(urth) barrington interview

António Marques entonio at gmail.com
Thu Oct 9 05:18:33 PDT 2014


Now it's both Lee and Dan'l who are taking the physical applications of
math for math.
3 + 4 = 7 can be math or physics or something else. As math, it is
universal, since it refers to nothing else outside it (pace Godel), but on
the other hand it's our own math, and it may be incomprehensible to other
minds (tho eventually translatable, as Brendon notices). As physics, it may
or may not be applicable, as Lee points out. As something else, all bets
are off.

On 9 October 2014 12:44, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

> >Rick Norwood: Lee: In saying mathematics is universal, I mean that
>
> >a true mathematical statement is true everywhere in the universe,
>
> >not that everything in the universe can be expressed mathematically.
>
>
> I see. This is a quite a departure from what I thought you were saying.
>
> Within this framework, I find math to be far less universal than I
>
> previously thought you were claiming. You are only claiming that
>
> 3+4= 7 must be true everywhere in the universe and acknowledge
>
> that the universe might contain many things, from God and angels
>
> to superdark matter which cannot be described by math.
>
>
> Sadly, I find myself even disagreeing with that lesser statement of
>
> universality, though only in the absolute qualifier that 3+4  =7 MUST
>
> be true everywhere in the universe. I think the question remains open.
>
>
> For example, I find it plausible (even likely?) that if you were travelling
>
> through a black hole or experiencing the Big Bang that the laws of
>
> physics as we know them might not apply. If so, I can further extrapolate
>
> that the principles of math that we humans have determined might also
>
> be rendered null and void under those conditions.
>
>
> Math relies on numbers, a concept which assumes the universe can be
>
> divided and packaged into discrete, countable units. I suspect there may
>
> be conditions under which that is not the case. If, say, in pre-Big Bang
>
> conditions there existed a universal state in which everything was unified
>
> and there were no "numbers" of anything then 3+4 would cease to have
>
> any meaning, and certainly wouldn't = 7.
>
>
>
> >Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: I am saying that an accurate description of the
> Universe
>
> >is independent of the mind in which that description takes place.
>
>
> At risk of being overly argumentative, I absolutely cannot go along with
> this
>
> statement. The reason being it seems (to me) an impossible statement to
> make.
>
>
> Every thought and perception and calculation you have ever made in your
> entire
>
> life has taken place within your human mind. Every scholarly article you
> have read
>
> every scientific theory you have pondered and every photo of distant
> galaxies you
>
> have seen has been processed entirely by your human mind. I just don't see
> how
>
> you can make a statement that anything is universal, independent of the
> human mind
>
> when you have never been there. You can't go outside the human mind. Every
> minute
>
> detail of your understanding the universe is entirely dependent on your
> mind with no
>
> way of becoming detached from it.  How can you do anything outside the
> confines of
>
>  the human mind? It is all you (we) have.
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write 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/20141009/99c00990/attachment-0002.htm>


More information about the Urth mailing list