"You Can’t Prove A Negative"

[chaz wyman]

I kinda knew you would say that. That is a claim that can never be verified. It is one of the unspoken axioms upon which maths stands.


I don't think we disagree here, I get the impression you've made up your mind more in favour of idealism whereas I'm still on the fence, waiting to see how close maths can come to describing nature.

What it actually says is that if only nature were more like maths then this would be real.

Looking from the other side, if maths progresses to be more like nature (i.e. describes it more fully), shows this isn't cut and dry, at least not yet. Mathematical discoveries (or new models, as you prefer) are ongoing.

The point being that maths is a self justifying system which does not rely on nature or evidence at all.


This is true, but maths does look to nature for verification, at least the maths that looks to be accepted as a description of nature.

There is no right angle in nature, perfect of not.

This of course depends on whether you think man-made is natural or not.

Yes and no. The point I was making is that a mathematical rt angle is an ideal (and thus perfect), in nature we are able to create approximations. No physical rt angle is perfect.

Yeah, that's cool, we do agree.

Also, electromagnetic radiation involves fields at right angles to each other, though again whether this is a product of idealism and how we visualise it, or a real property, is debatable.

This is not debatable. I fail to see why EMR is a special case.

This was thinking out loud. An electromagnetic field 'appears', at least from what I know, to be an example of a perfect right angle in nature. My confusion arises because, as one of the themes of this discussion shows, we represent things in ways that don't always correspond exactly to reality, like the shell model of atoms, which encapsulates information but doesn't describe exactly what is happening. I'm not sure if EMR is the same in this respect, with the right angle of the fields not being a right angle in reality. I actually don't know. Also, could a right-angle in a EM field be classed as physical anyway.

There's also the issue of scale, we haven't zoomed in or out enough to know for sure. Our intuition that it isn't is of course based on mathematics, so whether you want to rely on that to make the final call depends on your trust in maths. Only observation will tell, and we may never observe such a thing, bringing us squarely back on topic about proving a negative...

I don't think we are in disagreement, but I don't see what you mean by bringing us back to proving a negative.????

This boils down to me agreeing there are no right angle (triangles) in nature, but not quite understanding why I agree. How is this known? Is the proof based on mathematics, or something else? It seems like a negative that has been proven, but I can't recall what the proof is or even if there is one.

I get your point now. Yes, like god I suppose we will have to wait for clear evidence of triangles, straight lines, and integers in reality. Until then we will have to make do with the idea of such things as all theists do with god. But in a 3D world, it is hard to see how 2D things can exist in a material sense, and have to exist complete with contradictions. Sounds familiar?

[bytesplicer]

I get your point now. Yes, like god I suppose we will have to wait for clear evidence of triangles, straight lines, and integers in reality.

Really? I always assumed there was an actual proof against these things occurring naturally, as intuition suggests. Surely the 'proof status' of this isn't the same as god?

Until then we will have to make do with the idea of such things as all theists do with god. But in a 3D world, it is hard to see how 2D things can exist in a material sense, and have to exist complete with contradictions. Sounds familiar?

But 2d things like triangles and right angles can 'exist' as part of 3d objects (thinking of computer graphics here), even if they can't exist independently, and we've got to remember that our '3d world' is another mathematical conceit we use to make sense of the real world, so many things may not be exactly how they appear, with contradictions resulting from weaknesses in our models. 2d is difficult to conceptualise in a 3d world, (except perhaps as a surface, and if you relax the material aspect then my previous example of an EM field may suffice), just as a 3d world is hard to conceptualise in an 11d world, but such things are taken seriously in science. Similarly with such particles as neutrinos and the proposed Higgs.

[chaz wyman]

I get your point now. Yes, like god I suppose we will have to wait for clear evidence of triangles, straight lines, and integers in reality.

Really? I always assumed there was an actual proof against these things occurring naturally, as intuition suggests. Surely the 'proof status' of this isn't the same as god?

I think you are missing my irony

Until then we will have to make do with the idea of such things as all theists do with god. But in a 3D world, it is hard to see how 2D things can exist in a material sense, and have to exist complete with contradictions. Sounds familiar?

But 2d things like triangles and right angles can 'exist' as part of 3d objects (thinking of computer graphics here),

But the material/energetic reality of a 2D object is actually in 3D. That was the point. 2D has to be representative- represented in a 3D world.

even if they can't exist independently, and we've got to remember that our '3d world' is another mathematical conceit we use to make sense of the real world, so many things may not be exactly how they appear, with contradictions resulting from weaknesses in our models. 2d is difficult to conceptualise in a 3d world, (except perhaps as a surface, and if you relax the material aspect then my previous example of an EM field may suffice), just as a 3d world is hard to conceptualise in an 11d world, but such things are taken seriously in science. Similarly with such particles as neutrinos and the proposed Higgs.

Many things that do not exist are taken seriously in science. They do like to have their fun.

[bytesplicer]

I get your point now. Yes, like god I suppose we will have to wait for clear evidence of triangles, straight lines, and integers in reality.

Really? I always assumed there was an actual proof against these things occurring naturally, as intuition suggests. Surely the 'proof status' of this isn't the same as god?

I think you are missing my irony

No, I just ignored it as it wasn't really an answer. While I agree that it does come down to a similar scenario than proving god doesn't exist, it's not exactly the same. We don't use god to accurately predict the outcome of physical interactions, as we do with these useful mathematical conceits. Being able to predict what nature will do, even approximately, clearly shows there are patterns there. If there's a pattern, you can describe it. The patterns we have measured were there, in nature, before science and mathematics, both of which came along as means to describe those patterns. As I've said, I'm on the fence of realism vs idealism. I don't think there are integers or triangles floating out there somewhere, but the fact that these mechanisms are useful in describing nature, or to put it another way, nature behaves in a way that can be described by these mechanisms, suggests that the 'relationship' between mathematics and nature, or realism vs idealism, is nowhere near clear cut. Probably why the debate is still ongoing.

Until then we will have to make do with the idea of such things as all theists do with god. But in a 3D world, it is hard to see how 2D things can exist in a material sense, and have to exist complete with contradictions. Sounds familiar?

But 2d things like triangles and right angles can 'exist' as part of 3d objects (thinking of computer graphics here),

But the material/energetic reality of a 2D object is actually in 3D. That was the point. 2D has to be representative- represented in a 3D world.

So are you saying here a 3d world is required for the existence of 2d objects? It's difficult to see, just because of the reverse, needing a two dimensional world to build a 3 dimensional one. Then again, odd circular co-dependence seems to spring up a lot when talking about these things. Not sure, and still undecided about the relationship between dimensions as a mathematical idea vs the reality.

even if they can't exist independently, and we've got to remember that our '3d world' is another mathematical conceit we use to make sense of the real world, so many things may not be exactly how they appear, with contradictions resulting from weaknesses in our models. 2d is difficult to conceptualise in a 3d world, (except perhaps as a surface, and if you relax the material aspect then my previous example of an EM field may suffice), just as a 3d world is hard to conceptualise in an 11d world, but such things are taken seriously in science. Similarly with such particles as neutrinos and the proposed Higgs.

Many things that do not exist are taken seriously in science. They do like to have their fun.

Very true, and occasionally some of those things turn out to exist after all, at least in a form that can be described mathematically.

[chaz wyman]

I get your point now. Yes, like god I suppose we will have to wait for clear evidence of triangles, straight lines, and integers in reality.

Really? I always assumed there was an actual proof against these things occurring naturally, as intuition suggests. Surely the 'proof status' of this isn't the same as god?

I think you are missing my irony

No, I just ignored it as it wasn't really an answer. While I agree that it does come down to a similar scenario than proving god doesn't exist, it's not exactly the same. We don't use god to accurately predict the outcome of physical interactions, as we do with these useful mathematical conceits. Being able to predict what nature will do, even approximately, clearly shows there are patterns there. If there's a pattern, you can describe it. The patterns we have measured were there, in nature, before science and mathematics, both of which came along as means to describe those patterns. As I've said, I'm on the fence of realism vs idealism. I don't think there are integers or triangles floating out there somewhere, but the fact that these mechanisms are useful in describing nature, or to put it another way, nature behaves in a way that can be described by these mechanisms, suggests that the 'relationship' between mathematics and nature, or realism vs idealism, is nowhere near clear cut. Probably why the debate is still ongoing.

Until then we will have to make do with the idea of such things as all theists do with god. But in a 3D world, it is hard to see how 2D things can exist in a material sense, and have to exist complete with contradictions. Sounds familiar?

But 2d things like triangles and right angles can 'exist' as part of 3d objects (thinking of computer graphics here),

But the material/energetic reality of a 2D object is actually in 3D. That was the point. 2D has to be representative- represented in a 3D world.

So are you saying here a 3d world is required for the existence of 2d objects? It's difficult to see, just because of the reverse, needing a two dimensional world to build a 3 dimensional one. Then again, odd circular co-dependence seems to spring up a lot when talking about these things. Not sure, and still undecided about the relationship between dimensions as a mathematical idea vs the reality.

Not quite saying that. I'm saying that 2D can only ever be an idea, as reality seems to be in 3D: a 2d object having no depth cannot be perceived, and all representations, such as a piece of paper do have depth.

even if they can't exist independently, and we've got to remember that our '3d world' is another mathematical conceit we use to make sense of the real world, so many things may not be exactly how they appear, with contradictions resulting from weaknesses in our models. 2d is difficult to conceptualise in a 3d world, (except perhaps as a surface, and if you relax the material aspect then my previous example of an EM field may suffice), just as a 3d world is hard to conceptualise in an 11d world, but such things are taken seriously in science. Similarly with such particles as neutrinos and the proposed Higgs.

Many things that do not exist are taken seriously in science. They do like to have their fun.

Very true, and occasionally some of those things turn out to exist after all, at least in a form that can be described mathematically.

Then we are back full circle to the a priori and analytic truth of the idealisation of mathematical objects and conceits.

[Aetixintro]

I must say, two 2D pictures placed in a certain relationship does give depth too!

[bytesplicer]

So are you saying here a 3d world is required for the existence of 2d objects? It's difficult to see, just because of the reverse, needing a two dimensional world to build a 3 dimensional one. Then again, odd circular co-dependence seems to spring up a lot when talking about these things. Not sure, and still undecided about the relationship between dimensions as a mathematical idea vs the reality.

Not quite saying that. I'm saying that 2D can only ever be an idea, as reality seems to be in 3D: a 2d object having no depth cannot be perceived, and all representations, such as a piece of paper do have depth.

I agree with this reasoning, in general. However, consider some alternative scientific views, a 4d reality, or, at the extreme, the 11d reality of M-theory. By your reasoning, could you not also argue that 3D can only ever be an idea, as reality seems to be in 4D/11D? Won't then 4D be just an idea with respect to 5D, and so on and so forth? This still makes sense, when thinking in terms of time, space changes from moment to moment, any experience we have of it being a memory, an idea. Not sure how to phrase that analogy to higher dimensions :S

Another way to look at it is through degrees of freedom, as that is what dimensions represent, the amount of information needed to describe something (not just spatially). As you say, they are really abstractions independent of our reality, with the property that 3d/4d happens to correspond nicely with the reality we perceive. This correspondence of the abstraction with reality could be happy coincidence, or a consequence of our brains evolving in a space that corresponds to 3d/4d, or it could hint that all dimensions have a corresponding reality, especially when you think of dimensions in terms of information and not just in terms of space.

Again, I'm not saying dimensions are anything but conceits, all we can ever do is describe reality as best we can. Mathematics is big, and a lot of it doesn't appear to have anything to do with describing reality at all. Thus it's quite easy to argue that mathematics doesn't correspond with reality at all, but could it not also be argued that mathematics may in fact be more general than reality, describing all relationships, even those we don't perceive (or don't exist) in our universe. Even those relationships may occur somewhere, perhaps only in our mind, perhaps in alternative realities.

Nature is out there, and we use mathematics to describe it. Conceit or not, mathematics is describing something that is there, and which behaves in a manner which can be encapsulated using our mathematical conceits. Another way to say it is that nature appears to behave mathematically, independent of the existence of mathematics itself, so it can be argued that through mathematics we are discovering and describing 'pieces of nature'. Picture yourself in the world a couple of million years ago, no mathematics has been invented, do you think the world will still operate the same way? Think of our hunter ancestors, the ability to target something with a spear depends on the innate knowledge of trajectory. Did these ancestors understand the mathematics involved? I'd say not beyond an intuitive understanding from experience and muscle memory, but the fact they could aim a spear in a consistent way shows that the parabolic trajectory is 'part' of nature, something that happens to objects propelled through the air under the conditions present on earth. In the modern age, even those without knowledge of maths can visualise the outcome of physical events, because there is a pattern there our brains can recognise, independent of maths (and possibly the reason we have maths). By working out the maths involved, it can be argued both ways, that we're imprinting our idea on nature, or that nature behaves this way and we're only discovering it and describing it as accurately as we can, through language (including maths) or demonstration (the consistent ability to hit a target, whether you know maths or not).

So, that's why I don't subscribe to idealism or realism, because I believe, in a way, they're both right. We can only describe nature, and the tools we use to do it are not real in a wordly sense, and we can't describe nature fully. Nevertheless, nature itself proceeds in an orderly way through cause and effect, and this can be described, but proceeds in a way that can be predicted whether you describe it or not.



even if they can't exist independently, and we've got to remember that our '3d world' is another mathematical conceit we use to make sense of the real world, so many things may not be exactly how they appear, with contradictions resulting from weaknesses in our models. 2d is difficult to conceptualise in a 3d world, (except perhaps as a surface, and if you relax the material aspect then my previous example of an EM field may suffice), just as a 3d world is hard to conceptualise in an 11d world, but such things are taken seriously in science. Similarly with such particles as neutrinos and the proposed Higgs.

Many things that do not exist are taken seriously in science. They do like to have their fun.

Very true, and occasionally some of those things turn out to exist after all, at least in a form that can be described mathematically.

Then we are back full circle to the a priori and analytic truth of the idealisation of mathematical objects and conceits.

Again I'm not so sure. You may well be right, but I'm going to be cowardly and stay on the fence. For me a deterministic world has to be mathematical in nature, regardless of the existence or not of beings who would describe the processes mathematically. I still can't decide whether I think nature is truly deterministic or not (of course it's not up to me!). Mathematics is all about relations, as are our thought processes. Their application to observation inevitably leads to us seeing nature in terms of relationships, but maths comes about in the first place from observations of relationships in nature, ultimately constrained by our brains, which also seem to work in terms of relations. But as you say, nature cares nothing about relationships, it just does what it does.

[chaz wyman]

So are you saying here a 3d world is required for the existence of 2d objects? It's difficult to see, just because of the reverse, needing a two dimensional world to build a 3 dimensional one. Then again, odd circular co-dependence seems to spring up a lot when talking about these things. Not sure, and still undecided about the relationship between dimensions as a mathematical idea vs the reality.

Not quite saying that. I'm saying that 2D can only ever be an idea, as reality seems to be in 3D: a 2d object having no depth cannot be perceived, and all representations, such as a piece of paper do have depth.

I agree with this reasoning, in general. However, consider some alternative scientific views, a 4d reality, or, at the extreme, the 11d reality of M-theory. By your reasoning, could you not also argue that 3D can only ever be an idea, as reality seems to be in 4D/11D? Won't then 4D be just an idea with respect to 5D, and so on and so forth? This still makes sense, when thinking in terms of time, space changes from moment to moment, any experience we have of it being a memory, an idea. Not sure how to phrase that analogy to higher dimensions :S

I think the problem here is confusing what 3D is with something from the imagination. 3D is simply a way to express the possibility of extension. Adding a fourth as so many do is applicable to some contexts, in that space exists at a particular time, but the fourth dimension is qualitatively different, and all subsequent dimensions are imaginary having no basis in human experience. Time and Space are our primary categories and there is nothing more to be said about them. D1 has no reference and cannot exist unless D2, and D3 is implied; D2 cannot exist for the reasons I have mentioned about; and whilst you can ask of a 3D world - when was that; it is beyond human experience to even ask where is D5. Reality only seems to make sense with 3 or 4 dimensions.


Another way to look at it is through degrees of freedom, as that is what dimensions represent, the amount of information needed to describe something (not just spatially). As you say, they are really abstractions independent of our reality, with the property that 3d/4d happens to correspond nicely with the reality we perceive. This correspondence of the abstraction with reality could be happy coincidence, or a consequence of our brains evolving in a space that corresponds to 3d/4d, or it could hint that all dimensions have a corresponding reality, especially when you think of dimensions in terms of information and not just in terms of space.

I'm not sure why you mention freedom in this context. Like all maths devices the dimensions are just practical applications, not to be confused with the great thing-in-itself. If you are only interested inlaying floor tiles, then D3 is constant and of no interest; is you are interested in the length of a rope then the one dimension is usually enough; if you want to get a drink then 3Ds are important; if you want to know when the pub closes then that tricky fourth D comes into play - beyond that it is all game playing.

Again, I'm not saying dimensions are anything but conceits, all we can ever do is describe reality as best we can. Mathematics is big, and a lot of it doesn't appear to have anything to do with describing reality at all. Thus it's quite easy to argue that mathematics doesn't correspond with reality at all, but could it not also be argued that mathematics may in fact be more general than reality, describing all relationships, even those we don't perceive (or don't exist) in our universe. Even those relationships may occur somewhere, perhaps only in our mind, perhaps in alternative realities.

Nature is out there, and we use mathematics to describe it. Conceit or not, mathematics is describing something that is there, and which behaves in a manner which can be encapsulated using our mathematical conceits. Another way to say it is that nature appears to behave mathematically, independent of the existence of mathematics itself, so it can be argued that through mathematics we are discovering and describing 'pieces of nature'. Picture yourself in the world a couple of million years ago, no mathematics has been invented, do you think the world will still operate the same way? Think of our hunter ancestors, the ability to target something with a spear depends on the innate knowledge of trajectory. Did these ancestors understand the mathematics involved?

No because there was no maths involved, in any sense. The brain using its own method, unconsciously. If we could get a computer to capture that, then we would have something.

I'd say not beyond an intuitive understanding from experience and muscle memory, but the fact they could aim a spear in a consistent way shows that the parabolic trajectory is 'part' of nature,

THis is where we part. The parabolic trajectory did not exist. As a historian you can only fail to understand the past with this sort of anachronism.

something that happens to objects propelled through the air under the conditions present on earth. In the modern age, even those without knowledge of maths can visualise the outcome of physical events, because there is a pattern there our brains can recognise, independent of maths (and possibly the reason we have maths). By working out the maths involved, it can be argued both ways, that we're imprinting our idea on nature, or that nature behaves this way and we're only discovering it and describing it as accurately as we can, through language (including maths) or demonstration (the consistent ability to hit a target, whether you know maths or not).

So, that's why I don't subscribe to idealism or realism, because I believe, in a way, they're both right. We can only describe nature, and the tools we use to do it are not real in a wordly sense, and we can't describe nature fully. Nevertheless, nature itself proceeds in an orderly way through cause and effect, and this can be described, but proceeds in a way that can be predicted whether you describe it or not.



even if they can't exist independently, and we've got to remember that our '3d world' is another mathematical conceit we use to make sense of the real world, so many things may not be exactly how they appear, with contradictions resulting from weaknesses in our models. 2d is difficult to conceptualise in a 3d world, (except perhaps as a surface, and if you relax the material aspect then my previous example of an EM field may suffice), just as a 3d world is hard to conceptualise in an 11d world, but such things are taken seriously in science. Similarly with such particles as neutrinos and the proposed Higgs.

Many things that do not exist are taken seriously in science. They do like to have their fun.

Very true, and occasionally some of those things turn out to exist after all, at least in a form that can be described mathematically.

Then we are back full circle to the a priori and analytic truth of the idealisation of mathematical objects and conceits.

Again I'm not so sure. You may well be right, but I'm going to be cowardly and stay on the fence. For me a deterministic world has to be mathematical in nature, regardless of the existence or not of beings who would describe the processes mathematically. I still can't decide whether I think nature is truly deterministic or not (of course it's not up to me!). Mathematics is all about relations, as are our thought processes. Their application to observation inevitably leads to us seeing nature in terms of relationships, but maths comes about in the first place from observations of relationships in nature, ultimately constrained by our brains, which also seem to work in terms of relations. But as you say, nature cares nothing about relationships, it just does what it does.

[bytesplicer]

Some good answers there, not all of which I agree with entirely but you make a strong case for why I may be over-imaginating things
The places where we truly diverge are quite difficult to resolve.

"No because there was no maths involved, in any sense. The brain using its own method, unconsciously. If we could get a computer to capture that, then we would have something."

This is where for me the difficulties arise. Saying the brain uses its own method, unconsciously, does not preclude the possibility that that method is mathematical, just that we can't see the process in action. This gets tricky for high order thoughts, but in the case of something like targeting, computers have already captured this, and are much better than us. Again, I think you'd probably say our neurons are just doing their thing, with no idea of the variables involved, and you'd be right, and this is also true in the case of a computer. Nevertheless the result of this, at the scale of our body and the spear, is a mathematical calculation. The fact that we, or the computer, may miss, does not change this fact, it only shows that we haven't accounted for every variable, but nature has. Don't take that last part to mean intention in nature or nature using a calculator, it just means there's more information in nature than we are able to account for. In mathematical terms, the equation is correct, but one with a lot of variables, and we can never plug them all in at once. Still mathematical, just limited in accuracy.

"THis is where we part. The parabolic trajectory did not exist. As a historian you can only fail to understand the past with this sort of anachronism."

I agree, the parabolic trajectory did not exist, because it is a name we had not yet applied to what we observed. The pattern that we now refer to as a parabolic trajectory did exist, however, and what we observed is a repeatable, predictable pattern of movement, varying with how we aim and how hard we throw. Eventually we gave this pattern a name, but the pattern was always there. Now we know there are many more factors involved, coming eventually down to the movement of individual atoms, the quantity of which seems to prevent us from ever being able to predict what nature will do with 100% accuracy, but approaches 100% the more you account for. Even this does not preclude the possibility that nature is exactly mathematical in its behaviour, just that the results of the process are complex and chaotic.

[chaz wyman]

Some good answers there, not all of which I agree with entirely but you make a strong case for why I may be over-imaginating things
The places where we truly diverge are quite difficult to resolve.

"No because there was no maths involved, in any sense. The brain using its own method, unconsciously. If we could get a computer to capture that, then we would have something."

This is where for me the difficulties arise. Saying the brain uses its own method, unconsciously, does not preclude the possibility that that method is mathematical, just that we can't see the process in action.

This is starting to go too far. Inevitably we would express the action of the brain as mathematical. But as maths is ipso facto and invention of Babylonian and Greek scholars, identifiable at a particular historical point, it is rather churlish to say that we have hit upon the language of god as so many have. I'm beginning to tire of this discussion as it seems to be goinf round in circles.



This gets tricky for high order thoughts, but in the case of something like targeting, computers have already captured this, and are much better than us.

No computerised system can throw a spear from any position at any moving target, and learn to get better at it. Robots have problems standing up.
Computers are good at some things like adding up numbers but such criteria favour the computer. The brain has access to things that computers may never achieve.
Brains work in different ways.



Again, I think you'd probably say our neurons are just doing their thing, with no idea of the variables involved, and you'd be right, and this is also true in the case of a computer. Nevertheless the result of this, at the scale of our body and the spear, is a mathematical calculation. The fact that we, or the computer, may miss, does not change this fact, it only shows that we haven't accounted for every variable, but nature has. Don't take that last part to mean intention in nature or nature using a calculator, it just means there's more information in nature than we are able to account for. In mathematical terms, the equation is correct, but one with a lot of variables, and we can never plug them all in at once. Still mathematical, just limited in accuracy.

"THis is where we part. The parabolic trajectory did not exist. As a historian you can only fail to understand the past with this sort of anachronism."

I agree, the parabolic trajectory did not exist, because it is a name we had not yet applied to what we observed. The pattern that we now refer to as a parabolic trajectory did exist, however, and what we observed is a repeatable, predictable pattern of movement, varying with how we aim and how hard we throw. Eventually we gave this pattern a name, but the pattern was always there. Now we know there are many more factors involved, coming eventually down to the movement of individual atoms, the quantity of which seems to prevent us from ever being able to predict what nature will do with 100% accuracy, but approaches 100% the more you account for. Even this does not preclude the possibility that nature is exactly mathematical in its behaviour, just that the results of the process are complex and chaotic.

I think we are done here.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


I would say well done...as in fried.



.

[chaz wyman]

.


I would say well done...as in fried.



.

To a crisp!!!!

[Arising_uk]

Hi chaz,

...No computerised system can throw a spear from any position at any moving target, and learn to get better at it. ...

Depends what you mean? As auto-targeting systems appear to work quite well. What about 'learning' algorithms? Also, we've had robot arms that 'learn' to move themselves more efficiently, etc.

Robots have problems standing up.

Not for quite a while now and they can do stairs as well.

Computers are good at some things like adding up numbers but such criteria favour the computer. The brain has access to things that computers may never achieve. Brains work in different ways.

Maybe but so far once we understand them we appear to be able to emulate and simulate them.

[chaz wyman]

Hi chaz,

...No computerised system can throw a spear from any position at any moving target, and learn to get better at it. ...

Depends what you mean? As auto-targeting systems appear to work quite well. What about 'learning' algorithms? Also, we've had robot arms that 'learn' to move themselves more efficiently, etc.

I am taking about a spear in a natural context.

Robots have problems standing up.

Not for quite a while now and they can do stairs as well.

THe gimcracks from Japan still have some trouble standing up. THey are great on a completely smooth and flat surface.
Such robots are solutions looking for problems that do not exist. They have no commercial or practical use.

Computers are good at some things like adding up numbers but such criteria favour the computer. The brain has access to things that computers may never achieve. Brains work in different ways.

Maybe but so far once we understand them we appear to be able to emulate and simulate them.

[bytesplicer]

This is starting to go too far. Inevitably we would express the action of the brain as mathematical. But as maths is ipso facto and invention of Babylonian and Greek scholars, identifiable at a particular historical point, it is rather churlish to say that we have hit upon the language of god as so many have. I'm beginning to tire of this discussion as it seems to be goinf round in circles.

Not that the history of mathematics is at all relevant to what I'm saying, but I think you're way off here. First, mathematics is and has been an ongoing process, we have methods now far in advance of what the Greeks or Babylonians had come up with, we see more of nature, and the application of that maths has lead to a far greater understanding of our universe than that possessed by the Babylonians and Greeks.

Besides, your point in history is way off, with the first verified mathematical artifacts dating back to around 30,000BC, used to count off phases of the moon, months and menstrual cycles. It is likely mathematics of one form or another has been with us since the beginning of thought, in expressions of magnitude and relationships.


No computerised system can throw a spear from any position at any moving target, and learn to get better at it. Robots have problems standing up.

This is all vague and not at all accurate. There are guys building adaptive targetting systems in their back garden that have no problems hitting a moving target, not to mention what the military has. Bipedal robots do struggle to stand up on two legs, in common with the rest of nature, but there are many other kinds of robot, and many other forms of locomotion, why assume a bipedal one? Check out robotic dog for an example of an extremely effective walking robot, there are many others, including ones that swim, snake and fly. Most commercial airlines are now robots, completely automated from take-off to landing, the pilots serving as back-up if systems fail or if something truly extraordinary happens. Given that we can accurately direct a jet with a computer, do you think a spear presents any particular problem?

Computers are good at some things like adding up numbers but such criteria favour the computer. The brain has access to things that computers may never achieve.
Brains work in different ways

All quite vague. What does the brain have access to that a computer may never achieve? Are you talking about consciousness and free-will perhaps? The brain is a computer, once more I imagine you'll miss the point and say something like "computers are a human invention". The brain follows a clear process of input/process/output, and includes the equivalent of many dedicated chips serving particular functions. The main difference between the brain and a silicon based computer is down to the level of parallelism and connectivity. Computer hardware is actually quicker in operation now than the brain, and so wins out in reaction time, but the brain wins out at the moment through sheer connectivity. That said, in specific domains computers can and have exceeded humans, from Back Gammon to targetting. The brain wins out in general problem solving, again due to parallelism and connectivity. We don't want robots like that, as they may decide we're a problem to be solved. All of that is off-topic, the main point, which you have admitted, is that all this is inevitably represented mathematically. The part of the brain that handles targeting is completely computational, working with noisy input. Target selection is the only part of targeting for which I'd agree a computer is worse than a human (but even here, humans fuck it up quite a lot too), but as I said we don't want robots who can choose their own targets anyway, except in limited domains, and I suspect full automated target selection is only a matter of time and conscience. Because everything we have so far observed can also be represented mathematically, makes the issue of whether nature is mathematical (i.e. maths is the mapping of natural relations) or whether maths is a truly artificial construct with no underlying relationship to nature (and hence probably missing a lot of what's going on) unclear to say the least. Greater minds than either of us could not conclude this argument, so I can understand your reluctance to continue, it is circular.

I think we are done here.

Ok.

I am taking about a spear in a natural context.

Natural or unnatural, you're still wrong.

THe gimcracks from Japan still have some trouble standing up. THey are great on a completely smooth and flat surface.

As I said above, assuming bipedalism doesn't do robots justice. Bipedalism is tricky, you don't see many, even in nature, requiring some other advantage (such as a good brain) to compensate for the fact that you're everyone's bitch speed and balance wise. Quadrapedal robots, as well as snaking or flying robots, do much better. Hoover shaped robots are already being used as automated cleaners in many Japanese households.

Such robots are solutions looking for problems that do not exist. They have no commercial or practical use.

About the only thing we agree on it seems. But again, only in respect to bipedal bots. Commercial airlines, cleaners, bomb-disposal, mass-production and ordnance delivery are just some of the applications when you think of robots in general. There are many more now, and there are many more coming.

All off-topic, which I guess your next post will accuse me of. Please remember, as with the case of going around in circles, that I am only responding to a conversation you initiated.