barrington interview

Lee · 12 Oct 2014, 11:52 · 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: Sun, 12 Oct 2014 07:52:09 -0400
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
Message-ID: <BLU175-W22CA4F7291EB68CF1B0B2CCFAF0 at phx.gbl>

>Jeff Wilson: Apparently equivocation is part of your limitation. Using, or rather
>mis-using a word like "incomprehensible" in a discussison of cognitive
>science and then revealing you really mean it in the literary prose sense
>is akin to what we in the mathematical community call "abuse of notation".

It was an attempt to connect the discussion to Gene Wolfe's work, as some

had requested. Apologies if it offended you in reverse.

>Are you saying there is an unknowable mathematical model somewhere? Of
>that something exists that is unknowable despite the existence of
>mathematical models?

How could I defensibly say there ARE such things? I think that would be making

the same error as those who claim there are not. Who can claim to know the 

unknowable?  I only consider the possibility of existence of such things, which, 

for me, is enough to question the universality of math.

As I noted in a previous post, if the statement is qualified as, "math is universally

applicable, as far as we can currently see", I have no argument with it.

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