CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
On the philosophical implications of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis, or, Watch me tread water in the swamp of relativism. by Victor Usack
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Victor Usack wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 20:54 GMT
Essay AbstractThe author labors under the illusion of a coherent argument towards the reconciliation of science and philosophy. In particular, mathematics and teleology. To effect this program we consider first an epistemological investigation of mathematical understanding. We choose the Münchhausen Trilemma (MT) as an epistemological benchmark and then, apply it to physics and arrive at the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH).
Author BioVik Usak is a retired technical specialist from Brookhaven National Laboratory. He participated in the construction, maintenance, and operations of the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron, NASA Space Radiation Laboratory, G-2 measurement, Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider, and the National Synchrotron Light Source 2. He retired in 2015 to pursue private studies and pray.
Download Essay PDF File
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 04:57 GMT
Victor Usack,
Thanks for a truly excellent essay. I think you support my own essay, but you'll have to read it to decide. In my essay I quote Stefan Weckbach's analysis of Godel:
Weckbach points out that from Godel we conclude that “relatively simple mathematical systems, although they are consistent, must remain incomplete” but the mathematical system cannot itself formalize this conclusion! This is a powerful argument against “the complete formalizability of all that exists.” He concludes that math speaks to us; the message is: “there is more to existence than mathematical structures ever can deliver.”
I think your essay is conceptual, hence subject to the axioms, regression, and circularity that you note to begin with. You value the MUH highly, but, after introducing it, you sum up: "
suppose that reality
is mathematics." [Emphasis on
suppose] I of course
don't suppose that, but that's what makes horse races. Each gets to pick a horse to bet on.
You fairly conclusively "prove" that the reality won't be proved! This probably neatly fits one of your end examples.
Your four cornerstones of cognition: mass density (rho) and velocity (v), and the foundational equation E=mc**2 are encompassed in (Del) x (C) = (rho)(v) which is the key Maxwell-Einstein equation that I believe is the basis of
The Nature of Quantum Gravity and arguably the basis of the self-aware consciousness field that can be pushed exceedingly far.
But you certainly caught the relevant truth for this essay contest (and more):
"
The event that any number of systems are possible guarantees the eternal occupation of my fellow thinkers."
You end with the question we started with:
"
How is this mathematical reality related to consciousness and self?"
Excellent essay.
Best regards
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Branko L Zivlak wrote on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 19:54 GMT
Dear Mr. Usak
“Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure“. Why, you can see in formula (17) of my essay.
“Shut up and calculate!”
Regards,
Branko
report post as inappropriate
John-Erik Persson wrote on Feb. 18, 2017 @ 20:11 GMT
Victor
I have read your essay. It was a great and enjoyable experience. I thank you for this contribution.
Best regards __________________ John-Erik
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Feb. 20, 2017 @ 16:35 GMT
Dear Victor Usack,
Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.
I merely wish to point out that “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.”
Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.
The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.
A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.
Joe Fisher, Realist
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 24, 2017 @ 10:38 GMT
Victor,
Excellent. As Russel showed; "All logical systems end in paradox". But I propose the 'interleaved' structure and implications of Propositional Dynamic Logic (PDL) can allow us to drain most of the swamp (this years AND last years top community scored essays). I'd greatly value your views.
I also propose that the universe as "mathematical in a well defined sense" is delusional. Well defined a mermaid may be but does that prove she exists!
Can you refute my fundamental proposition identifying the problem; that in no way should we assume 1 = 1. That is the problem. NO ONE THING IN THE UNIVERSE IS
ENTIRELY IDENTICAL TO
ANY OTHER. So no two planets, molecules and at some scale even no two fermions are quite identical.
I found once we accept that Gaussian/Bayesian
'Law of the reducing middle' we can start to make 'logical' sense of nature (with recursively reducing uncertainty remaining).
My essay also then agrees with you, Popper and Davies, and derives 'intent' etc by 'PDL layered' physical interactions. I'd value your thoughts.
Best of luck, (you score is way to low but will shortly be less so).
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Author Victor Usack wrote on Feb. 25, 2017 @ 17:17 GMT
Peter
It is far beyond me to untangle the mysteries of the universe with Propositional Dynamic Logic. It looks like another epistemologically tangled swamp. My suspicion is that the recursive feature of our inherited mindset leads us in circles when we address ultimate questions such as free will, realism – idealism, the direction of natural selection, information, consciousness, random...
view entire post
Peter
It is far beyond me to untangle the mysteries of the universe with Propositional Dynamic Logic. It looks like another epistemologically tangled swamp. My suspicion is that the recursive feature of our inherited mindset leads us in circles when we address ultimate questions such as free will, realism – idealism, the direction of natural selection, information, consciousness, random – determined, unobservable entities, (fields, wave functions, Laws…) Our inherited mindset has worked astonishingly well developing closed system technology. But the big questions, i.e. the essay theme, remain unresolved after centuries of debate. Relativity, quantum mechanics, and inflationary multiverse theories (all of which I believe in) all go to show something is screwy with common sense. The essay theme is full of unquantifiable interpretations. A choice is necessary. “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics … is something we neither understand nor deserve”. (Wigner) I choose to believe the Universe is a self-aware conscious being with apparent constraints. I could choose to believe God (the Universe) is a mermaid but I will never prove it without opinionated interpretation. However, I suppose one could argue an explanatory and predictive mathematical theory of a mermaid Universe. 1=1 is an expression of the “Law of identity”. If we can’t agree on that, we’re hopeless. Still I see your point. I’ll accept and rephrase your assertion: “only particular things exist”. A fine example of a recursive argument since it is a general truth. It’s a paradox. I don’t understand it, I simply accept it. We have chosen to believe it. My pet theory is a (unity) Superposition of reality. The choices and distinctions we make are resolutions of this Superposition. The opposite (reciprocal) to this is a reality composed of unique individual parts. To believe that every electron is unique is to resolve this Superposition extremely. However we’ll never agree on the extent to which these individuals behave stochastically or act in concert. Unless we agree that the mindless random behavior and teleology are simply two interpretations of the same thing, or that the answer is observer dependent i.e. relativism. In case it’s not obvious enough; my essay tramples all over realism as I suppose it to be a choice of belief. Notice that I deftly avoided the question of whether mathematics is actual or mental. I went far out on a philosophical limb to find the “rudimentary equality”. I don’t expect most to take this seriously. I followed one particular path out into a vast field of choices. My dance is an exhibition of an uncountable number of possible dances. I really don’t know anything at all!
I am grateful for your comments.
Vik
view post as summary
Vladimir Rodin replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 12:39 GMT
I completely agree with Peter. Victor, in a unison with you Socrates spoke once too; "I know that I know nothing", but this great thinker was not scholastic. Truly, "in many wisdom it's a lot of sadness... (Methuselah)". The sense of these wise expressions is banal and consists that the way of reaching of the true is perpetual, we need only to select the most direct footpath, nevertheless bypassing the swamps.
Regards,
Vladimir A. Rodin
report post as inappropriate
Peter Jackson replied on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 19:19 GMT
Vik, (& thanks Vlad)
I hope you'll get round to reading and commenting my own essay (before scoring ends or you may kick yourself!) It doesn't take a genuis, honestly (you'll see 4 out of 5 barmaids understood it - I could introduce you) and it may be seminal. (PDL works just like leaves of a book. Layered).
Best
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 05:44 GMT
Dear Victor,
In your essay I hear a strong feeling of inexpressible mystery and I fully share that. When you are talking about "the hopeless despair of science", I am sure you are not despondent at all :) . The very end of your witty essay, with a funny set of liar paradoxes, gives me that hint. Maybe, you will find it interesting to see the significant role of one such paradox in our essay. Appreciating your artistic mysticism, I give you a high score.
Cheers,
Alexey Burov, your colleague in the field of accelerators :)
report post as inappropriate
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 22:27 GMT
Vik,
The best essays cannot be fully appreciated in one reading. In response to your enthusiastic appreciation of my essay, I have reread your own, and realized again that yours is a masterpiece. Thank you for reading my essay, but thanks most for writing your own. I felt that our essays support each other on my first reading (see my above comment). I'm glad you feel the same. You have picked worthwhile goals for your retirement.
My best wishes for you,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Don Limuti wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 21:18 GMT
Hi Victor,
I could not stop laughing at your analysis of the human spectacle. This is very high praise.
I tried in my own way to do something similar. Check out my essay. I promise it will be a very quick read, that is not quite as analytical as yours.
Appreciate your essay.
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 13:16 GMT
Dear Victor , you wrote a good instructive philosophical essay. I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.
The concept of moving space-matter helped me:
- To transform the uncertainty principle Heisenberg in the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter;
- Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter;
- To formulate the law of gravitation Lorentz;
- Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe;
- To reveal the essence of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.
From New Cartesian Physic great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in his essay I gave the "materialistic explanation of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay. I made a mistake that has bound New Cartesian physiсs with the paranormal and supernatural, because it does not attract the attention of others. Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note the drawing of geometric relationships in the atom.
Sincerely, Boris Dizhechko.
report post as inappropriate
Author Victor Usack wrote on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 03:48 GMT
Don
You are the first to grasp my enigmatic essay.
I am glad you enjoyed reading my philosophical tailspin. We may like to think there is a simple basis to this experience and there probably is, but it eludes us.
Vik
Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich replied on Mar. 19, 2017 @ 07:18 GMT
Victor
We found something in common in our thoughts. I appreciated your essay. Thank you very much for the words of support of New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the identity of space and matter that move. Physical space exists in the usual Euclidean sense, only in an infinitely small size.
The place where we are infinitely small compared to the whole Universe and so it is Euclidean. If you take the whole picture of the Universe that we see, it is curved in the past. Need minutes to get the signal from the moon reached the Earth, from the Sun days, from stars years. The universe has no end or edge, as the movement makes it closed.
I hope that the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes ever become the criterion for checking the knowledge of scientists.
All the best to you!
Boris.
report post as inappropriate
peter cameron wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 12:31 GMT
Vik,
Great essay, unique in its approach to the difficult theme given us by the organizers. Toungue-in-cheek funny, a few good serious pokes at the orthodoxy, and your own view of deity dancing around in the background.
To build your approach around the Munchausen Trilemma is brilliant. Would like to see MT used in an attempt to undermine MUH as well as support it.
Your...
view entire post
Vik,
Great essay, unique in its approach to the difficult theme given us by the organizers. Toungue-in-cheek funny, a few good serious pokes at the orthodoxy, and your own view of deity dancing around in the background.
To build your approach around the Munchausen Trilemma is brilliant. Would like to see MT used in an attempt to undermine MUH as well as support it.
Your arguments regarding the applicability of the first two lemmas of MT seem reasonable.
Regarding the third lemma, your 'rudimentary equality' seems to me to lack a good definition. My impression is you found it necessary to introduce this idea and its associated proof (which I find at least a little questionable) to support your view that "...physics was not designed to be a circular argument in the first place."
However, the last sentence of your essay reads
"Suppose we choose to believe that this Grand Mathematical Superposition is intelligent. What could it be? Hmm."
To my mind this suggests the opposite, that in your allusion to the possibility of a 'creator' and a 'creation' one can perhaps consider that physics was indeed a circular argument to begin with.
It is a characteristic of viable networks that they are in some sense self-supporting, an emergent property. A consequence of the interactions that sustain the network. There is a closure, a circularity, a circulation in that web of interactions, both in the networks of ideas that comprise our physical models and the physical reality they seek to describe. To me this suggests the possibility that the circular argument lemma is satisfied without the need for your questionable proof.
I like the bit of a sidestep in the way you bring in emergence, tying it to the rather ambiguous 'rudimentary equality'. I'm surprised that Tegmark seems to ignore it in his MUH paper. I don't see how he can make his argument tenable without addressing emergence.
Many thanks for this essay. It is clever, very funny, and horribly twisted. Unique and powerful its own special way.
And given that a google search for rudimentary equality gave only reference to a legal technicality, can see where you get the notion that being a lawyer is appropriate when considering the absurdity of the universe.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Ben Tolkin wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 00:03 GMT
I suppose it's a smart plan to cite Tegmark's interpretation of the universe in an FQXi contest, but I do wish you'd said more to support it than "the universe *is* mathematics, full stop!" That said, a good essay for acknowledging the inherent self-recursion in this very essay contest; any argument about intentions needs to explain why you intended to make this argument!
I actually wish you'd spent more time on that. The image of the essay as a futile message in a bottle doesn't seem like a mere poetic device to me; if you wrote this essay only to find that it had sunk you further into a confusing morass, why bother to upload it? Did you think that it would still help clarify the universe for others? Or that by adding to their confusion, you were at least putting their thinking on better ground? Or just had a faint hope for an unreasonable amount of prize money? These aren't just idle questions! It is the actual actions taken by the author that take this from a totally detached epistemology floating in space to a piece of the universe.
report post as inappropriate
Author Victor Usack wrote on Mar. 17, 2017 @ 20:04 GMT
Pete
I’m very grateful for constructive criticism.
Deity is a transcendent model. We can imagine information as being something separate from the matter, but I suspect you know this leads to philosophical debate. I equally accept immanent models.
I erred in the introduction of the “Rudimentary equality” before defining it. It amounts to nothing more than the Law of...
view entire post
Pete
I’m very grateful for constructive criticism.
Deity is a transcendent model. We can imagine information as being something separate from the matter, but I suspect you know this leads to philosophical debate. I equally accept immanent models.
I erred in the introduction of the “Rudimentary equality” before defining it. It amounts to nothing more than the Law of Identity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_identity
The phrase “Law of Identity” didn’t sound mathematical enough, so I coined “Rudimentary equality”. My fault.
I erred again in presenting the third option of the trilemma as an unequivocal proof. I failed to make clear that one can choose to believe such a thing and even provide the mathematical rigor to back it up. I further imply that explanatory and predictive science is still effective in spite of such a belief. I frame my argument from the assumption that the Cartesian–Newtonian foundation was not originally intended to be circular or tautological. However the later realization of the mass-energy equivalence completes the circle. We could just as well suppose the Law of Identity is a tautology and so the basis of understanding is indeed circular. I can spin this anyway I choose.
The last sentence is intended to imply that mathematics = intelligence. I don’t think intelligence can be defined as something independent of intention. We believe that we behave intentionally and that the rest of the “inanimate” matter does not. I choose to believe this is an artificial distinction. Many people believe natural selection in no way exhibits intention, and science proves as much. I disagree. That the Laws of nature are “blind” is like asserting that fishing has nothing to do with any intention to catch fish. Somehow God’s statistical approach to creation disproves itself. Many believe natural tendency toward organized, self-replicating, complex, intelligent beings does not equal intention since such beings are nothing more than a temporary side effect of entropy. I’ll concede that one can choose to believe such a thing, but such an interpretation is disruptive to the evolution of our species and wisdom chooses to forward the intention of life. We proliferate as cooperative societies dependent on the belief that we are part of some system larger than ourselves. (Just to point out the obvious). This in spite of our generally selfish behavior. Alternatively we could drop out of the biosphere and believe ourselves to be accidental side effects doomed to ultimate entropic heat death and wallow in hopeless meaninglessness. May as well kill myself. Our proliferation as a species has everything to do with what we choose to believe. What else depends on what we choose to believe? What are we doing here? We are searching for the truth. Is not a search a random activity within lawful bounds? I choose to believe searching is an intelligent activity. I choose to believe the big bang initiated this search. These essays are a manifestation of the search. You are a manifestation of the search. The Laws of nature are a manifestation of the search. This is why we search. We are the search!
RE viable networks; so you buying the circular argument? No doubt there is utility in circular arguments e.g. I could argue that force and mass define each other. But I point out that if we take circularity to be generally true we are left with the recursive proposal: “ all arguments are circular”. Failing this we are left to sort out which aspects of nature are circular and which are foundational. Good luck with that. Or else just live with the paradox.
We say “it is what it is” or we say “it is what you think it is” and either way the realist maintains the external reality that has nothing to do with thought. Few of us are actually willing to consider the idealist perspective where “it is actually what we think it is”. Conventional thinking will scoff at such idealistic worldview. Some quantum interpretations grant this. One may argue that science cannot disprove this. To accept such a view requires one to dismiss the “separateness” of self (ego) and the rest of the universe. I choose a relativist view, where one chooses their own worldview. To me the realist and idealist views are menu selections. But this comes at a cost. My choice disagrees with both the realist and the idealist. Hence no consensus. My choice to believe reality is a menu selection, is itself, a menu selection. Therefore I have failed to “rise above” the controvertible worldviews. I am trapped in recursion. To believe that: “The truth is that there is no truth” is to wallow in contradiction. To accept this trap is to relinquish sense of reason. Anthropic conceit denies universal contradiction. My intent in this essay contest is to find out how few, if any, of my fellow human beings actually relate to my swamp.
Vik
view post as summary
Author Victor Usack wrote on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 18:03 GMT
Ben
Guilty as charged. Trying to blow smoke up Tegmark’s ass. I wonder if he read it. Maybe get an irate message from him for massacring his nice theory. He begins with the external reality Hypothesis and with the implicit assumption that math is objective reality. A statement of abject realism that is (only) one expression of my broader application of what I mean by “baggage”. Guilty...
view entire post
Ben
Guilty as charged. Trying to blow smoke up Tegmark’s ass. I wonder if he read it. Maybe get an irate message from him for massacring his nice theory. He begins with the external reality Hypothesis and with the implicit assumption that math is objective reality. A statement of abject realism that is (only) one expression of my broader application of what I mean by “baggage”. Guilty again for excessively terse presentation of the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. Copied and pasted that from wikipedia. Smart huh? You wish I spent more time on what? Are you referring to the part about: “the set of all possible essays affirming and/or denying the emergence of “aims and intentions from mindless mathematics”? I wrote that to try to articulate the idea of superposition in a general way. But the idea has quantum to cosmic scope from wave function to multiverse. It’s a really big idea. Too big for this space. The general idea is that perception and calculation are resolutions of the Superposition (God).
I notice you spent an inordinate number of keystrokes examining the meaning of intention like the good semantic philosopher that you are, whereas I did not. That’s because it’s all intention. Everything from the Laws that determine the structure of the periodic table to my intention to write this irritating response. The smoke screen is in the statistical way the universe goes about finding the evolutionary tendency toward self-organizing systems. You note well in your (excellent) essay than intention initiates random search e.g. hunting and that intentions may run counter to goals. Insightful stuff. I enjoyed reading your essay and did find some things to take away. But my overall impression is neither of us has managed to prove anything beyond the inadequacy of traditional reasoning. I just loved the phrase: “deterministic free will” as it appeals to my paradoxical view of the universe. Thanks for the valiant effort to sort out intention, choice, want, tendency, aims, and a host of other epistemological and ontological fodder. But you went off the rails and I drowned in a swamp. Still worthy attempt to solve the puzzle.
One must read between the lines to appreciate my essay, or step back far enough to see the pathetic essay writers writhe in their mental straightjackets. Tegmark is laughing his ass off as we all struggle in different directions with our (superior) baggage. A bunch of crackpots conducting serious business.
But seriously, your underlying frustration with me is warranted. The theme is the variety of choices we have to establish a belief system, actual reality, faith, model, whatever one chooses as a relationship between self and the rest of it. After all that’s what it’s all about: our relationship with each other and the rest of it. I crashed and burned, so the question is whether the driver failed or did the car fail, or was the road diabolically designed. Obviously the variety of essay approaches bears witness to a variety of landscapes. Are we all looking at the same landscape? It seems that none of us knows how to navigate this.
It took me 10 days to write that. Every day I wrote it over. I didn’t want to come off like Socrates espousing truth because I don’t know. I just can’t take myself that seriously. On the tenth day I arrived at the point of disgust. So I submitted it. So I just drove into the landscape anyway, knowing I would crash. We all crash. It cracks me up. Obviously the truth is not obvious. If it were then we would all know it. I tried to make clear the choices I made to present the argument. Is there some unequivocal incontrovertible argument that stands apart from any choice, assumption, opinion, interpretation, observer… Why don’t we see it? It’s the message in the bottle. Who can read it. Can you? The implication is that our current level of analytical ability is limited. The recursion thing is (I think) a clue. The futility of philosophy is a clue. The MUH is a clue. The swamp is a clue. You are a clue. The universe is a puzzle some of us are naïve enough to attempt. My essay is intended to present that puzzle as perceived from crazytown. (How did you know I wear bananapants?) Another general observation I have is that the conventional sense of reason, which obviously works well to conduct the business of everyday living, fails us when we address the big philosophical questions such as the “arising of aims and intentions”. I took the approach of simply accepting the recursive paradoxes that rear up when we address the big questions. Philosophers suppose to evade the paradoxes with much convoluted reasoning, resulting in no incontrovertible systems. Consider the following recursive proposition: “All belief systems require at least one assumption”. But this statement is itself an assumption. I choose to discard the realism and believe that mathematical physics is an art as much as science. The universe is an articulating actor. Actually my views are much more theological than this but I don’t see any hint of that in your work. As far as prize money goes I have no expectations or desire to “win”. My only intention is to estimate the extent of my audience toward the end of writing a book on the reconciliation of science and belief systems. I will refrain from posting on your page and invite your reply.
Vik
P.S. Banter is welcome here.
view post as summary
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 12:50 GMT
Dear Victor,
I read with great interest your deep essay with ideas and the extremely critical Cartesian spirit that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists, mathematicians
lyricists, poets and
musicians filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).
Hence, the problem of the ontological basification (foundation / justification ) of mathematics (knowledge) today is the problem №1 for fundamental knowledge and philosophy, taking into account all the "troubles with physics"(Lee Smolin," The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next") and "loss of certainty" (Morris Kline in "Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty"). . I give my highest rating.
I believe, that only the constructive "modified ontology" and deepest dialectic of "coincidence of opposites", "coincidence of maximum and minimum" taking into account the accumulated knowledge will help us to overcome the crisis of understanding, crisis of interpretation and representation.
A good idea of Alexander Zenkin for choosing a way to overcome the crisis of knowledge:
«the truth should be drawn…» I invite you to read
my ontological -dialectical ideas .
Best regards,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.