(urth) barrington interview

Wed Oct 8 10:20:18 PDT 2014

I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent of
the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure will
be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed by an
alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will be
similar in structure to our math.

The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar.

A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is the
short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought _he'd_
come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists are
trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture. The
first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements - not
exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable similarity
to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they have the
concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical Universe.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, António Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

> You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on what
> it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on.
>
> On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Since any alien species we might meet is likely to have a biology based
>> on the same physical laws as ours, I expect their math will be of a similar
>> structure to ours. Such a species may have different senses, etc., as has
>> been suggested, but they will still be observing the same physical universe.
>>
>> Unless, of course, you want to go with a totally subjective reality, and
>> I just can't go there.
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 9:36 AM, António Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not discarding anything. I'm not saying the crow can't compute. I'm
>>> saying we don't know how the crow's computation works, and specifically if
>>> it is anything like our own math.
>>> For the record, crows being close relatives, and octopi* essentially
>>> being only a bit farther away (tho I'm intrigued by a suggestion I've seen
>>> that Mollusks aren't even coelomates), I might bet that their equivalent of
>>> math isn't much different from ours. But unless they evolve to express it
>>> in some meta-language, we won't know.
>>>
>>> (*) Normally I wouldn't place this disclaimer here, but I think it's
>>> best to avoid any discussion on one of my favourite plurals, and metazoan
>>> phylogeny at that (we meatfolk are all so similar, really).
>>>
>>> On 8 October 2014 17:07, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Antonio - I think that *that* is the genetic fallacy. You are
>>>> discarding the evidence of the crow because of where it comes from.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 8:38 AM, António Pedro Marques <
>>>> entonio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The point is that no one knows how the crow does his math. The crow
>>>>> may look at it in a way similar to our addition and subtraction, or in a
>>>>> different enough way. Again, what we're questioning is not the universal
>>>>> applicability of our math, rather its universality as a computing tool.
>>>>>
>>>>> No dia 08/10/2014, às 16:07, "Norwood, Frederick Hudson" <
>>>>> NORWOODR at mail.etsu.edu> escreveu:
>>>>>
>>>>> > Actually, crows can do simple math.  If four hunters enter a house
>>>>> and three come out, the crow can do enough math to avoid the house.  Four
>>>>> hunters in, four come out, the crow flies to the house.  Twenty hunters in,
>>>>> nineteen out, the crow flies to the house.  The crow can see the difference
>>>>> between three and four but not between nineteen and twenty.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I do not believe there is an alien race for which four (the concept,
>>>>> not the symbol) is less than three.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > For a good science fiction story on this subject, read "Omnilingual"
>>>>> by H. Beam Piper.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Rick Norwood
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>> > From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee
>>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:57 AM
>>>>> > To: urth at urth.net
>>>>> > Subject: (urth) barrington interview
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> 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.
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > 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
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Urth Mailing List
>>>>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>>>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141008/20642339/attachment-0002.htm>