barrington interview

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes · 15 Oct 2014, 17:45 · 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: danldo at gmail.com (Dan'l Danehy-Oakes)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 10:45:35 -0700
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
In-Reply-To: <BLU175-W42FD946034CFB4104553CFCFAA0 at phx.gbl>
References: <BLU175-W42FD946034CFB4104553CFCFAA0 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <CAJ8=rth_i36Mc-w6c_DD51OfT4y3n=PELPvt5E_KSaB_Lw2HDA at mail.gmail.com>

Lee, as far as I can tell, your argument comes down to "I can imagine
someplace where logic and math don't apply, therefore we must assume that
they exist until we can prove they don't."

Of course such a place *might* exist. But you are positing something (the
existence of such a place) with no evidence or other argument in its favor.
That's a vast form of question-begging, assuming the conclusion as a
premise.

Now. Do you have any *evidence* that such a place exists? (And please,
let's not argue about what I mean by "place" and assume that it might not
be space-time as we know it.)

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Robert Pirkoka:
>
> >The only unknowable areas are those beyond our light horizon.
>
>
> An infinitely large area, yes?
>
>
> >and if those areas are magically different simply because they have
>
> >been rendered unobservable
>
>
> Yes! Magic!  That which cannot be explained by math or science, yes?
>
>
> Merryn and the Cumaean discuss the issue quite well, I think:
>
>
> >Merryn: "There is no magic. There is only knowledge, more or less hidden."
>
>
> >Cumeaean: "Words are symbols. Merryn chooses to delimit magic as that
> which does not exist . . .
>
> >and so it does not exist. If you choose to call what we are about to do
> here magic then
>
> >magic lives while we do it.
>
>
>
> >then fine but those are likewise areas upon which math and physics are no
> longer useful
>
> >tools and can be safely disregarded.
>
>
> This is the crux. You, like Merryn,  define anything which cannot be
> understood or perceived by
>
> humans as non-existent. I can't, in good philosophical conscience, do that.
>
>
> >it is not an argument against the universality of math to simply state
> that that math?s non-universality
>
> >is possible.  If that were so, then St. Anselm?s ontological proof of
> God?s existence would be irrefutable.
>
> >It goes something like: ?I can imagine an infinitely perfect, powerful,
> knowledgeable, being and therefore
>
> >God must exist.?
>
>
> For me it IS a valid argument. And St. Anselm's pronouncement is not a
> good comparison to my position.
>
> I do not argue that math cannot be universal. Only that it may not be.
> Like the existence of God, I
>
> consider the universality of math to be unknowable fact. I remain agnostic
> regarding both God and math.
>
>
> There are those who find their observations during their life on planet
> earth to be sufficient evidence
>
> to believe in God. Likewise there are those who find sufficient evidence
> for the universality of math. I
>
> respect the faith but cannot share in it.
>
>
> >Dave Lebling: You can never prove a negative. Show some evidence that
> there is
> >something that indicates the positive (as you propose it) might be true.
>
>
> There is no need to prove my statement that math may not be universally
> applicable. There is need to
>
> disprove it. Saying math is universal IS a negative assertion in that it
> claims there are no exceptions to
>
> math in the universe. "No exceptions in an infinite universe" is a
> negative statement which can never be
>
> proven", rendering the statement "math is universal" to be null in that it
> cannot be verified or falsified.
>
>
> Departing from logic and moving to science, we might treat "math is
> universal" as a "hypothesis" which has
>
> been collecting evidence for an upgrade to "theory". Then it becomes a
> matter of opinion I guess. Keep in mind
>
> that most scientific theories are predicated on being applicable to earth
> (and surrounding areas). The assertion
>
> of "universality" is an infinitely larger claim.
>
>
> You and Robert and Gerry and others are satisfied with the current body of
> evidence regarding math. Count
>
> me as a skeptic if you like but I am not satisfied. I am a much more
> difficult sell. At least one non-human, extra-
>
> terrestrial reporting of evidence of math applicability is something I'd
> need to even consider upgrading "math is
>
> universal" up  to "theory" status.
>
>
> >Gerry Quinn: When you talk about a world where logic doesn't apply, then
> by
> >definition you aren't making sense.
>
>
> Agreed (sort of). But it still doesn't mean that math is universal just
> because the reverse concept doesn't make
>
> sense to us. As previously noted, what makes sense to an ape-derived brain
> on planet earth seems a poor measure
>
> of "universal reality".  At least to me and I am using the same limited
> tool to make that assessment.
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141015/d1ad7385/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