(urth) barrington interview

Wed Oct 8 11:44:06 PDT 2014

But Dan'l, neither Lee nor I said anything against point (2). In fact, at
least for me, what Brendon says is quite how I see it myself, tho I'm by no
means a math guy.

What I'm saying is that the structure need not at all be similar, which is,
after all, how all this started. Brendon's point about Newtonian physics,
relativity, and quantum mechanics is, I think, to be read carefully.
Normally, these are brought up as examples of how an old model (classical
Physics) can still have produce good results in practice, even if later
ones showed the world is more complex than it thinks. But the point here,
in my opinion, is a different one: Newtonian physics, relativity, and
quantum mechanics are brutally different from each other in their basic
concepts and, precisely, structure. They're not refinements or variants,
they are ways to look at the world that are very alien to each other. Even
though they're trying to model the same reality. Their alienness from each
other is perhaps not so evident because they all use math, and they all
refer to common high-level concepts (such as electron), and also because
they reuse terminology to refer to non-comparable things when that doesn't
result in confusion, and lastly because we're used to see each one applied
to their preferred scope.

On 8 October 2014 18:48, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Brendon, it is your point 2) that I am defending.
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Brendon Fuhs <brendon.fuhs at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Just jumping in here as a math guy even though I haven't been following
>> the whole convo. You can have two descriptions which successfully and
>> completely model a given phenomenon, which which are structurally
>> different. As an over-simple example, the descriptions (x^2)-1 and
>> (x+1)(x-1) are equal, but emphasize different ways of thinking about
>> polynomials. In physics, there are Newtonian, Lagrangian, and Hamiltonian
>> approaches to classical mechanics I think. Now consider that our
>> mathematical models do not precisely describe the universe.There's even
>> more room for divergence, depending on what part of empirical reality we
>> are using our limited resources to best model. Newtonian physics,
>> relativity, and quantum mechanics are all tools which have been crafted by
>> human minds that take different views of physics, and are more applicable
>> in different situations, despite the fact that they are all attempting to
>> model the same universe in some respect. Even more divergent examples can
>> be found in the corpus of human science, such as when discrete vs
>> continuous models are used. Limit resources even more, and consider an even
>> more alien perspective. How might animals or aliens or isolated cultures
>> differ in their models of the universe? Here's what I think.
>>
>> 1) The math may look similar or very very different. Just because the
>> same universe is modeled doesn't mean it will be done in a way similar to
>> how we do it.
>>
>> 2) It would be possible to translate between maths. I believe there's a
>> theorem that guarantees that it is possible to translate between different
>> formal languages (while preserving the Big O number). Doesn't mean that it
>> would be readily apparent or easily understandable.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe is independent
>>> of the mind in which that description takes place, and that its structure
>>> will be similar to the structure of the Universe. Thus, any math developed
>>> by an alien species to describe the Universe (which is not subjective) will
>>> be similar in structure to our math.
>>>
>>> The symbols will vary. The structure will be similar.
>>>
>>> A good, if somewhat simple-minded, example of what I'm talking about is
>>> the short story "Omnilingual," by H. Beam Piper. (Bet you never thought
>>> _he'd_ come up on the Wolfe list, eh?) In it, a group of exoarchaeologists
>>> are trying to decipher the plentiful writings of an extinct alien culture.
>>> The first clue comes when they discover a periodic table of the elements -
>>> not exactly the same as ours, but of a structure with recognizable
>>> similarity to ours. The aliens don't have words like "Hydrogen," but they
>>> have the concept, because it's universal to any study of the physical
>>> Universe.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:01 AM, António Marques <entonio at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are again making the structure of math dependent exclusively on
>>>> what it tries to describe rather than on the circuitry that it runs on.
>>>>
>>>> On 8 October 2014 17:44, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141008/b088edc9/attachment-0003.htm>