barrington interview

Lee · 09 Oct 2014, 11:44 · 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: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 07:44:51 -0400
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
Message-ID: <BLU175-W672D9E233A130368B49B6CFA00 at phx.gbl>

>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.

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