(urth) barrington interview

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes danldo at gmail.com
Fri Oct 10 08:24:19 PDT 2014


Actually, math *doesn't* require numbers as such. All of number theory can
be reduced to set theory.

On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 6:09 AM, Lee <severiansola at hotmail.com> wrote:

> >Gerry Quinn: All mathematics can be encoded entirely inside the standard
> arithmetic
>
> >of the natural numbers, or simple geometry on a plane.
>
>
> A nice summation of my point. Math requires numbers. Numbers describe the
>
> universe in terms of discrete, countable units. I find it quite possible
> that there
>
> are places/times in geography and history of the universe in which the
> concept of
>
> numbers was meaningless.
>
>
> "A theoretical mathematician may feel he/she is working purely in the
> realm of symbolic
>
>  logic and reason but it cannot be so."
>
>
> >Brandon Fuchs: This is one of those wild statements that calls for an
> example. If mathematicians
>
> >are not working with symbolic logic, but merely expressing some imperfect
> brain mechanics.....
>
>
> Let's stop there. My statement was that mathematician cannot be doing
> PURELY symbolic logic.
>
> All thoughts within a human brain are animal thoughts with inherent animal
> biases installed from
>
> the material world during evolution and development. (the assumption of
> the validity "numbers"
>
> being one of them). Of course the human brain can work with symbolic
> logic. We invented it.
>
>
> But the suggestion that our brains can work purely with symbology with no
> impingement from
>
> the material world is unsupportable. There are no human brains which have
> been entirely shielded
>
> from the material world. (Something like Severian's Mandragora? But of
> course even that brain
>
> had telepathic input affecting it).
>
>
> >....then surely there should be some mathematical statements that
> different groups of
>
> >mathematicians are convinced have been demonstrated to be true, while
> others are convinced
>
> >they have been demonstrated to be false, and are unable to come to an
> agreement on the matter.
>
>
> Aren't there? I am not a mathematician but I was under the impression it
> is an evolving discipline.
>
>
> But even in the unlikely event that  every mathematician in history were
> in perfect agreement on
>
> every mathematical permutation of the field, it would not demonstrate true
> universality. It would
>
> only demonstrate congruence among one group of people from  one species on
> one planet.
>
>
> Just because a human astronomer on earth collects data from the Andromeda
> galaxy it does not
>
> mean they are from Andromeda or even that they have been to Andromeda.  It
> just means
>
> data from there has been plugged into a human matrix of understanding here
> on earth. If an
>
> Andromedan came here using math,  I would consider that evidence that math
> is universal. But even
>
> then, I would prefer a sample size greater than two  before I'd be willing
> to grant the hypothesis
>
> "math is universal" anything like scientific theory status.
>
>
> Again, my opinion is not that math isn't universal. Only that we have no
> means of determining such
>
> a thing. We are stuck in the narrow perspective of one species on one
> planet and have no means for
>
> stepping outside it . Before I have confidence in the universality of
> math, I need to hear from the rest of
>
> the universe.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141010/7a460ccd/attachment-0003.htm>


More information about the Urth mailing list