4 ms·

We only need to evaluate what is practically useful. At the end of the day that's all science does - it's a methodology for generating guidelines for what actua

by simonh 4y ago

We only need to evaluate what is practically useful. At the end of the day that's all science does - it's a methodology for generating guidelines for what actually works in the real world and for which accuracy, or truth, can be verified. We call those guidelines scientific 'laws', but truth in the absolute sense is less critical than is often made out by both proponents and critics of science. Newton's laws of motion strictly speaking are not true, Einstein proved this, but they are incredibly useful as is the mathematics we use to formalise them. We know that the quantum mechanics and relativity theories we have now and not complete, but that's beside the point. PG is simply pointing out that since aliens, if they exist, live in the same real world we do they will discover a lot of the same practical results we do, and then goes further to suggest they might agree with us about a lot of the less strictly provable ones as well. Going "Oh well but this obscure question here would still be in contention" is, well, somewhat sailing past the point by a little smidgenette. It's criticising a claim I don't think it's reasonable to think PG is making.

kmod 4y ago
Agree to disagree, I suppose. Another comment in this thread suggested using the value of pi to demonstrate intelligence, but you can imagine alien civilizations without the same reverence of pi as we do (if they are large enough). I mentioned in another comment that you can also imagine small enough aliens not inventing a real number line because they do not have the experience that everything is infinitely divisible. I believe our difference is that you are presupposing that aliens will have essentially the same experience with reality that we do. I agree that if somehow a separate human civilization evolved in another galaxy, their math would likely look similar to ours. But you can imagine aliens that have very different experiences of "what actually works in the real world" (due to experiencing a different set of physics, such as at a different physical scale) and thus come up with different math.
- simonh 4y ago
  We already have very robust descriptions of how the world works at every scale, from the planck length all the way up to the limits of the observable universe, and in extremes of environment from the surface of neutron stars, to the roiling virtual particles of empty space. We can calculate behaviours in these environments very precisely right now. Sure, there are things about these environments we still need to learn, but they're not utterly intractable or inconceivable to us. There's a character Rimmer in a comedy series Red Dwarf that's always going on about how aliens would be unimaginable to use because they're alien and everything they do would be... well.. 'alien'. It's poking fun at SF that presents aliens as inherently utterly unintelligible to us simply by virtue of being alien, but frankly that's absurd. Physics doesn't care who or where you are, the same rules apply.
  - TuringTest 4y ago
    Yes, but the point I think is that the rules of symbolic reasoning are not like the rules of physics; formal systems have an arbitrary shape, so exploring the universe from a different starting point could yield a completely different method of representing it and processing information about it. And such methods needs not be compatible with our understanding of math.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    You've already presupposed that experimenting across all those scales is somehow an integral (necessary?) part of being the kind of life that we might encounter. That could be possible, but I don't think that we can assume that.
  - JackFr 4y ago
    Your brain is lying to you. It's not your brain's fault, really. It doesn't know any better. Your brain has a way of interpreting the sensory perceptions communicated to it. It conflates this with 'reality' because it doesn't know anything thing else. And because it doesn't have anything else, it also declares itself the universal understander. Just like there are sounds you cannot hear, and chemicals you cannot taste, wavelengths you cannot see -- consider that there may be thoughts that you physically cannot think. No magic and no spooky mysterious stuff. Just that it seems quite possible that our brains are limited in their ability to construct a representation of the universe, and insofar as the representation is true, we have kno way of knowing if it's the only true one.
    - simonh 4y ago
      If you know what Turing complete means, and what a universal Turing machine is and can do, and that we are examples of such, then you must realise that’s not true. Provably. Unless you’re a dualist of some sort and believe thinking is some sort of spiritual woo, in which case I can’t help you. But I can imagine what that’s like (see what I did there?). Seriously, there are sensory experiences I can’t have, but in principle no thoughts that are intractable to analysis and understanding given enough information.
- karmakaze 4y ago
  Pi is the human joke of the galaxy--they all use Tau.
gopher_space 4y ago
> PG is simply pointing out that since aliens, if they exist, live in the same real world we do they will discover a lot of the same practical results we do This isn't even accurate for the different peoples on our one planet.
- simonh 4y ago
  It really is, that’s why the basic mathematical principled discovered in India, Mesopotamia and Greece have spread and been further developed throughout the world. Because they work just as well everywhere. The Maya discovered the natural numbers and zero, did arithmetic and performed calendrical and astronomical calculations. China developed their numerical system independently, calculated Pi, performed division, root extraction and linear algebra and many original techniques. The forms of expression and some techniques were unique but maths is maths.
  - JackFr 4y ago
    All those cultures were running on the same hardware, so to speak. Let's see what the squids have to say.
    - simonh 4y ago
      We’ll, there’s some evidence octopi and squid can count. If so then at least there’s some elementary maths in common. There’s no reason to suppose super intelligent cephalopod creatures would have particular difficulty with things like natural numbers, for all their different experience of the world. Two shrimp plus two shrimp is still the same amount of food as one shrimp plus three shrimp, no matter how many arms you have.
      - gopher_space 4y ago
        To a whale there would be either many shrimp or zero shrimp.
  - gopher_space 4y ago
mistermann 4y ago
> We only need to evaluate what is practically useful. As simple as this may seem, a few problematic points: - who decides who gets included in "we"? - who decides what "evaluate" is composed of? - who decides what is practical, and useful? - there is an implicit dimension of Time: for example, many things were initially categorized as useful, but then it can turn out to be a lot more complicated (Thalidomide, fossil fuels, arguably democracy & journalism (at least as they are practised, which seems to be fairly immutable)) Of course, these issues can be easily dismissed ("pedantic!"), but that doesn't make them go away. > At the end of the day that's all science does - it's a methodology for generating guidelines for what actually works in the real world and for which accuracy, or truth, can be verified. We call those guidelines scientific 'laws', but truth in the absolute sense is less critical than is often made out by both proponents and critics of science. Another problem we have is language (and various other things, semantics, semiotics, etc) - in this example, a reader could easily take away a few not necessarily correct beliefs from the way you've worded it: - it could be (very poorly) interpreted to mean science does only this (and nothing else) - it could be interpreted to mean science alone does this - it could be interpreted to mean that the output of science (what actually works in the real world) is comprehensive, as in "all that works has been discovered by science - and if it isn't, science would (or will) find it" - it could be interpreted to mean that science alone is able to produce accuracy, truth, and verification - it could be interpreted to mean (or, a person may just not consider) that "what works" is not necessarily a constant over time (see: Thalidomide, fossil fuels) To be clear, I'm not saying you're asserting these things, I'm just pointing out that language is extremely ambiguous and can be misleading.

by simonh 4y ago

kmod 4y ago

Agree to disagree, I suppose. Another comment in this thread suggested using the value of pi to demonstrate intelligence, but you can imagine alien civilizations without the same reverence of pi as we do (if they are large enough). I mentioned in another comment that you can also imagine small enough aliens not inventing a real number line because they do not have the experience that everything is infinitely divisible. I believe our difference is that you are presupposing that aliens will have essentially the same experience with reality that we do. I agree that if somehow a separate human civilization evolved in another galaxy, their math would likely look similar to ours. But you can imagine aliens that have very different experiences of "what actually works in the real world" (due to experiencing a different set of physics, such as at a different physical scale) and thus come up with different math.

simonh 4y ago
We already have very robust descriptions of how the world works at every scale, from the planck length all the way up to the limits of the observable universe, and in extremes of environment from the surface of neutron stars, to the roiling virtual particles of empty space. We can calculate behaviours in these environments very precisely right now. Sure, there are things about these environments we still need to learn, but they're not utterly intractable or inconceivable to us. There's a character Rimmer in a comedy series Red Dwarf that's always going on about how aliens would be unimaginable to use because they're alien and everything they do would be... well.. 'alien'. It's poking fun at SF that presents aliens as inherently utterly unintelligible to us simply by virtue of being alien, but frankly that's absurd. Physics doesn't care who or where you are, the same rules apply.
- TuringTest 4y ago
  Yes, but the point I think is that the rules of symbolic reasoning are not like the rules of physics; formal systems have an arbitrary shape, so exploring the universe from a different starting point could yield a completely different method of representing it and processing information about it. And such methods needs not be compatible with our understanding of math.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  You've already presupposed that experimenting across all those scales is somehow an integral (necessary?) part of being the kind of life that we might encounter. That could be possible, but I don't think that we can assume that.
- JackFr 4y ago
  Your brain is lying to you. It's not your brain's fault, really. It doesn't know any better. Your brain has a way of interpreting the sensory perceptions communicated to it. It conflates this with 'reality' because it doesn't know anything thing else. And because it doesn't have anything else, it also declares itself the universal understander. Just like there are sounds you cannot hear, and chemicals you cannot taste, wavelengths you cannot see -- consider that there may be thoughts that you physically cannot think. No magic and no spooky mysterious stuff. Just that it seems quite possible that our brains are limited in their ability to construct a representation of the universe, and insofar as the representation is true, we have kno way of knowing if it's the only true one.
  - simonh 4y ago
    If you know what Turing complete means, and what a universal Turing machine is and can do, and that we are examples of such, then you must realise that’s not true. Provably. Unless you’re a dualist of some sort and believe thinking is some sort of spiritual woo, in which case I can’t help you. But I can imagine what that’s like (see what I did there?). Seriously, there are sensory experiences I can’t have, but in principle no thoughts that are intractable to analysis and understanding given enough information.
karmakaze 4y ago
Pi is the human joke of the galaxy--they all use Tau.

gopher_space 4y ago

> PG is simply pointing out that since aliens, if they exist, live in the same real world we do they will discover a lot of the same practical results we do This isn't even accurate for the different peoples on our one planet.

simonh 4y ago
It really is, that’s why the basic mathematical principled discovered in India, Mesopotamia and Greece have spread and been further developed throughout the world. Because they work just as well everywhere. The Maya discovered the natural numbers and zero, did arithmetic and performed calendrical and astronomical calculations. China developed their numerical system independently, calculated Pi, performed division, root extraction and linear algebra and many original techniques. The forms of expression and some techniques were unique but maths is maths.
- JackFr 4y ago
  All those cultures were running on the same hardware, so to speak. Let's see what the squids have to say.
  - simonh 4y ago
    We’ll, there’s some evidence octopi and squid can count. If so then at least there’s some elementary maths in common. There’s no reason to suppose super intelligent cephalopod creatures would have particular difficulty with things like natural numbers, for all their different experience of the world. Two shrimp plus two shrimp is still the same amount of food as one shrimp plus three shrimp, no matter how many arms you have.
    - gopher_space 4y ago
      To a whale there would be either many shrimp or zero shrimp.
- gopher_space 4y ago

mistermann 4y ago

> We only need to evaluate what is practically useful. As simple as this may seem, a few problematic points: - who decides who gets included in "we"? - who decides what "evaluate" is composed of? - who decides what is practical, and useful? - there is an implicit dimension of Time: for example, many things were initially categorized as useful, but then it can turn out to be a lot more complicated (Thalidomide, fossil fuels, arguably democracy & journalism (at least as they are practised, which seems to be fairly immutable)) Of course, these issues can be easily dismissed ("pedantic!"), but that doesn't make them go away. > At the end of the day that's all science does - it's a methodology for generating guidelines for what actually works in the real world and for which accuracy, or truth, can be verified. We call those guidelines scientific 'laws', but truth in the absolute sense is less critical than is often made out by both proponents and critics of science. Another problem we have is language (and various other things, semantics, semiotics, etc) - in this example, a reader could easily take away a few not necessarily correct beliefs from the way you've worded it: - it could be (very poorly) interpreted to mean science does only this (and nothing else) - it could be interpreted to mean science alone does this - it could be interpreted to mean that the output of science (what actually works in the real world) is comprehensive, as in "all that works has been discovered by science - and if it isn't, science would (or will) find it" - it could be interpreted to mean that science alone is able to produce accuracy, truth, and verification - it could be interpreted to mean (or, a person may just not consider) that "what works" is not necessarily a constant over time (see: Thalidomide, fossil fuels) To be clear, I'm not saying you're asserting these things, I'm just pointing out that language is extremely ambiguous and can be misleading.