(urth) barrington interview

[Lee]

>Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: Actually, math *doesn't* require numbers as such. 

>All of number theory can be reduced to set theory.


Fair enough. But you probably know where this is going. It remains true

 that for places/times in the universe where the concept of sets

does not apply (during the Big Bang? sub-quarkian physics?) then math is

not applicable and thus is not universal.


>Lee: No, not a human brain. A human *soul*.


If math is derived from the human soul, then like the case of  it being 

part of Special Creation, math is at least partially supernatural in nature 

and thus, might apply universally to both to the natural realm and 

everything in the supernatural realm also.


>Rick Norwood: I’m enjoying talking about God and math and all, but is 

>this too off-topic for this list?



I don't think so . I think it is a miracle that this relic from the early days

of the internet still survives and grows. So almost any topic we discuss

is rendered saintly and spiritual by simply by its existence.



I think discussion of Wolfe's work leads naturally to religion. And I think

the math discussion is more germane than it seems on the surface.



I personally think much of Wolfe's writing was inspired by working with

engineers who were likely a very materialist if not entirely atheist lot. I 

can imagine him engaging in many conversations in which the universality 

of math was discussed.



As I see it,  his work can usually be read at a basic materialist level in which

you can "calculate" what is happening. But I think his work also requires

occasional leaps of faith to catch the deeper levels, in the same manner 

that having an understanding of God does.