and wrong, we are each given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does get Wolfe correctly is, of course, ourselves. If Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide multiple reasons for why he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of assessment of correct interpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a firm majority consensus to base it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see either. --- ### Marc Aramini *06 Oct 2014, 14:08 · in reply to Lee* Whoever 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. >> On Monday, October 6, 2014, Lee wrote: >> Jeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me. >> There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same >> difficulty or the >> answers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may >> have the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on >> them. > For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is: > > > Who is right? > > > In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists > of his > > work but that there were some readers who basically understood all his > work. > > > There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought > > trying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct > understanding? > > Who are the ones who are way off base? > > > Without an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and > wrong, we are > > each given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does > get Wolfe > > correctly is, of course, ourselves. > > > If Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide > multiple reasons for > > why he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of > assessment of correct > > interpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a firm > majority consensus to > > base it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see > either. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Richard Simon *07 Oct 2014, 03:12 · in reply to Marc Aramini* My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story itself. Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. Salutations to all. On Monday, 6 October 2014, 19:38, Marc Aramini wrote: Whoever 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. > On Monday, October 6, 2014, Lee wrote: > Jeffrey Wilson: This does not make it sound any less reasonable to me. >> There is no particular need for all the puzzles to be of the same difficulty or the >> answers to have the same verifiability. Some of the easiest puzzles may >> have the hardest to verify answers if the hardest puzzles are built on >> them. > For me this is a dodging of the essential question here. Which is: > > > Who is right? > > > In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists of his > > work but that there were some readers who basically understood all his work. > > > There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and thought > > trying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the correct understanding? > > Who are the ones who are way off base? > > > Without an authoritative identification of who is getting things right and wrong, we are > > each given an open invitation to assume that one of the readers who does get Wolfe > > correctly is, of course, ourselves. > > > If Borksi were still posting on this board I'm sure he'd be able provide multiple reasons for > > why he is right and Marc is wrong. If there is truly to be some sort of assessment of correct > > interpretation, there needs to be auctorial authority or at least a firm majority consensus to > > base it on. On most of the issues which are discussed here, I don't see either. > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net --- ### Andrew Bollen *07 Oct 2014, 03:29 · in reply to Richard Simon* > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon wrote: > My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct > bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could > help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters, > the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story > itself. > > Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without > endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic > conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to > the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. > > I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any > relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters > present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think > they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at > that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some > extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of > popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? > 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical > huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. Wholehearted agreement! Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or she act well or badly in the circumstances? --- ### Lee *07 Oct 2014, 04:02 · follows Andrew Bollen* > Rick Norwood: Also, I find Wolfe enjoyable on a first read. The depths are fun to probe, > but the surface is fun, too. Thus I do not see Wolfe as a puzzle game, where unless you > solve the boss puzzle you lose. Rather as many layered fiction, with something extra for > those who read the classics. Thanks Rick. I agree and I suspect most here agree. I think our discussions are skewed toward the more difficult puzzles and away from the superficially enjoyable aspects of Wolfe's work just because there is more to discuss. "Severian met a giant.." or "Sir Able fought a dragon.." "..wasn't that cool?" "Yeah, it was". What more can be said than that? Perhaps a sad truth of human discourse is that disagreement is often a more compelling subject than agreement. > Marc Aramini: Whoever explains the most narrative events and patterns without resorting to > misprision is right. Some people are better at logic puzzles than others....There is plenty of > evidence. Some readings are right. Some are often consistently wrong. We don't need Wolfe's > consent, though at times it would be nice. Marc you say this without acknowledgement that the terms "misprision", "better", "logic", "evidence", "right" and "wrong" are all subjective judgments, especially in regard to fiction. How do you know something is evidence? How do you know someone is right or wrong or misunderstanding the text? The answer is, invariably, because you say so. This ends up being a fancy way of saying "I'm right". After all, are you prepared to say that any of your own current theories are wrong? It would be absurd for you to say that. And just as absurd for anyone else to say it about their own theories. You may think others are wrong, just as you always think you are right. Such thoughts don't make it universally so. There is no scientific method for understanding fiction for the same reason there is no scientific method for belief in God. The concept of a Creator and the presence of Intelligent Design tosses out scientific method. Take Occam's Razor. It doesn't apply to fiction or God because the author/Creator may well have decided that the most complex explanation is the right one. Take statistics. A penny doesn't have a 50/50 chance of heads or tails in fiction. A fictional penny has only the 100% chance of falling however the author writes it as falling. Throw out experimentation and repeatability etc. They don't work on fiction. It is tempting to put the author in the role of Creator in this analogy but it should be noted that fiction exists in the minds of all involved parties. Thus, each reader becomes a Creator also, as soon as a fictional mental image is created in each mind. Perhaps there are those who have such pure utter faith in their own judgment of a work of fiction that they are willing to claim all others are wrong. But just like personal religious faith, it is rather unrealistic to actually expect all others to share the minutiae of what you personally believe in. > Richard Simon: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on > the story. I agree. > I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the > story. I disagree. While I agree that Wolfe's puzzles and symbolism almost always bear on the storyline, I think they sometimes have multiple levels of meaning which can extend outside the story. Perhaps the classic example is Wolfe's own admission that the name of the main members of Number 5's family in 5HoC is "Gene Wolfe". I don't think he really means to imply that he, personally, is in the story. Similarly, Andre-Driussi has spent significant research showing that the events of BotNS seem to parallel the life of Gene Wolfe. And I think the family dynamics of Horn's family in Short Sun are too similar to Wolfe family dynamics to dismiss them as purely and entirely fictional. As I recently quoted from the Larry McCaffrey interview, Gene Wolfe notes that BotNS serves as a way of expressing the ramifications of his own personal religious beliefs. It isn't just a rippingly good yarn. At least not to Gene Wolfe. There are real world personal elements to it. --- ### Marc Aramini *07 Oct 2014, 05:22 · in reply to Lee* Well, Lee, let me give you an example of a misreading. In "Look at the Evidence", Clute mentions a theme anthology of British literature in which the editors note collections of this type's scarcity. They then say that hopefully this scarcity will become a thing of the past. Clute misreads this as indicating that somewhere during the construction of the anthology, the editors wearied of it and hoped that no more anthologies like it would be produced, though in fact they were saying the exact opposite - they wanted the scarcity to vanish, not "the scarcity" as a replacement appositive for the concept of anthologies like it. Even intelligent men misread on occasion, as I did during one of my explications of "When I was ming the merciless" - when I was corrected, I saw that obviously the objective words meant something else and readily admitted it. I have been wrong, but when I am, I acknowledge it. Not all opinions are valid, not all explications work. Have you ever had to grade literary analysis papers? I have, and some people are right, others are just plain wrong. Hamlet's father is not an alien because the text doesn't support that interpretation, no matter how you argue it. Some explications rely on the text and explain features of it, other's don't. "The Changeling" is a prime example - James Jordan's exegesis of faith and works was interesting, but it just wasn't in the text. What was? an indication of exactly when the ageless child appeared, which could be corroborated by external reference to the birth date of a little known actor and the etymology of the word oaf, which described that actors most famous role (objective facts which Wolfe expects us to know in order to figure out what happened in the story). I don't just "say so", it can be verified and explain mysteries in the text (like why our narrator isn't in that fourth grade picture and how he is old enough at the supposed age of 15 to be in the military). Wolfe's symbolism has a HUGE impact on plot interpretation (especially in new sun - Sev nearly drowning but being saved from the water at the start, the water conflated over and over with death and resurrection (Dorcas submerged)/ the flooding of genesis, the play eschatology and genesis, typhon as satan talking about how water brings renewed life, ad nauseum - the future was clearly going to be a deluge - we didn't need Urth of the New Sun to tell us that). Not all interpretations are valid, and I never bought into the death of the author's intentions. Sloppy stuff. The best explication fits every detail for a text or explains inconsistencies thematically. >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 9:02 PM, Lee wrote: >> Rick Norwood: Also, I find Wolfe enjoyable on a first read. The depths >> are fun to probe, >> but the surface is fun, too. Thus I do not see Wolfe as a puzzle game, >> where unless you >> solve the boss puzzle you lose. Rather as many layered fiction, with >> something extra for >> those who read the classics. > Thanks Rick. I agree and I suspect most here agree. I think our > discussions are skewed toward > > the more difficult puzzles and away from the superficially enjoyable > aspects of Wolfe's work > > just because there is more to discuss. "Severian met a giant.." or "Sir > Able fought a dragon.." > > "..wasn't that cool?" "Yeah, it was". What more can be said than that? > Perhaps a sad truth of > > human discourse is that disagreement is often a more compelling subject > than agreement. >> Marc Aramini: Whoever explains the most narrative events and patterns >> without resorting to >> misprision is right. Some people are better at logic puzzles than >> others....There is plenty of >> evidence. Some readings are right. Some are often consistently wrong. We >> don't need Wolfe's >> consent, though at times it would be nice. > Marc you say this without acknowledgement that the terms "misprision", > "better", "logic", > > "evidence", "right" and "wrong" are all subjective judgments, especially > in regard to fiction. > > How do you know something is evidence? How do you know someone is right or > wrong or > > misunderstanding the text? The answer is, invariably, because you say so. > This ends up being > > a fancy way of saying "I'm right". After all, are you prepared to say that > any of your own current > > theories are wrong? It would be absurd for you to say that. And just as > absurd for anyone else > > to say it about their own theories. You may think others are wrong, just > as you always think > > you are right. Such thoughts don't make it universally so. > > > > There is no scientific method for understanding fiction for the same > reason there is no scientific > > method for belief in God. The concept of a Creator and the presence of > Intelligent Design > > tosses out scientific method. Take Occam's Razor. It doesn't apply to > fiction or God because the > > author/Creator may well have decided that the most complex explanation is > the right one. Take > > statistics. A penny doesn't have a 50/50 chance of heads or tails in > fiction. A fictional penny has > > only the 100% chance of falling however the author writes it as falling. > Throw out experimentation > > and repeatability etc. They don't work on fiction. > > > > It is tempting to put the author in the role of Creator in this analogy > but it should be noted that > > fiction exists in the minds of all involved parties. Thus, each reader > becomes a Creator also, as > > soon as a fictional mental image is created in each mind. > > > > Perhaps there are those who have such pure utter faith in their own > judgment of a work of fiction > > that they are willing to claim all others are wrong. But just like > personal religious faith, it is rather > > unrealistic to actually expect all others to share the minutiae of what > you personally believe in. >> Richard Simon: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's >> 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on >> the story. > I agree. >> I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any >> relevance outside the frame of the >> story. > I disagree. While I agree that Wolfe's puzzles and symbolism almost always > bear on the storyline, I think > > they sometimes have multiple levels of meaning which can extend outside > the story. > > > > Perhaps the classic example is Wolfe's own admission that the name of the > main members of Number 5's > > family in 5HoC is "Gene Wolfe". I don't think he really means to imply > that he, personally, is in the story. > > > > Similarly, Andre-Driussi has spent significant research showing that the > events of BotNS seem to parallel > > the life of Gene Wolfe. And I think the family dynamics of Horn's family > in Short Sun are too similar to > > Wolfe family dynamics to dismiss them as purely and entirely fictional. > > > > As I recently quoted from the Larry McCaffrey interview, Gene Wolfe notes > that BotNS serves as a way of > > expressing the ramifications of his own personal religious beliefs. It > isn't just a rippingly good yarn. > > At least not to Gene Wolfe. There are real world personal elements to it. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Daniel Otto Jack Petersen *07 Oct 2014, 10:49 · in reply to Andrew Bollen* I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course, possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological exploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for allusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant fact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have spiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction, longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being content to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely entertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do more. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question. -DOJP > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon > wrote: >> My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a >> direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that >> could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the >> characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics >> of the story itself. >> >> Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without >> endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic >> conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to >> the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. >> >> I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any >> relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters >> present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think >> they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at >> that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some >> extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of >> popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? >> 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical >> huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. > Wholehearted agreement! > > Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of > character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or > she act well or badly in the circumstances? > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *07 Oct 2014, 12:12 · in reply to Marc Aramini* “the terms "misprision", "better", "logic", "evidence", "right" and "wrong" are all subjective judgments?” — Marc Aramini. Ah. No. These words can be used subjectively but all have perfectly good objective meanings. 7 x 8 = 21 is a misprision, not better than 7 x 8 = 56, not logical, lacking evidence, not right, and, most importantly, is wrong. I think Lee addresses this very well. Wolfe is not a postmodernist. Rick Norwood --- ### Marc Aramini *07 Oct 2014, 13:27 · in reply to Norwood, Frederick Hudson* Are you attributing what I said with with what Lee said?. I believe they are objective, Lee that they are entirely subjective. > On Tuesday, October 7, 2014, Norwood, Frederick Hudson < > NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> wrote: > “the terms "misprision", "better", "logic", "evidence", "right" and > "wrong" are all subjective judgments?” — Marc Aramini. > > > > Ah. No. These words can be used subjectively but all have perfectly good > objective meanings. 7 x 8 = 21 is a misprision, not better than 7 x 8 = > 56, not logical, lacking evidence, not right, and, most importantly, is > wrong. > > > > I think Lee addresses this very well. Wolfe is not a postmodernist. > > > > Rick Norwood --- ### Lee *07 Oct 2014, 13:28 · follows Marc Aramini* > Marc Aramini: Well, Lee, let me give you an example of a misreading. Marc, I'm sure there are many examples upon which WE can agree are a misreading of fiction by someone else. But the assessment of error remains our opinion not scientific fact. What if there is an "error" (Wolfe's or editor's) in the text such as Wolfe's spelling of Quadrifrons as Quadrifons? Is the misspelling deliberate on Wolfe's part, serving a hidden purpose? Or is it just an error? What if Wolfe makes an error and a reader makes an assumption based on that error. Who is actually right, the reader who is in concord with Wolfe within the text or the scholar who has spotted Wolfe's error? There are varying levels of agreement when it comes to fiction. Relatively few disagree on the meaning of a Stephen King novel. But when an author such as Wolfe writes in deliberately ambiguous fashion (Shadow Children are degenerate humans/No, they are native shapeshifters) there is going to be disagreement with no firm way to establish universal correctness, as your discussions with Gerry Quinn demonstrate. --- ### Marc Aramini *07 Oct 2014, 13:48 · in reply to Lee* And inevitably some readings will be closer to authorial intention, some further away. Wolfe knows if his shadow children are parasites and the relationship, if any, between the Abos and the trees. No one has ever really talked about my Latro story (probably because it sucked, I suppose) but there is an intended solution set up by symbolic patterns (who does a black dog represent? What does a boar signify in Latro's world? Why is the present day narrator called by two different first names?) or outside information (what does zalmoxis' name mean? Who boxed a man and thought about shooting him during the Korean War?). There is an objective explanation. Whether the story works outside of the mystery is the difference between Wolfe and me. My story clearly doesn't work, his do, but I can tell you if your guesses were right or wrong in my work. Wolfe is human and occasionally makes mistakes, but copy editors are far more often to blame for reversing his decisions (turning Horn's first person entrance to a third person one - this infuriated Wolfe when he found out - his artistic vision requires Horn's "I" at that point in the narrative of Exodus.) >> On Tuesday, October 7, 2014, Lee wrote: >> Marc Aramini: Well, Lee, let me give you an example of a misreading. > Marc, I'm sure there are many examples upon which WE can agree are a > misreading > > of fiction by someone else. But the assessment of error remains our > opinion not scientific > > fact. > > > What if there is an "error" (Wolfe's or editor's) in the text such as > Wolfe's spelling of > > Quadrifrons as Quadrifons? Is the misspelling deliberate on Wolfe's part, > serving a > > hidden purpose? Or is it just an error? > > > What if Wolfe makes an error and a reader makes an assumption based on > that error. > > Who is actually right, the reader who is in concord with Wolfe within the > text or the scholar > > who has spotted Wolfe's error? > > > There are varying levels of agreement when it comes to fiction. Relatively > few disagree > > on the meaning of a Stephen King novel. But when an author such as Wolfe > writes in > > deliberately ambiguous fashion (Shadow Children are degenerate humans/No, > they are > > native shapeshifters) there is going to be disagreement with no firm way > to establish > > universal correctness, as your discussions with Gerry Quinn demonstrate. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Lee *07 Oct 2014, 14:07 · follows Marc Aramini* > Marc Aramini: And inevitably some readings will be closer to authorial intention, > some further away. Wolfe knows if his shadow children are parasites and the > relationship, if any, between the Abos and the trees. Let's pretend Gene Wolfe follows this List. Why do you think he continues to not chime in and tell you that you are right and others are wrong? What is his motivation? > No one has ever really talked about my Latro story (probably because it sucked, > I suppose) It is probably good. I didn't know it existed. Also, as an amateur Wolfe fan, I find keeping up just with Wolfe's work to be enough of a challenge. Also, the Latro series never interested me enough for a second read, for some reason. > Whether the story works outside of the mystery is the difference between Wolfe and me. > My story clearly doesn't work, his do, but I can tell you if your guesses were right or wrong > in my work. I think you would tell us if our guesses were correct in identifying your intentions. Another difference between you and Wolfe. You truly WANT to be understood. He doesn't. Otherwise he would make the effort to ensure he was understood. --- ### Marc Aramini *07 Oct 2014, 14:37 · in reply to Lee* I've corresponded with him for about 14 years now ... he thinks dropping the definitive answer is cheating, but once upon a time he was sure to correct me on a very important point. He then apologized to me, saying it "wasn't fair." His purpose is complex, but Wolfe's creative system is perhaps best understood in the amusement park designer of "The Adopted Father" - in that story, his children aren't his because they don't think like he does - he creates an elaborate park maze design and his son can't navigate it, he becomes lost, because he doesn't pay attention to the clue his father gives him, so his father seeks out someone who actually does think as he does. As I've said, his acknowledgments are also extremely indirect. When I told him what I thought about "the Changeling", he said, "I've always loved Lil' Abner. So many great characters, so many great stories and situations." That's about the most indirect way one could ever say that my explication was correct. Wolfe wants to make you work to solve his puzzles ... he almost has the contradictory impulse in his introductions to put forth that he writes for the common reader to entertain, but he can't stop being cryptic. Certainly his idea of "good" construction and engineering involves creating a text worth re-reading. >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Lee wrote: >> Marc Aramini: And inevitably some readings will be closer to authorial >> intention, >> some further away. Wolfe knows if his shadow children are parasites and >> the >> relationship, if any, between the Abos and the trees. > Let's pretend Gene Wolfe follows this List. Why do you think he continues > to not > > chime in and tell you that you are right and others are wrong? What is his > > motivation? >> No one has ever really talked about my Latro story (probably because it >> sucked, >> I suppose) > It is probably good. I didn't know it existed. Also, as an amateur Wolfe > fan, I find > > keeping up just with Wolfe's work to be enough of a challenge. Also, the > Latro > > series never interested me enough for a second read, for some reason. >> Whether the story works outside of the mystery is the difference between >> Wolfe and me. >> My story clearly doesn't work, his do, but I can tell you if your guesses >> were right or wrong >> in my work. > I think you would tell us if our guesses were correct in identifying your > intentions. Another > > difference between you and Wolfe. You truly WANT to be understood. He > doesn't. Otherwise > > he would make the effort to ensure he was understood. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *07 Oct 2014, 15:57 · in reply to Daniel Otto Jack Petersen* I'm with Daniel here. "Nothing more" applies only in the sense it would apply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for the ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with someone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a "select" audience. > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < > danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course, > possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also > for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as > well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological > exploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way > consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for > allusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short > Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the > narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant > fact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have > spiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it > deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of > intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction, > longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being > content to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely > entertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do > more. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question. > > -DOJP > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon >> wrote: >>> My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a >>> direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that >>> could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the >>> characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the >>> mechanics of the story itself. >>> >>> Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without >>> endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic >>> conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to >>> the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. >>> >>> I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any >>> relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters >>> present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think >>> they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at >>> that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some >>> extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of >>> popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? >>> 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical >>> huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. >> Wholehearted agreement! >> >> Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations >> of character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he >> or she act well or badly in the circumstances? >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Lee *07 Oct 2014, 22:25 · follows Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > Marc Aramini: "Marc used a math problem"?????????????????????????????? > Rick Norwood: First, let me apologize for getting Marc and Lee mixed up. When I read an amalgam > of many posts, I sometimes get confused about who is doing what, with what, and to whom. Same here. It's the reason I try to assign names to quotes in my posts. > Aliens who use a different number base is a red herring. The math is the same, independently of > the language in which it is written. Not a red herring; and don't think I didn't notice how you cleverly focused on the alien's 12 fingers and ignored "his" silicon brain. :- ) I've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely science/mathematically minded. But math isn't really "universal". It a system of calculation created by the human mind which is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian ancestors. Our brains may organize the search patterns of bees or the spiral shape of a conch shell or the galaxy into a mathematical pattern. But I am confident in stating that bees and mollusks and stars are not doing math. We are, as we seek to organize the universe into patterns our brains can understand. > And I really do think there are right and wrong interpretations of literature. As somebody said > (Marc? Lee?), the ghost of Hamlet’s father is not an alien. That interpretation would be just plain > wrong. Not me. I am on the other side of the fence on this debate. I can find at least a couple ways of understanding "ghost of Hamlet's father is an alien" to be a true statement. 1. The author, William Shakespeare, was from England. Hamlet's father was Danish. 2. We live in a material world. Ghosts, by definition, are from another sort of world who happen to be visiting this one. Of course I am not trying to be right about Hamlet's father, per se. I am only saying that anytime you make a statement of absolute or universal rightness or wrongness, you are unconsciously operating within a system of assumptions shared by the people you are talking to. Those assumptions can and sometimes should be questioned, especially when "universality" is the claim. It reminds me of a quote I heard from somebody in Mississippi back in 2012. He said that he knew Barack Obama couldn't be re-elected because everybody he knew was voting against him. --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *08 Oct 2014, 00:05 · in reply to Lee* > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Lee wrote: > I've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely > science/mathematically > minded. But math isn't really "universal". It a system of calculation > created by the human mind > which is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian > ancestors. > > Our brains may organize the search patterns of bees or the spiral shape of > a conch shell or the > galaxy into a mathematical pattern. But I am confident in stating that > bees and mollusks and stars > are not doing math. We are, as we seek to organize the universe into > patterns our brains can > understand. Thy herring is red, and it stinketh. It is not necessary for a "conch to do math" for its spiral shell-shape to be mathematically based. Its genes, an incredibly powerful computing system (whose results are expressed in proteins which then control cellular behavior), "does" the math. Likewise the shape of the galaxy; stars aren't "doing math," they are obeying natural law, which is mathematical in nature. The evidence (I hesitate to say "proof," as that would be unscientific) for this is that just about everywhere we turn in nature, we find that mathematics provides predictability and explanatory power. It isn't a joke when cosmologists talk about the universe being potentially a huge "computer" "simulation" (I think both words are too loose here); the Universe itself seems to "do math" as you would put it. By the bye, I am not a "purely science/mathematically minded" sort. I am a Roman Catholic, and believe in the supernatural; when I write fiction, it's mostly fantasy. For what that's worth. --- ### António Pedro Marques *08 Oct 2014, 01:30 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 01:05, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" escreveu: > It is not necessary for a "conch to do math" for its spiral shell-shape to be mathematically based. Its genes, an incredibly powerful computing system (whose results are expressed in proteins which then control cellular behavior), "does" the math. Likewise the shape of the galaxy; stars aren't "doing math," they are obeying natural law, which is mathematical in nature That is not only confusing the model with reality, but reifying physics. Lee's example is perhaps not the best, not because it's wrong but because it lends itself to misunderstanding. He was not saying (tho he could) that math doesn't have definite answers, he was pointing out that math itself even with a shared mind structure (human) has conventions and you're at sea without them. The square root of -1 is something which started as pure convention, no matter the interpretations that were developed later on. Now imagine an alien mind, dividing the same physical world in a different way. Our math is consistent and helps us deal with the outside world, but it reflects the organisation of our mind. Addition, multiplication and subtraction don't exist in the outside world, they're the way our mind copes with complexity. Other minds might work in completely different ways, handling the outside world with the help of some consistent tool that bore very little resemblance to our math. And at the end of the day, who's to say that 7x8 was meant to be math, even? Math says that there should have been MS Word 3, 4 and 5 for Windows, and there should be a Windows 9 before 10, not to mention that Windows 8 should be the 8th major version of the OS. Lee is absolutely right when he points out that everything in communication hinges on shared assumptions. I began to make such a point in a conversation with Gerry some weeks ago, but decided not to push forward. Incidentally, I'm not being ironic when I say I like Gerry's Daleks in NS and the Third Policeman reading of FHC. He meant them as parody, but they've worked out well. What you can sometimes say is that a given reading is decidedly NOT what the author currently says they had in mind at the time. That can't make the reading incorrect. It can even be a stupid reading, but as long as it is a reading, then it is a reading, and there is no truth criterion that can be applied to such a thing. --- ### António Pedro Marques *08 Oct 2014, 01:50 · in reply to Marc Aramini* 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? Man 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? It'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.) What 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. No dia 07/10/2014, ?s 15:37, Marc Aramini escreveu: > I've corresponded with him for about 14 years now ... he thinks dropping the definitive answer is cheating, but once upon a time he was sure to correct me on a very important point. He then apologized to me, saying it "wasn't fair." His purpose is complex, but Wolfe's creative system is perhaps best understood in the amusement park designer of "The Adopted Father" - in that story, his children aren't his because they don't think like he does - he creates an elaborate park maze design and his son can't navigate it, he becomes lost, because he doesn't pay attention to the clue his father gives him, so his father seeks out someone who actually does think as he does. As I've said, his acknowledgments are also extremely indirect. When I told him what I thought about "the Changeling", he said, "I've always loved Lil' Abner. So many great characters, so many great stories and situations." That's about the most indirect way one could ever say that my explication was correct. > > Wolfe wants to make you work to solve his puzzles ... he almost has the contradictory impulse in his introductions to put forth that he writes for the common reader to entertain, but he can't stop being cryptic. Certainly his idea of "good" construction and engineering involves creating a text worth re-reading. > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Lee wrote: >> Marc Aramini: And inevitably some readings will be closer to authorial intention, >> some further away. Wolfe knows if his shadow children are parasites and the >> relationship, if any, between the Abos and the trees. > Let's pretend Gene Wolfe follows this List. Why do you think he continues to not > > chime in and tell you that you are right and others are wrong? What is his > > motivation? >> No one has ever really talked about my Latro story (probably because it sucked, >> I suppose) > It is probably good. I didn't know it existed. Also, as an amateur Wolfe fan, I find > > keeping up just with Wolfe's work to be enough of a challenge. Also, the Latro > > series never interested me enough for a second read, for some reason. >> Whether the story works outside of the mystery is the difference between Wolfe and me. >> My story clearly doesn't work, his do, but I can tell you if your guesses were right or wrong >> in my work. > I think you would tell us if our guesses were correct in identifying your intentions. Another > > difference between you and Wolfe. You truly WANT to be understood. He doesn't. Otherwise > > he would make the effort to ensure he was understood. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Lee *08 Oct 2014, 02:19 · follows António Pedro Marques* > Antonio Marques: Lee's example is perhaps not the best, .... he was pointing out that math itself > even with a shared mind structure (human) has conventions and you're at sea without them. > The square root of -1 is something which started as pure convention, no matter the interpretations > that were developed later on. Now imagine an alien mind, dividing the same physical world in a > different way... Thanks, Antonio. I think you explained my thinking better than I could. I was going to try responding to Dan'l with possible examples of dark matter or sub-quarkian physics or pre-Big Bang questions to illustrate items that seem to be at the very limits of our math-based peripheral vision and then to speculate there is much beyond those things we cannot see or even conceive of because of our human limitations, among which is math. But your example may be even more illustrative. As you suggest, neither I nor any other human can count to the square root of -1. But I can hypothesize an alien intelligence which can. Perhaps such a race can "see" gravity and "see" dark matter. Conversely, perhaps such a race would be incapable of seeing or counting nine (erm, eight) planets in our solar system or even understanding what numbers mean. I truly think this is what Wolfe is trying to get at with some of his plural, uncountable or otherwise rather incomprehensible beings in his work. I find the descriptions he gives us of Shadow Children and The Neighbors to be frustrating in their lack of ability to inspire a clear mental, visual picture of them and I think that frustration is deliberately inspired by Wolfe. > Lee is absolutely right when he points out that everything in communication hinges on shared assumptions. Thus, I think the frustration we and Severian feel as he converses with Tzadkiel. There is a desire from both parties to achieve communication and understanding but there is an essential difference in perspective between pawns and queens on the space-time chessboard, which limits how much understanding there can be. And I think that's exactly what Wolfe wants us to feel in this literary situation. I know my view pisses some people off and I apologize for that. But I think math is a primate-brain function which is awesome in its scope, but ultimately does not give us the potential to understand all there is to know in the universe. I suspect math is actually a limitation we are going to have to leave behind if our understanding and awareness of the cosmos is ever to reach true universal levels. In contradiction to the movie Pi, I don't think we'll find a full understanding of God in mathematics. Whatever God might mean, I suspect it is beyond numbers. --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *08 Oct 2014, 12:11 · in reply to Lee* 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.) Rick -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:19 PM > To: urth at urth.net > Subject: (urth) barrington interview > Antonio Marques: Lee's example is perhaps not the best, .... he was pointing out that math itself > even with a shared mind structure (human) has conventions and you're at sea without them. > The square root of -1 is something which started as pure convention, no matter the interpretations > that were developed later on. Now imagine an alien mind, dividing the same physical world in a > different way... Thanks, Antonio. I think you explained my thinking better than I could. I was going to try responding to Dan'l with possible examples of dark matter or sub-quarkian physics or pre-Big Bang questions to illustrate items that seem to be at the very limits of our math-based peripheral vision and then to speculate there is much beyond those things we cannot see or even conceive of because of our human limitations, among which is math. But your example may be even more illustrative. As you suggest, neither I nor any other human can count to the square root of -1. But I can hypothesize an alien intelligence which can. Perhaps such a race can "see" gravity and "see" dark matter. Conversely, perhaps such a race would be incapable of seeing or counting nine (erm, eight) planets in our solar system or even understanding what numbers mean. I truly think this is what Wolfe is trying to get at with some of his plural, uncountable or otherwise rather incomprehensible beings in his work. I find the descriptions he gives us of Shadow Children and The Neighbors to be frustrating in their lack of ability to inspire a clear mental, visual picture of them and I think that frustration is deliberately inspired by Wolfe. > Lee is absolutely right when he points out that everything in communication hinges on shared assumptions. Thus, I think the frustration we and Severian feel as he converses with Tzadkiel. There is a desire from both parties to achieve communication and understanding but there is an essential difference in perspective between pawns and queens on the space-time chessboard, which limits how much understanding there can be. And I think that's exactly what Wolfe wants us to feel in this literary situation. I know my view pisses some people off and I apologize for that. But I think math is a primate-brain function which is awesome in its scope, but ultimately does not give us the potential to understand all there is to know in the universe. I suspect math is actually a limitation we are going to have to leave behind if our understanding and awareness of the cosmos is ever to reach true universal levels. In contradiction to the movie Pi, I don't think we'll find a full understanding of God in mathematics. Whatever God might mean, I suspect it is beyond numbers. --- ### Thomas Bitterman *08 Oct 2014, 13:35 · in reply to Lee* > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Lee wrote: > I've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely > science/mathematically > minded. But math isn't really "universal". It a system of calculation > created by the human mind > which is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian > ancestors. Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *08 Oct 2014, 14:01 · in reply to Thomas Bitterman* This isn’t the place for this debate, since I have no doubt that Gene Wolfe accepts the fact that math is universal, but I will point out that your mode of debate (the suggestion that I don’t accept your assertion not because I disagree with it but because I find it “disturbing”) is, as Mr. Spock would say, “Highly illogical.” Rick Norwood From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Thomas Bitterman Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:36 AM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Lee > wrote: I've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely science/mathematically minded. But math isn't really "universal". It a system of calculation created by the human mind which is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian ancestors. Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? --- ### António Pedro Marques *08 Oct 2014, 14:28 · in reply to Norwood, Frederick Hudson* Could you gentlemen pinpoint what you're labelling as the universality of math? No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:01, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" escreveu: > This isn’t the place for this debate, since I have no doubt that Gene Wolfe accepts the fact that math is universal, but I will point out that your mode of debate (the suggestion that I don’t accept your assertion not because I disagree with it but because I find it “disturbing”) is, as Mr. Spock would say, “Highly illogical.” > > Rick Norwood > > From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Thomas Bitterman > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:36 AM > To: The Urth Mailing List > Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Lee wrote: > I've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely science/mathematically > minded. But math isn't really "universal". It a system of calculation created by the human mind > which is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian ancestors. > > Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *08 Oct 2014, 14:32 · in reply to António Pedro Marques* "as long as it is a reading, then it is a reading, and there is no truth criterion that can be applied to such a thing" So, just to make sure I understand you, if I choose to read the statement quoted above as meaning "I agree with everything Rick Norwood says", that is just as "true" an interpretation of what you said as any other interpretation. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Pedro Marques Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 9:30 PM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 01:05, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" escreveu: > It is not necessary for a "conch to do math" for its spiral shell-shape to be mathematically based. Its genes, an incredibly powerful computing system (whose results are expressed in proteins which then control cellular behavior), "does" the math. Likewise the shape of the galaxy; stars aren't "doing math," they are obeying natural law, which is mathematical in nature That is not only confusing the model with reality, but reifying physics. Lee's example is perhaps not the best, not because it's wrong but because it lends itself to misunderstanding. He was not saying (tho he could) that math doesn't have definite answers, he was pointing out that math itself even with a shared mind structure (human) has conventions and you're at sea without them. The square root of -1 is something which started as pure convention, no matter the interpretations that were developed later on. Now imagine an alien mind, dividing the same physical world in a different way. Our math is consistent and helps us deal with the outside world, but it reflects the organisation of our mind. Addition, multiplication and subtraction don't exist in the outside world, they're the way our mind copes with complexity. Other minds might work in completely different ways, handling the outside world with the help of some consistent tool that bore very little resemblance to our math. And at the end of the day, who's to say that 7x8 was meant to be math, even? Math says that there should have been MS Word 3, 4 and 5 for Windows, and there should be a Windows 9 before 10, not to mention that Windows 8 should be the 8th major version of the OS. Lee is absolutely right when he points out that everything in communication hinges on shared assumptions. I began to make such a point in a conversation with Gerry some weeks ago, but decided not to push forward. Incidentally, I'm not being ironic when I say I like Gerry's Daleks in NS and the Third Policeman reading of FHC. He meant them as parody, but they've worked out well. What you can sometimes say is that a given reading is decidedly NOT what the author currently says they had in mind at the time. That can't make the reading incorrect. It can even be a stupid reading, but as long as it is a reading, then it is a reading, and there is no truth criterion that can be applied to such a thing. --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *08 Oct 2014, 14:46 · in reply to Lee* "I know my view pisses some people off" -- Lee Like 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. First, I am not pissed off at you or at your ideas. I enjoy intellectual discussions. My emotions right now are happy ones. Second, 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. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 10:19 PM > To: urth at urth.net > Subject: (urth) barrington interview > Antonio Marques: Lee's example is perhaps not the best, .... he was pointing out that math itself > even with a shared mind structure (human) has conventions and you're at sea without them. > The square root of -1 is something which started as pure convention, no matter the interpretations > that were developed later on. Now imagine an alien mind, dividing the same physical world in a > different way... Thanks, Antonio. I think you explained my thinking better than I could. I was going to try responding to Dan'l with possible examples of dark matter or sub-quarkian physics or pre-Big Bang questions to illustrate items that seem to be at the very limits of our math-based peripheral vision and then to speculate there is much beyond those things we cannot see or even conceive of because of our human limitations, among which is math. But your example may be even more illustrative. As you suggest, neither I nor any other human can count to the square root of -1. But I can hypothesize an alien intelligence which can. Perhaps such a race can "see" gravity and "see" dark matter. Conversely, perhaps such a race would be incapable of seeing or counting nine (erm, eight) planets in our solar system or even understanding what numbers mean. I truly think this is what Wolfe is trying to get at with some of his plural, uncountable or otherwise rather incomprehensible beings in his work. I find the descriptions he gives us of Shadow Children and The Neighbors to be frustrating in their lack of ability to inspire a clear mental, visual picture of them and I think that frustration is deliberately inspired by Wolfe. > Lee is absolutely right when he points out that everything in communication hinges on shared assumptions. Thus, I think the frustration we and Severian feel as he converses with Tzadkiel. There is a desire from both parties to achieve communication and understanding but there is an essential difference in perspective between pawns and queens on the space-time chessboard, which limits how much understanding there can be. And I think that's exactly what Wolfe wants us to feel in this literary situation. I know my view pisses some people off and I apologize for that. But I think math is a primate-brain function which is awesome in its scope, but ultimately does not give us the potential to understand all there is to know in the universe. I suspect math is actually a limitation we are going to have to leave behind if our understanding and awareness of the cosmos is ever to reach true universal levels. In contradiction to the movie Pi, I don't think we'll find a full understanding of God in mathematics. Whatever God might mean, I suspect it is beyond numbers. --- ### António Pedro Marques *08 Oct 2014, 14:51 · in reply to Norwood, Frederick Hudson* No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:32, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" escreveu: > "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. If you have you reasons for it, who can tell you otherwise? That'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?'). > Rick Norwood > > -----Original Message----- > From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Pedro Marques > Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2014 9:30 PM > To: The Urth Mailing List > Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview > > No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 01:05, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" escreveu: >> It is not necessary for a "conch to do math" for its spiral shell-shape to be mathematically based. Its genes, an incredibly powerful computing system (whose results are expressed in proteins which then control cellular behavior), "does" the math. Likewise the shape of the galaxy; stars aren't "doing math," they are obeying natural law, which is mathematical in nature > That is not only confusing the model with reality, but reifying physics. > > Lee's example is perhaps not the best, not because it's wrong but because it lends itself to misunderstanding. He was not saying (tho he could) that math doesn't have definite answers, he was pointing out that math itself even with a shared mind structure (human) has conventions and you're at sea without them. The square root of -1 is something which started as pure convention, no matter the interpretations that were developed later on. Now imagine an alien mind, dividing the same physical world in a different way. Our math is consistent and helps us deal with the outside world, but it reflects the organisation of our mind. Addition, multiplication and subtraction don't exist in the outside world, they're the way our mind copes with complexity. Other minds might work in completely different ways, handling the outside world with the help of some consistent tool that bore very little resemblance to our math. And at the end of the day, who's to say that 7x8 was meant to be math, even? Math says that there should have been MS Word 3, 4 and 5 for Windows, and there should be a Windows 9 before 10, not to mention that Windows 8 should be the 8th major version of the OS. > > Lee is absolutely right when he points out that everything in communication hinges on shared assumptions. I began to make such a point in a conversation with Gerry some weeks ago, but decided not to push forward. Incidentally, I'm not being ironic when I say I like Gerry's Daleks in NS and the Third Policeman reading of FHC. He meant them as parody, but they've worked out well. > > What you can sometimes say is that a given reading is decidedly NOT what the author currently says they had in mind at the time. That can't make the reading incorrect. It can even be a stupid reading, but as long as it is a reading, then it is a reading, and there is no truth criterion that can be applied to such a thing. > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *08 Oct 2014, 14:55 · in reply to António Pedro Marques* The question goes back to this: is there such a thing as the meaning of a statement which is independent of the symbols in which the statement is written. People in math and science would usually say yes, I think. I know I often have the experience of groping for the words to express an idea that seems very clear to me, even before I find the right words. Also, I can express exactly the same idea in many different ways. People in the arts often say no — there is no such thing as meaning without symbols. The medium is the message. What I mean by the universality of math is that there are universal truths (7*8 = 56 is one) which remain true independent of the symbols in which those truths are expressed. If by “I had one grunch but the eggplant over there.” I mean ?7*8 = 56?, then the statement is true. (The question of communicating with another mind is another question. Understanding ideas in your own mind is hard enough, communicating those ideas to another mind is even harder. Rick Norwood From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Pedro Marques Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:29 AM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview Could you gentlemen pinpoint what you're labelling as the universality of math? No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:01, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" > escreveu: This isn’t the place for this debate, since I have no doubt that Gene Wolfe accepts the fact that math is universal, but I will point out that your mode of debate (the suggestion that I don’t accept your assertion not because I disagree with it but because I find it “disturbing”) is, as Mr. Spock would say, “Highly illogical.” Rick Norwood From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Thomas Bitterman Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:36 AM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Lee > wrote: I've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely science/mathematically minded. But math isn't really "universal". It a system of calculation created by the human mind which is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian ancestors. Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? --- ### Lee *08 Oct 2014, 14:57 · follows Norwood, Frederick Hudson* > Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics > that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this: > The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] > Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on > something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just from the perspective of planet earth. But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that one planet. I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able to encounter. In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded to me. Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. --- ### Lee *08 Oct 2014, 15:03 · follows Lee* > Rick Norwood: I will point out that your mode of debate (the suggestion > that I don’t accept your assertion not because I disagree with it but because > I find it “disturbing”) is, as Mr Spock would say, “Highly illogical.” Apologies. I didn't mean to imply any particular person in this discussion is speaking entirely from emotional motivation. > This isn’t the place for this debate, since I have no doubt that Gene Wolfe accepts the > fact that math is universal. I disagree. I find ample evidence to the contrary in his literary work and to some degree his interviews. But that's just my opinion. Still, perhaps we can agree that Gene Wolfe believes in God? If so and if Gene Wolfe believes in the universality of math, wouldn't that mean the Gene Wolfe believes God can be described by a mathematical equation? --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *08 Oct 2014, 15:07 · in reply to Lee* Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM > To: urth at urth.net > Subject: (urth) barrington interview > Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics > that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this: > The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] > Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on > something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just from the perspective of planet earth. But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that one planet. I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able to encounter. In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded to me. Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *08 Oct 2014, 15:09 · in reply to Lee* Ant?nio: Oh, good. I like it when we can all agree. Lee: In saying mathematics is universal, I mean that a true mathematical statement is true everywhere in the universe, not that everything in the universe can be expressed mathematically. Rick Norwood --- ### António Pedro Marques *08 Oct 2014, 15:12 · in reply to Norwood, Frederick Hudson* 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. No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:55, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" escreveu: > The question goes back to this: is there such a thing as the meaning of a statement which is independent of the symbols in which the statement is written. > > People in math and science would usually say yes, I think. I know I often have the experience of groping for the words to express an idea that seems very clear to me, even before I find the right words. Also, I can express exactly the same idea in many different ways. > > People in the arts often say no — there is no such thing as meaning without symbols. The medium is the message. > > What I mean by the universality of math is that there are universal truths (7*8 = 56 is one) which remain true independent of the symbols in which those truths are expressed. If by “I had one grunch but the eggplant over there.” I mean ?7*8 = 56?, then the statement is true. (The question of communicating with another mind is another question. Understanding ideas in your own mind is hard enough, communicating those ideas to another mind is even harder. > > Rick Norwood > > From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Pedro Marques > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:29 AM > To: The Urth Mailing List > Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview > > Could you gentlemen pinpoint what you're labelling as the universality of math? > > No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:01, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" escreveu: > > This isn’t the place for this debate, since I have no doubt that Gene Wolfe accepts the fact that math is universal, but I will point out that your mode of debate (the suggestion that I don’t accept your assertion not because I disagree with it but because I find it “disturbing”) is, as Mr. Spock would say, “Highly illogical.” > > Rick Norwood > > From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Thomas Bitterman > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:36 AM --- ### Marc Aramini *08 Oct 2014, 15:17 · in reply to Lee* Gene was an engineer. AN ENGINEER. Engineering is not a soft science. Angles, physical properties, stress analyses, knowledge of quantifiable variables, structural integrity which might not be universals but are rigidly adhered to - just because Wolfe believes in God doesn't mean he thinks a modern playdough cross section will support a tile roof on our planet at room temperatures. As far as your last statement, I have a feeling it is more likely he feels God is outside the ability of man to circumscribe by any rational or irrational means and cannot be limited by language (the tale of the cock and the angel, for example. > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Lee wrote: > > > > > Apologies. I didn't mean to imply any particular person in this discussion > is > > speaking entirely from emotional motivation.. >> On the universality of math: > I disagree. I find ample evidence to the contrary in his literary work and > to some degree > > his interviews. But that's just my opinion. > > > > Still, perhaps we can agree that Gene Wolfe believes in God? If so and if > Gene Wolfe believes > > in the universality of math, wouldn't that mean the Gene Wolfe believes > God can be > > described by a mathematical equation? > _______________________________________________ --- ### Marc Aramini *08 Oct 2014, 15:20 · in reply to Marc Aramini* Thus the paradox of dualism, to which Wolfe definitely adheres. > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Marc Aramini wrote: > Gene was an engineer. AN ENGINEER. Engineering is not a soft science. > Angles, physical properties, stress analyses, knowledge of quantifiable > variables, structural integrity which might not be universals but are > rigidly adhered to - just because Wolfe believes in God doesn't mean he > thinks a modern playdough cross section will support a tile roof on our > planet at room temperatures. > > As far as your last statement, I have a feeling it is more likely he feels > God is outside the ability of man to circumscribe by any rational or > irrational means and cannot be limited by language (the tale of the cock > and the angel, for example. > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:03 AM, Lee wrote: >> Apologies. I didn't mean to imply any particular person in this >> discussion is >> >> speaking entirely from emotional motivation.. >>> On the universality of math: >> I disagree. I find ample evidence to the contrary in his literary work >> and to some degree >> >> his interviews. But that's just my opinion. >> >> >> >> Still, perhaps we can agree that Gene Wolfe believes in God? If so and if >> Gene Wolfe believes >> >> in the universality of math, wouldn't that mean the Gene Wolfe believes >> God can be >> >> described by a mathematical equation? >> _______________________________________________ --- ### António Pedro Marques *08 Oct 2014, 15:34 · in reply to Norwood, Frederick Hudson* No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:46, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" escreveu: > "I know my view pisses some people off" -- Lee > > Like Ant?nio, you people's reactions as emotional. 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. It 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. But 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. --- ### António Pedro Marques *08 Oct 2014, 15:38 · in reply to Norwood, Frederick Hudson* The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" escreveu: > Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. > > I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. > > For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. > > Rick Norwood > > -----Original Message----- > From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM > To: urth at urth.net > Subject: (urth) barrington interview >> Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics >> that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? > By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this: >> The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] >> Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on >> something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context > My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because > > math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small > > corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. > > > As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside > > that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of > > another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled > > to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just > > from the perspective of planet earth. > > > But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that > > one planet. > > > I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it > > seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described > > mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able > > to encounter. > > > In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic > > universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded > > to me. > > > Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for > > understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *08 Oct 2014, 16:07 · in reply to António Pedro Marques* Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques > wrote: > The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may > look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a > different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal > applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. > > No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < > NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu: >> Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and >> three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four >> hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, >> nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference >> between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. >> >> I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not >> the symbol) is less than three. >> >> For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by >> H. Beam Piper. >> >> Rick Norwood >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee >> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM >> To: urth at urth.net >> Subject: (urth) barrington interview >>> Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of >>> mathematics >>> that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? >> By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this: >>> The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of >>> virtue,[1] >>> Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based >>> solely on >>> something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context >> My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is >> because >> >> math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very >> small >> >> corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of >> galaxies. >> >> >> As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been >> found outside >> >> that original context. For example, if we found math being used by >> members of >> >> another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had >> travelled >> >> to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not >> just >> >> from the perspective of planet earth. >> >> >> But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species >> on that >> >> one planet. >> >> >> I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only >> say that it >> >> seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be >> described >> >> mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are >> able >> >> to encounter. >> >> >> In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption >> of a cosmic >> >> universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems >> unfounded >> >> to me. >> >> >> Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special >> mastery for >> >> understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a >> different story. >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *08 Oct 2014, 16:23 · in reply to António Pedro Marques* 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. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Pedro Marques Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 11:34 AM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:46, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" escreveu: > "I know my view pisses some people off" -- Lee > > Like Ant?nio, you people's reactions as emotional. 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. It 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. But 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. --- ### António Marques *08 Oct 2014, 16:36 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if it is anything like our own math. For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in some meta-language, we won't know. (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). > On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding > the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques > wrote: >> The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may >> look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a >> different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal >> applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. >> >> No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < >> NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu: >>> Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and >>> three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four >>> hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, >>> nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference >>> between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. >>> >>> I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, >>> not the symbol) is less than three. >>> >>> For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by >>> H. Beam Piper. >>> >>> Rick Norwood >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM >>> To: urth at urth.net >>> Subject: (urth) barrington interview >>>> Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of >>>> mathematics >>>> that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? >>> By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this: >>>> The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of >>>> virtue,[1] >>>> Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based >>>> solely on >>>> something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or >>>> context >>> My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is >>> because >>> >>> math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very >>> small >>> >>> corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of >>> galaxies. >>> >>> >>> As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been >>> found outside >>> >>> that original context. For example, if we found math being used by >>> members of >>> >>> another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had >>> travelled >>> >>> to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, >>> not just >>> >>> from the perspective of planet earth. >>> >>> >>> But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species >>> on that >>> >>> one planet. >>> >>> >>> I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would >>> only say that it >>> >>> seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be >>> described >>> >>> mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we >>> are able >>> >>> to encounter. >>> >>> >>> In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption >>> of a cosmic >>> >>> universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems >>> unfounded >>> >>> to me. >>> >>> >>> Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special >>> mastery for >>> >>> understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a >>> different story. >>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *08 Oct 2014, 16:44 · in reply to António Marques* Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I just can't go there. > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques wrote: > I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm > saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if > it is anything like our own math. > For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being > only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that > Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math > isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in > some meta-language, we won't know. > > (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best > to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan > phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). > > On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >> Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding >> the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques >> wrote: >>> The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may >>> look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a >>> different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal >>> applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. >>> >>> No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < >>> NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu: >>>> Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and >>>> three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four >>>> hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, >>>> nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference >>>> between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. >>>> >>>> I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, >>>> not the symbol) is less than three. >>>> >>>> For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" >>> by H. Beam Piper. >>>> Rick Norwood >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee >>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM >>>> To: urth at urth.net >>>> Subject: (urth) barrington interview >>>>> Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of >>>>> mathematics >>>>> that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? >>>> By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this: >>>>> The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of >>>>> virtue,[1] >>>>> Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based >>>>> solely on >>>>> something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or >>>>> context >>>> My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is >>>> because >>>> >>>> math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very >>>> small >>>> >>>> corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of >>>> galaxies. >>>> >>>> >>>> As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been >>>> found outside >>>> >>>> that original context. For example, if we found math being used by >>>> members of >>>> >>>> another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had >>>> travelled >>>> >>>> to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, >>>> not just >>>> >>>> from the perspective of planet earth. >>>> >>>> >>>> But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species >>>> on that >>>> >>>> one planet. >>>> >>>> >>>> I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would >>>> only say that it >>>> >>>> seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be >>>> described >>>> >>>> mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we >>>> are able >>>> >>>> to encounter. >>>> >>>> >>>> In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption >>>> of a cosmic >>>> >>>> universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems >>>> unfounded >>>> >>>> to me. >>>> >>>> >>>> Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special >>>> mastery for >>>> >>>> understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a >>>> different story. >>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### António Marques *08 Oct 2014, 17:01 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. > On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on > the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar > structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has > been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. > > Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I > just can't go there. > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques wrote: >> I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm >> saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if >> it is anything like our own math. >> For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially >> being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen >> that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of >> math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it >> in some meta-language, we won't know. >> >> (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best >> to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan >> phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). >> >> On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>> Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding >>> the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques >> wrote: >>>> The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may >>>> look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a >>>> different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal >>>> applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. >>>> >>>> No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < >>>> NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu: >>>>> Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house >>>>> and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four >>>>> hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, >>>>> nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference >>>>> between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. >>>>> >>>>> I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, >>>>> not the symbol) is less than three. >>>>> >>>>> For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" >>>> by H. Beam Piper. >>>>> Rick Norwood >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM >>>>> To: urth at urth.net >>>>> Subject: (urth) barrington interview >>>>>> Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of >>>>>> mathematics >>>>>> that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? >>>>> By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this: >>>>>> The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of >>>>>> virtue,[1] >>>>>> Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based >>>>>> solely on >>>>>> something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or >>>>>> context >>>>> My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is >>>>> because >>>>> >>>>> math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very >>>>> small >>>>> >>>>> corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of >>>>> galaxies. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been >>>>> found outside >>>>> >>>>> that original context. For example, if we found math being used by >>>>> members of >>>>> >>>>> another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had >>>>> travelled >>>>> >>>>> to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, >>>>> not just >>>>> >>>>> from the perspective of planet earth. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one >>>>> species on that >>>>> >>>>> one planet. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would >>>>> only say that it >>>>> >>>>> seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be >>>>> described >>>>> >>>>> mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we >>>>> are able >>>>> >>>>> to encounter. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The >>>>> assumption of a cosmic >>>>> >>>>> universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems >>>>> unfounded >>>>> >>>>> to me. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special >>>>> mastery for >>>>> >>>>> understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a >>>>> different story. >>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *08 Oct 2014, 17:20 · in reply to António Marques* I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be similar in structure to our math. The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar. A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is the short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought _he'd_ come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists are trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. The first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - not exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable similarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they have the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical Universe. > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques wrote: > You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what > it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. > > On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >> Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based >> on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar >> structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has >> been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. >> >> Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and >> I just can't go there. >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques >> wrote: >>> I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm >>> saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if >>> it is anything like our own math. >>> For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially >>> being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen >>> that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of >>> math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it >>> in some meta-language, we won't know. >>> >>> (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's >>> best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan >>> phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). >>> >>> On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>> Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are >>>> discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques < >>>> entonio at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow >>>>> may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a >>>>> different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal >>>>> applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. >>>>> >>>>> No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < >>>>> NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu: >>>>>> Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house >>>>>> and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four >>>>>> hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, >>>>>> nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference >>>>>> between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, >>>>>> not the symbol) is less than three. >>>>>> >>>>>> For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" >>>>> by H. Beam Piper. >>>>>> Rick Norwood >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM >>>>>> To: urth at urth.net >>>>>> Subject: (urth) barrington interview >>>>>>> Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of >>>>>>> mathematics >>>>>>> that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? >>>>>> By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this: >>>>>>> The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of >>>>>>> virtue,[1] >>>>>>> Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based >>>>>>> solely on >>>>>>> something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or >>>>>>> context >>>>>> My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable >>>>>> is because >>>>>> >>>>>> math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very >>>>>> small >>>>>> >>>>>> corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of >>>>>> galaxies. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been >>>>>> found outside >>>>>> >>>>>> that original context. For example, if we found math being used by >>>>>> members of >>>>>> >>>>>> another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we >>>>>> had travelled >>>>>> >>>>>> to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, >>>>>> not just >>>>>> >>>>>> from the perspective of planet earth. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one >>>>>> species on that >>>>>> >>>>>> one planet. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would >>>>>> only say that it >>>>>> >>>>>> seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be >>>>>> described >>>>>> >>>>>> mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we >>>>>> are able >>>>>> >>>>>> to encounter. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The >>>>>> assumption of a cosmic >>>>>> >>>>>> universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems >>>>>> unfounded >>>>>> >>>>>> to me. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special >>>>>> mastery for >>>>>> >>>>>> understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's >>>>>> a different story. >>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Brendon Fuhs *08 Oct 2014, 17:45 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* Just jumping in here as a math guy even though I haven't been following the whole convo. You can have two descriptions which successfully and completely model a given phenomenon, which which are structurally different. As an over-simple example, the descriptions (x^2)-1 and (x+1)(x-1) are equal, but emphasize different ways of thinking about polynomials. In physics, there are Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian approaches to classical mechanics I think. Now consider that our mathematical models do not precisely describe the universe.There's even more room for divergence, depending on what part of empirical reality we are using our limited resources to best model. Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics are all tools which have been crafted by human minds that take different views of physics, and are more applicable in different situations, despite the fact that they are all attempting to model the same universe in some respect. Even more divergent examples can be found in the corpus of human science, such as when discrete vs continuous models are used. Limit resources even more, and consider an even more alien perspective. How might animals or aliens or isolated cultures differ in their models of the universe? Here's what I think. 1) The math may look similar or very very different. Just because the same universe is modeled doesn't mean it will be done in a way similar to how we do it. 2) It would be possible to translate between maths. I believe there's a theorem that guarantees that it is possible to translate between different formal languages (while preserving the Big O number). Doesn't mean that it would be readily apparent or easily understandable. > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of > the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will > be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an > alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be > similar in structure to our math. > > The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar. > > A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is > the short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought > _he'd_ come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists > are trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. > The first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - > not exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable > similarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they > have the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical > Universe. > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques > wrote: >> You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what >> it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. >> >> On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>> Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based >>> on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar >>> structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has >>> been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. >>> >>> Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and >>> I just can't go there. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques >>> wrote: >>>> I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm >>>> saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if >>>> it is anything like our own math. >>>> For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially >>>> being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen >>>> that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of >>>> math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it >>>> in some meta-language, we won't know. >>>> >>>> (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's >>>> best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan >>>> phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). >>>> >>>> On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>>> Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are >>>>> discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques < >>>>> entonio at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow >>>>>> may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a >>>>>> different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal >>>>>> applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. >>>>>> >>>>>> No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < >>>>>> NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu: >>>>>>> Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house >>>>>>> and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four >>>>>>> hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, >>>>>>> nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference >>>>>>> between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the >>>>>>> concept, not the symbol) is less than three. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For a good science fiction story on this subject, read >>>>>>> "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rick Norwood >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM >>>>>>> To: urth at urth.net >>>>>>> Subject: (urth) barrington interview >>>>>>>> Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of >>>>>>>> mathematics >>>>>>>> that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? >>>>>>> By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this: >>>>>>>> The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of >>>>>>>> virtue,[1] >>>>>>>> Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based >>>>>>>> solely on >>>>>>>> something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or >>>>>>>> context >>>>>>> My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable >>>>>>> is because >>>>>>> >>>>>>> math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a >>>>>>> very small >>>>>>> >>>>>>> corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number >>>>>>> of galaxies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had >>>>>>> been found outside >>>>>>> >>>>>>> that original context. For example, if we found math being used by >>>>>>> members of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we >>>>>>> had travelled >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to all corners of the universe and found math applicable >>>>>>> everywhere, not just >>>>>>> >>>>>>> from the perspective of planet earth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one >>>>>>> species on that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> one planet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would >>>>>>> only say that it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be >>>>>>> described >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what >>>>>>> we are able >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to encounter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The >>>>>>> assumption of a cosmic >>>>>>> >>>>>>> universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts >>>>>>> seems unfounded >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special >>>>>>> mastery for >>>>>>> >>>>>>> understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's >>>>>>> a different story. >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *08 Oct 2014, 17:48 · in reply to Brendon Fuhs* Brendon, it is your point 2) that I am defending. > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Brendon Fuhs > wrote: > Just jumping in here as a math guy even though I haven't been following > the whole convo. You can have two descriptions which successfully and > completely model a given phenomenon, which which are structurally > different. As an over-simple example, the descriptions (x^2)-1 and > (x+1)(x-1) are equal, but emphasize different ways of thinking about > polynomials. In physics, there are Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian > approaches to classical mechanics I think. Now consider that our > mathematical models do not precisely describe the universe.There's even > more room for divergence, depending on what part of empirical reality we > are using our limited resources to best model. Newtonian physics, > relativity, and quantum mechanics are all tools which have been crafted by > human minds that take different views of physics, and are more applicable > in different situations, despite the fact that they are all attempting to > model the same universe in some respect. Even more divergent examples can > be found in the corpus of human science, such as when discrete vs > continuous models are used. Limit resources even more, and consider an even > more alien perspective. How might animals or aliens or isolated cultures > differ in their models of the universe? Here's what I think. > > 1) The math may look similar or very very different. Just because the same > universe is modeled doesn't mean it will be done in a way similar to how we > do it. > > 2) It would be possible to translate between maths. I believe there's a > theorem that guarantees that it is possible to translate between different > formal languages (while preserving the Big O number). Doesn't mean that it > would be readily apparent or easily understandable. > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote: >> I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent >> of the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure >> will be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed >> by an alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will >> be similar in structure to our math. >> >> The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar. >> >> A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is >> the short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought >> _he'd_ come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists >> are trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. >> The first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - >> not exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable >> similarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they >> have the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical >> Universe. >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques >> wrote: >>> You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what >>> it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. >>> >>> On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>> Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based >>>> on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar >>>> structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has >>>> been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. >>>> >>>> Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, >>>> and I just can't go there. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques >>>> wrote: >>>>> I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. >>>>> I'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically >>>>> if it is anything like our own math. >>>>> For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially >>>>> being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen >>>>> that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of >>>>> math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it >>>>> in some meta-language, we won't know. >>>>> >>>>> (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's >>>>> best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan >>>>> phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). >>>>> >>>>> On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>>>> Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are >>>>>> discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques < >>>>>> entonio at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow >>>>>>> may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a >>>>>>> different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal >>>>>>> applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < >>>>>>> NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu: >>>>>>>> Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house >>>>>>>> and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four >>>>>>>> hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, >>>>>>>> nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference >>>>>>>> between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the >>>>>>>> concept, not the symbol) is less than three. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For a good science fiction story on this subject, read >>>>>>>> "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rick Norwood >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM >>>>>>>> To: urth at urth.net >>>>>>>> Subject: (urth) barrington interview >>>>>>>>> Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality >>>>>>>>> of mathematics >>>>>>>>> that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? >>>>>>>> By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this: >>>>>>>>> The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of >>>>>>>>> virtue,[1] >>>>>>>>> Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based >>>>>>>>> solely on >>>>>>>>> something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or >>>>>>>>> context >>>>>>>> My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable >>>>>>>> is because >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a >>>>>>>> very small >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number >>>>>>>> of galaxies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had >>>>>>>> been found outside >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that original context. For example, if we found math being used by >>>>>>>> members of >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we >>>>>>>> had travelled >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to all corners of the universe and found math applicable >>>>>>>> everywhere, not just >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> from the perspective of planet earth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one >>>>>>>> species on that >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> one planet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I >>>>>>>> would only say that it >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be >>>>>>>> described >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what >>>>>>>> we are able >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to encounter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The >>>>>>>> assumption of a cosmic >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts >>>>>>>> seems unfounded >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a >>>>>>>> special mastery for >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then >>>>>>>> that's a different story. >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### António Marques *08 Oct 2014, 18:44 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* But Dan'l, neither Lee nor I said anything against point (2). In fact, at least for me, what Brendon says is quite how I see it myself, tho I'm by no means a math guy. What I'm saying is that the structure need not at all be similar, which is, after all, how all this started. Brendon's point about Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics is, I think, to be read carefully. Normally, these are brought up as examples of how an old model (classical Physics) can still have produce good results in practice, even if later ones showed the world is more complex than it thinks. But the point here, in my opinion, is a different one: Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics are brutally different from each other in their basic concepts and, precisely, structure. They're not refinements or variants, they are ways to look at the world that are very alien to each other. Even though they're trying to model the same reality. Their alienness from each other is perhaps not so evident because they all use math, and they all refer to common high-level concepts (such as electron), and also because they reuse terminology to refer to non-comparable things when that doesn't result in confusion, and lastly because we're used to see each one applied to their preferred scope. > On 8 October 2014 18:48, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > Brendon, it is your point 2) that I am defending. > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Brendon Fuhs > wrote: >> Just jumping in here as a math guy even though I haven't been following >> the whole convo. You can have two descriptions which successfully and >> completely model a given phenomenon, which which are structurally >> different. As an over-simple example, the descriptions (x^2)-1 and >> (x+1)(x-1) are equal, but emphasize different ways of thinking about >> polynomials. In physics, there are Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian >> approaches to classical mechanics I think. Now consider that our >> mathematical models do not precisely describe the universe.There's even >> more room for divergence, depending on what part of empirical reality we >> are using our limited resources to best model. Newtonian physics, >> relativity, and quantum mechanics are all tools which have been crafted by >> human minds that take different views of physics, and are more applicable >> in different situations, despite the fact that they are all attempting to >> model the same universe in some respect. Even more divergent examples can >> be found in the corpus of human science, such as when discrete vs >> continuous models are used. Limit resources even more, and consider an even >> more alien perspective. How might animals or aliens or isolated cultures >> differ in their models of the universe? Here's what I think. >> >> 1) The math may look similar or very very different. Just because the >> same universe is modeled doesn't mean it will be done in a way similar to >> how we do it. >> >> 2) It would be possible to translate between maths. I believe there's a >> theorem that guarantees that it is possible to translate between different >> formal languages (while preserving the Big O number). Doesn't mean that it >> would be readily apparent or easily understandable. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes >> wrote: >>> I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent >>> of the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure >>> will be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed >>> by an alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will >>> be similar in structure to our math. >>> >>> The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar. >>> >>> A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is >>> the short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought >>> _he'd_ come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists >>> are trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. >>> The first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - >>> not exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable >>> similarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they >>> have the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical >>> Universe. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques >>> wrote: >>>> You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on >>>> what it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. >>>> >>>> On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>>> Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology >>>>> based on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a >>>>> similar structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., >>>>> as has been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical >>>>> universe. >>>>> >>>>> Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, >>>>> and I just can't go there. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. >>>>>> I'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically >>>>>> if it is anything like our own math. >>>>>> For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially >>>>>> being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen >>>>>> that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of >>>>>> math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it >>>>>> in some meta-language, we won't know. >>>>>> >>>>>> (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's >>>>>> best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan >>>>>> phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). >>>>>> >>>>>> On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>>>>> Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are >>>>>>> discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques < >>>>>>> entonio at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow >>>>>>>> may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a >>>>>>>> different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal >>>>>>>> applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < >>>>>>>> NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu: >>>>>>>>> Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a >>>>>>>>> house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. >>>>>>>> Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty >>>>>>>> hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see >>>>>>>> the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. >>>>>>>>> I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the >>>>>>>>> concept, not the symbol) is less than three. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For a good science fiction story on this subject, read >>>>>>>>> "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rick Norwood >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee >>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM >>>>>>>>> To: urth at urth.net >>>>>>>>> Subject: (urth) barrington interview >>>>>>>>>> Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality >>>>>>>>>> of mathematics >>>>>>>>>> that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? >>>>>>>>> By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this: >>>>>>>>>> The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy >>>>>>>>>> of virtue,[1] >>>>>>>>>> Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested >>>>>>>>>> based solely on >>>>>>>>>> something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or >>>>>>>>>> context >>>>>>>>> My objection to the assumption that math is universally >>>>>>>>> applicable is because >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a >>>>>>>>> very small >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number >>>>>>>>> of galaxies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had >>>>>>>>> been found outside >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> that original context. For example, if we found math being used >>>>>>>>> by members of >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we >>>>>>>>> had travelled >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to all corners of the universe and found math applicable >>>>>>>>> everywhere, not just >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> from the perspective of planet earth. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one >>>>>>>>> species on that >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> one planet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I >>>>>>>>> would only say that it >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can >>>>>>>>> be described >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what >>>>>>>>> we are able >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to encounter. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The >>>>>>>>> assumption of a cosmic >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts >>>>>>>>> seems unfounded >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> to me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a >>>>>>>>> special mastery for >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then >>>>>>>>> that's a different story. >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *08 Oct 2014, 18:51 · in reply to António Marques* Actually, Newtonian physics arises from quantum physics. When the systems involved are large enough for decoherence to take over... Nonetheless, I take your point. But I would say that any two systems that can be translated into each other share a structural grounding. For example, polar and Cartesian coordinates can be translated because the space they measure is structurally identical... > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Ant?nio Marques wrote: > But Dan'l, neither Lee nor I said anything against point (2). In fact, at > least for me, what Brendon says is quite how I see it myself, tho I'm by no > means a math guy. > > What I'm saying is that the structure need not at all be similar, which > is, after all, how all this started. Brendon's point about Newtonian > physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics is, I think, to be read > carefully. Normally, these are brought up as examples of how an old model > (classical Physics) can still have produce good results in practice, even > if later ones showed the world is more complex than it thinks. But the > point here, in my opinion, is a different one: Newtonian physics, relativity, > and quantum mechanics are brutally different from each other in their basic > concepts and, precisely, structure. They're not refinements or variants, > they are ways to look at the world that are very alien to each other. Even > though they're trying to model the same reality. Their alienness from each > other is perhaps not so evident because they all use math, and they all > refer to common high-level concepts (such as electron), and also because > they reuse terminology to refer to non-comparable things when that doesn't > result in confusion, and lastly because we're used to see each one applied > to their preferred scope. > > > On 8 October 2014 18:48, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >> Brendon, it is your point 2) that I am defending. >> >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Brendon Fuhs >> wrote: >>> Just jumping in here as a math guy even though I haven't been following >>> the whole convo. You can have two descriptions which successfully and >>> completely model a given phenomenon, which which are structurally >>> different. As an over-simple example, the descriptions (x^2)-1 and >>> (x+1)(x-1) are equal, but emphasize different ways of thinking about >>> polynomials. In physics, there are Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian >>> approaches to classical mechanics I think. Now consider that our >>> mathematical models do not precisely describe the universe.There's even >>> more room for divergence, depending on what part of empirical reality we >>> are using our limited resources to best model. Newtonian physics, >>> relativity, and quantum mechanics are all tools which have been crafted by >>> human minds that take different views of physics, and are more applicable >>> in different situations, despite the fact that they are all attempting to >>> model the same universe in some respect. Even more divergent examples can >>> be found in the corpus of human science, such as when discrete vs >>> continuous models are used. Limit resources even more, and consider an even >>> more alien perspective. How might animals or aliens or isolated cultures >>> differ in their models of the universe? Here's what I think. >>> >>> 1) The math may look similar or very very different. Just because the >>> same universe is modeled doesn't mean it will be done in a way similar to >>> how we do it. >>> >>> 2) It would be possible to translate between maths. I believe there's a >>> theorem that guarantees that it is possible to translate between different >>> formal languages (while preserving the Big O number). Doesn't mean that it >>> would be readily apparent or easily understandable. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes >>> wrote: >>>> I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent >>>> of the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure >>>> will be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed >>>> by an alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will >>>> be similar in structure to our math. >>>> >>>> The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar. >>>> >>>> A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is >>>> the short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought >>>> _he'd_ come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists >>>> are trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. >>>> The first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - >>>> not exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable >>>> similarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they >>>> have the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical >>>> Universe. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques >>>> wrote: >>>>> You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on >>>>> what it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. >>>>> >>>>> On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>>>> Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology >>>>>> based on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a >>>>>> similar structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., >>>>>> as has been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical >>>>>> universe. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, >>>>>> and I just can't go there. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. >>>>>>> I'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically >>>>>>> if it is anything like our own math. >>>>>>> For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially >>>>>>> being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen >>>>>>> that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of >>>>>>> math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it >>>>>>> in some meta-language, we won't know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's >>>>>>> best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan >>>>>>> phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are >>>>>>>> discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques < >>>>>>>> entonio at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The >>>>>>>>> crow may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in >>>>>>>>> a different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal >>>>>>>>> applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < >>>>>>>>> NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu: >>>>>>>>>> Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a >>>>>>>>>> house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. >>>>>>>>> Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty >>>>>>>>> hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see >>>>>>>>> the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. >>>>>>>>>> I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the >>>>>>>>>> concept, not the symbol) is less than three. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For a good science fiction story on this subject, read >>>>>>>>>> "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Rick Norwood >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>>> From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee >>>>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM >>>>>>>>>> To: urth at urth.net >>>>>>>>>> Subject: (urth) barrington interview >>>>>>>>>>> Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality >>>>>>>>>>> of mathematics >>>>>>>>>>> that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? >>>>>>>>>> By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this: >>>>>>>>>>> The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy >>>>>>>>>>> of virtue,[1] >>>>>>>>>>> Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested >>>>>>>>>>> based solely on >>>>>>>>>>> something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning >>>>>>>>>>> or context >>>>>>>>>> My objection to the assumption that math is universally >>>>>>>>>> applicable is because >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a >>>>>>>>>> very small >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite >>>>>>>>>> number of galaxies. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had >>>>>>>>>> been found outside >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> that original context. For example, if we found math being used >>>>>>>>>> by members of >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if >>>>>>>>>> we had travelled >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to all corners of the universe and found math applicable >>>>>>>>>> everywhere, not just >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> from the perspective of planet earth. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one >>>>>>>>>> species on that >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> one planet. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I >>>>>>>>>> would only say that it >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can >>>>>>>>>> be described >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on >>>>>>>>>> what we are able >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to encounter. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The >>>>>>>>>> assumption of a cosmic >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts >>>>>>>>>> seems unfounded >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> to me. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a >>>>>>>>>> special mastery for >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then >>>>>>>>>> that's a different story. >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### António Marques *08 Oct 2014, 18:58 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* I like H Beam Piper! (I actually have read only a couple of stories I got for free from feedbooks back when Stanza was king, but I liked them.) The comparison with the periodic table is nice, but not convincing. No matter how one looks at it, there are things element-like out there, and anything remotely like chemistry will have to come up with them. But algebra isn't inherent in the structure of the universe. There is no such thing as multiplication on the real world. There is a thing called multiplication in our mind that is awesome at helping us understand the real world. It works quite well, but what it reflects is how our mind works. Of course, our mind being a tool to respond to the Universe, the math it produces had better work well and consistently. But it is still an internal tool, not a description of what's outside, even though it is essential to the descriptions of the outside that we develop (such as chemistry or physics). > On 8 October 2014 18:20, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of > the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will > be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an > alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be > similar in structure to our math. > > The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar. > > A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is > the short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought > _he'd_ come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists > are trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. > The first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - > not exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable > similarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they > have the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical > Universe. > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques > wrote: >> You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what >> it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. >> >> On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>> Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based >>> on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar >>> structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has >>> been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. >>> >>> Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and >>> I just can't go there. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques >>> wrote: >>>> I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm >>>> saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if >>>> it is anything like our own math. >>>> For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially >>>> being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen >>>> that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of >>>> math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it >>>> in some meta-language, we won't know. >>>> >>>> (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's >>>> best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan >>>> phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). >>>> >>>> On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: >>>>> Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are >>>>> discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques < >>>>> entonio at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow >>>>>> may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a >>>>>> different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal >>>>>> applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. >>>>>> >>>>>> No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < >>>>>> NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu: >>>>>>> Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house >>>>>>> and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four >>>>>>> hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, >>>>>>> nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference >>>>>>> between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the >>>>>>> concept, not the symbol) is less than three. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For a good science fiction story on this subject, read >>>>>>> "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rick Norwood >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM >>>>>>> To: urth at urth.net >>>>>>> Subject: (urth) barrington interview >>>>>>>> Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of >>>>>>>> mathematics >>>>>>>> that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? >>>>>>> By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this: >>>>>>>> The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of >>>>>>>> virtue,[1] >>>>>>>> Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based >>>>>>>> solely on >>>>>>>> something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or >>>>>>>> context >>>>>>> My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable >>>>>>> is because >>>>>>> >>>>>>> math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a >>>>>>> very small >>>>>>> >>>>>>> corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number >>>>>>> of galaxies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had >>>>>>> been found outside >>>>>>> >>>>>>> that original context. For example, if we found math being used by >>>>>>> members of >>>>>>> >>>>>>> another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we >>>>>>> had travelled >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to all corners of the universe and found math applicable >>>>>>> everywhere, not just >>>>>>> >>>>>>> from the perspective of planet earth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one >>>>>>> species on that >>>>>>> >>>>>>> one planet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would >>>>>>> only say that it >>>>>>> >>>>>>> seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be >>>>>>> described >>>>>>> >>>>>>> mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what >>>>>>> we are able >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to encounter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The >>>>>>> assumption of a cosmic >>>>>>> >>>>>>> universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts >>>>>>> seems unfounded >>>>>>> >>>>>>> to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special >>>>>>> mastery for >>>>>>> >>>>>>> understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's >>>>>>> a different story. >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Lee *09 Oct 2014, 11:44 · follows António Marques* > Rick Norwood: Lee: In saying mathematics is universal, I mean that > a true mathematical statement is true everywhere in the universe, > not that everything in the universe can be expressed mathematically. I see. This is a quite a departure from what I thought you were saying. Within this framework, I find math to be far less universal than I previously thought you were claiming. You are only claiming that 3+4= 7 must be true everywhere in the universe and acknowledge that the universe might contain many things, from God and angels to superdark matter which cannot be described by math. Sadly, I find myself even disagreeing with that lesser statement of universality, though only in the absolute qualifier that 3+4 =7 MUST be true everywhere in the universe. I think the question remains open. For example, I find it plausible (even likely?) that if you were travelling through a black hole or experiencing the Big Bang that the laws of physics as we know them might not apply. If so, I can further extrapolate that the principles of math that we humans have determined might also be rendered null and void under those conditions. Math relies on numbers, a concept which assumes the universe can be divided and packaged into discrete, countable units. I suspect there may be conditions under which that is not the case. If, say, in pre-Big Bang conditions there existed a universal state in which everything was unified and there were no "numbers" of anything then 3+4 would cease to have any meaning, and certainly wouldn't = 7. > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe > is independent of the mind in which that description takes place. At risk of being overly argumentative, I absolutely cannot go along with this statement. The reason being it seems (to me) an impossible statement to make. Every thought and perception and calculation you have ever made in your entire life has taken place within your human mind. Every scholarly article you have read every scientific theory you have pondered and every photo of distant galaxies you have seen has been processed entirely by your human mind. I just don't see how you can make a statement that anything is universal, independent of the human mind when you have never been there. You can't go outside the human mind. Every minute detail of your understanding the universe is entirely dependent on your mind with no way of becoming detached from it. How can you do anything outside the confines of the human mind? It is all you (we) have. --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *09 Oct 2014, 12:01 · in reply to António Marques* We have to be a little careful when we extend math to physics. In a universe with different physical laws, we would have different physics, but the same math. Math is the knowledge that can be arrived at by pure reason. Physics requires reason plus observation. Of course, there is multiplication in the real world. We call it area. Rick Norwood From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Marques Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:58 PM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview I like H Beam Piper! (I actually have read only a couple of stories I got for free from feedbooks back when Stanza was king, but I liked them.) The comparison with the periodic table is nice, but not convincing. No matter how one looks at it, there are things element-like out there, and anything remotely like chemistry will have to come up with them. But algebra isn't inherent in the structure of the universe. There is no such thing as multiplication on the real world. There is a thing called multiplication in our mind that is awesome at helping us understand the real world. It works quite well, but what it reflects is how our mind works. Of course, our mind being a tool to respond to the Universe, the math it produces had better work well and consistently. But it is still an internal tool, not a description of what's outside, even though it is essential to the descriptions of the outside that we develop (such as chemistry or physics). On 8 October 2014 18:20, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote: I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be similar in structure to our math. The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar. A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is the short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought _he'd_ come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists are trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. The first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - not exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable similarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they have the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical Universe. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques > wrote: You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote: Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I just can't go there. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques > wrote: I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if it is anything like our own math. For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in some meta-language, we won't know. (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote: Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques > wrote: The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" > escreveu: > Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. > > I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. > > For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by H. Beam Piper. > > Rick Norwood > > -----Original Message----- > From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM > To: urth at urth.net > Subject: (urth) barrington interview >> Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics >> that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? > By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this: >> The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] >> Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on >> something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context > My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because > > math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small > > corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies. > > > As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside > > that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of > > another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled > > to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just > > from the perspective of planet earth. > > > But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that > > one planet. > > > I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it > > seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described > > mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able > > to encounter. > > > In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption of a cosmic > > universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded > > to me. > > > Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for > > understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net ``` Dan'l Danehy-Oakes -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *09 Oct 2014, 12:04 · in reply to Lee* 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. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 7:45 AM > To: urth at urth.net > Subject: (urth) barrington interview > Rick Norwood: Lee: In saying mathematics is universal, I mean that > a true mathematical statement is true everywhere in the universe, > not that everything in the universe can be expressed mathematically. I see. This is a quite a departure from what I thought you were saying. Within this framework, I find math to be far less universal than I previously thought you were claiming. You are only claiming that 3+4= 7 must be true everywhere in the universe and acknowledge that the universe might contain many things, from God and angels to superdark matter which cannot be described by math. Sadly, I find myself even disagreeing with that lesser statement of universality, though only in the absolute qualifier that 3+4 =7 MUST be true everywhere in the universe. I think the question remains open. For example, I find it plausible (even likely?) that if you were travelling through a black hole or experiencing the Big Bang that the laws of physics as we know them might not apply. If so, I can further extrapolate that the principles of math that we humans have determined might also be rendered null and void under those conditions. Math relies on numbers, a concept which assumes the universe can be divided and packaged into discrete, countable units. I suspect there may be conditions under which that is not the case. If, say, in pre-Big Bang conditions there existed a universal state in which everything was unified and there were no "numbers" of anything then 3+4 would cease to have any meaning, and certainly wouldn't = 7. > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe > is independent of the mind in which that description takes place. At risk of being overly argumentative, I absolutely cannot go along with this statement. The reason being it seems (to me) an impossible statement to make. Every thought and perception and calculation you have ever made in your entire life has taken place within your human mind. Every scholarly article you have read every scientific theory you have pondered and every photo of distant galaxies you have seen has been processed entirely by your human mind. I just don't see how you can make a statement that anything is universal, independent of the human mind when you have never been there. You can't go outside the human mind. Every minute detail of your understanding the universe is entirely dependent on your mind with no way of becoming detached from it. How can you do anything outside the confines of the human mind? It is all you (we) have. --- ### António Marques *09 Oct 2014, 12:09 · in reply to Norwood, Frederick Hudson* And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from observing the universe, whereas math comes from reason. Our reason could be different. There is no such thing as multiplication outside our minds. There is a thing in our minds called multiplication which enables us to make sense of areas. Areas are physics, not math. > On 9 October 2014 13:01, Norwood, Frederick Hudson > wrote: > We have to be a little careful when we extend math to physics. In a > universe with different physical laws, we would have different physics, but > the same math. Math is the knowledge that can be arrived at by pure > reason. Physics requires reason plus observation. > > > > Of course, there is multiplication in the real world. We call it area. > > > > Rick Norwood > > > > *From:* Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] *On Behalf Of *Ant?nio > Marques > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 08, 2014 2:58 PM > *To:* The Urth Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: (urth) barrington interview > > > > I like H Beam Piper! (I actually have read only a couple of stories I got > for free from feedbooks back when Stanza was king, but I liked them.) > > > > The comparison with the periodic table is nice, but not convincing. No > matter how one looks at it, there are things element-like out there, and > anything remotely like chemistry will have to come up with them. But > algebra isn't inherent in the structure of the universe. There is no such > thing as multiplication on the real world. There is a thing called > multiplication in our mind that is awesome at helping us understand the > real world. It works quite well, but what it reflects is how our mind > works. Of course, our mind being a tool to respond to the Universe, the > math it produces had better work well and consistently. But it is still an > internal tool, not a description of what's outside, even though it is > essential to the descriptions of the outside that we develop (such as > chemistry or physics). > > > > > > On 8 October 2014 18:20, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > > I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of > the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will > be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an > alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be > similar in structure to our math. > > > > The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar. > > > > A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is > the short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought > _he'd_ come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists > are trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. > The first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - > not exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable > similarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they > have the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical > Universe. > > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Ant?nio Marques > wrote: > > You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what > it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on. > > > > On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > > Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on > the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar > structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has > been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe. > > > > Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I > just can't go there. > > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques wrote: > > I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm > saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if > it is anything like our own math. > > For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially being > only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen that > Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of math > isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it in > some meta-language, we won't know. > > > > (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best > to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan > phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really). > > > > On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > > Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding > the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from. > > > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques > wrote: > > The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may > look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a > different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal > applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool. > > No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" < > NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu: >> Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and >> three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four >> hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, >> nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference >> between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. >> >> I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not >> the symbol) is less than three. >> >> For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual" by >> H. Beam Piper. >> >> Rick Norwood >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee >> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM >> To: urth at urth.net >> Subject: (urth) barrington interview >>> Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of >>> mathematics >>> that isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? >> By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this: >>> The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of >>> virtue,[1] >>> Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based >>> solely on >>> something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context >> My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is >> because >> >> math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very >> small >> >> corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of >> galaxies. >> >> >> As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been >> found outside >> >> that original context. For example, if we found math being used by >> members of >> >> another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had >> travelled >> >> to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not >> just >> >> from the perspective of planet earth. >> >> >> But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species >> on that >> >> one planet. >> >> >> I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only >> say that it >> >> seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be >> described >> >> mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are >> able >> >> to encounter. >> >> >> In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see. The assumption >> of a cosmic >> >> universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems >> unfounded >> >> to me. >> >> >> Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special >> mastery for >> >> understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a >> different story. >> _______________________________________________ --- ### António Marques *09 Oct 2014, 12:18 · in reply to Lee* Now it's both Lee and Dan'l who are taking the physical applications of math for math. 3 + 4 = 7 can be math or physics or something else. As math, it is universal, since it refers to nothing else outside it (pace Godel), but on the other hand it's our own math, and it may be incomprehensible to other minds (tho eventually translatable, as Brendon notices). As physics, it may or may not be applicable, as Lee points out. As something else, all bets are off. >> On 9 October 2014 12:44, Lee wrote: >> Rick Norwood: Lee: In saying mathematics is universal, I mean that >> a true mathematical statement is true everywhere in the universe, >> not that everything in the universe can be expressed mathematically. > I see. This is a quite a departure from what I thought you were saying. > > Within this framework, I find math to be far less universal than I > > previously thought you were claiming. You are only claiming that > > 3+4= 7 must be true everywhere in the universe and acknowledge > > that the universe might contain many things, from God and angels > > to superdark matter which cannot be described by math. > > > Sadly, I find myself even disagreeing with that lesser statement of > > universality, though only in the absolute qualifier that 3+4 =7 MUST > > be true everywhere in the universe. I think the question remains open. > > > For example, I find it plausible (even likely?) that if you were travelling > > through a black hole or experiencing the Big Bang that the laws of > > physics as we know them might not apply. If so, I can further extrapolate > > that the principles of math that we humans have determined might also > > be rendered null and void under those conditions. > > > Math relies on numbers, a concept which assumes the universe can be > > divided and packaged into discrete, countable units. I suspect there may > > be conditions under which that is not the case. If, say, in pre-Big Bang > > conditions there existed a universal state in which everything was unified > > and there were no "numbers" of anything then 3+4 would cease to have > > any meaning, and certainly wouldn't = 7. >> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: I am saying that an accurate description of the >> Universe >> is independent of the mind in which that description takes place. > At risk of being overly argumentative, I absolutely cannot go along with > this > > statement. The reason being it seems (to me) an impossible statement to > make. > > > Every thought and perception and calculation you have ever made in your > entire > > life has taken place within your human mind. Every scholarly article you > have read > > every scientific theory you have pondered and every photo of distant > galaxies you > > have seen has been processed entirely by your human mind. I just don't see > how > > you can make a statement that anything is universal, independent of the > human mind > > when you have never been there. You can't go outside the human mind. Every > minute > > detail of your understanding the universe is entirely dependent on your > mind with no > > way of becoming detached from it. How can you do anything outside the > confines of > > the human mind? It is all you (we) have. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Gerry Quinn *09 Oct 2014, 13:11 · in reply to Lee* > On 06/10/2014 12:18, Lee wrote: > In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy > theorists of his work but that there were some readers who basically > understood all his work. There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have > spent much time and thought trying to understand his work. Which are > the ones who have the correct understanding? Has Neil Gaiman ever done any criticism? I seem to recall Wolfe saying that he wouldn't mind if Gaiman wrote further works in his universes after he was dead. Of course, as a writer, Gaiman most likely shies clear of criticism... - Gerry Quinn --- ### Lee *09 Oct 2014, 13:37 · follows Gerry Quinn* > Gerry Quinn: Has Neil Gaiman ever done any criticism? I seem to recall Wolfe saying > that he wouldn't mind if Gaiman wrote further works in his universes > after he was dead. > Of course, as a writer, Gaiman most likely shies clear of criticism... I was thinking these exact same thoughts, Gerry. I'll guess that Wolfe might also put Michael Andre-Driussi on his "mostly gets it" list. As "Mantis" he contributed quite a bit of speculation and analysis to the early days of this list, but in his published work he has leaned away from going out on a limb and more toward just cataloging Lupine information. (I was quite convinced by one Andre-Driussi essay refuting a Borski theory and proposing that Hethor's mirrors are (Tzadkiel's) Ship sail scraps. I was less swayed by another he wrote about bear and cat figures in BotNS) --- ### Gerry Quinn *09 Oct 2014, 13:38 · in reply to Richard Simon* > On 07/10/2014 04:12, Richard Simon wrote: > My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a > direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information > that could help the reader understand something more about the plot, > the characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the > mechanics of the story itself. > > Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without > endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a > poetic conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add > something to the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. In the main I agree with this, as regards the interpretation of names and events. > I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any > relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters > present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or > think they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe > is up to at that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to > convey some extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a > creator of popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a > great author --- 'great' as in 'for the ages' --- but he is not a > preacher or a philosophical huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman > above all. Perhaps this goes too far, or it could be that I am mistaking what you are trying to express. We are certainly intended to consider many of his works in the light of Christianity, or perhaps to consider Christianity in the light of his works.. But maybe you are including that in the 'mechanics'. - Gerry Quinn --- ### Lee *09 Oct 2014, 13:40 · follows Gerry Quinn* > Antonio Marques: And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from > observing the universe, whereas math comes from reason. Our reason > could be different. There is no such thing as multiplication outside our > minds. I could generally, theoretically agree with this, though in the real world, I question the idea of "pure reason". How can a human mind possibly reason if it had been deprived of all external sensory input since birth/conception of the person in question. I don't think we are built to function that way. > Rick Norwood: In a universe with different physical laws, we would have > different physics, but the same math. Math is the knowledge that can > be arrived at by pure reason. Again, I question this concept of "pure reason" as a real world item. How could a human mind ever engage in "pure reason", unpolluted by any real world experience or perception? I submit that math was, in its original conception and in its continued use, the combination of real world perception and experience and internal logic/reason, like everything else in our brains. And this is the essential reason I question the universality of math. Because math is inextricably tied to the human, real world experience on planet earth, and thus is inherently limited by it. A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so. The adult human brain is a product of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with decades of personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life. The suggestion that the human brain can somehow decide to operate independently from its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like saying a automobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and construction and start running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can possibly make sense. (is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an example of "Genetic Fallacy"?) Even if, maybe, by some wild random chance, humanity, in math, actually did stumble upon the one universal describing system, that all possible intelligences must agree upon. I still don't see how we could possibly know that. How are in the position to make that judgment? Human beings are not universal. All we know is our own intelligence and what we can "see" from our own planet.. To me it seems the height of hubris to think the system we invented here a few thousand years ago applies everywhere, to everything and every form of intelligence. (A little voice in my head is saying someone will argue that we didn't invent math; it is something we discovered. If so I'll just say "I disagree" and leave it at that) --- ### Gerry Quinn *09 Oct 2014, 13:57 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > On 08/10/2014 01:05, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: > > It is not necessary for a "conch to do math" for its spiral > shell-shape to be mathematically based. Its genes, an incredibly > powerful computing system (whose results are expressed in proteins > which then control cellular behavior), "does" the math. Likewise the > shape of the galaxy; stars aren't "doing math," they are obeying > natural law, which is mathematical in nature. > > The evidence (I hesitate to say "proof," as that would be > unscientific) for this is that just about everywhere we turn in > nature, we find that mathematics provides predictability and > explanatory power. It isn't a joke when cosmologists talk about the > universe being potentially a huge "computer" "simulation" (I think > both words are too loose here); the Universe itself seems to "do math" > as you would put it. I don't really agree. I think "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in science is a result of science being based on repetitive aspects of the world that can be mathematically modelled. The mathematics describes the model, but the model is generally - perhaps always - an imperfect and incomplete description of the world. Science speaks about models, but models are not actually the world, they just track some parts of it. Snail shells are repetitive and model easily, snail trails not so much. A scientist will make predictions based on the percentage of the sky that is overcast. But the *number* of clouds in the sky is relatively unamenable and thus useless to science - to study that aspect of the world, you would require a painter, or perhaps a mystic. - Gerry Quinn --- ### Gerry Quinn *09 Oct 2014, 14:02 · in reply to Thomas Bitterman* > On 08/10/2014 14:35, Thomas Bitterman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Lee > wrote: > > I've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the > purely science/mathematically > minded. But math isn't really "universal". It a system of > calculation created by the human mind > which is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive > mammalian ancestors. > > > Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics that > isn't just the Genetic Fallacy? I think it's universal. Basically mathematics is a fractal set of strings made from other strings by following rules, and it's possible to embed the rules in the fractal. All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane. - Gerry Quinn --- ### Marc Aramini *09 Oct 2014, 14:05 · in reply to Gerry Quinn* Gaiman is Wolfe's friend, and one with a legion of fans. His insight into the stories and his advice for reading Wolfe is useful primarily in acknowledging Wolfe's cleverness and greatness and getting that idea to his fan base. As far as critics go, he dedicated a book to andre-driussi and one to Nigel Price. No one understands everything in Wolfe (at this point perhaps not even Wolfe himself - some of those things were written over forty years ago). > On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Gerry Quinn wrote: > > On 06/10/2014 12:18, Lee wrote: >> In another interview, Wolfe said something about all the crazy theorists >> of his work but that there were some readers who basically understood all >> his work. There are thousands of Wolfe readers who have spent much time and >> thought trying to understand his work. Which are the ones who have the >> correct understanding? > Has Neil Gaiman ever done any criticism? I seem to recall Wolfe saying > that he wouldn't mind if Gaiman wrote further works in his universes after > he was dead. > > Of course, as a writer, Gaiman most likely shies clear of criticism... > > - Gerry Quinn > _______________________________________________ --- ### Gerry Quinn *09 Oct 2014, 14:09 · in reply to Norwood, Frederick Hudson* > On 08/10/2014 16:07, Norwood, Frederick Hudson wrote: > Actually, crows can do simple math. If four hunters enter a house and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house. Four hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house. Twenty hunters in, nineteen out, the crow flies to the house. The crow can see the difference between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty. > > I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept, not the symbol) is less than three. I think Wolfe would largely agree. His humanoid aliens - and robots - seem to be mostly different to humans, but capable of mutual understanding. Loyal To The group Of Seventeen is an attack on the idea that our minds are constructed by our language. - Gerry Quinn --- ### Gerry Quinn *09 Oct 2014, 14:15 · in reply to Lee* > On 07/10/2014 23:25, Lee wrote: > It reminds me of a quote I heard from somebody in Mississippi back in > 2012. He said that he knew Barack Obama couldn't be re-elected because > everybody he knew was voting against him. It's a deliberate or accidental riff on something similar that Pauline Kael said about Nixon. - Gerry Quinn --- ### Richard Simon *09 Oct 2014, 14:15 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* Re. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' et al. Obviously ?there will be cultural references — I mean to our culture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their presentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense of humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is pretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious constructions like Terminus Est?= cross symbol. They aren't hidden deep within the text. I recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of flowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a flower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll while he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and at the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in that discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum relating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers seems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there, it's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a lot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was? On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: I'm with Daniel here. "Nothing more" applies only in the sense it would apply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for the ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with someone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a "select" audience. On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen wrote: I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course, possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological exploration (even exposition?I would contend) into the narratives in a way consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for allusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant fact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have spiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction, longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being content to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely entertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do more. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question. ?-DOJP On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon wrote: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story itself. Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. “Wholehearted agreement! Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or she act well or badly in the circumstances” ``` Daniel Otto Jack Petersen -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### Adam Thornton *09 Oct 2014, 14:17 · in reply to Lee* Not much to do with Wolfe, but Lakoff and Nunez's book *Where Mathematics Comes From* may be of some interest from a philosophical standpoint. >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Lee wrote: >> Antonio Marques: And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from >> observing the universe, whereas math comes from reason. Our reason >> could be different. There is no such thing as multiplication outside our >> minds. > I could generally, theoretically agree with this, though in the real world, > > I question the idea of "pure reason". How can a human mind possibly > > reason if it had been deprived of all external sensory input since > > birth/conception of the person in question. I don't think we are > > built to function that way. >> Rick Norwood: In a universe with different physical laws, we would have >> different physics, but the same math. Math is the knowledge that can >> be arrived at by pure reason. > Again, I question this concept of "pure reason" as a real world item. > > How could a human mind ever engage in "pure reason", unpolluted > > by any real world experience or perception? > > > > I submit that math was, in its original conception and in its > > continued use, the combination of real world perception and experience > > and internal logic/reason, like everything else in our brains. > > > > And this is the essential reason I question the universality of math. > Because > > math is inextricably tied to the human, real world experience on planet > earth, > > and thus is inherently limited by it. > > > > A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm > > of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so. The adult human brain > is a > > product of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with > decades > > of personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life. > > > > The suggestion that the human brain can somehow decide to operate > independently > > from its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like > saying a > > automobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and > construction and > > start running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can > possibly make > > sense. > > > > (is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an > example > > of "Genetic Fallacy"?) > > > > Even if, maybe, by some wild random chance, humanity, in math, actually > did stumble > > upon the one universal describing system, that all possible intelligences > must agree upon. > > I still don't see how we could possibly know that. How are in the position > to make that > > judgment? > > > > Human beings are not universal. All we know is our own intelligence and > what we can "see" > > from our own planet.. To me it seems the height of hubris to think the > system we invented > > here a few thousand years ago applies everywhere, to everything and every > form of intelligence. > > > > (A little voice in my head is saying someone will argue that we didn't > invent math; it is > > something we discovered. If so I'll just say "I disagree" and leave it at > that) > _______________________________________________ --- ### Daniel Otto Jack Petersen *09 Oct 2014, 15:14 · in reply to Richard Simon* The Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely ornamental. > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon wrote: > Re. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' *et > al.* Obviously there will be cultural references — I mean to our > culture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their > presentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense > of humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is > pretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious > constructions like *Terminus Est* = cross symbol. They aren't hidden deep > within the text. > > I recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of > flowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a > flower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll > while he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and > at the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in > that discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum > relating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers > seems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there, > it's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a > lot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was? > > > On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote: > > > I'm with Daniel here. "Nothing more" applies only in the sense it would > apply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for > the ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with > someone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a "select" audience. > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < > danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course, > possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also > for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as > well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological > exploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way > consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for > allusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short > Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the > narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant > fact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have > spiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it > deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of > intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction, > longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being > content to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely > entertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do > more. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question. > > -DOJP > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon > wrote: > > My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct > bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could > help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters, > the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story > itself. > > Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without > endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic > conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to > the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. > > I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any > relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters > present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think > they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at > that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some > extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of > popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? > 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical > huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. > > > Wholehearted agreement! > > Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of > character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or > she act well or badly in the circumstances? > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Brendon Fuhs *09 Oct 2014, 16:55 · in reply to Lee* "A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so." This is one of those wild statements that calls for an example. If mathematicians are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing some imperfect brain mechanics, and brains and thinking differ from person-to-person then surely there should be some mathematical statements that different groups of mathematicians are convinced have been demonstrated to be true, while others are convinced they have been demonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an agreement on the matter. It is also a statement that represents a difficult (or impossible) place for drawing the line between the subjective and the objective. Math, the concept, is viewed as a material construct, rather than something which accesses objective truths and falsehoods. Why not go all the way and say that true and false are constructions? After all, the notion of truth and falseness is fundamentally mathematical, prior to being empirical. Or are you saying that it's possible for there to be a universe so alien to our own, epistemologically, that even its logic is unimaginable to us? Different not just in physical laws but in a deeper way that demonstrates that logic is only universal and not multiversal? Like there's some sort of logical ether in which our universe lives that could be different? That is interesting, but not falsifiable. >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Lee wrote: >> Antonio Marques: And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from >> observing the universe, whereas math comes from reason. Our reason >> could be different. There is no such thing as multiplication outside our >> minds. > I could generally, theoretically agree with this, though in the real world, > > I question the idea of "pure reason". How can a human mind possibly > > reason if it had been deprived of all external sensory input since > > birth/conception of the person in question. I don't think we are > > built to function that way. >> Rick Norwood: In a universe with different physical laws, we would have >> different physics, but the same math. Math is the knowledge that can >> be arrived at by pure reason. > Again, I question this concept of "pure reason" as a real world item. > > How could a human mind ever engage in "pure reason", unpolluted > > by any real world experience or perception? > > > > I submit that math was, in its original conception and in its > > continued use, the combination of real world perception and experience > > and internal logic/reason, like everything else in our brains. > > > > And this is the essential reason I question the universality of math. > Because > > math is inextricably tied to the human, real world experience on planet > earth, > > and thus is inherently limited by it. > > > > A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm > > of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so. The adult human brain > is a > > product of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with > decades > > of personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life. > > > > The suggestion that the human brain can somehow decide to operate > independently > > from its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like > saying a > > automobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and > construction and > > start running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can > possibly make > > sense. > > > > (is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an > example > > of "Genetic Fallacy"?) > > > > Even if, maybe, by some wild random chance, humanity, in math, actually > did stumble > > upon the one universal describing system, that all possible intelligences > must agree upon. > > I still don't see how we could possibly know that. How are in the position > to make that > > judgment? > > > > Human beings are not universal. All we know is our own intelligence and > what we can "see" > > from our own planet.. To me it seems the height of hubris to think the > system we invented > > here a few thousand years ago applies everywhere, to everything and every > form of intelligence. > > > > (A little voice in my head is saying someone will argue that we didn't > invent math; it is > > something we discovered. If so I'll just say "I disagree" and leave it at > that) > _______________________________________________ --- ### Thomas Bitterman *09 Oct 2014, 18:30 · in reply to Lee* > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Lee wrote: > A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm > of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so. The adult human brain > is a > product of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with > decades > of personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life. > > The suggestion that the human brain can somehow decide to operate > independently > from its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like > saying a > automobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and > construction and > start running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can > possibly make > sense. > > (is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an > example > of "Genetic Fallacy"?) No, but claiming that a brain cannot work purely in the realm of symbolic logic and reason because it is the product of millions of years of evolution on Earth is. ``` "Language gives us everything - except the ability to talk, or even think, about what it took from us in exchange." - Justin Boland ``` --- ### Adam Thornton *09 Oct 2014, 20:12 · in reply to Brendon Fuhs* The Continuum Hypothesis (more or less, there are no infinite sets larger than the set of integers and smaller than the set of reals) is independent of ZFC (Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms adjoined to the Axiom of Choice, which together give something that seems to be coterminous with the standard model of mathematical reality). Actual mathematicians (at least in certain fields) deal with this sort of question all the time, and following the logic can take you to some very strange--but, if you believe your axioms, true--places. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ContinuumHypothesis.html is a pretty decent nontechnical overview. This argument is orthogonal to the Lakoff-Nunez argument that the conceptualization of mathematics is embedded in our anatomy and sensory perception. Adam > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Brendon Fuhs > wrote: > "A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the > realm of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so." > > This is one of those wild statements that calls for an example. If > mathematicians are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing > some imperfect brain mechanics, and brains and thinking differ from > person-to-person then surely there should be some mathematical statements > that different groups of mathematicians are convinced have been > demonstrated to be true, while others are convinced they have been > demonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an agreement on the > matter. > > It is also a statement that represents a difficult (or impossible) place > for drawing the line between the subjective and the objective. Math, the > concept, is viewed as a material construct, rather than something which > accesses objective truths and falsehoods. Why not go all the way and say > that true and false are constructions? After all, the notion of truth and > falseness is fundamentally mathematical, prior to being empirical. > > Or are you saying that it's possible for there to be a universe so alien > to our own, epistemologically, that even its logic is unimaginable to us? > Different not just in physical laws but in a deeper way that demonstrates > that logic is only universal and not multiversal? Like there's some sort of > logical ether in which our universe lives that could be different? > > That is interesting, but not falsifiable. > > > > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Lee wrote: >>> Antonio Marques: And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from >>> observing the universe, whereas math comes from reason. Our reason >>> could be different. There is no such thing as multiplication outside our >>> minds. >> I could generally, theoretically agree with this, though in the real >> world, >> >> I question the idea of "pure reason". How can a human mind possibly >> >> reason if it had been deprived of all external sensory input since >> >> birth/conception of the person in question. I don't think we are >> >> built to function that way. >>> Rick Norwood: In a universe with different physical laws, we would have >>> different physics, but the same math. Math is the knowledge that can >>> be arrived at by pure reason. >> Again, I question this concept of "pure reason" as a real world item. >> >> How could a human mind ever engage in "pure reason", unpolluted >> >> by any real world experience or perception? >> >> >> >> I submit that math was, in its original conception and in its >> >> continued use, the combination of real world perception and experience >> >> and internal logic/reason, like everything else in our brains. >> >> >> >> And this is the essential reason I question the universality of math. >> Because >> >> math is inextricably tied to the human, real world experience on planet >> earth, >> >> and thus is inherently limited by it. >> >> >> >> A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm >> >> of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so. The adult human brain >> is a >> >> product of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with >> decades >> >> of personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life. >> >> >> >> The suggestion that the human brain can somehow decide to operate >> independently >> >> from its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like >> saying a >> >> automobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and >> construction and >> >> start running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can >> possibly make >> >> sense. >> >> >> >> (is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device >> an example >> >> of "Genetic Fallacy"?) >> >> >> >> Even if, maybe, by some wild random chance, humanity, in math, actually >> did stumble >> >> upon the one universal describing system, that all possible intelligences >> must agree upon. >> >> I still don't see how we could possibly know that. How are in the >> position to make that >> >> judgment? >> >> >> >> Human beings are not universal. All we know is our own intelligence and >> what we can "see" >> >> from our own planet.. To me it seems the height of hubris to think the >> system we invented >> >> here a few thousand years ago applies everywhere, to everything and every >> form of intelligence. >> >> >> >> (A little voice in my head is saying someone will argue that we didn't >> invent math; it is >> >> something we discovered. If so I'll just say "I disagree" and leave it at >> that) >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeffery Wilson clueland.com *09 Oct 2014, 20:52 · in reply to Norwood, Frederick Hudson* > On 10/9/2014 7:04 AM, Norwood, Frederick Hudson wrote: > I think you are also confusing math with its applications. Pure mathematics consists of a set of axioms, a set of definitions, and the theorems that follow logically from those axioms and definitions. The logic involved is called a mathematical proof. For mathematics to be untrue, you need a case where the following happens. You know that if A is true, then B must be true. You know A is true. But it turns out B is false. 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. ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` --- ### Richard Simon *10 Oct 2014, 03:08 · in reply to Daniel Otto Jack Petersen* All right, I'll bite. If it is 'far from merely ornamental' what is its purpose in the books? Is Gene Wolfe preaching a sermon? Clearly not when he leaves the interpretation so ambiguous that it could be taken in two completely opposite ways. No, he's writing a novel, and his manner of writing novels is to make puzzles of them. So — what purpose, besides the ornamental, does all this 'theological' imagery serve? Aside from helping us to the conclusion that Severian is a Christ-like figure in some sense, what is its functional end? On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 20:44, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen wrote: The Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely ornamental. On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon wrote: Re. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' et al. Obviously ?there will be cultural references — I mean to our culture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their presentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense of humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is pretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious constructions like Terminus Est?= cross symbol. They aren't hidden deep within the text. I recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of flowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a flower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll while he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and at the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in that discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum relating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers seems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there, it's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a lot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was? On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote: I'm with Daniel here. "Nothing more" applies only in the sense it would apply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for the ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with someone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a "select" audience. On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen wrote: I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course, possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological exploration (even exposition?I would contend) into the narratives in a way consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for allusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant fact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have spiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction, longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being content to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely entertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do more. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question. ?-DOJP On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon wrote: My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story itself. Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. “Wholehearted agreement! Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or she act well or badly in the circumstances” ``` Daniel Otto Jack Petersen -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### Marc Aramini *10 Oct 2014, 09:51 · in reply to Richard Simon* He may not be referring to new sun specifically. In short sun the Eucharist with Silk is observed (he is in a clearing surrounded only by trees). It represents the transformation of grapes into a mystical blood during an act of consumption. The final imagery of short sun involves the story of Hyacinthus, whose blood is spilled and transforms into a flower and lives on. This pagan and Christian reference show is what is happening with Silk's unacknowledged congregation: vegetable matter becomes blood through consumption and death, and the vanished gods (the cannibal trees of green) create the vanished people by consuming the flesh of sentient organic matter and combining with it in a Eucharistic transfomation of "fruit" to blood. It's symbolism is a huge plot clue. There are other uses in new sun, but it is more important to show an alien mechanism of hybridization and transubstantiation (presaged in the play eschatology and genesis, when the winter killed stalks of man are mixed with new seed, and in the second chapter of shadow of the torturer, when the new sun engenders life in a brush, which opens it's eyes and runs up a tree, and in the story of quetzal in long sun in which man goes up a tree but has not yet come down) > On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Richard Simon wrote: > All right, I'll bite. If it is 'far from merely ornamental' what is its > purpose in the books? > > Is Gene Wolfe preaching a sermon? Clearly not when he leaves the > interpretation so ambiguous that it could be taken in two completely > opposite ways. No, he's writing a novel, and his manner of writing novels > is to make puzzles of them. So — what purpose, besides the ornamental, does > all this 'theological' imagery serve? Aside from helping us to the > conclusion that Severian is a Christ-like figure in some sense, what is its > functional end? > > > On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 20:44, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < > danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com > > wrote: > > > The Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely > ornamental. > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon > wrote: > > Re. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' *et > al.* Obviously there will be cultural references — I mean to our > culture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their > presentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense > of humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is > pretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious > constructions like *Terminus Est* = cross symbol. They aren't hidden deep > within the text. > > I recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of > flowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a > flower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll > while he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and > at the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in > that discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum > relating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers > seems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there, > it's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a > lot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was? > > > On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes > wrote: > > > I'm with Daniel here. "Nothing more" applies only in the sense it would > apply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for > the ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with > someone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a "select" audience. > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < > danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com > > wrote: > > I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course, > possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also > for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as > well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological > exploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way > consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for > allusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short > Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the > narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant > fact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have > spiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it > deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of > intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction, > longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being > content to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely > entertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do > more. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question. > > -DOJP > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon > wrote: > > My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a direct > bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that could > help the reader understand something more about the plot, the characters, > the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics of the story > itself. > > Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without > endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic > conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to > the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. > > I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any > relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters > present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think > they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at > that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some > extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of > popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? > 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical > huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. > > > Wholehearted agreement! > > Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations of > character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he or > she act well or badly in the circumstances? > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Marc Aramini *10 Oct 2014, 09:54 · in reply to Marc Aramini* That should be "the Christian and pagan references show what is happening" and later its rather than it's, of course. Sorry. > On Friday, October 10, 2014, Marc Aramini wrote: > He may not be referring to new sun specifically. In short sun the > Eucharist with Silk is observed (he is in a clearing surrounded only by > trees). It represents the transformation of grapes into a mystical blood > during an act of consumption. The final imagery of short sun involves the > story of Hyacinthus, whose blood is spilled and transforms into a flower > and lives on. This pagan and Christian reference show is what is happening > with Silk's unacknowledged congregation: vegetable matter becomes blood > through consumption and death, and the vanished gods (the cannibal trees of > green) create the vanished people by consuming the flesh of sentient > organic matter and combining with it in a Eucharistic transfomation of > "fruit" to blood. > > It's symbolism is a huge plot clue. There are other uses in new sun, but > it is more important to show an alien mechanism of hybridization and > transubstantiation (presaged in the play eschatology and genesis, when the > winter killed stalks of man are mixed with new seed, and in the second > chapter of shadow of the torturer, when the new sun engenders life in a > brush, which opens it's eyes and runs up a tree, and in the story of > quetzal in long sun in which man goes up a tree but has not yet come down) > > On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Richard Simon > wrote: >> All right, I'll bite. If it is 'far from merely ornamental' what is its >> purpose in the books? >> >> Is Gene Wolfe preaching a sermon? Clearly not when he leaves the >> interpretation so ambiguous that it could be taken in two completely >> opposite ways. No, he's writing a novel, and his manner of writing novels >> is to make puzzles of them. So — what purpose, besides the ornamental, does >> all this 'theological' imagery serve? Aside from helping us to the >> conclusion that Severian is a Christ-like figure in some sense, what is its >> functional end? >> >> >> On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 20:44, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < >> danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> The Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely >> ornamental. >> >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon >> wrote: >> >> Re. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' *et >> al.* Obviously there will be cultural references — I mean to our >> culture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their >> presentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense >> of humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is >> pretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious >> constructions like *Terminus Est* = cross symbol. They aren't hidden >> deep within the text. >> >> I recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of >> flowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a >> flower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll >> while he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and >> at the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in >> that discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum >> relating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers >> seems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there, >> it's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a >> lot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was? >> >> >> On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes >> wrote: >> >> >> I'm with Daniel here. "Nothing more" applies only in the sense it would >> apply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for >> the ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with >> someone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a "select" audience. >> >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < >> danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course, >> possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also >> for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as >> well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological >> exploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way >> consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for >> allusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short >> Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the >> narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant >> fact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have >> spiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it >> deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of >> intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction, >> longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being >> content to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely >> entertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do >> more. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question. >> >> -DOJP >> >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon >> wrote: >> >> My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a >> direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that >> could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the >> characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics >> of the story itself. >> >> Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without >> endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic >> conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to >> the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. >> >> I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any >> relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters >> present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think >> they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at >> that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some >> extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of >> popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? >> 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical >> huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. >> >> >> Wholehearted agreement! >> >> Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations >> of character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he >> or she act well or badly in the circumstances? >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Marc Aramini *10 Oct 2014, 10:38 · in reply to Marc Aramini* Also, these two symbols show HOW the mystical change occurs - for human or animal to floral, it requires the spilling of blood and possible death (for Horn this death is not permanent in the pit of the giant "herb" island), and for floral to animal, it requires the Eucharistic act of consumption. Yum. > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Marc Aramini wrote: > He may not be referring to new sun specifically. In short sun the > Eucharist with Silk is observed (he is in a clearing surrounded only by > trees). It represents the transformation of grapes into a mystical blood > during an act of consumption. The final imagery of short sun involves the > story of Hyacinthus, whose blood is spilled and transforms into a flower > and lives on. This pagan and Christian reference show is what is happening > with Silk's unacknowledged congregation: vegetable matter becomes blood > through consumption and death, and the vanished gods (the cannibal trees of > green) create the vanished people by consuming the flesh of sentient > organic matter and combining with it in a Eucharistic transfomation of > "fruit" to blood. > > It's symbolism is a huge plot clue. There are other uses in new sun, but > it is more important to show an alien mechanism of hybridization and > transubstantiation (presaged in the play eschatology and genesis, when the > winter killed stalks of man are mixed with new seed, and in the second > chapter of shadow of the torturer, when the new sun engenders life in a > brush, which opens it's eyes and runs up a tree, and in the story of > quetzal in long sun in which man goes up a tree but has not yet come down) > > > On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Richard Simon wrote: >> All right, I'll bite. If it is 'far from merely ornamental' what is its >> purpose in the books? >> >> Is Gene Wolfe preaching a sermon? Clearly not when he leaves the >> interpretation so ambiguous that it could be taken in two completely >> opposite ways. No, he's writing a novel, and his manner of writing novels >> is to make puzzles of them. So — what purpose, besides the ornamental, does >> all this 'theological' imagery serve? Aside from helping us to the >> conclusion that Severian is a Christ-like figure in some sense, what is its >> functional end? >> >> >> On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 20:44, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < >> danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> The Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely >> ornamental. >> >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon >> wrote: >> >> Re. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' *et >> al.* Obviously there will be cultural references — I mean to our >> culture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their >> presentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense >> of humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is >> pretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious >> constructions like *Terminus Est* = cross symbol. They aren't hidden >> deep within the text. >> >> I recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of >> flowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a >> flower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll >> while he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and >> at the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in >> that discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum >> relating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers >> seems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there, >> it's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a >> lot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was? >> >> >> On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes >> wrote: >> >> >> I'm with Daniel here. "Nothing more" applies only in the sense it would >> apply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for >> the ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with >> someone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a "select" audience. >> >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < >> danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of course, >> possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and yet also >> for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central as >> well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological >> exploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way >> consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for >> allusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short >> Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the >> narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant >> fact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have >> spiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it >> deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of >> intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction, >> longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being >> content to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely >> entertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do >> more. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question. >> >> -DOJP >> >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon >> wrote: >> >> My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a >> direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that >> could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the >> characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the mechanics >> of the story itself. >> >> Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without >> endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic >> conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to >> the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. >> >> I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any >> relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters >> present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think >> they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at >> that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some >> extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of >> popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? >> 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical >> huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. >> >> >> Wholehearted agreement! >> >> Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations >> of character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he >> or she act well or badly in the circumstances? >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Marc Aramini *10 Oct 2014, 10:42 · in reply to Marc Aramini* In addition, this is reinforced in the idea behind the name Ash - the last man of the Ragnarook future who is actually the first man in Norse mythology, brought to life from a tree. According to Wolfe, Ash is derived from Ask and Embla (his vine wife). In this way the first and last man are united in one symbol, a man who happens to be brought to life from a tree. This tying together of beginning and endings is vital to many aspects of the Urth cycle. > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:38 AM, Marc Aramini wrote: > Also, these two symbols show HOW the mystical change occurs - for human or > animal to floral, it requires the spilling of blood and possible death (for > Horn this death is not permanent in the pit of the giant "herb" island), > and for floral to animal, it requires the Eucharistic act of consumption. > Yum. > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:51 AM, Marc Aramini > wrote: >> He may not be referring to new sun specifically. In short sun the >> Eucharist with Silk is observed (he is in a clearing surrounded only by >> trees). It represents the transformation of grapes into a mystical blood >> during an act of consumption. The final imagery of short sun involves the >> story of Hyacinthus, whose blood is spilled and transforms into a flower >> and lives on. This pagan and Christian reference show is what is happening >> with Silk's unacknowledged congregation: vegetable matter becomes blood >> through consumption and death, and the vanished gods (the cannibal trees of >> green) create the vanished people by consuming the flesh of sentient >> organic matter and combining with it in a Eucharistic transfomation of >> "fruit" to blood. >> >> It's symbolism is a huge plot clue. There are other uses in new sun, but >> it is more important to show an alien mechanism of hybridization and >> transubstantiation (presaged in the play eschatology and genesis, when the >> winter killed stalks of man are mixed with new seed, and in the second >> chapter of shadow of the torturer, when the new sun engenders life in a >> brush, which opens it's eyes and runs up a tree, and in the story of >> quetzal in long sun in which man goes up a tree but has not yet come down) >> >> >> On Thursday, October 9, 2014, Richard Simon >> wrote: >>> All right, I'll bite. If it is 'far from merely ornamental' what is its >>> purpose in the books? >>> >>> Is Gene Wolfe preaching a sermon? Clearly not when he leaves the >>> interpretation so ambiguous that it could be taken in two completely >>> opposite ways. No, he's writing a novel, and his manner of writing novels >>> is to make puzzles of them. So — what purpose, besides the ornamental, does >>> all this 'theological' imagery serve? Aside from helping us to the >>> conclusion that Severian is a Christ-like figure in some sense, what is its >>> functional end? >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, 9 October 2014, 20:44, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < >>> danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> The Eucharistic (and other theological) imagery is far from merely >>> ornamental. >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Richard Simon >>> wrote: >>> >>> Re. 'nothing more': I'm not quibbling about 'Eucharistic elements' *et >>> al.* Obviously there will be cultural references — I mean to our >>> culture, not Urth's fictional one — in any work of fiction, and their >>> presentation will be informed by the author's views, beliefs, intent, sense >>> of humour, etc. I also mentioned subtext earlier. But all this stuff is >>> pretty much on the surface, even when you get to relatively dubious >>> constructions like *Terminus Est* = cross symbol. They aren't hidden >>> deep within the text. >>> >>> I recall a discussion on the Urth List long ago about the 'language' of >>> flowers, initiated by someone who was trying to parse the appearance of a >>> flower on the thwarts of the boat Sev was using to make his way up Gyoll >>> while he paused to survey some downstream ruins. In my modest opinion (and >>> at the risk of upsetting anyone here who might have been a participant in >>> that discussion), I would suggest that hiding a serious, significant datum >>> relating to the story in the (only partly codified) language of flowers >>> seems a bit too obscure even for Gene Wolfe. If there's any meaning there, >>> it's likely to be ornamental rather than essential. 'Ornamental' covers a >>> lot of ground; do we really need to know who Severian's mother was? >>> >>> >>> On Tuesday, 7 October 2014, 21:27, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes < >>> danldo at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> I'm with Daniel here. "Nothing more" applies only in the sense it would >>> apply to Shakespeare or Dickens, who also wrote popular entertainments for >>> the ages. The primary distinction to be made here, I suppose, is with >>> someone like Joyce or Woolf who writes for a "select" audience. >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:49 AM, Daniel Otto Jack Petersen < >>> danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I agree with you up to the 'nothing more', Andrew. For it is, of >>> course, possible for the technical quality you describe to be central and >>> yet also for Wolfe's many evocations of philosophical inquiry to be central >>> as well. Like the poetic conceits, he weaves philosophical and theological >>> exploration (even exposition I would contend) into the narratives in a way >>> consistent with them (always the craftsman, yes), but not merely for >>> allusive code-cracking. Repeated Eucharistic images and instances in Short >>> Sun, for example, are not their only to tie up some technical aspect of the >>> narrative, but also to evoke something Wolfe takes to be a recalcitrant >>> fact of fictional and real worlds: people are spiritual and they have >>> spiritual experiences. That may not develop or tighten plot, but it >>> deepens worldbuilding and 'literary' quality ('literary' in the sense of >>> intentionally and centrally exploring, through the writing of fiction, >>> longstanding human cultural and philosophical concerns, and not being >>> content to merely entertain). Wolfe is simply not content to merely >>> entertain. He never aims to do less than that, but he does often aim to do >>> more. Whether and to what degree he succeeds is a separate question. >>> >>> -DOJP >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 4:29 AM, Andrew Bollen >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Richard Simon >>> wrote: >>> >>> My own view on this is as follows: most of Wolfe's 'puzzles' have a >>> direct bearing on the story; that is to say, they conceal information that >>> could help the reader understand something more about the plot, the >>> characters, the subtext, etc. They are functional, part of the >>> mechanics of the story itself. >>> >>> Occasionally, when he thinks it is possible for him to do so without >>> endangering the sense or misleading the reader , Wolfe will add a poetic >>> conceit, usually a classical allusion. Decyphering it will add something to >>> the reader's enjoyment but little to his understanding. >>> >>> I do not believe that symbolism in the work of Gene Wolfe has any >>> relevance outside the frame of the story. I often see his interpreters >>> present some example of the use of symbols that they have found (or think >>> they have found) as a full and sufficient explanation of Wolfe is up to at >>> that point in the narrative. They read it as an attempt to convey some >>> extra-literary meaning. They are mistaken. Gene Wolfe is a creator of >>> popular entertainments, nothing more. He is certainly a great author ? >>> 'great' as in 'for the ages' ? but he is not a preacher or a philosophical >>> huckster. He is a technician, a craftsman above all. >>> >>> >>> Wholehearted agreement! >>> >>> Also: I think the most fruitful approach to Wolfe is via considerations >>> of character and ethics. Why did this character do this or that; and did he >>> or she act well or badly in the circumstances? >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *10 Oct 2014, 12:12 · in reply to Jeffery Wilson clueland.com* 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. I 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? Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Jeffery Wilson clueland.com Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 4:53 PM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview > On 10/9/2014 7:04 AM, Norwood, Frederick Hudson wrote: > I think you are also confusing math with its applications. Pure mathematics consists of a set of axioms, a set of definitions, and the theorems that follow logically from those axioms and definitions. The logic involved is called a mathematical proof. For mathematics to be untrue, you need a case where the following happens. You know that if A is true, then B must be true. You know A is true. But it turns out B is false. 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. ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` --- ### Lee *10 Oct 2014, 13:09 · follows Norwood, Frederick Hudson* > Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic > of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane. A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of numbers was meaningless. "A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so." > Brandon Fuchs: This is one of those wild statements that calls for an example. If mathematicians > are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing some imperfect brain mechanics..... Let's stop there. My statement was that mathematician cannot be doing PURELY symbolic logic. All thoughts within a human brain are animal thoughts with inherent animal biases installed from the material world during evolution and development. (the assumption of the validity "numbers" being one of them). Of course the human brain can work with symbolic logic. We invented it. But the suggestion that our brains can work purely with symbology with no impingement from the material world is unsupportable. There are no human brains which have been entirely shielded from the material world. (Something like Severian's Mandragora? But of course even that brain had telepathic input affecting it). > ....then surely there should be some mathematical statements that different groups of > mathematicians are convinced have been demonstrated to be true, while others are convinced > they have been demonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an agreement on the matter. Aren't there? I am not a mathematician but I was under the impression it is an evolving discipline. But even in the unlikely event that every mathematician in history were in perfect agreement on every mathematical permutation of the field, it would not demonstrate true universality. It would only demonstrate congruence among one group of people from one species on one planet. Just because a human astronomer on earth collects data from the Andromeda galaxy it does not mean they are from Andromeda or even that they have been to Andromeda. It just means data from there has been plugged into a human matrix of understanding here on earth. If an Andromedan came here using math, I would consider that evidence that math is universal. But even then, I would prefer a sample size greater than two before I'd be willing to grant the hypothesis "math is universal" anything like scientific theory status. Again, my opinion is not that math isn't universal. Only that we have no means of determining such a thing. We are stuck in the narrow perspective of one species on one planet and have no means for stepping outside it . Before I have confidence in the universality of math, I need to hear from the rest of the universe. --- ### Lee *10 Oct 2014, 13:51 · follows Lee* "Is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device an example of "Genetic Fallacy"?" > Thomas Bitterman: No, but claiming that a brain cannot work purely in the realm of > symbolic logic and reason because it is the product of millions of years of evolution on > Earth is. I truly don't understand the difference. A gasoline power car cannot turn itself into a nuclear powered device but a human brain can turn itself into a cosmically universal logic machine unrestricted by its origins in an animal skull on planet earth? Is the argument that the human brain is an independent, self-constructed device which can completely supersede and separate from its own biological design and construction? Or that the human brain is the product of Special Creation, endowed by God and made in His image, thus possessing a measure of His universality? Other? > Rick Norwood: I am not saying that mathematics can solve everything, just that what it solves is > solved once and for all. There are no four-sided triangles. I just don't see how that statement is justified without access to "all" there is in the universe. Perhaps my difficulty would be resolved if the statement was restated to: "Math is universal to everything within foreseeable human experience." THAT I could agree with. (Unless I saw this movie ;- ) http://www.oldfutures.com/Images/foursidedtriangle.jpg) --- ### Lee *10 Oct 2014, 14:45 · follows Lee* > Rick Norwood: Of course God has free will. I disagree. Free Will, like shame, doubt (Tree Of Knowledge), procreation and death (Tree of Life) is a purely human curse/blessing. We are who we from eating fruit from one tree but not the other. God, being perfect in all aspects does not have Choice, any more than He can experience Shame Doubt or Death. (otoh, God's procreation.....now there's an interesting discussion topic...) > There is a Psalm where God fights a dragon. I think the connection between dragons and fallen angel/demons is made in BotNS. Urth abounds with megatherians, Typhons, Mandragoras, giant snakes, eels, wyrms etc. The role of dragons is drawn even more clearly in Wizard/Knight. > and another Psalm where God sits in a pantheon of Gods, sort of like a primitive Justice > League. I think the early chapters of the Old Testament clearly acknowledge that God is only the foremost among other gods. Hence the wording of the First Commandment. > I trust you are all familiar with the South Park pantheon which, if memory serves, consists of > Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, and Aquaman. Heh. Perhaps it is organized like the U.N. Security Council, with permanent and rotating members? --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *10 Oct 2014, 15:24 · in reply to Lee* Actually, math *doesn't* require numbers as such. All of number theory can be reduced to set theory. >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Lee wrote: >> Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard >> arithmetic >> of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane. > A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the > > universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible > that there > > are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the > concept of > > numbers was meaningless. > > > "A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the > realm of symbolic > > logic and reason but it cannot be so." >> Brandon Fuchs: This is one of those wild statements that calls for an >> example. If mathematicians >> are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing some imperfect >> brain mechanics..... > Let's stop there. My statement was that mathematician cannot be doing > PURELY symbolic logic. > > All thoughts within a human brain are animal thoughts with inherent animal > biases installed from > > the material world during evolution and development. (the assumption of > the validity "numbers" > > being one of them). Of course the human brain can work with symbolic > logic. We invented it. > > > But the suggestion that our brains can work purely with symbology with no > impingement from > > the material world is unsupportable. There are no human brains which have > been entirely shielded > > from the material world. (Something like Severian's Mandragora? But of > course even that brain > > had telepathic input affecting it). >> ....then surely there should be some mathematical statements that >> different groups of >> mathematicians are convinced have been demonstrated to be true, while >> others are convinced >> they have been demonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an >> agreement on the matter. > Aren't there? I am not a mathematician but I was under the impression it > is an evolving discipline. > > > But even in the unlikely event that every mathematician in history were > in perfect agreement on > > every mathematical permutation of the field, it would not demonstrate true > universality. It would > > only demonstrate congruence among one group of people from one species on > one planet. > > > Just because a human astronomer on earth collects data from the Andromeda > galaxy it does not > > mean they are from Andromeda or even that they have been to Andromeda. It > just means > > data from there has been plugged into a human matrix of understanding here > on earth. If an > > Andromedan came here using math, I would consider that evidence that math > is universal. But even > > then, I would prefer a sample size greater than two before I'd be willing > to grant the hypothesis > > "math is universal" anything like scientific theory status. > > > Again, my opinion is not that math isn't universal. Only that we have no > means of determining such > > a thing. We are stuck in the narrow perspective of one species on one > planet and have no means for > > stepping outside it . Before I have confidence in the universality of > math, I need to hear from the rest of > > the universe. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *10 Oct 2014, 15:24 · in reply to Lee* Lee: No, not a human brain. A human *soul*. > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Lee wrote: > > "Is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device > an example > of "Genetic Fallacy"?" >> Thomas Bitterman: No, but claiming that a brain cannot work purely in the >> realm of >> symbolic logic and reason because it is the product of millions of years >> of evolution on >> Earth is. > I truly don't understand the difference. A gasoline power car cannot turn > itself into a > > nuclear powered device but a human brain can turn itself into a cosmically > universal > > logic machine unrestricted by its origins in an animal skull on planet > earth? > > > Is the argument that the human brain is an independent, self-constructed > device which can > > completely supersede and separate from its own biological design and > construction? > > > Or that the human brain is the product of Special Creation, endowed by God > and made > > in His image, thus possessing a measure of His universality? > > > Other? >> Rick Norwood: I am not saying that mathematics can solve everything, just >> that what it solves is >> solved once and for all. There are no four-sided triangles. > I just don't see how that statement is justified without access to "all" > there is in the universe. > > > Perhaps my difficulty would be resolved if the statement was restated to: > > > "Math is universal to everything within foreseeable human experience." > > > THAT I could agree with. > > > (Unless I saw this movie ;- ) > http://www.oldfutures.com/Images/foursidedtriangle.jpg) > _______________________________________________ --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *10 Oct 2014, 15:57 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* 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.) All 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. Science is only the second most reliable body of knowledge we possess. There 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. As 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. Rick Norwood Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 11:24 AM To: The Urth Mailing List Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview Actually, math *doesn't* require numbers as such. All of number theory can be reduced to set theory. > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Lee > wrote: > Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic > of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane. A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of numbers was meaningless. "A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so." > Brandon Fuchs: This is one of those wild statements that calls for an example. If mathematicians > are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing some imperfect brain mechanics..... Let's stop there. My statement was that mathematician cannot be doing PURELY symbolic logic. All thoughts within a human brain are animal thoughts with inherent animal biases installed from the material world during evolution and development. (the assumption of the validity "numbers" being one of them). Of course the human brain can work with symbolic logic. We invented it. But the suggestion that our brains can work purely with symbology with no impingement from the material world is unsupportable. There are no human brains which have been entirely shielded from the material world. (Something like Severian's Mandragora? But of course even that brain had telepathic input affecting it). > ....then surely there should be some mathematical statements that different groups of > mathematicians are convinced have been demonstrated to be true, while others are convinced > they have been demonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an agreement on the matter. Aren't there? I am not a mathematician but I was under the impression it is an evolving discipline. But even in the unlikely event that every mathematician in history were in perfect agreement on every mathematical permutation of the field, it would not demonstrate true universality. It would only demonstrate congruence among one group of people from one species on one planet. Just because a human astronomer on earth collects data from the Andromeda galaxy it does not mean they are from Andromeda or even that they have been to Andromeda. It just means data from there has been plugged into a human matrix of understanding here on earth. If an Andromedan came here using math, I would consider that evidence that math is universal. But even then, I would prefer a sample size greater than two before I'd be willing to grant the hypothesis "math is universal" anything like scientific theory status. Again, my opinion is not that math isn't universal. Only that we have no means of determining such a thing. We are stuck in the narrow perspective of one species on one planet and have no means for stepping outside it . Before I have confidence in the universality of math, I need to hear from the rest of the universe. --- ### Lee *10 Oct 2014, 16:30 · follows Norwood, Frederick Hudson* > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: Actually, math *doesn't* require numbers as such. > All of number theory can be reduced to set theory. Fair enough. But you probably know where this is going. It remains true that for places/times in the universe where the concept of sets does not apply (during the Big Bang? sub-quarkian physics?) then math is not applicable and thus is not universal. > Lee: No, not a human brain. A human *soul*. If math is derived from the human soul, then like the case of it being part of Special Creation, math is at least partially supernatural in nature and thus, might apply universally to both to the natural realm and everything in the supernatural realm also. > Rick Norwood: I’m enjoying talking about God and math and all, but is > this too off-topic for this list? I don't think so . I think it is a miracle that this relic from the early days of the internet still survives and grows. So almost any topic we discuss is rendered saintly and spiritual by simply by its existence. I think discussion of Wolfe's work leads naturally to religion. And I think the math discussion is more germane than it seems on the surface. I personally think much of Wolfe's writing was inspired by working with engineers who were likely a very materialist if not entirely atheist lot. I can imagine him engaging in many conversations in which the universality of math was discussed. As I see it, his work can usually be read at a basic materialist level in which you can "calculate" what is happening. But I think his work also requires occasional leaps of faith to catch the deeper levels, in the same manner that having an understanding of God does. --- ### Jeffery Wilson clueland.com *10 Oct 2014, 17:05 · in reply to Lee* >> On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote: >> Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic >> of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane. > A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the > > universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there > > are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of > > numbers was meaningless. Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are *always* notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number two, for instance. However, that also does not prevent mathematics from being used to speculate on what happens *if* the number two can be touched, and other "impossible" things. The best we can do is to show it makes a contradiction, but that could mean only that the premise is flawed. You might be interested to explore the history of David Hilbert and Kurt Goedel. Godel discovered the inherently incomplete nature of math, which made him somehting of a Voltairean figure: a devil set on destroying mathemtical science as completists like Hilbert may have felt, but also a figure of grace and liberty freeing it from the need to be complete and all encompassing and eventually finite. ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *10 Oct 2014, 17:42 · in reply to Lee* You keep talking about the universe! Math doesn't give a fig for the universe. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee > Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 12:31 PM > To: urth at urth.net > Subject: (urth) barrington interview > Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: Actually, math *doesn't* require numbers as such. > All of number theory can be reduced to set theory. Fair enough. But you probably know where this is going. It remains true that for places/times in the universe where the concept of sets does not apply (during the Big Bang? sub-quarkian physics?) then math is not applicable and thus is not universal. > Lee: No, not a human brain. A human *soul*. If math is derived from the human soul, then like the case of it being part of Special Creation, math is at least partially supernatural in nature and thus, might apply universally to both to the natural realm and everything in the supernatural realm also. > Rick Norwood: I'm enjoying talking about God and math and all, but is > this too off-topic for this list? I don't think so . I think it is a miracle that this relic from the early days of the internet still survives and grows. So almost any topic we discuss is rendered saintly and spiritual by simply by its existence. I think discussion of Wolfe's work leads naturally to religion. And I think the math discussion is more germane than it seems on the surface. I personally think much of Wolfe's writing was inspired by working with engineers who were likely a very materialist if not entirely atheist lot. I can imagine him engaging in many conversations in which the universality of math was discussed. As I see it, his work can usually be read at a basic materialist level in which you can "calculate" what is happening. But I think his work also requires occasional leaps of faith to catch the deeper levels, in the same manner that having an understanding of God does. --- ### Brad Henry *10 Oct 2014, 17:43 · in reply to Jeffery Wilson clueland.com* as interesting as the theological and mathematics discussion is, could you perhaps take this off the Urth list as it doesn't pertain to Wolfe? > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com < > jwilson at clueland.com> wrote: > On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote: >> Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard >> arithmetic >> of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane. >> A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the >> >> universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible >> that there >> >> are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the >> concept of >> >> numbers was meaningless. > Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers > necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are > *always* notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number > two, for instance. > > However, that also does not prevent mathematics from being used to > speculate on what happens *if* the number two can be touched, and other > "impossible" things. The best we can do is to show it makes a > contradiction, but that could mean only that the premise is flawed. > > You might be interested to explore the history of David Hilbert and Kurt > Goedel. Godel discovered the inherently incomplete nature of math, which > made him somehting of a Voltairean figure: a devil set on destroying > mathemtical science as completists like Hilbert may have felt, but also a > figure of grace and liberty freeing it from the need to be complete and all > encompassing and eventually finite. > > -- > Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab > < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### António Marques *10 Oct 2014, 18:13 · in reply to Jeffery Wilson clueland.com* > On 10 October 2014 18:05, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com > wrote: > On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote: >> Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard >> arithmetic >> of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane. >> A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the >> >> universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible >> that there >> >> are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the >> concept of >> >> numbers was meaningless. > Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers > necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are > *always* notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number > two, for instance. It's not a matter of the concept not depending on the actuality. It's a matter of what you call 'concept' being how the human mind responds to actuality. Other minds might respond to the same actuality with different concepts. We've been saying this for days and folks still come back with misdirected replies. (Lee has also been making the additional point that this mind wouldn't necessarily have evolved without this actuality.) --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *10 Oct 2014, 18:42 · in reply to António Marques* Antonio, as a Catholic I simply can't accept it because I believe there is such thing as an absolute truth. Logic plays a part in this, and mathematics (which is independent of any particular notion of "number") falls directly out of logic. > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Ant?nio Marques wrote: > On 10 October 2014 18:05, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com < > jwilson at clueland.com> wrote: >> On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote: >>> Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard >>> arithmetic >>> of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane. >>> A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the >>> >>> universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible >>> that there >>> >>> are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the >>> concept of >>> >>> numbers was meaningless. >> Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers >> necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are >> *always* notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number >> two, for instance. > It's not a matter of the concept not depending on the actuality. It's a > matter of what you call 'concept' being how the human mind responds to > actuality. Other minds might respond to the same actuality with different > concepts. We've been saying this for days and folks still come back with > misdirected replies. (Lee has also been making the additional point that > this mind wouldn't necessarily have evolved without this actuality.) > > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### António Marques *10 Oct 2014, 19:54 · in reply to Brad Henry* No. It cant be taken off list because the list os the sole point of contact between the participants. What would be nice would be to bring it to an end because it has reached a point of severely diminished returns. Before I started writing here there was this rule that any one could only post 5 messages per day or something like that - maybe we could get back to it? > On 10 October 2014 18:43, Brad Henry wrote: > as interesting as the theological and mathematics discussion is, could you > perhaps take this off the Urth list as it doesn't pertain to Wolfe? > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com < > jwilson at clueland.com> wrote: >> On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote: >>> Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard >>> arithmetic >>> of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane. >>> A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the >>> >>> universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible >>> that there >>> >>> are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the >>> concept of >>> >>> numbers was meaningless. >> Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers >> necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are >> *always* notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number >> two, for instance. >> >> However, that also does not prevent mathematics from being used to >> speculate on what happens *if* the number two can be touched, and other >> "impossible" things. The best we can do is to show it makes a >> contradiction, but that could mean only that the premise is flawed. >> >> You might be interested to explore the history of David Hilbert and Kurt >> Goedel. Godel discovered the inherently incomplete nature of math, which >> made him somehting of a Voltairean figure: a devil set on destroying >> mathemtical science as completists like Hilbert may have felt, but also a >> figure of grace and liberty freeing it from the need to be complete and all >> encompassing and eventually finite. >> >> -- >> Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > >> A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab >> < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > >> >> _______________________________________________ --- ### Thomas Bitterman *10 Oct 2014, 20:18 · in reply to Lee* > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:51 AM, Lee wrote: > > "Is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device > an example > of "Genetic Fallacy"?" >> Thomas Bitterman: No, but claiming that a brain cannot work purely in the >> realm of >> symbolic logic and reason because it is the product of millions of years >> of evolution on >> Earth is. > I truly don't understand the difference. A gasoline power car cannot turn > itself into a > nuclear powered device but a human brain can turn itself into a cosmically > universal > logic machine unrestricted by its origins in an animal skull on planet > earth? I am unsure what my car can do. Perhaps it is a Transformer. But at least the argument about cars appears to have some basis in how cars are actually constituted currently, not where they came from. The argument about brains seems to rest solely on their historical development. This is the Genetic Fallacy. If you could provide some justification for your conclusions based on the current properties of the brain, and not how it got to be that way, that would be different. As an example of a counter-argument to demonstrate the fallacy: perhaps the human brain would not have been the cosmically universal logic machine it is today, unrestricted by its origins in an animal skull on planet Earth, had the Hieros not intervened as part of their plan to get some payback. --- ### Thomas Bitterman *10 Oct 2014, 20:25 · in reply to Lee* >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Lee wrote: >> Rick Norwood: Of course God has free will. > I disagree. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/creator.html - point 295. --- ### António Pedro Marques *10 Oct 2014, 22:42 · in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* 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. No dia 10/10/2014, ?s 19:42, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" escreveu: > Antonio, as a Catholic I simply can't accept it because I believe there is such thing as an absolute truth. Logic plays a part in this, and mathematics (which is independent of any particular notion of "number") falls directly out of logic. > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Ant?nio Marques wrote: > On 10 October 2014 18:05, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com wrote: > On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote: > Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic > > of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane. > > > A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the > > universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there > > are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of > > numbers was meaningless. > > Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are *always* notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number two, for instance. > > It's not a matter of the concept not depending on the actuality. It's a matter of what you call 'concept' being how the human mind responds to actuality. Other minds might respond to the same actuality with different concepts. We've been saying this for days and folks still come back with misdirected replies. (Lee has also been making the additional point that this mind wouldn't necessarily have evolved without this actuality.) > > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Jeffery Wilson clueland.com *11 Oct 2014, 02:59 · in reply to António Marques* > On 10/10/2014 1:13 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote: > On 10 October 2014 18:05, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com > > wrote: > > On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote: > > Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside > the standard arithmetic > > > of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane. > > > > A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers > describe the > > universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite > possible that there > > are places/times in geography and history of the universe in > which the concept of > > numbers was meaningless. > > > Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The > numbers necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the > numbers are *always* notional and abstract. There is no place you > can touch the number two, for instance. > > > It's not a matter of the concept not depending on the actuality. It's a > matter of what you call 'concept' being how the human mind responds to > actuality. Other minds might respond to the same actuality with > different concepts. We've been saying this for days and folks still come > back with misdirected replies. But your justifications for what you are saying are crap. We know other minds might respond to the same actuality with different concepts because *human* minds already respond to the same actuality with different concepts right here on the list, but that doesn't mean the difference is known to be utterly intractible, else why are we still trying to get traction? As for Lee, up above he postulates that the actuality is different in places and that will give rise to different concepts to which ours will not relate. However, he still calls these circumstances history and geography, which implicitly means they are relateable to us. Suppose some conscious mind arises in some place where there are no discrete phenomena: would it have no conception of discrete math, nor use? How would it possess mind-like qualities without being able to make distinct, binary decisions? Would it only decide on a sliding scale, giving analog responses? Could it change its mind, going from one value to another? If it does, this mind-changing behavior is then rising or falling which are distinct, binary phenomena. ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` --- ### Jeffery Wilson clueland.com *11 Oct 2014, 03:07 · in reply to António Marques* > On 10/10/2014 2:54 PM, Ant?nio Marques wrote: > No. It cant be taken off list because the list os the sole point of > contact between the participants. > What would be nice would be to bring it to an end because it has reached > a point of severely diminished returns. > Before I started writing here there was this rule that any one could > only post 5 messages per day or something like that - maybe we could get > back to it? Indeed, I was directing traffic to the history of Godel and Hilbert, so more effort could be devoted to being more informed and less to blather. x messages a day is a problem, in that if it can accumulated it ceases to be a meaningful limitation; if it cannot, it lets the vocal minority be shouted down by the vocal majority. It also retards earnest conversations where one poster might need to answer more than x amicable posts in a day rather than refute x adversarial ones. ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` --- ### Jeffery Wilson clueland.com *11 Oct 2014, 03:18 · in reply to António Pedro Marques* > On 10/10/2014 5:42 PM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: > Math may be derivable from logic, I don't know. I know it stared off as > counting, and that is in no way independent of 'number'. It can go either way with the invention/discovery of Peano arithmetic. > But a > significant number of you keep mixing up 'reality' with the tool our > mind uses to process it. Can you show us some place gravity as we process it here does not work that way? ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` --- ### Lee *11 Oct 2014, 13:12 · follows Jeffery Wilson clueland.com* > Antonio Marques: It's not a matter of the concept not depending on the actuality. It's a matter > of what you call 'concept' being how the human mind responds to actuality. We've been saying > this for days and folks still come back with misdirected replies. I wonder if this might boil down to the mind-body debate. When I think of the concept of math being done or even contemplated, I think of it as being done by others whom I perceive to be using their primate brains encased within skull and skin. Not the sort of tool that has the obvious potential to produce a universally applicable scheme of understanding. From the outside, the brain seems to be a tool designed for solving primate living problems right here on earth. Perhaps others think of math more in terms of mind than brain. And when we use our own minds we don't feel the limits of primate structure and flesh and blood construction. In our own minds we can feel limitless in our perceptions. A "mind" person can think of math as something we have discovered out there, rather than something we invented. I like Dan'l's answer a lot because he acknowledges his belief in a universal truth to be part of his spiritual beliefs. It is easy to view spiritual beliefs as a function of mind rather than a brain function. > Rick Norwood: You keep talking about the universe! Math doesn't give a fig for the universe. Makes sense to me. As Antonio suggested, math originated as a tool for counting stuff and no matter how elaborate it may have become, that essentially remains what math is doing. We may try to use math to understand the universe but I see this as inherently a means of taking what we can see of the universe and putting it into a packaging we can understand. > Thomas Bitterman: The argument about [the limitation of] brains seems to rest solely on their historical development. > This is the Genetic Fallacy. If you could provide some justification for your conclusions based on the current properties > of the brain, and not how it got to be that way, that would be different. The discussion of the human brain's evolutionary origin and developmental process was meant only to illustrate the "current properties" of the brain. To describe not only that the human brain has limits but what those limits might be (as related to solving mammalian living problems on earth). I could say the human brain is incapable of directly perceiving the strong and weak nuclear forces. And it seems illustrative to point out that we can't because it either isn't possible or because it served no evolutionary or developmental purpose for us to perceive these forces directly. But the key concept remains "limitations". I guess I could just skip all that and make the simple statement that we can only understand what we can understand. Math is a great tool for helping us humans understand things that are difficult to understand. But it can't explain to us things which are impossible for us to understand. Perhaps it boils down to what I suggested above. I think math is a tool invented by the human brain, while others think math is a universal principle which has been discovered by the human mind. I'm not sure there is a common ground of understanding between these two views, but perhaps just identifying them helps. --- ### Lee *11 Oct 2014, 13:21 · follows Lee* > Jeffrey Wilson: As for Lee, up above he postulates that the actuality is different in > places and that will give rise to different concepts to which ours will > not relate. However, he still calls these circumstances history and > geography, which implicitly means they are relateable to us. Of course, because I am human and have human limitations :- ). This sort of makes the point I was trying to make. I must think in terms of space and time. How could I coherently describe a scenario which doesn't possess these features? There are better wordsmiths than I who have attempted it (Wolfe and Frank Herbert come to mind). There are passages in their books which hint at meaning but are ultimately best described as incomprehensible. What makes them good authors are the hints as much as the sense of incomprehensibility. But surely there exist some things in some universe somewhere which are completely and without the slightest hint, utterly incomprehensible to the human mind (including mathematical models). In an infinite cosmos, why wouldn't such things exist? --- ### Jeff Wilson *12 Oct 2014, 01:54 · in reply to Lee* >> On Sat, October 11, 2014 08:21, Lee wrote: >> Jeffrey Wilson: As for Lee, up above he postulates that the actuality is >> different in >> places and that will give rise to different concepts to which ours will >> not relate. However, he still calls these circumstances history and >> geography, which implicitly means they are relateable to us. > Of course, because I am human and have human limitations :- ). This sort > of makes > > the point I was trying to make. > > > I must think in terms of space and time. How could I coherently describe > > a scenario which doesn't possess these features? The catechism writes manage it. > There are better wordsmiths than I who have attempted it (Wolfe and Frank > Herbert > > come to mind). There are passages in their books which hint at meaning > but are > > ultimately best described as incomprehensible. What makes them good > authors are > > the hints as much as the sense of incomprehensibility. Apparently equivocation is part of your limitation. Using, or rather mis-using a word like "incomprehensible" in a discussison of cognitive science and then revealing you really mean it in the literary prose sense is akin to what we in the mathematical community call "abuse of notation". > But surely there exist some things in some universe somewhere which are > completely and > > without the slightest hint, utterly incomprehensible to the human mind > (including mathematical > > models). Are you saying there is an unknowable mathematical model somewhere? Of that something exists that is unknowable despite the existence of mathematical models? Or something else? > In an infinite cosmos, why wouldn't such things exist? Infinite quantity doesn't imply infinite variety. Even people who pooh-pooh math as counting stipulate to this because for example, when you begin counting 1,2,3, and so forth, you can do so for an unlimited series of numbers without encountering a number less than the one before, nor zero, nor anything negative, just the next larger integer after the last, always. ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` --- ### Lee *12 Oct 2014, 11:52 · follows Jeff Wilson* > Jeff Wilson: Apparently equivocation is part of your limitation. Using, or rather > mis-using a word like "incomprehensible" in a discussison of cognitive > science and then revealing you really mean it in the literary prose sense > is akin to what we in the mathematical community call "abuse of notation". It was an attempt to connect the discussion to Gene Wolfe's work, as some had requested. Apologies if it offended you in reverse. > Are you saying there is an unknowable mathematical model somewhere? Of > that something exists that is unknowable despite the existence of > mathematical models? How could I defensibly say there ARE such things? I think that would be making the same error as those who claim there are not. Who can claim to know the unknowable? I only consider the possibility of existence of such things, which, for me, is enough to question the universality of math. As I noted in a previous post, if the statement is qualified as, "math is universally applicable, as far as we can currently see", I have no argument with it. --- ### Robert Pirkola *13 Oct 2014, 21:32 · follows Lee* Math is universal in the same way that the physics of our universe (which is based in observations describable mathematically)is universal. In other words, math and physics apply in every corner of the universe just as they do in our tiny corner. If one were to make the conjecture that some area of the observable universe did not abide by the strictures of physical law or mathematicallogic then one would have to explain (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 could be exempt from laws and principles that,I think we can all agree apply in great swathes of the universe, while not directly influencing those areas at the immediate border between the regions. Part of the problem appears to be that some will invoke different periods of *time* as possibly not beholden to mathematical/physical universality. However, this is fallacious because mathematics requires a universe that is at least partially divided and not uniform. Pre-Big Bang, the universe was undifferentiated at best and wholly unknowable at worst. Only after the singularity became less than infinitely dense (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 when there *is* interaction. Likewise the heat-death scenario our ever-expanding universe seems hell-bent on achieving will create a universe of no interaction (and thus physics or mathematics will be rendered useless by the conditions then pertaining). Which is not to saythat mathematics/physics will not be able to point out the very fact of their uselessness in the extreme edges of the universe’s temporal spectrum. What’s more, individualized areas of the universe where mathematics/physics break down (black holes, perhaps other phenomena), do not require that we abandon their universality, but merely acknowledge that black holes for example at some point cease to provide nuts and bolts in our universe. (Beyond the event horizon we can still “observe” things by referencing Hawking radiation but at some point, our lights go dark). --- ### Lee *14 Oct 2014, 11:59 · follows Robert Pirkola* Sigh, okay, I'll bite the bait one more time. > Robert Pirkola: > Math is universal in the same way that the physics of our universe (which is > based in observations describable mathematically) is universal. In other words, > math and physics apply in every corner of the universe just as they do in our > tiny corner. Who told you this? To be a credible source for making such a statement wouldn't this person have to have been to every corner of the universe to test the statement? Why would observations made in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to all other corners? > how it is that one part of the universe could be exempt from laws and principles that, > I think we can all agree apply in great swathes of the universe, while not directly > influencing those areas at the immediate border between the regions. How can we make statements regarding great swaths of the universe when we haven't observed great swaths? Perhaps math and science represent minority exemptions from the real laws which govern most of the universe. Is there a way to know? I don't see it. Human thought and perception is undeniably a form of tunnel vision. We used to think colors ranged from red to violet. Now we know there are additional "colors" from radio waves to gamma waves. We used to think there were three dimensions. Then four. Current mathematical models of the universe suggest double that, far exceeding the boundaries of human comprehension. Perhaps we could take these examples as hints. For all that math and science show us of the universe, there is likely far more out there it doesn't and cannot show us. --- ### António Pedro Marques *14 Oct 2014, 13:07 · in reply to Lee* No dia 14/10/2014, ?s 12:59, Lee escreveu: > Why would observations made in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to all other corners? 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! --- ### Gerry Quinn *14 Oct 2014, 14:22 · in reply to Lee* If logic didn't apply in a given realm, it would be logically correct to deduce that logic did in fact apply there, because a false statement implies the truth of all statements. Therefore logic applies everywhere. Q.E.D. And maths is just an extension of logic. It is not possible to make a logical argument against logic. - Gerry Quinn --- ### Dave Lebling *14 Oct 2014, 18:24 · in reply to Gerry Quinn* > Why would observations made in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to > all other corners? We have made observations that extend throughout the electromagnetic spectrum in wavelength and in distance/time almost as far back as the Big Bang and thus an equivalent number of light-years away. That is not a "tiny corner." We have seen no evidence that the laws of physics are different anywhere in the universe. Dave Lebling > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote: > > If logic didn't apply in a given realm, it would be logically correct to > deduce that logic did in fact apply there, because a false statement > implies the truth of all statements. Therefore logic applies everywhere. > Q.E.D. > > And maths is just an extension of logic. > > It is not possible to make a logical argument against logic. > > - Gerry Quinn > > > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Lee *14 Oct 2014, 18:28 · follows Dave Lebling* > Antonio Marques: scientism-ites, for all their championing of science, have been > able to produce a pretty little amount of it. Science doesn't like to be worshipped! Interesting point. I do get the sense that most productive scientists are too busy with their work here to worry or claim their work is applicable on the other side of the universe. > Gerry Quinn: If logic didn't apply in a given realm, it would be logically correct to > deduce that logic did in fact apply there, because a false statement > implies the truth of all statements. Therefore logic applies > everywhere. Q.E.D. And maths is just an extension of logic. > It is not possible to make a logical argument against logic Thus quoth a naked ape upon planet earth. It's an opinion. I'll need a concurring opinion from a representative from each galaxy in the universe before I can take such a claim seriously. Otherwise it's all in our heads. --- ### Lee *14 Oct 2014, 18:50 · follows Lee* > Dave Lebling: We have made observations that extend throughout the > electromagnetic spectrum in wavelength and in distance/time almost as > far back as the Big Bang and thus an equivalent number of light-years away. > That is not a "tiny corner." Perhaps true. But all those observations were made from earth or nearby and relayed to earth. Furthermore all the data was collected by human-constructed machines. Then all the data was processed and translated into pictures and numbers and other human tools which help us understand things. You are impressed with our mastery of the electro-magnetic spectrum. But what lies beyond gamma rays? And what other spectrums exist which we cannot perceive in the slightest? The answer must be, "We don't know". Both coming and going, the data you cite has human bias stamped all over it. We cannot escape or transcend our own basic humanity. Everything we do and everything we think is intrinsically human and limited by the limitations of being human. There is no way to avoid that. Math and science were invented by and are used exclusively by humans. > We have seen no evidence that the laws of physics are different anywhere in > the universe. Absence of evidence does not prove a negative. That's a pretty basic tenet of science/ logic. Especially in such a sparsely explored realm as "the universe". --- ### Robert Pirkola *14 Oct 2014, 22:10 · follows Lee* Psi. I'll wave towards your bright light. Lee’s statements will be given in brackets, my unbracketed responses follow: [Who told you this? To be a credible source for making such a statement wouldn't this person have to have been to every corner of the universe to test the statement?] No. Physics has been *observed* to apply in all areas of the universe to which we have pointed our instruments of measurement. The only unknowable areas are those beyond our light horizon, and if those areas are magically different simply because they have been rendered unobservable then fine but those are likewise areas upon which math and physics are no longer useful tools and canbe safely disregarded. If some future circumstance allows 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 state that that math’s non-universality is possible. If that were so, then St. Anselm’s ontological proof of God’s existence would be irrefutable. It goes something like: ?I can imagine an infinitely perfect, powerful, knowledgeable, being and therefore God must exist. Gaunilo of Marmoutier put paid to that almost as soon as it passed Anselm’s lips. The universality of math and physics is not demonstrable in areas outside of observation but it likewise gets us nowhere to postulate that they are non-universal. Thus, we go along building evidence for their universality while at all times keeping an open mind for the facts and observations which might discredit such a belief. [Why would observations made in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to all other corners?] Because we have observed it to be so everywhere we have looked and thus proceed as though it applies everywhere while always opento the possibility that we will be shocked later. The problem with your argument against universality is that it assumes that at some point this will indeed happen merely because we can imagine it might. [How can we make statements regarding great swaths of the universe when we haven't observed great swaths? Perhaps math and science represent minority exemptions from the real laws which govern most of the universe. Is there a way to know? I don't see it.] We have observed great swaths. Look up at the night sky. What portions of the universe do you know to exist that we have not observed either directly or indirectly? If different principles apply in areas of the universe 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 don’t apply there. The problem with universality is what it means to be universal. Universal in my conception, and that of science if I understand correctly, is that it uniformly applies in the observable universe. [For all that math and science show us of the universe, there is likely far more out there it doesn't and cannot show us.] But you have cited only examples of misunderstandings of what the observable universe is showing us, which are duly corrected and refined through application of scientific principles and tools (e.g. mathematics). If there is more out there that it cannot show us, then it must be so because we are incapable of having any interaction with that part of the universe. And 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 interacting with that part of the universe then it might as well not exist and we needn’t worry about whether math applies there. --- ### Dave Lebling *15 Oct 2014, 00:03 · in reply to Lee* > On 10/14/2014 2:50 PM, Lee wrote: > Perhaps true. But all those observations were made from earth or > nearby and relayed to earth. Furthermore all the data was collected by > human-constructed machines. Then all the data was processed and > translated into pictures and numbers and other human tools which help > us understand things. You are impressed with our mastery of the > electro-magnetic spectrum. But what lies beyond gamma rays? And what > other spectrums exist which we cannot perceive in the slightest? The > answer must be, "We don't know". Both coming and going, the data you > cite has human bias stamped all over it. We cannot escape or transcend > our own basic humanity. Everything we do and everything we think is > intrinsically human and limited by the limitations of being human. > There is no way to avoid that. Math and science were invented by and > are used exclusively by humans. I would appreciate a theory of why this makes a difference. Machines are not human, even if made by humans, so why should they be subject to any imaginary human biases? Let me also chime in with those who suggest that the idea that mathematics isn't universally true are utterly wrong. Really, seriously, Plato's Cave is not exactly a hill you should wish to die on. > Absence of evidence does not prove a negative. That's a pretty basic > tenet of science/ logic. Especially in such a sparsely explored realm > as "the universe". You can never prove a negative. Show some evidence that there is something that indicates the positive (as you propose it) might be true. Just saying "we don't know" is both untrue for large swathes of the universe, and basically tendentious without proposing any other view. Sure, you might say "God can do anything" (and I forget if you are in that camp) but show something that indicates that's something that has happened. Dave Lebling --- ### Gerry Quinn *15 Oct 2014, 00:13 · in reply to Dave Lebling* > On 15/10/2014 01:03, Dave Lebling wrote: > You can never prove a negative. Show some evidence that there is > something that indicates the positive (as you propose it) might be > true. Just saying "we don't know" is both untrue for large swathes of > the universe, and basically tendentious without proposing any other > view. Sure, you might say "God can do anything" (and I forget if you > are in that camp) but show something that indicates that's something > that has happened. I thought of that earlier. Saying there can be parts of the universe where logic doesn't apply is like saying "God is omnipotent, so he must be able to make a stone he can't lift". The best answer seems to be that definitions of omnipotence that allow logical contradictions are ill-formed. When the irresistable force meets the immovable object... then you must have described at least one of them wrong. When you talk about a world where logic doesn't apply, then by definition you aren't making sense. - Gerry Quinn --- ### António Pedro Marques *15 Oct 2014, 09:29 · in reply to Dave Lebling* 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. --- ### Dave Lebling *15 Oct 2014, 14:20 · in reply to António Pedro Marques* What then are those two points and why are the responses to it tail-chasing? Making such a claim without explicating it is less than helpful. Dave > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques > wrote: > Your discussions remain meaningless, and, quite frankly, boring, while you > don't clarify what point of view you are defending. Lee is making two > separate points (which have some points of contact) while most of the rest > of you are chasing your tails. Please, first think what your point is, then > check in what way it is even relevant to the discussion, and only then > proceed to explain it. > > _______________________________________________ --- ### Marc Aramini *15 Oct 2014, 14:43 · in reply to Dave Lebling* There's an irony here: my understanding of tail chasing is that it describes one being lost in self-absorbed subjectivity - the claim that we can only know the self, falling into the Cartesian trap, assertion of the self and complete inability to extend to the external physical world, is the quintessential act of tail chasing. The entire debate is moot. Scientific types assert that we have accomplished much in understanding the mechanism of the world even if we cannot manipulate it at the subatomic level with reliability, unscientific types assert, hey man ... what do we really know? As it turns out, ridiculous, incredible amounts that can be reliably replicated even with variable conditions. Ultimately ... whatever. > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Dave Lebling wrote: > What then are those two points and why are the responses to it > tail-chasing? Making such a claim without explicating it is less than > helpful. > > Dave > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques > wrote: >> Your discussions remain meaningless, and, quite frankly, boring, while >> you don't clarify what point of view you are defending. Lee is making two >> separate points (which have some points of contact) while most of the rest >> of you are chasing your tails. Please, first think what your point is, then >> check in what way it is even relevant to the discussion, and only then >> proceed to explain it. >> >> _______________________________________________ --- ### António Pedro Marques *15 Oct 2014, 15:16 · in reply to Dave Lebling* I've been complaining about it perhaps for a week now. It's not nice to pretend it's news. If you are not aware of what his two points are, how can you conduct a meaningful discussion with him? No dia 15/10/2014, ?s 15:20, Dave Lebling escreveu: > What then are those two points and why are the responses to it tail-chasing? Making such a claim without explicating it is less than helpful. > > Dave >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >> Your discussions remain meaningless, and, quite frankly, boring, while you don't clarify what point of view you are defending. Lee is making two separate points (which have some points of contact) while most of the rest of you are chasing your tails. Please, first think what your point is, then check in what way it is even relevant to the discussion, and only then proceed to explain it. >> >> _______________________________________________ --- ### António Pedro Marques *15 Oct 2014, 15:19 · in reply to Marc Aramini* 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! No dia 15/10/2014, ?s 15:43, Marc Aramini escreveu: > There's an irony here: my understanding of tail chasing is that it describes one being lost in self-absorbed subjectivity - the claim that we can only know the self, falling into the Cartesian trap, assertion of the self and complete inability to extend to the external physical world, is the quintessential act of tail chasing. The entire debate is moot. Scientific types assert that we have accomplished much in understanding the mechanism of the world even if we cannot manipulate it at the subatomic level with reliability, unscientific types assert, hey man ... what do we really know? As it turns out, ridiculous, incredible amounts that can be reliably replicated even with variable conditions. Ultimately ... whatever. >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 7:20 AM, Dave Lebling wrote: >> What then are those two points and why are the responses to it tail-chasing? Making such a claim without explicating it is less than helpful. >> >> Dave >>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: >>> Your discussions remain meaningless, and, quite frankly, boring, while you don't clarify what point of view you are defending. Lee is making two separate points (which have some points of contact) while most of the rest of you are chasing your tails. Please, first think what your point is, then check in what way it is even relevant to the discussion, and only then proceed to explain it. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ --- ### Lee *15 Oct 2014, 17:33 · follows António Pedro Marques* Robert Pirkoka: > The only unknowable areas are those beyond our light horizon. An infinitely large area, yes? > and if those areas are magically different simply because they have > been rendered unobservable Yes! Magic! That which cannot be explained by math or science, yes? Merryn and the Cumaean discuss the issue quite well, I think: > Merryn: "There is no magic. There is only knowledge, more or less hidden." > Cumeaean: "Words are symbols. Merryn chooses to delimit magic as that which does not exist . . . > and so it does not exist. If you choose to call what we are about to do here magic then > magic lives while we do it. > then fine but those are likewise areas upon which math and physics are no longer useful > tools and can be safely disregarded. This is the crux. You, like Merryn, define anything which cannot be understood or perceived by humans as non-existent. I can't, in good philosophical conscience, do that. > it is not an argument against the universality of math to simply state that that math’s non-universality > is possible. If that were so, then St. Anselm’s ontological proof of God’s existence would be irrefutable. > It goes something like: ?I can imagine an infinitely perfect, powerful, knowledgeable, being and therefore > God must exist. For me it IS a valid argument. And St. Anselm's pronouncement is not a good comparison to my position. I do not argue that math cannot be universal. Only that it may not be. Like the existence of God, I consider the universality of math to be unknowable fact. I remain agnostic regarding both God and math. There are those who find their observations during their life on planet earth to be sufficient evidence to believe in God. Likewise there are those who find sufficient evidence for the universality of math. I respect the faith but cannot share in it. > Dave Lebling: You can never prove a negative. Show some evidence that there is > something that indicates the positive (as you propose it) might be true. There is no need to prove my statement that math may not be universally applicable. There is need to disprove it. Saying math is universal IS a negative assertion in that it claims there are no exceptions to math in the universe. "No exceptions in an infinite universe" is a negative statement which can never be proven", rendering the statement "math is universal" to be null in that it cannot be verified or falsified. Departing from logic and moving to science, we might treat "math is universal" as a "hypothesis" which has been collecting evidence for an upgrade to "theory". Then it becomes a matter of opinion I guess. Keep in mind that most scientific theories are predicated on being applicable to earth (and surrounding areas). The assertion of "universality" is an infinitely larger claim. You and Robert and Gerry and others are satisfied with the current body of evidence regarding math. Count me as a skeptic if you like but I am not satisfied. I am a much more difficult sell. At least one non-human, extra- terrestrial reporting of evidence of math applicability is something I'd need to even consider upgrading "math is universal" up to "theory" status. > Gerry Quinn: When you talk about a world where logic doesn't apply, then by > definition you aren't making sense. Agreed (sort of). But it still doesn't mean that math is universal just because the reverse concept doesn't make sense to us. As previously noted, what makes sense to an ape-derived brain on planet earth seems a poor measure of "universal reality". At least to me and I am using the same limited tool to make that assessment. --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *15 Oct 2014, 17:45 · in reply to Lee* Lee, as far as I can tell, your argument comes down to "I can imagine someplace where logic and math don't apply, therefore we must assume that they exist until we can prove they don't." Of course such a place *might* exist. But you are positing something (the existence of such a place) with no evidence or other argument in its favor. That's a vast form of question-begging, assuming the conclusion as a premise. Now. Do you have any *evidence* that such a place exists? (And please, let's not argue about what I mean by "place" and assume that it might not be space-time as we know it.) > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Lee wrote: > Robert Pirkoka: >> The only unknowable areas are those beyond our light horizon. > An infinitely large area, yes? >> and if those areas are magically different simply because they have >> been rendered unobservable > Yes! Magic! That which cannot be explained by math or science, yes? > > > Merryn and the Cumaean discuss the issue quite well, I think: >> Merryn: "There is no magic. There is only knowledge, more or less hidden." >> Cumeaean: "Words are symbols. Merryn chooses to delimit magic as that >> which does not exist . . . >> and so it does not exist. If you choose to call what we are about to do >> here magic then >> magic lives while we do it. >> then fine but those are likewise areas upon which math and physics are no >> longer useful >> tools and can be safely disregarded. > This is the crux. You, like Merryn, define anything which cannot be > understood or perceived by > > humans as non-existent. I can't, in good philosophical conscience, do that. >> it is not an argument against the universality of math to simply state >> that that math’s non-universality >> is possible. If that were so, then St. Anselm’s ontological proof of >> God’s existence would be irrefutable. >> It goes something like: ?I can imagine an infinitely perfect, powerful, >> knowledgeable, being and therefore >> God must exist. > For me it IS a valid argument. And St. Anselm's pronouncement is not a > good comparison to my position. > > I do not argue that math cannot be universal. Only that it may not be. > Like the existence of God, I > > consider the universality of math to be unknowable fact. I remain agnostic > regarding both God and math. > > > There are those who find their observations during their life on planet > earth to be sufficient evidence > > to believe in God. Likewise there are those who find sufficient evidence > for the universality of math. I > > respect the faith but cannot share in it. >> Dave Lebling: You can never prove a negative. Show some evidence that >> there is >> something that indicates the positive (as you propose it) might be true. > There is no need to prove my statement that math may not be universally > applicable. There is need to > > disprove it. Saying math is universal IS a negative assertion in that it > claims there are no exceptions to > > math in the universe. "No exceptions in an infinite universe" is a > negative statement which can never be > > proven", rendering the statement "math is universal" to be null in that it > cannot be verified or falsified. > > > Departing from logic and moving to science, we might treat "math is > universal" as a "hypothesis" which has > > been collecting evidence for an upgrade to "theory". Then it becomes a > matter of opinion I guess. Keep in mind > > that most scientific theories are predicated on being applicable to earth > (and surrounding areas). The assertion > > of "universality" is an infinitely larger claim. > > > You and Robert and Gerry and others are satisfied with the current body of > evidence regarding math. Count > > me as a skeptic if you like but I am not satisfied. I am a much more > difficult sell. At least one non-human, extra- > > terrestrial reporting of evidence of math applicability is something I'd > need to even consider upgrading "math is > > universal" up to "theory" status. >> Gerry Quinn: When you talk about a world where logic doesn't apply, then >> by >> definition you aren't making sense. > Agreed (sort of). But it still doesn't mean that math is universal just > because the reverse concept doesn't make > > sense to us. As previously noted, what makes sense to an ape-derived brain > on planet earth seems a poor measure > > of "universal reality". At least to me and I am using the same limited > tool to make that assessment. > _______________________________________________ --- ### Lee *15 Oct 2014, 17:52 · follows Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > Dave Lebling: What then are those two points I am hoping my last post clarified two points that Antonio has mentioned, one more logic based and one more science based. 1. "Math is universal" is a disguised version of the unprovable negative statement: "There are no exceptions to math application in the universe" I keep wondering if those who hold the above position are really meaning to say "There are no exceptions to math application in the KNOWN universe" in which case we may all be able to agree and go home. 2. The human brain receiving information on planet earth is not a sufficient tool which does not have access to enough information to make a claim about the infinite universe. This is more subject to opinion than #1 but I think the observation of the limits of the human brain and the earth as a vantage point should be apparent to anyone considering this issue. How can such obvious limits simply be dismissed in a discussion of an infinite universe? --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *15 Oct 2014, 18:04 · in reply to Lee* > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Lee wrote: > > think the observation of the limits of the human brain and the earth as a > vantage point should be apparent to anyone considering this issue. How > can such obvious limits simply be dismissed in a discussion of an infinite > universe? While I might concede the limits of the human brain (given sufficient evidence to do so), it has been demonstrated (note I do *not* say "proven") repeatedly that the vantage point does not matter - that the universe looks the same from wherever you look at it. This is, among other things, one of the basic assumptions of relativistic physics. ``` Dan'l Danehy-Oakes ``` --- ### Lee *15 Oct 2014, 18:06 · follows Dan'l Danehy-Oakes* > Dan'l: Lee, as far as I can tell, your argument comes down to "I can imagine someplace > where logic and math don't apply, therefore we must assume that they exist until we > can prove they don't." To quote Gene Wolfe, No, No, NO! (sorry if I got that wrong Marc. :- )). Stating that alogical, amathematical zones exist in the universe would be just as unsupportable as those here which say such zones don't exist. Both statements require a leap of faith I, personally, cannot make. In more scientific terms, I am willing to accept that gravity accelerates objects everywhere on earth at 9.8m/sec/sec because we have been to most places on earth, we have good evidence earth is a sphere, we've done massive experimentation in a variety of conditions, etc. I don't see our knowledge of the universe coming anywhere close to that of our own planet, making any statement about "universality" to be inherently questionable. The pinpricks of radiation we detect from distant galaxies don't provide anything close to the information we have regarding earth. Not to mention all the other pinpricks of energy that we are unable to detect, which presumably represent most of the universe. --- ### Lee *15 Oct 2014, 18:16 · follows Lee* > Dan'l: While I might concede the limits of the human brain (given sufficient evidence > to do so), it has been demonstrated (note I do *not* say "proven") repeatedly that the > vantage point does not matter - that the universe looks the same from wherever you look > at it. This is, among other things, one of the basic assumptions of relativistic physics. That is, indeed an assumption which is made. Why is it made? Because that's all we have to work with right now. Scientist don't just want to stop doing physics, so they make that assumption and run with it. For now. Keep in mind, modern scientists are using the exact same tool (the human brain) that flat earthers, philogiston believers and alchemists were using. Those very intelligent people also did their best with what the evidence they had at their disposal. For some 300 years, Newtonian physics was considered "universal". Now it isn't. Someday, math may join Newtonian physics in the realm of "limited applicability". I don't see how that possibility can be denied. --- ### Jeffery Wilson clueland.com *16 Oct 2014, 05:58 · in reply to Dave Lebling* >> On 10/14/2014 1:24 PM, Dave Lebling wrote: >> Why would observations made in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to all other corners? > We have made observations that extend throughout the electromagnetic > spectrum in wavelength and in distance/time almost as far back as the > Big Bang and thus an equivalent number of light-years away. That is not > a "tiny corner." We have seen no evidence that the laws of physics are > different anywhere in the universe. Well, other than "dark matter", a concept invented to explain the discrepancy between the amount of mass in other galaxies observed by quantity of radiation vs that observed by apparent gravitation. ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` --- ### Jeffery Wilson clueland.com *16 Oct 2014, 06:10 · in reply to Lee* > On 10/14/2014 1:50 PM, Lee wrote: > Both coming and going, the data you cite has human bias stamped all over it. We cannot > > escape or transcend our own basic humanity. Everything we do and everything we > > think is intrinsically human and limited by the limitations of being human. There is no way > > to avoid that. Math and science were invented by and are used exclusively by humans. This is not correct. Humans and pre-humans have made numerous constructions that transcend the limitations of the homind condition. Cave paintings, however fanciful, record the existence of people with culture and behaviors that are discernable across a gap of tens of thousands of years, utterly beyond an oral tradition. Telescopes made by Galileo allowed humans to see far beyond their natural capacity for sight, and when the humans go to these distant, previously unseen places, what they see is actually in evidence; the same goes for our proxies that visited the Galilean moons. Humans are flawed, but the flaws are not intractable. Your argument otherwise is self-defeating as it could be judged as flawed as any other human product and thus equally dismissible. ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` --- ### Jeffery Wilson clueland.com *16 Oct 2014, 06:13 · in reply to António Pedro Marques* > On 10/15/2014 4:29 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: > Your discussions remain meaningless, and, quite frankly, boring, > while you don't clarify what point of view you are defending. Lee is > making two separate points (which have some points of contact) while > most of the rest of you are chasing your tails. Please, first think > what your point is, then check in what way it is even relevant to the > discussion, and only then proceed to explain it. To whom are you addressing this brusque rebuke, may I ask? ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` --- ### Jeffery Wilson clueland.com *16 Oct 2014, 06:29 · in reply to Lee* > On 10/15/2014 1:06 PM, Lee wrote: > In more scientific terms, I am willing to accept that gravity accelerates objects everywhere on earth > > at 9.8m/sec/sec because we have been to most places on earth, we have good evidence earth is a > > sphere, we've done massive experimentation in a variety of conditions, etc. The massive experimentation confirms the earth is not a sphere, does not have uniform acceleration due to gravity, and this was first suspected by flawed people no later than the 19th century, assuming you are willing to agree to the flawed calendar and the flawed invention of the printing press that was used to publish the flawed papers they wrote about it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` --- ### Robert Pirkola *16 Oct 2014, 16:44 · follows Jeffery Wilson clueland.com* I must clarify my position because I believe though I have made several points, I have not explained the reason for having made them. 1. Mathematics is a developing body of knowledge, technique and application that is by no means closed at this point and cannot be talked about as though it is a fully-known “thing”. As has been pointed out by several posters, math has been growing and changing radically in its power and scope from Euclid, through Pythagoras, on up to Newton, Russell, G?del, Turing, and beyond. No doubt it shall continue to grow as the mysteries we encounter beg to be solved and those investigating craft stunning and hitherto unknown methods that allow their depths to be plumbed. 2. I agree that the intellectually honest individual is probably obliged to be agnostic about the universality of mathematics (or the existence of God) while also allowing for a person to profess a belief that is in violation of this seemingly forced agnosticism for the sake of Faustian striving if nothing else. 3. I do not however agree that one is likewise obliged to be agnostic about the existence of areas of the universe that are not subject to mathematical understanding. a. This is because if there are such areas of the universe, and they are not susceptible to our present set of mathematical tools, nor susceptible to additional mathematical concepts and techniques that may be developed, then we shall at all times remain in the dark about their existence. b. If we are in the dark about their existence, then they must have no influence over the portions of the universe that we are aware of, and if that is the case, I feel obliged to call their existence, “existence”. c. If however, they do have an influence over the portions of the universe we can comprehend, experience, and probe with mathematics, then they themselves must be subject to comprehension through mathematics, but perhaps mathematics that is yet to be invented. d. If some sentient being is operating in the same universe 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 universe through mathematics and their understanding of the universe (through whatever system they have developed) can be translated one into the other. 4. What everyone initially started talking about was whether there was a single, correct reading to a Gene Wolfe story, which could probably best be answered “yes and no”: ?yes? in that authorial intention is a correct reading if it can be recreated from the text and given the approval of the (presumably non-mendacious) author and “no” in that text is slippery and even where there is a distinct authorial intention (not always the case) it is prone to the interpretation of those who get hold of it (with almost no rules that can be agreed upon to govern the process). This led to the discussion of mathematics, with the universe being the true meaning of the work, mathematics being the text, and the human race as the reader. This analogy, though obviously capable of stirring spirited debate, is a poor one. Human language is a group of concepts that need not have any objective manifestation in the world for us to understand them and as such, they are prone to shades of meaning, words in languages that are “untranslatable”, and imperfect and widely varying translations when in fact they are deemed translatable. I am assuming based on the statements made in this debate that everyone agrees at least that the universe itself is an objective reality and we are just debating how one is able to understand that reality. This is the difference between a short story or a novel and the universe (not the only one I suppose). Because there is an objective ground to the study of the universe, those who come up with different ways of reaching that ground should be capable of finding some kind of isomorphic operation to translate from one to the other, or perhaps a synthesis of the two into something else altogether, but which both participants in the collaboration can agree upon. Therefore to make my position explicit I do not believe that we know what the full scope of mathematics is and probably never will be able to say that we have closed it for good. I withhold ultimate judgment on whether it is universal but proceed as though it is because of the present evidence and the uselessness of not making that assumption at this point. I believe that texts are both capable of a “correct” interpretation that is in one-to-one agreement with authorial intention and agree that that same text has several other “correct” interpretations that appear in spite of the authorial intention. I believe that the areas of the universe that we know nothing about and cannot understand with our brains may as well not exist because we can know nothing about them, they cannot influence us, and we can do nothing with the idea except talk and write about it (and as Magritte and others have somewhat obviously pointed out, the symbol is not the thing). --- ### Norwood, Frederick Hudson *16 Oct 2014, 20:21 · follows Robert Pirkola* 1) I didn't say that. 2) Whoever said it, I think you misunderstand what it says. Rick Norwood -----Original Message----- From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:51 PM > To: urth at urth.net > Subject: (urth) barrington interview > Rick Norwood: Humans and pre-humans have made numerous constructions > that transcend the limitations of the homind condition. > Cave paintings, however fanciful, record the existence of people with > culture and behaviors that are discernable across a gap of tens of > thousands of years, utterly beyond an oral tradition. You are saying humans are not capable of art or history. I truly do not understand that statement. > Telescopes made by Galileo allowed humans to see far beyond their natural > capacity for sight. Yes, all tools allow humans to exceed the limitations of their own physical bodies. Math is also a tool which allows humans to exceed their own physical limitations. But telescopes do not allow people to see to the ends of the universe or through a black hole. Neither can the tool called "math". All tools have such limitations and thus I think human/earthly tools cannot be asserted to be "universal" in their application. > Robert Pirkola: Mathematics is a developing body of knowledge, technique and application > that is by no means closed at this point and cannot be talked about as though it is a > fully-known "thing". If math is redefined to mean not just what calculations we do now but also all possible future versions of math, including what we find alien races are doing then I am much more open to the statement that math is universal. But I'm not sure that's a fair definition. I take Rick's "telescope" to mean what we today call a "telescope". If "telescope" is redefined as "all possible future viewing devices as used by all possible species in the universe" then I would also have to accept the statement that a telescope can see everything in the universe. And that seems like a different conversation than what we started with. > b. If we are in the dark about their [null-math areas] existence, then they must have no influence over > the portions of the universe that we are aware of, and if that is the case, I feel obliged to call their > existence, "existence". Robert, I am assuming you meant to say you do NOT feel obliged to call any null-math areas of the universe as "existing". As Antonio observes, you are making some interesting arguments. So, I presume that if we encountered an alien species with which we could communicate, and they told us about a null-math portion of the universe, you would tell them they are wrong and that it doesn't exist. (at least from our perspective). Let's get metaphysical and observe that we ALREADY have encountered a portion of the universe which is not amenable to math, science or even logic. That place is: "Your own, subjective subconscious" We cannot plausibly use math, science or logic to explain the world of our own dreams. Does the subjective world of our own subconscious exist? Or is it imaginary? --- ### Jeffery Wilson clueland.com *17 Oct 2014, 06:53 · follows Norwood, Frederick Hudson* >> On 10/16/2014 2:50 PM, Lee wrote: >> Rick Norwood: Humans and pre-humans have made numerous >> constructions that transcend the limitations of the homind condition. >> Cave paintings, however fanciful, record the existence of people with >> culture and behaviors that are discernable across a gap of tens of >> thousands of years, utterly beyond an oral tradition. > You are saying humans are not capable of art or history. I truly do not > > understand that statement. I wrote that, not Rick. On the contrary, I am saying that art transcends the flaws of history, because the cave paintings implicitly record things about people who did not yet have the ability to record explicit, written history. I recall now that you apparently use some crap misconfigured e-mail program that doesn't properly quote and attribute forcing you to do it by flawed hand and flawed memory, and I think your poor technology experience in general may be coloring your attitudes about all human product. ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` --- ### Lee *17 Oct 2014, 12:12 · follows Jeffery Wilson clueland.com* > You are saying humans are not capable of art or history. I truly do not > understand that statement > Jeffrey Wilson: I wrote that, not Rick. On the contrary, I am saying that art transcends > the flaws of history, because the cave paintings implicitly record > things about people who did not yet have the ability to record explicit, > written history. Apologies for the misidentification. Saying that art can go beyond history is one thing. But what I quoted was the statement: > Humans and pre-humans have made numerous > constructions that transcend the limitations of the homind condition. Quite a different statement to say that art is a superhuman ability. Dan'l made the suggestion that some human endeavors (including prayer?) can put humans in touch with the superhuman/infinite, as an article of his faith. I have no problem with that belief, stated that way. But I can't see how statements about art or math transcending the human condition make sense, without invoking belief in God. > I recall now that you apparently use some crap misconfigured e-mail > program that doesn't properly quote and attribute forcing you to do it > by flawed hand and flawed memory, and I think your poor technology > experience in general may be coloring your attitudes about all human > products. Very funny. But no; as computers and the internet are entirely human creations, I do not consider them to endow us with superhuman abilities. No more than a stone hand axe does. --- ### Jeffery Wilson clueland.com *17 Oct 2014, 15:02 · in reply to Lee* > On 10/17/2014 7:12 AM, Lee wrote: > Quite a different statement to say that art is a superhuman ability. Which is one reason I didn't make that statement. I'm saying that artifacts can exceed the capabilities of their mortal creators as well as lack some of their flaws, which is one of the reasons for making artifacts at all. > Dan'l made the suggestion that some human endeavors (including prayer?) > > can put humans in touch with the superhuman/infinite, as an article of his > > faith. I have no problem with that belief, stated that way. > > > But I can't see how statements about art or math transcending the human > > condition make sense, without invoking belief in God. Do you believe there is no room for improvement of man without encountering the divine? ``` Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com > A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab < http://www.tamut.edu/cil > ``` ---