barrington interview

António Marques · 08 Oct 2014, 17:01 · 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: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ant=C3=B3nio_Marques?=)
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 18:01:37 +0100
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
In-Reply-To: <CAJ8=rtjCScSHoufZghZV5oJLPdyLvCN_zUYbQPKO0MvRYP-wnQ at mail.gmail.com>
References: <BLU175-W2054A50C3862ED3733A642CFA30 at phx.gbl>
	<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011FA5 at ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>
	<1469476C-191B-45C8-AF3D-7804E887D02B at gmail.com>
	<CAJ8=rtjXpwxEBez4Vpr71BtKe-H3EpwOVSSqBwU0H5PUa2oRiQ at mail.gmail.com>
	<CACJ=J7n8j8iG1k-teuG21DpZPQKRbKrT6Rz82YxW1_p3FAhiaA at mail.gmail.com>
	<CAJ8=rtjCScSHoufZghZV5oJLPdyLvCN_zUYbQPKO0MvRYP-wnQ at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACJ=J7=icC6cLJjv4=Y2gtqb-1kaNEEobD7TeSo-Zo0LO55tgQ at mail.gmail.com>

You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what it
tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on.

On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based on
> the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar
> structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has
> been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe.
>
> Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and I
> just can't go there.
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, Ant?nio Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm
>> saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if
>> it is anything like our own math.
>> For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially
>> being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen
>> that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of
>> math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it
>> in some meta-language, we won't know.
>>
>> (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's best
>> to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan
>> phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really).
>>
>> On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are discarding
>>> the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow may
>>>> look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a
>>>> different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal
>>>> applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool.
>>>>
>>>> No dia 08/10/2014, ?s 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" <
>>>> NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:
>>>>
>>>> > Actually, crows can do simple math.  If four hunters enter a house
>>>> and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house.  Four
>>>> hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house.  Twenty hunters in,
>>>> nineteen out, the crow flies to the house.  The crow can see the difference
>>>> between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty.
>>>> >
>>>> > I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept,
>>>> not the symbol) is less than three.
>>>> >
>>>> > For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual"
>>>> by H. Beam Piper.
>>>> >
>>>> > Rick Norwood
>>>> >
>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> > From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee
>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM
>>>> > To: urth at urth.net
>>>> > Subject: (urth) barrington interview
>>>> >
>>>> >> Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of
>>>> mathematics
>>>> >
>>>> >> that isn't  just the Genetic Fallacy?
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:
>>>> >
>>>> >> The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of
>>>> virtue,[1]
>>>> >
>>>> >> Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based
>>>> solely on
>>>> >
>>>> >> something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or
>>>> context
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is
>>>> because
>>>> >
>>>> > math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very
>>>> small
>>>> >
>>>> > corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of
>>>> galaxies.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been
>>>> found outside
>>>> >
>>>> > that original context. For example, if we found math being used by
>>>> members of
>>>> >
>>>> > another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had
>>>> travelled
>>>> >
>>>> > to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere,
>>>> not just
>>>> >
>>>> > from the perspective of planet earth.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one
>>>> species on that
>>>> >
>>>> > one planet.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would
>>>> only say that it
>>>> >
>>>> > seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be
>>>> described
>>>> >
>>>> > mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we
>>>> are able
>>>> >
>>>> > to encounter.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see.  The
>>>> assumption of a cosmic
>>>> >
>>>> > universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems
>>>> unfounded
>>>> >
>>>> > to me.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special
>>>> mastery for
>>>> >
>>>> > understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a
>>>> different story.
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > 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
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Urth Mailing List
>>>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write 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/20141008/9dcc2780/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