(urth) barrington interview

Wed Oct 8 11:51:51 PDT 2014

Actually, Newtonian physics arises from quantum physics. When the systems
involved are large enough for decoherence to take over...

Nonetheless, I take your point. But I would say that any two systems that
can be translated into each other share a structural grounding. For
example, polar and Cartesian coordinates can be translated because the
space they measure is structurally identical...

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:44 AM, António Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141008/234036ef/attachment-0003.htm>