(urth) barrington interview

Lee severiansola at hotmail.com
Sun Oct 12 04:52:09 PDT 2014


>Jeff Wilson: Apparently equivocation is part of your limitation. Using, or rather
>mis-using a word like "incomprehensible" in a discussison of cognitive
>science and then revealing you really mean it in the literary prose sense
>is akin to what we in the mathematical community call "abuse of notation".


It was an attempt to connect the discussion to Gene Wolfe's work, as some

had requested. Apologies if it offended you in reverse.


>Are you saying there is an unknowable mathematical model somewhere? Of
>that something exists that is unknowable despite the existence of
>mathematical models?


How could I defensibly say there ARE such things? I think that would be making

the same error as those who claim there are not. Who can claim to know the 

unknowable?  I only consider the possibility of existence of such things, which, 

for me, is enough to question the universality of math.


As I noted in a previous post, if the statement is qualified as, "math is universally

applicable, as far as we can currently see", I have no argument with it. 		 	   		  


More information about the Urth mailing list