(urth) barrington interview

[Lee]

Robert Pirkoka: 

>The only unknowable areas are those beyond our light horizon.


An infinitely large area, yes?


>and if those areas are magically different simply because they have 

>been rendered unobservable


Yes! Magic!  That which cannot be explained by math or science, yes?


Merryn and the Cumaean discuss the issue quite well, I think:


>Merryn: "There is no magic. There is only knowledge, more or less hidden."


>Cumeaean: "Words are symbols. Merryn chooses to delimit magic as that which does not exist . . . 

>and so it does not exist. If you choose to call what we are about to do here magic then 

>magic lives while we do it.



>then fine but those are likewise areas upon which math and physics are no longer useful 

>tools and can be safely disregarded.


This is the crux. You, like Merryn,  define anything which cannot be understood or perceived by

humans as non-existent. I can't, in good philosophical conscience, do that.


>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.” 


For me it IS a valid argument. And St. Anselm's pronouncement is not a good comparison to my position.

I do not argue that math cannot be universal. Only that it may not be. Like the existence of God, I 

consider the universality of math to be unknowable fact. I remain agnostic regarding both God and math.


There are those who find their observations during their life on planet earth to be sufficient evidence

to believe in God. Likewise there are those who find sufficient evidence for the universality of math. I 

respect the faith but cannot share in it.


>Dave Lebling: You can never prove a negative. Show some evidence that there is 
>something that indicates the positive (as you propose it) might be true.


There is no need to prove my statement that math may not be universally applicable. There is need to 

disprove it. Saying math is universal IS a negative assertion in that it claims there are no exceptions to

math in the universe. "No exceptions in an infinite universe" is a negative statement which can never be 

proven", rendering the statement "math is universal" to be null in that it cannot be verified or falsified.


Departing from logic and moving to science, we might treat "math is universal" as a "hypothesis" which has

been collecting evidence for an upgrade to "theory". Then it becomes a matter of opinion I guess. Keep in mind

that most scientific theories are predicated on being applicable to earth (and surrounding areas). The assertion

of "universality" is an infinitely larger claim.


You and Robert and Gerry and others are satisfied with the current body of evidence regarding math. Count

me as a skeptic if you like but I am not satisfied. I am a much more difficult sell. At least one non-human, extra- 

terrestrial reporting of evidence of math applicability is something I'd need to even consider upgrading "math is 

universal" up  to "theory" status.


>Gerry Quinn: When you talk about a world where logic doesn't apply, then by 
>definition you aren't making sense.


Agreed (sort of). But it still doesn't mean that math is universal just because the reverse concept doesn't make 

sense to us. As previously noted, what makes sense to an ape-derived brain on planet earth seems a poor measure

of "universal reality".  At least to me and I am using the same limited tool to make that assessment.