(urth) barrington interview

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes danldo at gmail.com
Wed Oct 8 09:44:23 PDT 2014


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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141008/fd172f09/attachment-0003.htm>


More information about the Urth mailing list