This is horribly, horribly wrong, and I talked about it on an Open Thread here.
I continued my critique on my blog, which drew Landsburg out of the workwork and had a back-and-forth with him, which continued onto his blog. He did follow-up posts here and here, but I haven’t replied much further on those, because I was really starting to get caught up in “someone is wrong on the internet” syndrome.
Anyway, here’s what’s wrong (if you don’t want to read the links): there is no consistent definition of terms that makes Landsburg right. After a lot of critique, the error turns out to hinge on the meaning of “exist”. Put simply, math doesn’t exist—not in the same sense that e.g. biological organisms exist, which meaning Dawkins is using there.
Basically, Landsburg is positing the existence of a Platonic realm of math that is always “out-there”, existing. This is a major map-territory confusion, and should be a warning to rationalists. It’s a confusion of human use of math, with the things that can be described in the language of math. The only way he supports this position is by rhetorical bullying: “come on, you don’t really think the numbers didn’t exist before humans, do you?” And leads him into deeper confusions, like believing that we “directly perceive” mathematical truths and that they can tell us—by themselves—useful things about the world. (The latter is false because you always require the additional knowledge “and this phenomenon behaves in way isomorphic to these mathematical expressions”, which requires interacting with the phenomenon, not just Platonic symbol manipulation.)
(Note that everything he claims is true and special about math, theists claim about God, but this post is already too long to elaborate.)
The only sense Landsburg is right is this: it has always been the case that if-counterfactually someone set up a physical system with an isomorphism to the laws of math, performed operations, and then re-interpreted according that same isomorphism, it would match up with that that follows from the rules and axioms of math.
But Dawkins’s claim doesn’t deny that at all; he’s claiming that populations of organisms evolved, not that “the counterfactual mathematical expression of evolution’s working” evolved, the latter of which would indeed be in contradition of the previous paragraph.
Basically, Landsburg is positing the existence of a Platonic realm of math that is always “out-there”, existing. This is a major map-territory confusion, and should be a warning to rationalists.
I agree; but interestingly, that doesn’t imply that mathematical Platonism is false. I’m becoming more and more convinced that the universe is a relatively simple mathematical object, and that this universe existing is a special case of all mathematical objects existing.
My mistake was to post this here. I haven’t thought about it, just shared what I found interesting. I just found that quote thought-provoking. I was never going to consider his musings as factual or truth-claims. As far as I can tell, he doesn’t either. It’s metaphysics. It is appealing on an poetic level.
On a side note, I’m not sure what Dawkins believes, but I know that he does indeed extent the concept of biological evolution to encompass other systems like culture and thought. If I remember right, he actually thinks it is an universal phenomena that even applies to physics.
I don’t think it was so bad to post something that spurred such a discussion. It wasn’t off-topic, just wrong (or Not Even Wrong) in an argument-worthy way.
Normally, I think karma is a reasonably good guide to writing here, but in this case I find myself both approving of the fact that you posted this, and approving of the massive downvoting (which I added to). Odd.
Thanks, as I wrote here, I’ll just listen and learn now. Next time I’ll hopefully think about it, if I might actually be able to add something valuable. This is certainly not the usual forum where some uneducated guy like me can just chat about anything he might not even understand properly. Which is very good, less noise.
I’m happy the original quote at least caused some debate.
On a side note, I’m not sure what Dawkins believes, but I know that he does indeed extent the concept of biological evolution to encompass other systems like culture and thought. If I remember right, he actually thinks it is an universal phenomena that even applies to physics.
Okay, but just to be clear, those are still different from believing in “evolution” of the truth of the counterfactuals I described. Yes, the thoughts held by people evolve, but that’s not the same thing as believing that “the possibility of biological evolution in a counterfactual sense” evolved.
I’m not sure what you are on about. I’ll read up on the links you provided tomorrow. So bear with me. As I understand it, the whole point is that the laws of physics, or rather what gives rise to them, is equal to the structure we describe as and by the use of mathematics. Our interpretation of these patterns as physics, or living things, are just necessary abstractions drawn by our minds. The territory really is math, our map are the things.
I’m serious on this. I apologize for my naivety in thinking I could participate in such a discussion and for posting this quote in the first place. Reading some of your exchanges, and especially the one between Splat and Steven Landsburg (03 February 2010), opened my eyes about how little I really know and that I’m completely unable to judge any claims being made regarding this topic. Most of it is indeed far over my head. I’ll retreat to further studying, educating myself, and listen and learn what you people have to say. So please ignore my previous comments.
I’m happy that the original quote at least caused some, hopefully enlightening, debate.
This is horribly, horribly wrong, and I talked about it on an Open Thread here.
I continued my critique on my blog, which drew Landsburg out of the workwork and had a back-and-forth with him, which continued onto his blog. He did follow-up posts here and here, but I haven’t replied much further on those, because I was really starting to get caught up in “someone is wrong on the internet” syndrome.
Anyway, here’s what’s wrong (if you don’t want to read the links): there is no consistent definition of terms that makes Landsburg right. After a lot of critique, the error turns out to hinge on the meaning of “exist”. Put simply, math doesn’t exist—not in the same sense that e.g. biological organisms exist, which meaning Dawkins is using there.
Basically, Landsburg is positing the existence of a Platonic realm of math that is always “out-there”, existing. This is a major map-territory confusion, and should be a warning to rationalists. It’s a confusion of human use of math, with the things that can be described in the language of math. The only way he supports this position is by rhetorical bullying: “come on, you don’t really think the numbers didn’t exist before humans, do you?” And leads him into deeper confusions, like believing that we “directly perceive” mathematical truths and that they can tell us—by themselves—useful things about the world. (The latter is false because you always require the additional knowledge “and this phenomenon behaves in way isomorphic to these mathematical expressions”, which requires interacting with the phenomenon, not just Platonic symbol manipulation.)
(Note that everything he claims is true and special about math, theists claim about God, but this post is already too long to elaborate.)
The only sense Landsburg is right is this: it has always been the case that if-counterfactually someone set up a physical system with an isomorphism to the laws of math, performed operations, and then re-interpreted according that same isomorphism, it would match up with that that follows from the rules and axioms of math.
But Dawkins’s claim doesn’t deny that at all; he’s claiming that populations of organisms evolved, not that “the counterfactual mathematical expression of evolution’s working” evolved, the latter of which would indeed be in contradition of the previous paragraph.
I agree; but interestingly, that doesn’t imply that mathematical Platonism is false. I’m becoming more and more convinced that the universe is a relatively simple mathematical object, and that this universe existing is a special case of all mathematical objects existing.
My mistake was to post this here. I haven’t thought about it, just shared what I found interesting. I just found that quote thought-provoking. I was never going to consider his musings as factual or truth-claims. As far as I can tell, he doesn’t either. It’s metaphysics. It is appealing on an poetic level.
On a side note, I’m not sure what Dawkins believes, but I know that he does indeed extent the concept of biological evolution to encompass other systems like culture and thought. If I remember right, he actually thinks it is an universal phenomena that even applies to physics.
http://www.universaldarwinism.com/Dawkins%20Richard.htm
Richard Dawkins—Applying Darwinian Evolution to Physics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRTfgQG5Yn8
I don’t think it was so bad to post something that spurred such a discussion. It wasn’t off-topic, just wrong (or Not Even Wrong) in an argument-worthy way.
Normally, I think karma is a reasonably good guide to writing here, but in this case I find myself both approving of the fact that you posted this, and approving of the massive downvoting (which I added to). Odd.
Thanks, as I wrote here, I’ll just listen and learn now. Next time I’ll hopefully think about it, if I might actually be able to add something valuable. This is certainly not the usual forum where some uneducated guy like me can just chat about anything he might not even understand properly. Which is very good, less noise.
I’m happy the original quote at least caused some debate.
Okay, but just to be clear, those are still different from believing in “evolution” of the truth of the counterfactuals I described. Yes, the thoughts held by people evolve, but that’s not the same thing as believing that “the possibility of biological evolution in a counterfactual sense” evolved.
I’m not sure what you are on about. I’ll read up on the links you provided tomorrow. So bear with me. As I understand it, the whole point is that the laws of physics, or rather what gives rise to them, is equal to the structure we describe as and by the use of mathematics. Our interpretation of these patterns as physics, or living things, are just necessary abstractions drawn by our minds. The territory really is math, our map are the things.
Um, any thoughts on reading the past exchanges?
I’m serious on this. I apologize for my naivety in thinking I could participate in such a discussion and for posting this quote in the first place. Reading some of your exchanges, and especially the one between Splat and Steven Landsburg (03 February 2010), opened my eyes about how little I really know and that I’m completely unable to judge any claims being made regarding this topic. Most of it is indeed far over my head. I’ll retreat to further studying, educating myself, and listen and learn what you people have to say. So please ignore my previous comments.
I’m happy that the original quote at least caused some, hopefully enlightening, debate.