Newton’s Laws are not maths. They make use of maths. . But, taken as a whole,
they are science – and products firstly of real world reasoning.
The forces,masses, acceleration etc.of Newton’s laws are physical entities.
They do not belong in maths. You can “APPLY” maths to them – but the business
of applying maths belongs to real world/scientific reasoning.
Maths can tell you nothing about forces etc , or whether they are quantifiable
or not. That is all real world reasoning.
Maths is entirely artificial
In maths, 1 + 1 = 2.
But this is never strictly true in the real world – there are no perfect real
world units.
And frankly, it can be blatantly false in the real world.
Look:.
1+ 1 = 20.
I just created a real world, physical event, in which 1 + 1 are not even close
to 2. A real world alternative system of numbering.
****************
How did I arrive at evidence for the argument I have just made against logic &
maths? Well, I certainly didn’t use logic or maths. I’ll call it again for the
moment “real world reasoning” - it would take a little too long to explain it
more precisely now – but it is a totally different kind of reasoning. from
logic and maths – even though commonplace – and far more fundamental. And PLN
and every other use of logic have nothing to do with it – or with AGI.
P.S. Your confusion about the difference between logic/maths and
science/evidence is as I have said before, encouraged by our present
metacognitive culture – which thinks that scientific theorising is mainly
“deduction”. It is mainly something very different – and a far more important
form of reasoning. And our metacognitive culture is about to be revolutionised.
From: Ben Goertzel
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 1:03 AM
To: AGI
Subject: Re: [agi] Experimental Predictions and a Plan for the Fundamental
Acceptance of the Results of Experiments
P.S. You do realise BTW that maths and logic are forms of reasoning which do
not and cannot use evidence – are abstract/artificial forms of reasoning?
Logicomathematical “proofs”, for example, do not constitute *evidence*..
Wait... what do you mean by "maths ... cannot use evidence"?
Are you suggesting that Newton's Laws, for example, have not been to some
extent validated based on comparison with empirical evidence??
ben g
AGI | Archives | Modify Your Subscription
-------------------------------------------
AGI
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
