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 > processing unit can obtain additional information about the third dimension > 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 to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.