# Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

```
On Sunday, February 17, 2013 1:52:13 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
>
> >> With complex numbers you can make a one to one relationship between the
>>> way numbers add subtract multiply and divide and the way things move in a
>>> two dimensional plane. What more could you want arithmetic to do in support
>>> of geometry, where on earth is the incompatibility??
>>>
>>
>> >  It doesn't matter whether arithmetic *supports* geometry or not.
>>
>
> It doesn't???
>```
```
No, I would assume that geometric truths don't contradict arithmetic truths.

>
>
>>  What matters is that if we cannot explain to how arithmetic *actually
>> becomes geometry*, why it *must become geometric* under some arithmetic
>> condition,
>>
>
> Well, "under some arithmetical conditions" numbers behave exactly
> precisely in the way that Euclid said geometric objects should behave.
>

That doesn't say anything about arithmetic becoming geometry.  A program
can predict exactly how an apple will fall from a tree, but that doesn't
mean that if apples didn't exist, the program would create them.

> Numbers have also told us something we could not have found out in any
> other way, that Euclid's way is not the only way that geometric objects can
> behave that is logically consistent. And then Einstein, also using numbers,
> showed that not only is this non-euclidean way possible it is the only way
> to figure out how things change in very powerful gravitational fields.
>

Yes, because have geometry (because of our sensory experience = no thanks
to arithmetic), we can use arithmetic to extend our understanding of
geometry and use that geometry in turn to extend our sense of arithmetic -
but neither geometry or arithmetic imply each other without our sense of
relation between visually experienced shapes and cognitively understood
ideas.

> > we *certainly cannot* claim that a purely arithmetic universe could
>> possibly contain any geometry at all.
>>
>
> Given the above what aspect of geometry have numbers failed to capture?
>

The geometric aspect. The shapes. Without shapes, angles, lines, volumes,
there are only invisible quantitative relationships.

>
> >AI programs wouldn't need to be written if computers could use cameras to
>> see.
>>
>
> And people wouldn't need brains if eyes could see, but eyes can't see.
>

Eyes can see, but not like humans see. There are plankton with eyes. No
brain is required to see.

> Eyes and TV cameras do the same thing, they both use a encoding protocol
> to turn the information in a 2D image into a 1D signal that can be sent
> down a wire (the wire can be made of copper or protoplasm) to a processing
> unit made of neurons or transistors. If 2 cameras or 2 eyes are used the
> if the correct sort of data processing is used.
>

Our eyes allow us to see, and so do cameras. Cameras do not allow computers
to see, they only generate data which is interpreted invisibly and
meaninglessly.

>
>  >> But the only way to prove that to others is by successfully
>>> maneuvering something through a 3D obstacle course, and existing AI
>>> programs can already do this.
>>>
>>
>> > Why would I need to prove that to others?
>>
>
> For the same reason you demand that a AI prove it is conscious.
>

I don't demand that AI prove it is conscious, I understand why it is not
conscious.

Craig

>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email