barrington interview

Lee · 08 Oct 2014, 14:57 · 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: severiansola at hotmail.com (Lee)
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 10:57:02 -0400
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
Message-ID: <BLU175-W2054A50C3862ED3733A642CFA30 at phx.gbl>

>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.

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