(urth) barrington interview

Wed Oct 8 10:48:00 PDT 2014

Brendon, it is your point 2) that I am defending.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Brendon Fuhs <brendon.fuhs at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Just jumping in here as a math guy even though I haven't been following
> the whole convo. You can have two descriptions which successfully and
> completely model a given phenomenon, which which are structurally
> different. As an over-simple example, the descriptions (x^2)-1 and
> (x+1)(x-1) are equal, but emphasize different ways of thinking about
> polynomials. In physics, there are Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian
> approaches to classical mechanics I think. Now consider that our
> mathematical models do not precisely describe the universe.There's even
> more room for divergence, depending on what part of empirical reality we
> are using our limited resources to best model. Newtonian physics,
> relativity, and quantum mechanics are all tools which have been crafted by
> human minds that take different views of physics, and are more applicable
> in different situations, despite the fact that they are all attempting to
> model the same universe in some respect. Even more divergent examples can
> be found in the corpus of human science, such as when discrete vs
> continuous models are used. Limit resources even more, and consider an even
> more alien perspective. How might animals or aliens or isolated cultures
> differ in their models of the universe? Here's what I think.
>
> 1) The math may look similar or very very different. Just because the same
> universe is modeled doesn't mean it will be done in a way similar to how we
> do it.
>
> 2) It would be possible to translate between maths. I believe there's a
> theorem that guarantees that it is possible to translate between different
> formal languages (while preserving the Big O number). Doesn't mean that it
> would be readily apparent or easily understandable.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20141008/8a907267/attachment-0002.htm>