Urth Net
barrington interview
Adam Thornton · 09 Oct 2014, 20:12
· 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: athornton at gmail.com (Adam Thornton) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 15:12:13 -0500 Subject: (urth) barrington interview In-Reply-To: <CAKZXDXPDRxN8KEJhhTaNkozo_xKfbjeVdsrjkHGW_rbCtGvFtQ at mail.gmail.com> References: <BLU175-W4644B896C6822F8FA2A0DCCFA00 at phx.gbl> <CAKZXDXPDRxN8KEJhhTaNkozo_xKfbjeVdsrjkHGW_rbCtGvFtQ at mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <CAP2nic2M14KmD9if96Wu0kb6AJrA_-iJsNJiFKHKRQBNfs6_9Q at mail.gmail.com> The Continuum Hypothesis (more or less, there are no infinite sets larger than the set of integers and smaller than the set of reals) is independent of ZFC (Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms adjoined to the Axiom of Choice, which together give something that seems to be coterminous with the standard model of mathematical reality). Actual mathematicians (at least in certain fields) deal with this sort of question all the time, and following the logic can take you to some very strange--but, if you believe your axioms, true--places. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ContinuumHypothesis.html is a pretty decent nontechnical overview. This argument is orthogonal to the Lakoff-Nunez argument that the conceptualization of mathematics is embedded in our anatomy and sensory perception. Adam On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:55 AM, Brendon Fuhs <brendon.fuhs at gmail.com> wrote: > "A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the > realm of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so." > > This is one of those wild statements that calls for an example. If > mathematicians are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing > some imperfect brain mechanics, and brains and thinking differ from > person-to-person then surely there should be some mathematical statements > that different groups of mathematicians are convinced have been > demonstrated to be true, while others are convinced they have been > demonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an agreement on the > matter. > > It is also a statement that represents a difficult (or impossible) place > for drawing the line between the subjective and the objective. Math, the > concept, is viewed as a material construct, rather than something which > accesses objective truths and falsehoods. Why not go all the way and say > that true and false are constructions? After all, the notion of truth and > falseness is fundamentally mathematical, prior to being empirical. > > Or are you saying that it's possible for there to be a universe so alien > to our own, epistemologically, that even its logic is unimaginable to us? > Different not just in physical laws but in a deeper way that demonstrates > that logic is only universal and not multiversal? Like there's some sort of > logical ether in which our universe lives that could be different? > > That is interesting, but not falsifiable. > > > > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote: > >> >Antonio Marques: 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. >> >> >> I could generally, theoretically agree with this, though in the real >> world, >> >> I question the idea of "pure reason". How can a human mind possibly >> >> reason if it had been deprived of all external sensory input since >> >> birth/conception of the person in question. I don't think we are >> >> built to function that way. >> >> >> >Rick Norwood: 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. >> >> >> >> Again, I question this concept of "pure reason" as a real world item. >> >> How could a human mind ever engage in "pure reason", unpolluted >> >> by any real world experience or perception? >> >> >> >> I submit that math was, in its original conception and in its >> >> continued use, the combination of real world perception and experience >> >> and internal logic/reason, like everything else in our brains. >> >> >> >> And this is the essential reason I question the universality of math. >> Because >> >> math is inextricably tied to the human, real world experience on planet >> earth, >> >> and thus is inherently limited by it. >> >> >> >> A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm >> >> of symbolic logic and reason but it cannot be so. The adult human brain >> is a >> >> product of millions of years of evolution on planet earth combined with >> decades >> >> of personal experience and perceptual input from the person's life. >> >> >> >> The suggestion that the human brain can somehow decide to operate >> independently >> >> from its evolution and the personal experience which molded it is like >> saying a >> >> automobile could suddenly, spontaneously reject its engineering and >> construction and >> >> start running on nuclear fusion power technology. I don't see how it can >> possibly make >> >> sense. >> >> >> >> (is suggesting a car can't spontaneously become a nuclear fusion device >> an example >> >> of "Genetic Fallacy"?) >> >> >> >> Even if, maybe, by some wild random chance, humanity, in math, actually >> did stumble >> >> upon the one universal describing system, that all possible intelligences >> must agree upon. >> >> I still don't see how we could possibly know that. How are in the >> position to make that >> >> judgment? >> >> >> >> Human beings are not universal. All we know is our own intelligence and >> what we can "see" >> >> from our own planet.. To me it seems the height of hubris to think the >> system we invented >> >> here a few thousand years ago applies everywhere, to everything and every >> form of intelligence. >> >> >> >> (A little voice in my head is saying someone will argue that we didn't >> invent math; it is >> >> something we discovered. If so I'll just say "I disagree" and leave it at >> that) >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/20141009/10d0f4fa/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