The derivation of (yes, incomplete, but useful) arithmetic from basic axioms, or the derivation (in another sense) of reasonably reliable arithmetic from our evolved intuition, is a perfect example of complexity arising from simplicity. There’s no comparison.
And in a more abstract sense — the transuniversal truth of arithmetic, not the practical discovery or application of it, nor any attempts to formalize it — there’s nothing to “arise” at all.
In any case, the “Therefore Dawkins and his opponents are equally wrong” sounds like a non-sequitur. A more understandable conclusion would be “I am wrong about the implications of the beliefs of Dawkins and his opponents.” He basically says “If you believe in Intelligent Design, you must believe that God decided that 2+2 would equal 4. You don’t believe that, therefore your belief system is inconsistent or you are a hypocrite. If you believe in evolution by natural selection, you must believe that 2+2 evolved to equal 4. You don’t believe that, therefore your belief system is inconsistent or you are a hypocrite.” He’s just making up new beliefs, ascribing them to his opponents, and pointing out their ridiculousness.
Ah ok, I guess I shouldn’t have posted this on lesswrong.com—Really, it’s a book that muses about the possibility of a mathematical universe. Mind is biology. Biology is chemistry. Chemistry is physics. Physics being math. Mind perceives math, thus the universe exists physically. Erase the “baggage” and all that’s left is math. It explicitly states that all assertions are pure speculation, philosophical thought, not science. I think it’s a very beautiful idea. This quote thus might be a bit out of context.
Gary Drescher’s “Good and Real” is an example of this sort of Deep Book done right. Landsburg seems to make a lot more errors—like he tried to write Good and Real but failed.
The derivation of (yes, incomplete, but useful) arithmetic from basic axioms, or the derivation (in another sense) of reasonably reliable arithmetic from our evolved intuition, is a perfect example of complexity arising from simplicity. There’s no comparison.
And in a more abstract sense — the transuniversal truth of arithmetic, not the practical discovery or application of it, nor any attempts to formalize it — there’s nothing to “arise” at all.
In any case, the “Therefore Dawkins and his opponents are equally wrong” sounds like a non-sequitur. A more understandable conclusion would be “I am wrong about the implications of the beliefs of Dawkins and his opponents.” He basically says “If you believe in Intelligent Design, you must believe that God decided that 2+2 would equal 4. You don’t believe that, therefore your belief system is inconsistent or you are a hypocrite. If you believe in evolution by natural selection, you must believe that 2+2 evolved to equal 4. You don’t believe that, therefore your belief system is inconsistent or you are a hypocrite.” He’s just making up new beliefs, ascribing them to his opponents, and pointing out their ridiculousness.
Ah ok, I guess I shouldn’t have posted this on lesswrong.com—Really, it’s a book that muses about the possibility of a mathematical universe. Mind is biology. Biology is chemistry. Chemistry is physics. Physics being math. Mind perceives math, thus the universe exists physically. Erase the “baggage” and all that’s left is math. It explicitly states that all assertions are pure speculation, philosophical thought, not science. I think it’s a very beautiful idea. This quote thus might be a bit out of context.
More info here: http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2009/11/the-big-questions.html
So please don’t judge the book by my quote here. Wasn’t my intention.
If you’ve read Permutation City by Greg Egan, this is musing about it being real.
Gary Drescher’s “Good and Real” is an example of this sort of Deep Book done right. Landsburg seems to make a lot more errors—like he tried to write Good and Real but failed.
I’ve ordered Good & Real when I heard you mentioning it during the video Q&A. Hasn’t arrived yet though, few weeks delivery time...thanks though.