barrington interview

Norwood, Frederick Hudson · 08 Oct 2014, 14:55 · from 2014-October.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu (Norwood, Frederick Hudson)
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 14:55:39 +0000
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
In-Reply-To: <6BCECB94-07F5-4F34-AC18-01D2A566B75A at gmail.com>
References: <BLU175-W20DD772BFB7827BB84B1BFCFA20 at phx.gbl>
	<CA+Z2yj3=L4fZ_S+JuyEWSEPOKFWbweHfZohGa6sKirN90L_8+Q at mail.gmail.com>
	<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011ECD at ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>
	<6BCECB94-07F5-4F34-AC18-01D2A566B75A at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011F59 at ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>

The question goes back to this: is there such a thing as the meaning of a statement which is independent of the symbols in which the statement is written.

People in math and science would usually say yes, I think.  I know I often have the experience of groping for the words to express an idea that seems very clear to me, even before I find the right words.  Also, I can express exactly the same idea in many different ways.

People in the arts often say no ? there is no such thing as meaning without symbols.  The medium is the message.

What I mean by the universality of math is that there are universal truths (7*8 = 56 is one) which remain true independent of the symbols in which those truths are expressed.  If by ?I had one grunch but the eggplant over there.?  I mean ?7*8 = 56?, then the statement is true.  (The question of communicating with another mind is another question.  Understanding ideas in your own mind is hard enough, communicating those ideas to another mind is even harder.

Rick Norwood

From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Ant?nio Pedro Marques
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:29 AM
To: The Urth Mailing List
Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview

Could you gentlemen pinpoint what you're labelling as the universality of math?

No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 15:01, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" <NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu<mailto:NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu>> escreveu:
This isn?t the place for this debate, since I have no doubt that Gene Wolfe accepts the fact that math is universal, but I will point out that your mode of debate (the suggestion that I don?t accept your assertion not because I disagree with it but because I find it ?disturbing?) is, as Mr. Spock would say, ?Highly illogical.?

Rick Norwood

From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Thomas Bitterman
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:36 AM
To: The Urth Mailing List
Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview

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

Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics that isn't  just the Genetic Fallacy?

_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net<mailto:urth at urth.net>
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141008/de308465/attachment-0001.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net