(urth) barrington interview

Lee severiansola at hotmail.com
Wed Oct 8 07:57:02 PDT 2014

>Thomas Bitterman: Is there an argument against the universality of mathematics

>that isn't  just the Genetic Fallacy?

By Genetic Fallacy I assume you mean this:

>The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue,[1] 

>Is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on 

>something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context

My objection to the assumption that math is universally applicable is because

math originates from the mind of one species on one planet in a very small

corner of one galaxy in a universe of a (perhaps) infinite number of galaxies.

As I understand it, the Genetic Fallacy would apply if math had been found outside

that original context. For example, if we found math being used by members of 

another species from outside our solar system or galaxy. Or if we had travelled

to all corners of the universe and found math applicable everywhere, not just

from the perspective of planet earth.

But currently (as far as I know) math is used only by that one species on that

one planet.

I wouldn't claim it is impossible for math to be universal. I would only say that it  

seems unlikely to me. The fact that everything we encounter can be described 

mathematically seems most likely due to human limitations on what we are able 

to encounter.  

In other words, we simply can't see what we can't see.  The assumption of a cosmic 

universality to our mammalian-evolved perceptions and thoughts seems unfounded

to me.

Of course, if we are talking Special Creation and math as a special mastery for 

understanding the universe, as bestowed upon us by God, then that's a different story. 		 	   		  

More information about the Urth mailing list