barrington interview

António Marques · 10 Oct 2014, 19:54 · 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: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 20:54:47 +0100
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
In-Reply-To: <CA+kecjuBiknzX0OWH34KOC+4gh6Xru5_eP0QyX6Mogrp7wq8MQ at mail.gmail.com>
References: <BLU175-W25612D593B63982B5E4F87CFA10 at phx.gbl>
	<543811EB.2010102 at clueland.com>
	<CA+kecjuBiknzX0OWH34KOC+4gh6Xru5_eP0QyX6Mogrp7wq8MQ at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACJ=J7kWFA-e5yWp5it97fV0vS1L4RHWya8f9jxJh7kBdjF_NA at mail.gmail.com>

No. It cant be taken off list because the list os the sole point of contact
between the participants.
What would be nice would be to bring it to an end because it has reached a
point of severely diminished returns.
Before I started writing here there was this rule that any one could only
post 5 messages per day or something like that - maybe we could get back to
it?


On 10 October 2014 18:43, Brad Henry <bradhenry101 at gmail.com> wrote:

> as interesting as the theological and mathematics discussion is, could you
> perhaps take this off the Urth list as it doesn't pertain to Wolfe?
>
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Jeffery Wilson clueland.com <
> jwilson at clueland.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/10/2014 8:09 AM, Lee wrote:
>>
>>> Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard
>>>> arithmetic
>>>>
>>>
>>>  of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the
>>>
>>> universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible
>>> that there
>>>
>>> are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the
>>> concept of
>>>
>>> numbers was meaningless.
>>>
>>
>> Er, no, because the concept does not depend on the actuality. The numbers
>> necessary for math can be entirely notional, and in fact the numbers are
>> *always* notional and abstract. There is no place you can touch the number
>> two, for instance.
>>
>> However, that also does not prevent mathematics from being used to
>> speculate on what happens *if* the number two can be touched, and other
>> "impossible" things. The best we can do is to show it makes a
>> contradiction, but that could mean only that the premise is flawed.
>>
>> You might be interested to explore the history of David Hilbert and Kurt
>> Goedel. Godel discovered the inherently incomplete nature of math, which
>> made him somehting of a Voltairean figure: a devil set on destroying
>> mathemtical science as completists like Hilbert may have felt, but also a
>> figure of grace and liberty freeing it from the need to be complete and all
>> encompassing and eventually finite.
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Wilson - < jwilson at clueland.com >
>> A&M Texarkana Computational Intelligence Lab
>> < http://www.tamut.edu/cil >
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20141010/80864dd7/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