On Sunday, February 17, 2013 1:52:13 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 Craig Weinberg <[email protected] <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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
