barrington interview

Gerry Quinn · 09 Oct 2014, 13:57 · 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: gerry at bindweed.com (Gerry Quinn)
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:57:11 +0100
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
In-Reply-To: <CAJ8=rtic02rARCKuWLba=aOPxOcEGGPmkFh0nbSgRurOg2o4Lg at mail.gmail.com>
References: <BLU175-W20DD772BFB7827BB84B1BFCFA20 at phx.gbl>
	<CAJ8=rtic02rARCKuWLba=aOPxOcEGGPmkFh0nbSgRurOg2o4Lg at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54369437.7030209 at bindweed.com>

On 08/10/2014 01:05, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
>
> It is not necessary for a "conch to do math" for its spiral 
> shell-shape to be mathematically based. Its genes, an incredibly 
> powerful computing system (whose results are expressed in proteins 
> which then control cellular behavior), "does" the math. Likewise the 
> shape of the galaxy; stars aren't "doing math," they are obeying 
> natural law, which is mathematical in nature.
>
> The evidence (I hesitate to say "proof," as that would be 
> unscientific) for this is that just about everywhere we turn in 
> nature, we find that mathematics provides predictability and 
> explanatory power. It isn't a joke when cosmologists talk about the 
> universe being potentially a huge "computer" "simulation" (I think 
> both words are too loose here); the Universe itself seems to "do math" 
> as you would put it.

I don't really agree.  I think "the unreasonable effectiveness of 
mathematics" in science is a result of science being based on repetitive 
aspects of the world that can be mathematically modelled.  The 
mathematics describes the model, but the model is generally - perhaps 
always - an imperfect and incomplete description of the world.  Science 
speaks about models, but models are not actually the world, they just 
track some parts of it.

Snail shells are repetitive and model easily, snail trails not so much.  
A scientist will make predictions based on the percentage of the sky 
that is overcast.  But the *number* of clouds in the sky is relatively 
unamenable and thus useless to science - to study that aspect of the 
world, you would require a painter, or perhaps a mystic.

- Gerry Quinn

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