(urth) barrington interview

[Norwood, Frederick Hudson]

I think you are also confusing math with its applications.  Pure mathematics consists of a set of axioms, a set of definitions, and the theorems that follow logically from those axioms and definitions.  The logic involved is called a mathematical proof.  For mathematics to be untrue, you need a case where the following happens.  You know that if A is true, then B must be true.  You know A is true.  But it turns out B is false.

Rick Norwood

-----Original Message-----
From: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Lee
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 7:45 AM
To: urth at urth.net
Subject: (urth) barrington interview

>Rick Norwood: Lee: In saying mathematics is universal, I mean that 

>a true mathematical statement is true everywhere in the universe, 

>not that everything in the universe can be expressed mathematically.


I see. This is a quite a departure from what I thought you were saying.

Within this framework, I find math to be far less universal than I 

previously thought you were claiming. You are only claiming that 

3+4= 7 must be true everywhere in the universe and acknowledge 

that the universe might contain many things, from God and angels

to superdark matter which cannot be described by math.


Sadly, I find myself even disagreeing with that lesser statement of

universality, though only in the absolute qualifier that 3+4  =7 MUST

be true everywhere in the universe. I think the question remains open.


For example, I find it plausible (even likely?) that if you were travelling

through a black hole or experiencing the Big Bang that the laws of

physics as we know them might not apply. If so, I can further extrapolate

that the principles of math that we humans have determined might also

be rendered null and void under those conditions.


Math relies on numbers, a concept which assumes the universe can be

divided and packaged into discrete, countable units. I suspect there may

be conditions under which that is not the case. If, say, in pre-Big Bang

conditions there existed a universal state in which everything was unified

and there were no "numbers" of anything then 3+4 would cease to have

any meaning, and certainly wouldn't = 7.



>Dan'l Danehy-Oakes: I am saying that an accurate description of the Universe 

>is independent of the mind in which that description takes place.


At risk of being overly argumentative, I absolutely cannot go along with this

statement. The reason being it seems (to me) an impossible statement to make.


Every thought and perception and calculation you have ever made in your entire

life has taken place within your human mind. Every scholarly article you have read

every scientific theory you have pondered and every photo of distant galaxies you

have seen has been processed entirely by your human mind. I just don't see how 

you can make a statement that anything is universal, independent of the human mind 

when you have never been there. You can't go outside the human mind. Every minute 

detail of your understanding the universe is entirely dependent on your mind with no 

way of becoming detached from it.  How can you do anything outside the confines of

 the human mind? It is all you (we) have. 		 	   		  
_______________________________________________
Urth Mailing List
To post, write urth at urth.net
Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net