Urth Net
barrington interview
António Marques · 09 Oct 2014, 12:09
· 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: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 13:09:57 +0100 Subject: (urth) barrington interview In-Reply-To: <0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D0129EA at ETSUMB2.etsu.edu> 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> <0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D0129EA at ETSUMB2.etsu.edu> Message-ID: <CACJ=J7=Pdk7UMe1CQUr-8svKUK65spTo2AH-p+oACQc09T4CDg at mail.gmail.com> And so you illustrate the point: physics comes from observing the universe, whereas math comes from reason. Our reason could be different. There is no such thing as multiplication outside our minds. There is a thing in our minds called multiplication which enables us to make sense of areas. Areas are physics, not math. On 9 October 2014 13:01, Norwood, Frederick Hudson <NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> wrote: > 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> 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> > 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> 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141009/05472c0c/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