(urth) barrington interview

[Lee]

>Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard arithmetic 

>of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane.


A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the 

universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible that there

are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the concept of

numbers was meaningless.


"A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the realm of symbolic

 logic and reason but it cannot be so."


>Brandon Fuchs: This is one of those wild statements that calls for an example. If mathematicians 

>are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing some imperfect brain mechanics.....


Let's stop there. My statement was that mathematician cannot be doing PURELY symbolic logic. 

All thoughts within a human brain are animal thoughts with inherent animal biases installed from

the material world during evolution and development. (the assumption of the validity "numbers" 

being one of them). Of course the human brain can work with symbolic logic. We invented it.


But the suggestion that our brains can work purely with symbology with no impingement from

the material world is unsupportable. There are no human brains which have been entirely shielded

from the material world. (Something like Severian's Mandragora? But of course even that brain

had telepathic input affecting it).


>....then surely there should be some mathematical statements that different groups of 

>mathematicians are convinced have been demonstrated to be true, while others are convinced

>they have been demonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an agreement on the matter.


Aren't there? I am not a mathematician but I was under the impression it is an evolving discipline.


But even in the unlikely event that  every mathematician in history were in perfect agreement on

every mathematical permutation of the field, it would not demonstrate true universality. It would

only demonstrate congruence among one group of people from  one species on one planet.


Just because a human astronomer on earth collects data from the Andromeda galaxy it does not 

mean they are from Andromeda or even that they have been to Andromeda.  It just means 

data from there has been plugged into a human matrix of understanding here on earth. If an 

Andromedan came here using math,  I would consider that evidence that math is universal. But even 

then, I would prefer a sample size greater than two  before I'd be willing to grant the hypothesis 

"math is universal" anything like scientific theory status.


Again, my opinion is not that math isn't universal. Only that we have no means of determining such

a thing. We are stuck in the narrow perspective of one species on one planet and have no means for 

stepping outside it . Before I have confidence in the universality of math, I need to hear from the rest of

the universe.