(urth) barrington interview

Norwood, Frederick Hudson NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu
Wed Oct 8 07:55:39 PDT 2014


The question goes back to this: is there such a thing as the meaning of a statement which is independent of the symbols in which the statement is written.

People in math and science would usually say yes, I think.  I know I often have the experience of groping for the words to express an idea that seems very clear to me, even before I find the right words.  Also, I can express exactly the same idea in many different ways.

People in the arts often say no – there is no such thing as meaning without symbols.  The medium is the message.

What I mean by the universality of math is that there are universal truths (7*8 = 56 is one) which remain true independent of the symbols in which those truths are expressed.  If by “I had one grunch but the eggplant over there.”  I mean “7*8 = 56”, then the statement is true.  (The question of communicating with another mind is another question.  Understanding ideas in your own mind is hard enough, communicating those ideas to another mind is even harder.

Rick Norwood

From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of António Pedro Marques
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:29 AM
To: The Urth Mailing List
Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview

Could you gentlemen pinpoint what you're labelling as the universality of math?

No dia 08/10/2014, às 15:01, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" <NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu<mailto:NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu>> escreveu:
This isn’t the place for this debate, since I have no doubt that Gene Wolfe accepts the fact that math is universal, but I will point out that your mode of debate (the suggestion that I don’t accept your assertion not because I disagree with it but because I find it “disturbing”) is, as Mr. Spock would say, “Highly illogical.”

Rick Norwood

From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Thomas Bitterman
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 9:36 AM
To: The Urth Mailing List
Subject: Re: (urth) barrington interview

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com<mailto:severiansola at hotmail.com>> wrote:
I've had this debate before and I know it can be disturbing to the purely science/mathematically
minded. But math isn't really "universal". It  a system of calculation created by the human mind
which is part of a primate brain evolved from more primitive mammalian ancestors.

Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics that isn't  just the Genetic Fallacy?

_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net<mailto: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/20141008/de308465/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the Urth mailing list