barrington interview

Lee · 10 Oct 2014, 16:30 · 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: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 12:30:48 -0400
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
Message-ID: <BLU175-W43F723C82D779EA2F40CDCFA10 at phx.gbl>

>Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: Actually, math *doesn't* require numbers as such. 

>All of number theory can be reduced to set theory.

Fair enough. But you probably know where this is going. It remains true

 that for places/times in the universe where the concept of sets

does not apply (during the Big Bang? sub-quarkian physics?) then math is

not applicable and thus is not universal.

>Lee: No, not a human brain. A human *soul*.

If math is derived from the human soul, then like the case of  it being 

part of Special Creation, math is at least partially supernatural in nature 

and thus, might apply universally to both to the natural realm and 

everything in the supernatural realm also.

>Rick Norwood: I?m enjoying talking about God and math and all, but is 

>this too off-topic for this list?

I don't think so . I think it is a miracle that this relic from the early days

of the internet still survives and grows. So almost any topic we discuss

is rendered saintly and spiritual by simply by its existence.

I think discussion of Wolfe's work leads naturally to religion. And I think

the math discussion is more germane than it seems on the surface.

I personally think much of Wolfe's writing was inspired by working with

engineers who were likely a very materialist if not entirely atheist lot. I 

can imagine him engaging in many conversations in which the universality 

of math was discussed.

As I see it,  his work can usually be read at a basic materialist level in which

you can "calculate" what is happening. But I think his work also requires

occasional leaps of faith to catch the deeper levels, in the same manner 

that having an understanding of God does.

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