(urth) barrington interview

[Robert Pirkola]

Psi.  I'll wave towards your bright light.
Lee’s statements will be given in brackets, my unbracketed
responses follow:



[Who told you this? To
be a credible source for making such a statement wouldn't this person have to
have been to every corner of the universe to test the statement?]



No.  Physics has been *observed*
to apply in all areas of the universe to which we have pointed our instruments
of measurement.  The only unknowable areas
are those beyond our light horizon, and if those areas are magically different
simply because they have been rendered unobservable then fine but those are
likewise areas upon which math and physics are no longer useful tools and canbe safely disregarded.  If some future circumstance
allows us to interact with those areas of the universe, then we can revisit the issue but it is not an argument against the universality of math to simply
state that that math’s non-universality is possible.  If that were so, then St. Anselm’s ontological
proof of God’s existence would be irrefutable. 
It goes something like: “I can imagine an infinitely perfect, powerful,
knowledgeable, being and therefore God must exist.”  Gaunilo of Marmoutier put paid to that almost as soon as it passed Anselm’s lips.
  

The universality of math and physics is not demonstrable in
areas outside of observation but it likewise gets us nowhere to postulate that
they are non-universal.  Thus, we go
along building evidence for their universality while at all times keeping an
open mind for the facts and observations which might discredit such a belief.



[Why would observations
made in this tiny corner be presumed to apply to all other corners?]



Because we have observed it to be so everywhere we have
looked and thus proceed as though it applies everywhere while always opento
the possibility that we will be shocked later. 
The problem with your argument against universality is that it assumes
that at some point this will indeed happen merely because we can imagine it
might.



[How can we make
statements regarding great swaths of the universe when we haven't observed
great swaths? Perhaps math and science represent minority exemptions from the
real laws which govern most of the universe. Is there a way to know? I don't
see it.]



We have observed great swaths.  Look up at the night sky.  What portions of the universe do you know to
exist that we have not observed either directly or indirectly?  If different principles apply in areas of the
universe inaccessible to observation or travel, then it does us no good to assume that math/physics apply there, nor does it do us any good to assume that they
don’t apply there.  The problem with
universality is what it means to be universal. 
Universal in my conception, and that of science if I understand
correctly, is that it uniformly applies in the observable universe.



[For all that math and
science show us of the universe, there is likely far more out there it doesn't
and cannot show us.]



But you have cited only examples of misunderstandings of
what the observable universe is showing us, which are duly corrected and
refined through application of scientific principles and tools (e.g.
mathematics).  If there is more out there
that it cannot show us, then it must be so because we are incapable of having
any interaction with that part of the universe. 
And if we (and by “we” I mean the stuff of the observable universe, not necessarily the sub-set of stuff called *Homo sapiens*) are incapable of
interacting with that part of the universe then it might as well not exist and we needn’t worry about whether math applies there.   		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20141014/a8a4a9ce/attachment-0003.htm>