Urth Net
barrington interview
Norwood, Frederick Hudson · 09 Oct 2014, 12:01
· 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: NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu (Norwood, Frederick Hudson) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 12:01:16 +0000 Subject: (urth) barrington interview In-Reply-To: <CACJ=J7=gKaKOfH9rYX1X5tVNDhWzX4gr+9Y86c-sWbheY50amA 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> <CACJ=J7=icC6cLJjv4=Y2gtqb-1kaNEEobD7TeSo-Zo0LO55tgQ at mail.gmail.com> <CAJ8=rthep80qughwpZk54wakyeL7k7z0A-LmUqnKH0o8h-e2QQ at mail.gmail.com> <CACJ=J7=gKaKOfH9rYX1X5tVNDhWzX4gr+9Y86c-sWbheY50amA at mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D0129EA at ETSUMB2.etsu.edu> 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 <danldo at gmail.com<mailto:danldo at gmail.com>> 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 <entonio at gmail.com<mailto:entonio at gmail.com>> 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 <danldo at gmail.com<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net>] On Behalf Of Lee > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM > To: urth at urth.net<mailto: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<mailto:urth at urth.net> > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net > _______________________________________________ > Urth Mailing List > To post, write urth at urth.net<mailto:urth at urth.net> > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net<mailto:urth at urth.net> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net<mailto:urth at urth.net> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net<mailto:urth at urth.net> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net<mailto:urth at urth.net> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net _______________________________________________ Urth Mailing List To post, write urth at urth.net<mailto:urth at urth.net> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes _______________________________________________ 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/20141009/2e774dbe/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