CATEGORY:
Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017)
[back]
TOPIC:
Moira and Eileithyia for Genesis by Alexey and Lev Burov
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Feb. 27, 2017 @ 17:36 GMT
Essay AbstractModern science began through a categorical separation of mental and material. Following the colossal success of physics, it is natural to expect a similar success of theory in the study of mentality. Still, mind remains a mystery to theoretical cognition, as does the link between the three worlds: that of mathematics, matter and thought. Elaborating on the Discoverability Principle, the Epimenides paradox and the every-worldness of mathematics, the authors present beauty to be this link.
Author BioAlexey Burov is a scientist of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory; he is an organizer and chairman of Fermi Society of Philosophy, where he gave many talks, mostly on history and philosophy of science. He authors a popular philosophical blog at the Russian blog/news space snob.ru and has publications in a major Russian literature journal. Lev Burov is an amateur philosopher of religion and science. Alexey and Lev received a prize at the previous FQXi contest for their essay Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe.
Download Essay PDF File
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 04:54 GMT
Hi Alexey Burov,
Thanks for your very gracious comment and questions on my essay.
The problem with Cartesian dualism, as you note, is the lack of interaction between material and mental. For a number of reasons I concluded that consciousness is best represented as a field, but it was only when I asked myself
how the field interacts with my material body that I could start...
view entire post
Hi Alexey Burov,
Thanks for your very gracious comment and questions on my essay.
The problem with Cartesian dualism, as you note, is the lack of interaction between material and mental. For a number of reasons I concluded that consciousness is best represented as a field, but it was only when I asked myself
how the field interacts with my material body that I could start investigating possibilities. For example should the field interact with mass, with charge, or with some undiscovered attribute? Is the field undiscovered, or is it simply that this attribute of a known field was never imagined or tested. Local or universal? Working through such possibilities can take one a long way, and that is hard to convey in nine pages. I recommend the exercise.
You discuss a young man who "takes it on faith that all that is called
discovery is, in the end, just chemistry of his brain…" In other words, it is devalued upfront, a mere 'hiccup' in the atoms. After reading this I looked up my JBS Haldane quote to give you, then read to the end of the paragraph where you present the quote! However, I don't believe you quoted CS Lewis, so here goes:
"
Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning."
[Having finished your paper, I see that you reference CS Lewis, but I don't believe you quoted him.] Anyway, you certainly put your finger on a big part of the problem. Meaninglessness is meaningless. As always,
yer pays yer money and yer takes yer cherce, but who would choose meaninglessness? You label it "cognitive suicide", and you are right. Even people who claim to believe in such sterility, do not live as if they believe it.
You claim that "every error should leave the thinker a possibility of correction." As you know, I discuss errors that have propagated through GR and QM for 100 years. The problem (for a young man) is that correcting such errors offends all those heavily invested in the errors [unknowingly, until you spill the beans] and this is not career enhancing. (Probably why the most productive people I know in this matter are retired.)
I enjoyed your discussion of the beauty and seriousness of math, but I have nothing to add.
Your essay was stimulating, a pleasure to read, and focused on points that are often missing from physics discussion. It is an excellent essay; very impressive.
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 05:11 GMT
Hi Edwin,
Reading your comment, I felt a special intellectual pleasure of thinking together with a rare agreement. Your CS Lewis citation is definitely 'from the Book' :) I hope you will not forget to score our essay.
Yours, AB.
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 06:48 GMT
I scored your essay, and also answered your other question on my page.
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 20:37 GMT
Anonymous wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 20:00 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev,
I read with great interest yours profound philosophical essay. I think this is the most important conclusion:
«Roger Penrose created a brilliant graphic of paradoxically connected Three Worlds, Three Mysteries, which shows Being as consisting of the Platonic world of forms, as well as the physical and the mental worlds . Karl Popper authored his own triad, the material, individual and the cultural worlds. Consolidating the worlds of Penrose with the worlds of Popper, it seems reasonable to understand the mental world of Penrose as a unity of individual and collective, generating the new and cultivating the established.»…. «Finally, the discoverable mathematical forms enter into the physical world as its fundamental laws, enabling the cosmic cognition with dramatic flair and tension. In this way, mathematics connects the three worlds and mysteries into one, becoming their universal link, a thread that runs through them all, whose significance is inseparable and unthinkable outside of its beauty.»
It says one thing: the main task of basic science and philosophy - the problem of the ontological basification ( justification / obosnovanie ) of mathematics.
This problem is more than a century. But the "triangles" Penrose and Popper will not help to do it. All of the "three worlds" is necessary to combine in one world. The world picture of physicists, mathematicians,
poets and composers should be united and filled with the senses of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 20:03 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev,
I read with great interest yours profound philosophical essay. I think this is the most important conclusion:
«Roger Penrose created a brilliant graphic of paradoxically connected Three Worlds, Three Mysteries, which shows Being as consisting of the Platonic world of forms, as well as the physical and the mental worlds . Karl Popper authored his own triad, the material, individual and the cultural worlds. Consolidating the worlds of Penrose with the worlds of Popper, it seems reasonable to understand the mental world of Penrose as a unity of individual and collective, generating the new and cultivating the established.»…. «Finally, the discoverable mathematical forms enter into the physical world as its fundamental laws, enabling the cosmic cognition with dramatic flair and tension. In this way, mathematics connects the three worlds and mysteries into one, becoming their universal link, a thread that runs through them all, whose significance is inseparable and unthinkable outside of its beauty.»
It says one thing: the main task of basic science and philosophy - the problem of the ontological basification ( justification / obosnovanie ) of mathematics.
This problem is more than a century. But the "triangles" Penrose and Popper will not help to do it. All of the "three worlds" is necessary to combine in one world. The world picture of physicists, mathematicians,
poets and composers should be united and filled with the senses of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).
Yours faithfully,
Vladimir
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 21:18 GMT
Vladimir, you wrote: "It says one thing: the main task of basic science and philosophy - the problem of the ontological basification ( justification / obosnovanie ) of mathematics. "
I both agree and disagree with that. I agree in the importance of understanding that neither mathematics nor physics per se cannot constitute the terminus of understanding. At the same time I do not think that any formalizable ontology could be this terminus. As we conclude, "It is with the power of beauty that the existing
is connected with that which is only being summoned into existence: Being with intention and goal. The world was created for its beauty, and man—as one who may hear that and respond. Necessity can be stated in clear and distinctive laws, but beauty breathes freedom and so slips the nets of reason."
Mark Pharoah wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 22:22 GMT
Some great questions throughout. Sometimes I feel certain assumptions are allowed to pass by uncritically, due to your beguiling prose, and this leaves me with questions regarding their purpose in the context of the essay. By asking the questions, I would want clarity on your conclusions to posing them. If this entails saying they are unanswerable, so be it.
You ask, "In what way do the...
view entire post
Some great questions throughout. Sometimes I feel certain assumptions are allowed to pass by uncritically, due to your beguiling prose, and this leaves me with questions regarding their purpose in the context of the essay. By asking the questions, I would want clarity on your conclusions to posing them. If this entails saying they are unanswerable, so be it.
You ask, "In what way do the values of cognition and creativity, often being at odds with life’s comforts and necessities, could have entered the world? The remainder of this text is devoted to that question."
I don't get how the remainder of the text tackles your question. (The word creativity is to be found only once in the whole essay...)
My impression is that you suggest, in effect, that we bow to the intangible depths of certain questions, proposing instead, (in a manner reminiscent of the vitalists), that we look no further than to the beauty in such things. "The world was created for its beauty, and man—as one who may hear that and respond." That there is no evolution of value, nor a direction from which our individual freedoms have arisen nor a direction to which future individual freedoms will evolve, seems to be skirting the question and all such questions posed. Maybe I misinterpret...
You say, "To see in mathematics nothing but a collection of all possible, value-neutral, formal systems is no better than to view the art of sculpture as a collection of all possible articles made of stone, or defining man, according to the old anecdote, as a two-legged creature without feathers."
The profound beauty in a theorem may be in the conceptual freedoms it allows, namely, in granting us the ability, through its principles, to qualify the diversity of our experiences and/or understandings, and therefore, grant us the tempting potential to further explain things we are yet to experience and/or even dare to understand. Such conceptual freedoms thereby formalise the individual's subjective viewpoint as one that relates to the objective world and in so doing, adds substance and meaning to the individual's existence. So in my view beauty does not breath freedom.
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 23:34 GMT
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your interest in our essay. I'll try to respond to your critical remarks.
1. You write: "I don't get how the remainder of the text tackles your question." [about values].
I think, the last paragraph of our essay gives an answer to that very question. In a sense, there is no evolution of value: beauty is the eternal one. From another perspective, however, our conclusion assumes this evolution resulting from permanent efforts to respond: "Eternal beauty calls to new manifestations; by evincing the contemplation of itself, it beckons birth, never promising but sometimes giving hope, always deciding the fate."
2. You write: "The profound beauty in a theorem may be in the conceptual freedoms it allows". In our text, we did not dare to suggest our own formulation of mathematical beauty; we grounded our consideration on the hints given by great mathematicians, trying to understand them. I do not know any great mathematician who would agree with your formulation of the mathematical beauty, and do not think it is possible.
Best regards,
Alexey Burov.
Georgina Woodward wrote on Feb. 28, 2017 @ 23:18 GMT
Alexey and Lev Burov,
I liked reading your essay but think you rely on asking questions as a form of argument far too much.
You are, in my pinion, too dismissive of the connection of mind to matter as you only consider the movement of atoms ( did you mean ions?). You completely miss out on arguments about emergence of characteristics at higher levels of organisation.
Though i don't agree with all of your arguments, you present your points of view in an enjoyable essay. Thanks, Georgina
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 1, 2017 @ 00:00 GMT
Dear Georgina,
I am glad you enjoyed reading our essay.
We did not use the word "emergence" in our text because we did not think it would be reasonable to sacrifice other ideas for that. As to the "atoms of a brain", this image of Haldane certainly includes ions as well.
Thank you and all the best,
Alexey Burov.
Joe Fisher replied on Mar. 2, 2017 @ 17:08 GMT
Dear Professors Alexey and Lev Burov
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
Joseph Bisognano wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 00:45 GMT
Seeing beauty in mathematics is so often lost on folks who don't do mathematics. It's seen simply as very complicated arithmetic. Your equating the excitement, creativity, joy, and spirtuality of "serious" mathematics with sculpture and poetry rings so true to me. I have a hard time explaining it to others, and you have been very successful--of course to another mathematical physicist!
I think the idea of "seriousness" is most true--it provides linkage of ideas to some sense of the whole, the one. Maybe it's this sense of unity that drives us to seek a deeper explanation of what we experience and provides the purpose that this "contest" wants us to address.
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 01:10 GMT
Dear Joe,
I am happy to see that one of my senior colleagues shares with me these noble ideas about mathematics, which I found in books of great mathematicians and tried to understand. Many thanks for your compliments!
Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 01:35 GMT
Dear Burov,
Zdrassti
Thank you for the nice essay on “ Development of science vs Cognition "
I congratulate on Good flow of English you wrote; instead of usual translations from Russian….
Your observations are excellent like,
1. Rene Descartes came to a necessity to separate all knowable into two parts, one of which encompasses all material and the other all...
view entire post
Dear Burov,
Zdrassti
Thank you for the nice essay on “ Development of science vs Cognition "
I congratulate on Good flow of English you wrote; instead of usual translations from Russian….
Your observations are excellent like,
1. Rene Descartes came to a necessity to separate all knowable into two parts, one of which encompasses all material and the other all mental.
2. Cartesian dualism represented, before anything else, a methodological principle, a boundary condition, stating the problem at first approximation as a necessary step of the beginning of cognition.
3. the birth and development of thought and comprehension of the laws already
discovered by sheer power of chance seems utterly impossible
4. Third, we have to accept that even in those cases, when the fundamental cognition in no way benefits the improvement of life conditions—in fact, it often
being the opposite—the motion forward is not prevented. These assumptions are quite far reaching, and natural selection demands all of them without any arguments or a possibility of a scientific check.
5. “I f my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
……………….. Probably here I will put a little remark that the Brain is hardware, food we eat is the Electrical power supplied to computer, and the Mind is the software…. So software is required then the atoms will work and the cognition will develop…. My essay is not on your subject….But I request to have look…
For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other
Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example ‘Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary’ (1994) , ‘Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe’, About “SITA” simulations, ‘Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required’, “New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations”, “Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background”, “Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.”, in 2015 ‘Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, ‘Explaining Pioneer anomaly’, ‘Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets’, ‘Observation of super luminal neutrinos’, ‘Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up’, “Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto” etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.
With axioms like… No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.
Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain
Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading…
http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/
Be
st wishes to your essay.
For your blessings please…………….
=snp. gupta
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 16:30 GMT
Dear Mr. Gupta,
Thank you so much for your good words in the address of our text.
I already looked through your essay, and I do not see how its cosmological content relates to problems of mentality. Maybe, it does on a deeper level which I do not see yet.
Best regards and good luck!
Alexey Burov.
Steve Dufourny wrote on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 14:56 GMT
Hello Alexey and Lev Burov,
I loved your general philosophical analyse.It was relevant to read.
good luck in this contest
Regards from Belgium
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 3, 2017 @ 16:35 GMT
Dear Steve,
Thanks a lot for your compliments and good wishes!
All the best,
Alexey Burov.
Steve Dufourny replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 13:31 GMT
You are welcome Mr Burov,
sincerely
report post as inappropriate
Laurence Hitterdale wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 01:01 GMT
Hello Alexey and Lev,
There is much in your essay with which I agree, and even where I think I might disagree I find your ideas challenging and original. One important point with which I agree is your belief that “ethics, which answers the question about that which should be, is inseparable from metaphysics, which answers the question about that which is.” However, when you discuss values, you bring in primarily aesthetic values, such as elegance, seriousness, and of course beauty generally. What metaphysical role do you see for ethical values, good and evil, right and wrong, as more particularly understood? In any case, I agree that we shall not attain the truth about reality unless we include an understanding of value, including the value of reality and the value of truth itself.
Thank you.
Laurence Hitterdale
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 05:24 GMT
Dear Laurence,
Your response is more than encouraging; it is inspiring. Thank you so much! We are glad to know that you share our belief in the deep entanglement between ethics and metaphysics, which is a cornerstone for us. Your question about relation of ethics and aesthetics requires at least a special essay (maybe for the next contest :^)). However, I would not like to weasel out of your question like that. The most important thing which I can briefly note is that at its depth morality takes power from the beauty of the soul and its profound feeling of beautiful, which is tragic at the same time. Without this feed from the beautiful, the good would be much weaker than it is. Thus, in the depth, beauty is more fundamental than morality. Somebody might object to that, recollecting the legend about Nero enjoying the view of the burning Rome. Well, even if the burning Rome contained some harrowing beauty, Nero was not beautiful in that act; he was abominable. One more support to primacy of the beautiful is suggested by the Book of Job: it was the beauty of the world that atoned for its tragedy in his eyes.
One day we should talk more on many issues.
Yours, Alexey.
Laurence Hitterdale replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 19:39 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev,
Perhaps you will excuse me for being tardy in replying to your comment here. It is not easy to read several different essays and then engage in multiple discussions, in the midst of other projects and tasks as well. However, your remarks about metaphysics and ethics are very important. I have thought about what you say, and I would like to respond.
Let me...
view entire post
Dear Alexey and Lev,
Perhaps you will excuse me for being tardy in replying to your comment here. It is not easy to read several different essays and then engage in multiple discussions, in the midst of other projects and tasks as well. However, your remarks about metaphysics and ethics are very important. I have thought about what you say, and I would like to respond.
Let me begin by agreeing with you that “the beauty of the world” is an extremely important aspect of things. At the end of the Book of Job two components of this beauty are emphasized. The workings of nature, many of them at least, are immediately delightful upon perception, apart from intellectual examination of them. Furthermore, also according to the Book of Job, when we do think about natural objects and processes, they disclose to us additional aspects of intricacy and grandeur.
Leibniz agrees with the general approach of the Book of Job, but his position is importantly different. When Leibniz says that the actual world is the best of all possible worlds, his standard of goodness, like that of the Book of Job, involves a kind of beauty. For Leibniz, however, the beauty of the world is primarily a quasi-mathematical elegance. The world, Leibniz asserts, is at once very simple in its basic principles and quite rich in its detailed phenomena. This conjoint simplicity and richness is not as evident as the workings of nature mentioned in the Book of Job. Leibniz is talking about something which requires persistent investigation to detect.
Leibniz and the Book of Job do not contradict one another. They simply emphasize different aspects of the world’s beauty. We can agree that the world is beautiful in various ways. Some of the beauty can be immediately apparent to conscious human observers. Other aspects of the beauty require effort to uncover. We can accept that nature is beautiful in several ways, and we can appreciate the different layers of beauty.
Nietzsche takes this line of thought in a different direction, but not in a direction necessarily antithetical to what we have just considered. Although Nietzsche may not talk much about beauty, he is interested in values above all else, and for him the primary values, and indeed the only ones he affirms, are those of aesthetic excellence. Nietzsche differs from the Book of Job and from Leibniz in that Nietzsche approaches aesthetic excellence from the standpoint of a creative artist rather than from the standpoint of a person who contemplates and appreciates excellence which already exists. In Nietzsche’s view, the important thing is to create works of aesthetic excellence. Also according to Nietzsche, the most difficult task is to form oneself into a splendid work. If one can come close enough to succeeding at that, the result will be consequential and praiseworthy.
Once again, there is no contradiction here. We can agree that the production of excellent works complements the appreciation of various forms of beauty in nature.
At this point a serious error can enter the discussion with another theme from Nietzsche’s philosophy. Not content with extolling creative excellence, Nietzsche spends much time and effort denigrating normative philosophies which differ from his. He attacks Kantian ethics and all forms of utilitarianism. More generally, Nietzsche seems to have nothing but contempt for what we might think of as humane values, such as justice, fairness, kindness, compassion, the relief of suffering, and the like. It is not too difficult to look beneath his words to his underlying motivation. Nietzsche sees that, if values such as these are the correct ones, then the world stands condemned, because the world does not operate according to principles of this sort. In the historical context of nineteenth-century philosophy, the opposition between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer is evident. In Schopenhauer’s view, suffering is the chief fact to which we should attend and compassion is the core of ethics. Schopenhauer does condemn the world as a place of suffering. Nietzsche takes the opposite view. As theodicy is part of Leibniz’s enterprise, so cosmodicy is essential to Nietzsche’s philosophy.
(A search in Google shows that the word “cosmodicy” has been in use for some time, and that the topic has been discussed both in general and particularly with reference to Nietzsche’s thinking.)
It is both helpful and interesting to look at what other people have thought and said, but of course the important question is what assessment we ought to make, all things considered. Suppose, then, we ask, “From the standpoint of conscious human individuals, is the world in which they find themselves a good place or is it not?” I do not think we can give an unqualified answer to this question. The beauty of the world in its various forms is genuine, and to the extent that people engage with it and (as Nietzsche advocates) add to it, the world is a good place. But Schopenhauer, and many others with him, are also correct. Suffering, like beauty, comes in various forms. The pain of existence is as real and as significant as the sublimity of existence. If there is some way to overcome this opposition, if there is some resolution in a higher synthesis, it is not now apparent how that could be done.
In your comments on the Web page for my essay, you mention the “paradoxical worldview,” and you discuss the issue of how we should think about paradoxes in worldviews and perhaps in the world itself. I intend to add to that discussion on the Web page for my essay. I am not sure whether the idea of paradox is relevant to the present discussion of evaluations. Perhaps you would not count this kind of opposition between evaluations as a paradox. Maybe it is a kind of paradox. By whatever name the opposition might be called, it does seem to be the way things are, or at least the way they appear to be.
Obviously, more could be said about these matters, but additional thoughts will have to wait for another time.
Laurence Hitterdale
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Victor Usack wrote on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 21:24 GMT
Two Burov(s)
Excellent essay. Sufficiently excellent to inspire the following ramble:
I had a different interpretation of “cogito ergo sum” as no mention of any physical (external) reality. Thinking and being resolved into separate entities. But this just goes to show how many ways the investigation can unfold. The “blind spot” metaphor is an insightful one. Some of us are...
view entire post
Two Burov(s)
Excellent essay. Sufficiently excellent to inspire the following ramble:
I had a different interpretation of “cogito ergo sum” as no mention of any physical (external) reality. Thinking and being resolved into separate entities. But this just goes to show how many ways the investigation can unfold. The “blind spot” metaphor is an insightful one. Some of us are (perhaps dimly) aware of this feature as something we can’t see directly but yet, on some level, we are aware of it. Do we understanding that this “blind spot” is obfuscated by “logical self-refutation”?
Somehow natural selection cannot be an intentional search for its own cognizance and this is opined as fact. As if fishing (a random search) should have nothing to do with any intention to catch fish. The spontaneous emergence of self-organizing entities from stochastic particle interaction manifests intention (may be subject to interpretation). To think otherwise belies our curiosity as something outside of this process and relegates us to an inconsequential side effect of entropy. From my frame of reference, most obvious to me, is the observation that the stochastic universe is weighted in such a way, to provide me with time to sit here, and receive the honor of your acquaintance, and discuss such matters, while the necessities of my survival run in the background. Or else our interaction is accidental and I am simply lucky and in no way loved by that from which I have emerged. We imagine many things are so. That physical reality exists aside from our imagination is unimaginable to my experience. Instead we have a correlation between experience and mathematical relationships. I fall into my self-referential pit of ‘no understanding without interpretation and creativity’. (Is this statement an interpretation? fact? creation?) I have not encountered Epimenides Paradox before. It looks like Russel’s paradox. You must have been amused by my cognitive suicide at the end of my essay. Actually I died during a religious experience in 1976, and have understood nothing universal since. So I imagine.
You point out a most fundamental feature of cognition central to my own pet theory; “For each correct solution to a problem competes a myriad of possible errors”. The truth floats in a sea of falsity. I note further the resolution of any object, identification, symbol, attention, relation … as singling out a particular perception from the background i.e. resolution of superposition (my pet theory). This is so basic that it escapes our notice. The “swarm of everything else” is an allusion to what I call the Superposition, which has connotations to quantum mechanics, wave theory, mechanics, electromagnetism, and everything else, and especially the nature of self (ego, God…)
My impression of your essay is the objectivity of mathematics and the subjectivity of its application to observables as two sides of the same coin. If you agree then we have both arrived at the same place from different approaches. Such a coincidence validates us as parallel expressions of the universal intention we recognize. That would be a beautiful thing.
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the proliferation of life (change) manifests intention, then beauty is made for us and we are made for beauty. A significant step towards the unspoken Unity neither of us mentioned yet.
This essay, especially the closing paragraph, will live in my study from now on.
Vik
P.S. I don’t get the Title
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 5, 2017 @ 23:37 GMT
Vik,
Thank you for such generous compliments.
One can imagine a philosophical axis, with utter logicists at its one extreme and ultimate irrationalists at the other. I imagine you in the company of the mystical latter, while most of the contest's participants are concentrated at the opposite end. This makes your acquaintance particularly pleasant. We are somewhere in between, I think, with our high appreciation of both reason and its mother, mystery. The title of our essay refers to Diotima's vision on who helped that birth and who decided the fate of the wonderful baby.
All the best,
Alexey.
Anonymous wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 05:34 GMT
Hi Alexey and Lev,
Wonderful essay. I particularly liked "Only those moved mathematics ahead who loved it not for some other aim, however good and important, but for its own sake, for its eternal, super-human beauty."
For my own pleasure I would change it just a bit: "Only those moved humanity ahead who loved it not for some other aim, however good and important, but for its own sake, for its eternal, super-human radiant beauty."
Esthetics and a bit of emotion go a long way toward a goal. Appreciate your work.
Don Limuti
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 07:23 GMT
Hi Don,
It's a pleasure to see our statement played with in a new way. I will read your essay and leave my comments on your page tomorrow.
Thank you!
Alexey.
Andrew Ivanchenko wrote on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 07:22 GMT
Hi, Alexey and Lev.
Congratulations on wonderful work! The beauty of mathematics and the unity of deep emotional reactions of multiple mathematicians in all the times and countries reveal the objective connection between the impersonal mathematical ideas and "mathematical needs" of personal human intelligence.
Like knows like. Like loves and enjoys like. Like consumes like. Thus, mathematics is the "food" for the mathematical, logical, rational nature of the humans. Human nature is not just biological and material, it is logical and mathematical. Mathematics show us the immaterial intentions of this immaterial part of the human being, of the human mind.
The beauty of mathematics attracts human consciousness like voice of Moira and pulls it out of animal existence like Eileithyia to the birth of pure human mindfulness and happiness. Your essay shows this with indisputable clarity!
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 6, 2017 @ 07:32 GMT
Hello Andrew,
We enjoyed reading your poetic response; many thanks!
We fully agree: mathematics is indeed a wonderful, delightful food cooked by and prepared for human rationality.
Yours, Alexey and Lev.
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 18:41 GMT
Dear Alexey
First of all thank you for a very insightfull essay. It was great reading, so I rated you an 8.
I fully agree with you that "Thought from matter" is an error, it is like searching for the announcer in the radio, or like the wolf I have at home who is looking at the flatscreen TV, sees a duck and directly goes to look behind the TV. (she is very intelligent).
The second part of your essay about the beauty of mathematics I can fully underwrite, but you know it is like listening to music, you hear the beauty but in my case I cannot play the instruments.
You are (like me) one of the researchers for truth who is not afraid to use metaphysics bravo.
So I invite you to read/comment and certainly rate
my contribution: The Purpose of Life" that gives another perception of the THOUGHT that is often translated with the word God and is called Total Simultaneity.
best regards
Wilhelmus de Wilde
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 7, 2017 @ 20:01 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,
I am glad you like our text. I imagine you sitting together with your charming she-wolf, sharing philosophical opinions with each other, and I hope she agrees with your high rating of our essay :) Somehow I missed your essay so far, but you convinced me to read, comment and score it ASAP.
Thank you so much!
Alexey Burov.
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 09:47 GMT
Dear Alexey;
Thank you for reacting on my thread, I post my reaction also on your thread so that you get a message when received.
Sorry that you did not quite understand my perception of the emergent phenomenon that is called reality. So I hope that I can explain it more clearly and answer your questions.
Indeed I accept that TC is the "source" of everything, everywhere from...
view entire post
Dear Alexey;
Thank you for reacting on my thread, I post my reaction also on your thread so that you get a message when received.
Sorry that you did not quite understand my perception of the emergent phenomenon that is called reality. So I hope that I can explain it more clearly and answer your questions.
Indeed I accept that TC is the "source" of everything, everywhere from any time restricted reality. TC is time nad spaceless.
I argue that time and space are both restrictions from Total Consciousness in TS to create "realities".(without consciousness TS would only be just a singularity that didn't exist.
ALL created Realities together (also those we don't understand) are represented as "availabilities in TS.
These "availabilities" (available life/time lines) are forming you could say the "ALL". This ALL cannot be a complete set when any of the life-line availabilities are missing. So the specific life-line reality that you are experiencing NOW is essential for the completeness of ALL.
TS is not a meaningless dream because it harbours the Completeness of Total Consciousness. In one of my articles in The Scientific God Journal The Consciousness Connection I compared TS to the Christian Holy Trinty : "The Father : TS (the ALL), Jesus Christ : the emergent human being with its causal part of consciousness and the Holy Ghost : Total Consciousness creating order out of chaos.
All our efforts in our specific life-lines (originating from the ALL) are part of this ALL. A life-line is in TS only an excitation. Through the addition of time and space we seem to experience a "FLOW".(between a beginning and an end)
In my essay I mentioned already that at each NOW moment the time-restricted consciousness is offered a choice out of an infinity of crossroads. This free-will choices seem to be made in the past (we are living in the past) here in our life-line, but don't forget that the moment of choice of your part of Total Consciousness in TS, timeless, eternal.
The "confidence I am getting with this world-view is :
1. Every creature is an essential constructive part of the "ALL".
2. Even when your life seems useless it still counts as being an important part of a totality we cannot understand, without you the Totality is NOT a Totality.
3. Birth and Death are two points on a by Total Consciousness created restricted beginning, end) life-line. There is at any moment the availability of an infinity of ME's. The Total ME is eternal. Death is only one of an infinity of ends of an infinity of availabilities.
4. The "poal in my perception of time-restricted consciousness is coming closer to the Total ME, part of Total Consciousness and part of Total Simultaneity.
(come closer to God ?)
I quite understand the confusion because what I am proposing is a scientific approach of the essence of our emergent reality, the only thing I hope is that it will not be explained as a BELIEF.. 5Religions are always misused for Power).
Don't hesitate to ask me more if you need to.
best regards
Wilhelmus de Wilde
more articles I published :
Reality out of Total Simultaneity. Scientific God Journal , volume 2 issue 4, june 2011
A metaphysical Concept of Consciousness, Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research. november 2012
The Quest for the Origin of Created Reality. Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research, vomume 4 issue 9, november 2013
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 8, 2017 @ 17:39 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,
Thank you for your attention to my questions; your answers are really helpful. However I need to ask you a bit more to understand you better. Your essay is very different from others, and I highly appreciate this difference. Soon you will find my response with a couple of new questions on your page.
Best,
Alexey.
Anonymous replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 16:47 GMT
Dear Alexey:
Sorry for my later rection but I had work to do.
Your last question was
quote
As you may know, the fundamental laws of physics are very special (see Discoverability Principle in our essay). I think this fact is too important to be disregarded by ontology. Why do you think the laws are what they are? How can this fact be understood within your worldview?
unquote
In my worldview the "LAWS" of Physics are rules that were discovered in the past of our emergent reality. The "flow" of the emergent reality we are experiencing right now is based on the social memory of this (emergent)specific time/life-line. (We experience each NOW moment as a flow from the past to the NOW).
The past with ALL his available data (history, scientific laws etc) is just ONE time/life-line. We think that we are flowing into a future that is a logical continuation of this past.
However it is also possible that when changing time/life-lines we also can enter a NEW past with different data and "Laws", this is possible at any Eternal Now Moment. So the word FACT is highly uncertain, see also the remark from banks : "PAST PERFORMANCE IS NO GUARANTEE FOR FUTURE RESULTS" that I used on page one of the essay.
I hope I cleared this question, and hope that you will be rating
my essay soon.
best regards and happy future
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde replied on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 16:49 GMT
sorry fogot to log in
anonymus is
Wilhelmus de Wilde
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
James Arnold wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 04:24 GMT
A beautiful essay, extolling the beauty of mathematics. And yet, as I’m sure you know, Gödel has pointed out that mathematics is inherently incomplete. We humans, in recognizing that fact, are thereby able to actually transcend mathematics.
In our appreciation of mathematics, which being ultimately imperfect in its self-enclosure, and being abstract and lifeless, is unable to reciprocate and appreciate us -- are we not the more beautiful? Alive, transcendent, and more beautiful?
I would appreciate your review of my essay, particularly for your appraisal of whatever beauty there is in its comprehension.
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 04:55 GMT
Hi James,
I do not agree that incompleteness of mathematics makes it imperfect; on the contrary, its completeness would make it claustrophobically terrible. Godel's theorem saves mathematics for eternal mystery.
To answer your question, I would not contrapose human's beauty to mathematical one; instead, I would say that the former is stressed by the latter, discovered by the best of us.
I'll try to read and comment your essay soon.
Cheers,
Alexey.
Wilhelmus de Wilde de Wilde wrote on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 10:20 GMT
Dear Alexey,
I will try to explain what I meant with ALL and the completeness of the Total YOU. (and put this post also on your thread)
I introduced the TOTAL Consciousness, including the Total Consciousness of ALL agents.
An emergent agent in an emergent reality is just ONE life-line of that specific agent. The agent there is an individual because he is not the complete Unity. The emergent agent is furthermore restricted through time an space while the Totality is time and spaceless.
The Total YOU could be described (in our restricted way) as the totality of ALL possible (and the impossible : the ones you did not yet think about) and available time/life-lines.
So YES, all the bad ones are available too. But also the "best of all worlds" is an availability.
During the FLOW of a specific time/life-line each NOW moment decisions are made and your specific time/life-line switches, the time/life-line you left still is available in TS.
This process of continually switching and the coexistance of availabilities of the time/life-lines that are not chosen, I described as the origin of FREE WILL.
In this specific emergent reality the time/life-line you are experiencing as a FLOW may exist as a singularity in TS, this doesn't mean that also your future would be concrete for this specific FLOW. Each Eternal Now Moment represents its own time/life-line. The emergent FLOW that we seem to live in can be compared to a time and spaceless singularity in TS.
The complete YOU could be described as a complete set of singularities in TS.
best regards and I like the exchange of thoughts with you.
Wilhelmus
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 9, 2017 @ 16:00 GMT
Dear Wilhelmus,
I just answered you on your page.
Thanks!
Alexey.
Peter Martin Punin wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 14:37 GMT
Dear Alexey, dear Lev,
I read your very impressive article several times, there are so many things to say.
First, it is highly pertinent to recall Descartes' dualism while showing that the “refutation” of the latter would need a lot of farfetched, hypercomplex and self-refuting presuppositions. The established mainstream thinking says that dualism is “scientifically...
view entire post
Dear Alexey, dear Lev,
I read your very impressive article several times, there are so many things to say.
First, it is highly pertinent to recall Descartes' dualism while showing that the “refutation” of the latter would need a lot of farfetched, hypercomplex and self-refuting presuppositions. The established mainstream thinking says that dualism is “scientifically outdated.” Well, let us accept that “the human brain is a set of neurons, the consisting of molecules and so of atoms.” In other words, let us accept that “the brain is matter.” Yes, but we do not need be great neuro-scientists to see an obvious problem neurosciences en vogue, despite its obviousness or rather because of it manifestly do not want to consider: even if neurons are “matter” – nobody denies it – the relations between these neurons making that a brain is a brain and not just an fortuitous conglomeration of matter , these relations are governed by an immaterial logic. So, far from showing that dualism is “scientifically outdated”, a functioning brain in turn expresses dualism in a particularly intuitive way difficult to deny. It would be hard to deny the immateriality of logic, given that the the latter is interpreted by immaterial data as well as by very different material phenomena. The mainstream argument that logic – immaterial or not – “is created by the human brain” leads to circularity: the functioning of the brain being governed by a logic created by the brain logic governs. Of course, logic is just a restrictive aspect of the functioning of brains, but even this point remaining reducing per se shows that there is a gap between matter and immaterial preconditions for the occurrence of mind and thought. So, saying that the emergence of life and the emergence of mind/thought from matter cannot be considered as the same, you are absolutely right. Indeed, the mainstream conception of evolution according to the schema “inert matter → living matter → human mind comprising self-consciousness” manifestly is undermined by grey areas and misses the essential.
Your analysis in terms of Epimenidic structure – a striking formulation; with your permission, I will quote you in a paper on serious lacks in evolution theory I am finishing – is really impressing. I think, under a given criterion leading to Platonism, Epimenidic self-refutation is equivalent to circularity used in my own paper as an argument going in the same sense. (i) By definition, circularity, to be broken, needs references exterior to the considered system. It is the same for Epimenidic self-refutation. It is the same for circularity. Stated by a on-Cretan, the proposition “All Cretans are liars” – true or false – would be formally consistent. The the non-consistency of the liar paradox results from the fact that Epimenides is a Cretan and so belongs to the “considered system.” In our context, this first equivalence leads to Platonism required in the name of consistency. As I tried to explain it in my own paper, within a historical process, the sole way to escape the circularity of laws occurring “with” the first phenomenon governed by them is to admit the objective existence of immaterial laws preceding ontologically the phenomena expressing them. The immaterial aspect of these laws per se is underlined by the fact that these laws can govern materially different phenomena. Now, it is the same for Epimenidically self-refuting systems. Breaking the Epimenidic self-refutation of this system requires an logically external reference, and if the system in question is a “historical” one, this logically external reference in turn must precede ontologically the system to explain.
Your article and mine, beyond their differences, are complementary, and further discussions certainly will confirm it.
Here I would just highlight that both papers, each one in its own way but in an equivalent manner go against mainstream evolution theory founded on presuppositions which never would be tolerated in any other scientific area.
Concerning Epimenidic self-refutation, you know that since Gödel's second theorem, a plethora of voices evoking “Turing machines” and so on abundantly recall that the consistency of a system cannot be founded on the sole resources proper to the system to be founded. This familiar refrain certainly is right, and even so obvious that it seems not necessary to repeat it in all occasions. Hence it is all more surprising that mainstream evolution theory is the great exception neglecting the foregoing and the cognitively and otherwise absurd consequences of this choice you describe so well in your paper.
My own approach ultimately is based on irreversibility, knowing that the latter – certainly “familiar”, but “familiarity” does not necessarily mean “understanding” – generates philosophical problems probably unsolvable. The issue whether irreversibility is law-like or only fact-like remains controversial, but until further notice irreversibility is a fact and must be accepted as such. There is no way to way to escape irreversibility. The principle of generalized irreversibility says that for any system which apparently violates irreversibility, there is a wider system reestablishing irreversibility in its standard form. Here the notion of “wider system” can denote very different, divergent configurations. The impossibility of building a perpetuum mobile represents a good example summarizing all the extent of the issue. Whatever could be the – per se unpredictable – attempt to construct perpetuum mobile, there will be in one way or another a detail preventing the system from functioning. Or, if the system apparently does function, there is still in one way or another a detail connecting it with a wider system so that irreversibility is reestablished.
Usually, a given “scientific” approach whose consistency requires a “functioning perpetuum mobile” or any other form of absolute violation of
never is taken seriously.
So, once again it is all more surprising that mainstream evolution theory is the great exception presupposing absolute violations of irreversibility as the very foundations of the approach.
In my own paper, I show that “cumulative selection” categorically defended by Richard Dawkins, far from circumventing irreversibility, does confirm in it generalized formulation, but in the context of our discussion here, it is not the most important point. The main issue is: why does evolution theory join so farfetched adventures like the denial of Epimenidic self-refutation as well of generalized irreversibility? And I think, in both cases, it is to avoid at all costs Platonism, i.e. to avoid at all costs the idea of immaterial factors behind the material expression of biological evolution.
I suppose, above we agreed that the unique way to escape Epimenidic self-refutation within a historical process passes by Platonism, and it is the same if you want to escape generalized irreversibility. Indeed, since (i) any material system apparently going against irreversibility must be supported by a wider system, and (ii) a circularity-free explanation of a historical process refusing the idea of laws occurring “with” the phenomena they govern,
necessarily implies immaterial laws preceding ontologically the corresponding phenomena.
It would be hard to grasp the significance of the concept of mathematical beauty without referring to Platonism. From a Platonist standpoint, it is easier, I think, you agree. Here the best way probably is to come back to Plato's original thought, even if it often had been said that Plato would not recognize himself in modern mathematical Platonism. Perhaps it is true, but anyway, according to Plato himself, beauty is nearly the same as truth. In fact, it is a triad with a moral dimension, but here we can neglect this point. By contrast, it is important to point out that for Plato beauty as well as truth are on the top of immaterial, immutable and eternal “ideas” which, existing objectively, independently of human thought, constitute the “intelligible world” or “heaven of ideas”, knowing that our material world we take for “reality” or “world” tout court is just a rough and imperfect representation of the “intelligible world” as the authentic reality. So, on the one hand, “beauty” according to Plato has nothing to do with material objects common sense finds “beautiful”.On the other hand, Platonist beauty must be seen in relation with truth and eternity. Your quote of Dieudonné is highly significant. The unity of mathematics mysteriously half-seen ((I am trying to translate “entrevoir”; not being satisfied by “to half-see” found on Linguee”, I appeal to your intuition focusing on “mysteriously.”)) through partial but consistent and so distortion-free discoveries necessarily presupposes the existence of an absolutely consistent global mathematical edifice preceding ontologically any perhaps contingent human discovery, in other words, the transcendent existence of a perfect mathematical edifice beyond space and time, so inscribed in eternity.
But now there is a further question. The contest subject concerns “aims” and “intentions”, so something essentially temporal. Between eternity and temporality, a gap opens up. The standard discourse sees problems how to imagine the passage from “familiar” temporality to eternity. Personally, I think that in the eyes of convinced Platonists should not feel troubles with eternity. The real problem is the inverse: how to position a temporal/contingent world in respect of eternity? (Always, from my personal standpoint, I do not find “mysterious” the unity of mathematics.) Christian theology with its essentially Platonist roots rightly considers the relations between eternity and temporality – implying de facto matter or equivalent – as a fall. But in the context of the fqxi subject, we have to try to explain how eternal mathematics can lead to temporality. At the end of your essay, you quote “Beauty is the Moira and Eileithyia for birth.”, whereas your own words “As
we cannot conclude from “stoneness” about the essence of a sculpture, so from the formality of mathematics, its mere material, one cannot deduce its ontological essence or espy that essentially it is the universal beauty of all worlds.” express in an impressive way the gap between eternity and temporality. But how to explain the threshold crossing of between eternity and temporality having nevertheless led to humans like you and me able to discuss about temprality and eternity?
Looking forward to further discussions,
All the best
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 05:10 GMT
Cher Peter,
While Lev was sleeping and I was not yet, I slowly read your response on our essay, having a rare pleasure of a profound consonance with somebody who independently and differently expressed the ideas so valuable to me. Truly, I have nothing but agreement with all your statements above. Apart from this general feelings, I'd like to share with you something else.
You ask:...
view entire post
Cher Peter,
While Lev was sleeping and I was not yet, I slowly read your response on our essay, having a rare pleasure of a profound consonance with somebody who independently and differently expressed the ideas so valuable to me. Truly, I have nothing but agreement with all your statements above. Apart from this general feelings, I'd like to share with you something else.
You ask: "The main issue is: why does evolution theory join so farfetched adventures like the denial of Epimenidic self-refutation as well of generalized irreversibility?" and answer "in both cases, it is to avoid at all costs Platonism, i.e. to avoid at all costs the idea of immaterial factors behind the material expression of biological evolution."
The same question was formulated by Thomas Nagel in his "Mind and Cosmos" (2012), and his answer is close to yours:
"The priority given to evolutionary naturalism in the face of its implausible conclusions about other subjects is due, I think, to the secular consensus that this is the only form of external understanding of ourselves that provides an alternative to theism".
This conclusion of this philosopher is especially interesting because of his confession in the fear of religion:
"The thought that the relation between mind and the world is something fundamental makes many people in this day and age nervous. I believe this is one manifestation of a fear of religion which has large and often pernicious consequences for modern intellectual life… I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that… the feeling that I have called the fear of religion may extend far beyond the existence of a personal god, to include any cosmic order of which mind is an irreducible and nonaccidental part… " (The Last Word, 1997)
Of course it would make us just happy to see a quote from our paper in your article.
Yours, Alexey.
view post as summary
Lev Burov replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 23:29 GMT
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your compliments and the detailed comment, and thank you for your explanation of entrevoir. Untranslatable words are such curious creatures!
You bring up an interesting observation that Epimenidic analysis can be applied to cumulative selection. I look forward to reading your elaboration on it. Epimenides seems to me the most common error in self-referential...
view entire post
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your compliments and the detailed comment, and thank you for your explanation of entrevoir. Untranslatable words are such curious creatures!
You bring up an interesting observation that Epimenidic analysis can be applied to cumulative selection. I look forward to reading your elaboration on it. Epimenides seems to me the most common error in self-referential structures in danger of being paradoxical. Since philosophy is particularly concerned with self-referentiality, it should be part of the standard philosophical toolbox. We've been using this thought instrument for a number of years now, and it seems to pop up just about everywhere. In this article, though, we described a different dimension to it, the one of ethics.
It is hard to see how any metaphysic can proceed without considering ethical implications. Ethics considers those values that are most important, and without importance any metaphysic (tautologically) ceases to matter. It is our main charge to the majority of contemporary philosophy, that the value is taken out of the picture, as if in some slavish fear of science. It is particularly on this ground that we reject the possibility of mathematical laws leading to human thought, and with it some extreme branches of Platonism.
You say that you "do not find 'mysterious' the unity of mathematics." I think we use the word "mystery" differently, Peter. We have a few sentences in
GPU about it. To me, mystery is like a wellspring of knowledge and culture. It is full of value and may very well extend to infinity. In pointing to mystery as connection between the three worlds, or the connection between time flow and atemporality, we imply three things. The first is that we are not dealing with a simple problem, for example of declaring one or another thing an illusion, the second, that it is a source of knowledge, possibly infinite, and third, that ontologically this point must be grounded in highest value.
A common objection to the "Cartesian dualism" is that the two substances are not unified. While it has some truth, it is naive. Through experience we know of three kinds of entities: thought, ideas and matter. These kinds of entities are as different from each other as anything can be, so different, that we call them separate "worlds". Yet reality itself is one. Descartes didn't make up this contradictory view out of thin air. It is contained within reality itself. But how are we to understand this? Two ways seem open. The first is to think of a substance that is more fundamental than the three worlds. The other is to show that one of the worlds is more fundamental and thus contains the other two. Exploring the latter, materialism is the least satisfactory. But neither can we describe thought -- the essence of temporality -- in atemporal terms, reason. Thus, this question lies in the domain of mystery, where reason can make discoveries, but never encompass. That beauty is the link between being and becoming is to say the same thing. Eternal beauty calls, and we respond in time. Perhaps beauty belongs to what Plotinus called the One.
Kind Regards,
Lev
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Stefan Keppeler wrote on Mar. 10, 2017 @ 15:51 GMT
Dear Alexey, dear Lev,
let me see if I got this straight. You write:
If we are, then, told that the adequacy of one’s view is guaranteed by agreement of theory and experiment, the problem is still the same: how do we know what lies behind this agreement? Is it not a dream, Matrix, computer simulation, Boltzmann brain or the demon of Descartes? (...) God is not a deceiver, is the credo of Descartes.
Do you thus say, that we have to posit a non-malicious god, in order to be sure that we can gain knowledge about the world by observation and thought?
If yes, then let me raise two questions:
(1) Instead of positing
(G) a non-malicious god, who makes sure that we can gain knowledge about the world by observation and thought, couldn't we directly posit that
(R) we can gain knowledge about the world by observation and thought?
(2) If we posit neither
(G) nor
(R), would you say that we can't be sure that the knowledge we gain is about the world, but that it could instead be about
a dream, Matrix, computer simulation, Boltzmann brain or the demon of Descartes?
Cheers, Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 03:13 GMT
Dear Stefan,
We do not say “that we have to posit a non-malicious god, in order to be sure that we can gain knowledge about the world by observation and thought”. Following Descartes, we say something different, that without God there is no reason to value knowledge about the world gained by observation and thought. For instance, if all the world with all our knowledge about it were only a dream or a computer simulation of a joker from the upper level, this “knowledge” would not value much, would it? The value of knowledge depends on the worldview, it cannot be just posited independently of the latter.
Thanks,
Alexey Burov
Stefan Keppeler replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 15:45 GMT
Dear Alexey,
I see, thanks. You say:
For instance, if all the world with all our knowledge about it were only a dream or a computer simulation of a joker from the upper level, this “knowledge” would not value much, would it?Let me call this position (V). I'd actually challenge (V). If all the knowledge obtained by observation and thought were not knowledge about the world but about a dream or a computer simulation, I see two possibilities:
(1) If it were in principle possible to find out, by means of observation and thought, that our knowledge is not about the actual world but just about a dream or a computer simulation, then we could eventually reach this point and start to peer behind the curtain ('escape from the matrix').
(2) If it were not possible at all to find out, by means of observation and thought, that our knowledge is not about the actual world but about a dream or a computer simulation, then so what. We would simply continue to increase our knowledge about this dream or computer simulation. Actually in this case, we might as well call that dream or computer simulation "world" instead, because that would just be a matter of nomenclature.
You employ an argument similar to (V) in the next step, when you conclude that thought (and also goals?) can't emerge from some lower level, mechanical or aleatory, don't you? I'm asking, since in my essay I do actually explain how
goals might emerge at macroscopic scales.
Cheers, Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 17:39 GMT
Dear Stefan,
The problem of (V) is that there is no reason to consider our observations and thoughts as knowledge about anything, since they would be parts of the dream/trickery. There would be no reason to trust or value them. Perhaps you may want to search the article for the word “pumpkin.” If that situation sounds appealing to you, then we’d find it hard to argue. Any reliance on the thoughts and observations would require belief that they are more powerful than the dream or the trickster, and this belief would require a corresponding ontology, as you may find in Descartes’ Meditations. We are showing that the naturalistic “atoms of brain” are similar to the trickster in this respect; both lead to the Epimenides paradox.
Cheers,
Alexey.
Stefan Keppeler replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 21:02 GMT
Dear Alexey, what you call pumpkin is my alternative (2) above. If the thoughts and observations are
not "more powerful than the dream or the trickster", i.e. if I can't reach beyond the dream, then this dream is my reality. Then there is nothing but this dream for me. Consequently, I wouldn't call this dream "dream", since that would require an ontology beyond the dream. Instead it would be rather natural to call this dream "world" or "reality". Cheers, Stefan
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 11, 2017 @ 21:43 GMT
Our point, Stefan, is that acceptance of (V) as a possibility is incompatible with the value of fundamental science. That is what Descartes showed with his evil demon. Of course, it is possible to work in the normal science (Kuhn) and to not care about all these issues, which is typically the case. However, what later became normal science would not exist without revolutionary efforts of its founding fathers, who were very sensitive to the issues of meaning. To refute our statement about value, it would be necessary to point out at least one founding father of physics who expressed his disagreement with Descartes in this matter. I can tell you that there are none, but you may do your own historical research of course.
Best,
Alexey.
Stefan Weckbach replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 11:02 GMT
Dear Colleagues,
this is an interesting threat. I think the argument with the trickster is the reformulation of a point of view many people hold: Existence per se and the origins of our universe are not explainable, they cannot meaningfully traced back to a fundamental truth. Surely, these people say that they have indeed traced back all of existence - back to the 'fact' that all that...
view entire post
Dear Colleagues,
this is an interesting threat. I think the argument with the trickster is the reformulation of a point of view many people hold: Existence per se and the origins of our universe are not explainable, they cannot meaningfully traced back to a fundamental truth. Surely, these people say that they have indeed traced back all of existence - back to the 'fact' that all that exists came into being from literally *nothing* (not even from an empty set as some researchers here claim). But this 'explanation' does not carry any meaning with it other than at the end of the day all there is must be considered as intrinsically meaningless (since there is no reason why order and meaning should be more meaningful at a fundamental level than 'nothing'). So the true meaning of meaning and of existence per se could be termed as 'meaningless'. In this sense, existence is just a 'lucky fluke', but one without quantum mechanics at the beginning, but one without any precursor to cause it. Obviously this would be nihilism at its best.
The difference between a trickster and 'nothing' is, that the trickster seems to have a goal and therefore one can ascribe to the results of the trickster - namely the universe - a certain meaning (although it would be some kind of mean intention). In both cases, the trickster and the 'nothing', an ultimate explanation of the origins of existence is not available. In the case of the trickster because its tricks may be to hideous to be transcended by human beings, in the case of 'nothing' because there simply wouldn't exist any explanation (by definition) other than existence can come from nothing.
So, what to do with these two alternatives? If existence can come from nothing, the question arises why our existence seems to be so ordered, law-like and connected via logical chains. If existence can come from nothing, i would expect some huge anomalies in the course of events from time to time, means lawless behaviour at the macroscopic scale. None of these anomalies has been observed so far.
So i have the impression that, if there is indeed a trickster, what he would do is to force people into believing that all existence can come from nothing! this should be his main trick to obscure that he indeed does exist! Now we are at a point where we must ask where the trickster came from - how did he come into existence? Since we presupposed such a trickster, there is no need to explain how he came into existence. He simply may not exist. But for the case that he exists - and that is our field of investigation - we should answer this question. Here we leave logical thinking and must make a leap into metaphysics and religion. Traditionally the trickster is identified with an evil entity, passionately liking to entrap people into their own disaster. the trickster would be a kind of antagonist to the almighty God. What he wants to achieve is to guide people off from the truth. So in the case of the trickster (if there isn't only a trickster existent but also God - what is probable because the trickster has obviously not the power to produce the anomalies i spoke of above) there is objective truth in all of existence, because God is the absolute truth.
If one buys this scenario, then one must ask why people are separated from God and why there is no direct interaction with our creator. I would like to stop here and leave it to you how to answer these questions (but i personally think that we can transcend the matrix, so to speak). If one does neither believe in a trickster nor in God, the question remains how something can come from absolutely nothing or alternatively, from something other [what then poses the same question at another level and does not resolve the puzzle of finding the absolute truth about our existence, since a mere physical explanation of consciousness presupposes that we have figured out completely all the origins of the physical world to rule out some other origins than just the physical ones].
Best wishes,
Stefan Weckbach
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 12, 2017 @ 15:19 GMT
Dear Stefan,
Thank you for your interesting comments to the important problem. I appreciate your conclusion that "If existence can come from nothing, i would expect some huge anomalies in the course of events from time to time, means lawless behaviour at the macroscopic scale. None of these anomalies has been observed so far." This idea in some more details is described in our essay as the Discoverability Principle, which constitutes the great contribution of physics into ontology. The idea of the trickster as the author of the universe cannot be refuted by the special character of the physical laws, but, as I already stressed in this thread, it contradicts to the values of fundamental science: the latter looses its meaning and inspiration with that belief.
All the best,
Alexey.
hide replies
Ted Christopher wrote on Mar. 13, 2017 @ 16:07 GMT
Hi Alexey and Lev Burov,
I appreciate your efforts to delve deeply into the question at hand. I have a few minor quibbles with your conclusions but I will not quibble here.
I have an essay which takes a look at some under-appreciated behavioral phenomena and the challenges they pose for the scientific vision that is the foundation for that same question. That material might be of interest to you.
//fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2783
I hope things are going well for you.
Ted Christopher
Rochester, NY
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 01:03 GMT
Hi Ted,
Thanks for the encouraging words. We appreciate all sorts of responses, quibbles are our favorite :)
Cheers,
Alexey.
Ted Christopher replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 22:26 GMT
Hi again Alexey,
I am back here on your comment over at my page. I might be a bit more clumsy than usual as I am stuck in a noisy house amidst a snow storm (I exit occasionally to some quiet shoveling for acoustic relief).
I thank you for your consideration. Your essay is very thorough and was quite helpful for me. Other than computer programming my intellectual background is...
view entire post
Hi again Alexey,
I am back here on your comment over at my page. I might be a bit more clumsy than usual as I am stuck in a noisy house amidst a snow storm (I exit occasionally to some quiet shoveling for acoustic relief).
I thank you for your consideration. Your essay is very thorough and was quite helpful for me. Other than computer programming my intellectual background is rather limited. You cover a lot of ground and lean towards an underlying presence of God which is fine. One quibble with your essay was with regards to the claim about the mystical nature of many great mathematicians and physicists. My sense of being a mystic is that it mostly entails a sustained inward commitment or awareness, and that tends to place the intellect in the backseat. In my book I talk a little about David Bohm who was an unusual person and scientist, and was apparently somewhat of a mystic my nature. I also made somewhat of a sweeping reference to the difficulty of his approach but that is not unusual - serious mysticism is difficult.
In my limited essay space I included some rare emphatic examples (although the transgender phenomena is pretty common). My book goes on to discuss a number of more general challenges to the scientific vision (including of course the huge heritability challenge). There really are a number of under-appreciated mysteries with regards to our lives. These challenge science as well as the prevalent overconfidence with regards to our current state of knowledge.
If you decide to read my book please feel free to toss questions or comments my way.
You talk a lot about the significance of intellectual beauty. On the hand I suggest that a lot of progress (intellectual/spiritual/whatever) is derived from the obstacles and suffering we encounter.
Finally, on an issue skirted by many modern intellectuals, I think people should be mulling over religious views in light of scientific impasses. My book takes a critical look at both religions and science (easy for an outsider like myself) but I think that the underlying reality is that religions were on to something real and science should be open to that possibility.
An extra finally, the bottom-up (or soul) religious orientation should be paired with the top-down (or God) orientation. I think that both are valid but the latter is much more subtle and hard to argue for.
Take care,
Ted
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 17:47 GMT
Hi Ted,
I think all your 'quibbles' are important, giving me a chance to focus on some of our key issues.
1.
"One quibble with your essay was with regards to the claim about the mystical nature of many great mathematicians and physicists. My sense of being a mystic is that it mostly entails a sustained inward commitment or awareness, and that tends to place the intellect in...
view entire post
Hi Ted,
I think all your 'quibbles' are important, giving me a chance to focus on some of our key issues.
1.
"One quibble with your essay was with regards to the claim about the mystical nature of many great mathematicians and physicists. My sense of being a mystic is that it mostly entails a sustained inward commitment or awareness, and that tends to place the intellect in the backseat."
The historical fact is that essentially all those great people who deserve to be called 'fathers of physics' were mystics. This is true not only for Pythagoras and Plato, but also for Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, Leibniz, Newton, Euler, Gauss, Faraday, Maxwell, Planck, Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, older Dirac, Wigner... You may read about that, for instance, in a wonderful recent historical treatise of Wagner and Briggs, "The Penultimate Curiosity", or enjoy "Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists", collected by Ken Wilber, or in "The Music of Pythagoras" by Kitty Ferguson, to name just a few.
2.
"You talk a lot about the significance of intellectual beauty. On the hand I suggest that a lot of progress (intellectual/spiritual/whatever) is derived from the obstacles and suffering we encounter. "
The high importance of the intellectual beauty is not my arbitrary claim; I am finding that in writings of those highest rank mathematicians and physicists who cared to express their worldview. Moreover, I think everybody with sufficient mathematical experience knows that in his/her heart. Mathematics is loved by many people, and it is loved for its beauty. Obstacles and suffering may play an important role in ways that beauty is revealed to us, as, for example, one may read in the book of Job.
3.
"I think that the underlying reality is that religions were on to something real and science should be open to that possibility."
I do not think that science, as a special mode of cognition, can be open to religious reality. Science is limited by its strict exclusion of all subjective, which makes it so effective. I would rather say that scientists should not be as closed to the religious, as science is.
4.
I am not sure that I fully understand your last paragraph. I would say that the God-soul relation is extremely subtle both bottom-up and top-down.
Thanks again for your extensive and thoughtful comments. Stay warm and please do not forget to rate our essay.
Good luck, Alexey.
view post as summary
Ted Christopher replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 20:02 GMT
Hi Alexey,
I thank you for your note. You can respond at your leisure to this if you wish.
1. “Mystics” apparently has multiple meanings then. In a philosophical sense you (and those authors) might be right. In what I would term a meditational sense I don’t think those individuals were mystics (very few people are). Books like “And There Was Light” or “I AM THAT” were written my individuals who somehow got a deeper perspective on things (i.e., a mystical perspective) and that is exceptional and I don’t think intellectual in nature (the latter author was completely uneducated).
3. The deeper point of my book is that you can get coherent objective traction across a number of life mysteries from a premodern religious perspective. In any case in the pending wake of DNA’s failure people are going to want to comprehend individual innateness and the associated challenges. I doubt scientific approaches will find traction.
Thanks again,
Ted
report post as inappropriate
hide replies
Gavin William Rowland wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 12:16 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev
I loved your essay, and rated it highly. Your prose is elegant, and I will re-read your words again after this contest is over in the hope that I will find more interesting avenues for exploration.
I had to laugh to myself several times, such would seem to be the similarities in our philosophical positions. Too many to discuss here, but I noted in particular that both our essays went to Value as a core feature of reality. I do hope you get a chance to read my "From Nothingness to Value Ethics", if you haven't already.
Best regards
Gavin
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 05:18 GMT
Dear Gavin,
Thank you so much for your compliments and support. I just finished reading your essay; it is one of the best at this contest, I think. Perhaps, you have already read my comments on your page.
All the best,
Alexey.
Member Simon DeDeo wrote on Mar. 15, 2017 @ 14:39 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev,
I was really pleased to see this angle in the batch. With some collaborators, I've been doing work on mathematics as a cultural process, driven by taste and aesthetics and group norms as much (or even more than) by utility. Michael Harris has written a lovely book on the question, an autobiography as well as a response to Hardy, called "Mathematics without apologies", and it was intriguing to see such a high-level mathematician talk so frankly about the aesthetic (and social) prejudices that drive him.
It's a value-laiden process, in other words, and it is just really weird that it ends up producing the raw material for physics. The "Unreasonable Effectiveness" that Eugene Wigner wrote about seems even more mysterious. And I think it provides either a challenge, or a bizarre next step, for someone who signs on to the standard Platonism that most physicists walk around with (or the hypertrophic version in Max Tegmark!) You're forced either to say that it's doubly weird that mathematics works so well despite the "contamination" by values, or, conversely, that of course value-laiden mathematicians do so well: the universe is values through and through.
Yours,
Simon
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 02:18 GMT
Dear Simon,
Thank you for the good words in our address. We are glad to see a rare person who shares with us understanding of a necessity for ontological conclusions from the 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics', and the problem of values in that respect. Many thanks also for the info about Harris' book; I already ordered it. The ending of your post "You're forced either to say that it's doubly weird that mathematics works so well despite the "contamination" by values, or, conversely, that of course value-laiden mathematicians do so well: the universe is values through and through" looks as a possible epigraph to our previous fqxi paper :) I am going to respond to your captivating essay on your page.
Good luck at the contest,
Alexey.
James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 21:27 GMT
Alexey and Lev,
A nice purposeful combination of prose and poetry, uniting the material and the mental with the bridge of mathematical beauty, which almost poetically describes the natural world.
I try to display the birth of hypothesis with a speculation regarding dark matter in my essay, bringing together thoughts of others, mathematical laws, and an intensely perturbed material world. I hope you have time to read it and provide your thoughts.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 16, 2017 @ 21:51 GMT
Jim,
We are specially flattered by your truthful compliments to our blend of the romantic prose and rational poetry (now imagine my artistic bow and :)). Thank you! Your essay is in my short list; you will see me soon on your page.
Best,
Alexey.
Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 13:42 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev
I read with great interest your beautiful essay. It was a real pleasure, there is a kind of luminosity that emerges from it - I think you understand what I mean.
The res cogitans of Descartes corresponds to mind but now we know that most of mind functions depend on matter – for instance, memory: a damage in the brain can cause a lost of memory. If we compare...
view entire post
Dear Alexey and Lev
I read with great interest your beautiful essay. It was a real pleasure, there is a kind of luminosity that emerges from it - I think you understand what I mean.
The res cogitans of Descartes corresponds to mind but now we know that most of mind functions depend on matter – for instance, memory: a damage in the brain can cause a lost of memory. If we compare what can be achieved by Artificial Intelligence with ourselves, it seems that our sole characteristic that we cannot, by now, consider that depends on matter is consciousness. It may depend but by now, we do not know how.
In my essay, I exclude consciousness from my analysis; but I give a contribution to explain everything else, i.e., how, from the simple properties of matter, can the universe evolves as if guided by an intelligence towards a goal (a surprising contribution of my essay is to explain “intelligence” from matter properties).
Note that in the above phrase I excluded “mathematics”; because mathematics is just a tool, a language. When I was young, I was marveled with mathematics, but along my life I learned to consider it as a tool – a powerful one, essential, but a tool; like language is a tool for communication. Of course that it can be a source of the feeling of beauty – like it happens with language. And, like language, it can be it in two ways, the formal one and through the ideas it represents. Nowadays, I don’t use an equation that I cannot replace by plain text (excluding the quantifying aspect). The reason is that mathematics has no goal, we cannot let be driven by it, we have to always understand the road in which we are because mathematics can follow any road. Like language.
As you seem to have an open mind, I dare to say that along my life I had a set of personal experiences that I cannot explain by coincidences or hazard; although I try to explain everything from matter properties, and to some extend I feel that I do it better than anyone else (my essay is just a minimum demonstration of it), I know that there is a level on the universe that in no way can be explained by our present conception of it at the Physical level.
All the best!
Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 21, 2017 @ 21:01 GMT
Dear Alfredo,
Thank you for your kind words in our address. Beauty is in the focus of our essay, and this obliges. We are glad to know that some of our readers appreciate aesthetic side of our text.
Certainly, it is true that mathematics is a language. However, it would not be correct to attribute it solely to humanity, as we tried to show. Galileo stressed that it is the language of the "book of nature" itself, and the same idea was expressed by Wigner: mathematics is "the correct language", that is why it is "unreasonably effective" in physics. The discoverability of the laws of nature (in the meaning of our essay) can not be attributed solely to the inventiveness of the human mind; it also has its objective counter-part, related to the nature itself.
Your post above sounds both intelligent and friendly, convincing me to read your essay attentively. I will do this soon, leaving my comments on your page.
All the best,
Alexey Burov.
Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 01:58 GMT
Dear Alexei
I thank your very kind words! I can see that "beauty" is something in which you live in... and it emerges in anything you do or think.. I will try to follow your example!
You know, mathematics is a logic language, strictly logic; however, to where it leads depends on the hypothesis and assumptions on which it is applied. Because it is logical, it leads to "understandable"...
view entire post
Dear Alexei
I thank your very kind words! I can see that "beauty" is something in which you live in... and it emerges in anything you do or think.. I will try to follow your example!
You know, mathematics is a logic language, strictly logic; however, to where it leads depends on the hypothesis and assumptions on which it is applied. Because it is logical, it leads to "understandable" models provided that the hypotheses and assumptions are “understandable”; however, if those hypotheses and assumptions are not understandable or incorrect, mathematics leads to models of reality that are not understandable.
If we accept that the universe is as simple as it can be, than hypotheses and assumptions must be understandable, no “magic” in them; and also the models mathematically obtained.
From this point of view, a model that is not understandable implies that the hypotheses/assumptions made are not correct.
Mathematics has also the possibility of fitting whatever set of data – it is just a matter of considering enough parameters. This is very important and is the first phase of discovery process because it allows having control over phenomena and organizing data. These mathematical models are usually “not-understandable”, they present logical inconsistency and parameters that obviously cannot represent a physical entity. However, many consider that these models of data are correct models of reality; and so they consider that the universe is “not-understandable”. That seems to be the case of Wigner, as expressed in the statement you cited: “mathematics is "the correct language", that is why it is "unreasonably effective" in physics”.
Therefore, while some (the mainstream) consider that the unreasonably effectiveness of mathematics in physics is the proof that it is “the correct language”, for others, like me, it is the proof that the hypotheses and assumptions made are wrong because mathematics can only lead to “reasonable” models.
Now, how do you know which approach is correct?
If you take just a quick look to my essay, you will probably suspect that I may know unexpected things about the universe. How is that possible? By looking for understandable models of the universe. That is the ultimate beauty of mathematics, the fact that it allows us to go finding the nature of the universe by looking for models that are understandable. And one does one step in the correct direction, one feels the amazing beauty of it.
All the best!
Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 02:38 GMT
Dear Alfredo,
You caught me in pondering over your essay. Before commenting it on your page, I'll try to answer briefly here. You are right, that mathematics allows to describe any process. However, if your formulas has nothing to do with reality, like in the Ptolemy model, the number of fitting constants increases with required accuracy and the span of parameters. The effectiveness of mathematics in physics is "unreasonable", because very simple formulas, with clear reasonable principles behind them, with very small number of fitting constants describe physical reality at huge range of parameters and with extreme accuracy. I cannot go into details here, you may read about that in the classical Wigner's essay "Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics", or in the reference to R. Penrose in our essay. This was also one of the main points of Einstein's cosmic religion, which is brilliantly described in Max Jammer's "Einstein and Religion".
Thank you,
Alexey Burov.
Lev Burov replied on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 21:05 GMT
Dear Alfredo,
I wanted to add to Alexey's reply by noticing a very powerful assumption you make. "If we accept that the universe is as simple as it can be..." While working out scientific ideas, assumptions are one of the primary methods. There is no need to question them if they turn out to be supported by the results. Once the science is done though, and we step back to reflect on what it is that we've learned, assumptions themselves become the focus of explanation. This reflective thinking is the domain of philosophy.
I know of no philosophical position that would allow for the extreme assumption that you make. Even the luminous theologies of the fathers of physics don't venture so far. Even Einstein used it only a sort of working philosophical hypothesis. Physics does make the assumption that the laws are simple (not simplest), and this assumption is justified with its success, but looking back, this is an incredible miracle that is not at all necessitated by any purely logical conclusion -- that's Wigner's point. It is, perhaps, the greatest contribution of physics to humanity's vision of the world, its greatest discovery. Don't you think that glossing it over as a mere assumption is the least appropriate way to treat it? Or did I misunderstand you?
Our essay
Genesis of a Pythagorean Universe is devoted to the philosophical consequences of this particular discovery.
Thank you very much for your plentiful compliments and appreciation. Alexey and I will discuss your ponderous essay.
Lev
report post as inappropriate
Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 00:38 GMT
Dear Lev
I understand your reasoning but let me explain mine in more detail because there are more things to consider. Possibly I will be somewhat boring in this attempt to clarify the subject as much as possible.
First, let me clarify that I did not say that physical laws are as simple as possible; the assumption that I considered is that the Universe is as simple as possible. This...
view entire post
Dear Lev
I understand your reasoning but let me explain mine in more detail because there are more things to consider. Possibly I will be somewhat boring in this attempt to clarify the subject as much as possible.
First, let me clarify that I did not say that physical laws are as simple as possible; the assumption that I considered is that the Universe is as simple as possible. This does not imply that physical laws are as simple as possible; truly, such a statement is meaningless – at least I can’t understand it. Physical laws are a consequence of the nature of the universe.
What allows one to assume that the universe might be “as simple as possible” as a working hypothesis? The fact that we cannot assume anything else. If we consider the possibility of assuming differently, then whatever conclusion becomes possible - therefore meaningless.
Physics is always searching for a conception of the nature of the universe as simple as possible; that has led to the discover of the atom, then of particles, then of quarks; an endless quest towards simplicity.
In spite of all this, I agree with you that the assumption of the simplicity of the universe is acceptable as a working hypothesis but not to support conclusions. Furthermore, we cannot conclude from this argument of simplicity that a model of the universe has to be “understandable”. I have a quite different reason to consider so but I did not want to mention it because it can be interpreted as arrogance, which it is not. That reason is that I succeed to “take the magic out” of the Cosmological model, of Relativity theory and of a considerable number of phenomena; therefore I think that “non-understandable” models are the result of their assumptions and not evidence that the universe is non-understandable. You can verify whether I am correct or not by seeing one draft paper I have on vixra (vixra.org/abs/1107.0016 ) and another one on the arxiv (arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205033 ). In both cases, the cause of the peculiar properties we have been attributing to the universe is the dependence of standard length units with motion, field and time. We can always model data considering that standard units are invariant, provided that we can add ad hoc parameters, like dark matter and dark energy, or we can consider peculiar properties, like spacetime properties, and to consider that there is no “objective reality.
I think that “non-understandable” mathematical models of data are an essential step in the discovery process, allowing collecting and organizing data; then we must start the second phase of the discovery process, which is to put theory aside and to deduce a new paradigm from data – the deductive-empiricist phase of the process. The fact that a model is non-understandable is a proof that it is based in wrong assumptions, not that the universe is non-understandable. Of course that this is just a personal opinion, based on my personal experience, but also is the opposite one. Note that by considering that the universe we know by now is still understandable does not mean that it can be explained by some simpleton reasoning – on the contrary, it is amazingly subtle.
I apologize for only now answer you but I had not seen your reply. I took a quick look to your paper. What I can say by now is that nothing of what I say contradicts your beliefs, just your line of reasoning and arguments, namely in what concerns the tuning to a goal. Maybe the universe is fine tuned to a goal, but I think that is not as you think, that things are much more sophisticated. I put a commentary in my blog addressed to “all” but written thinking in all the persons that follow a certain line of reasoning; maybe you can understand me better after reading it. To clarify all the differences between our lines of reasoning requires a long discussion but I am at your disposal if you are interested in it – my email: alf.g.oliveira@gmail.com.
I want to thank you this discussion; my goal in this contest is the exchange and discussion of different points of view, which requires that we assume our differences openly - as you did.
Best regards,
Alfredo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 12:11 GMT
Dear Alexei
Thank you very much for your comments and your vote. Your doubts are certainly the ones of others and your comments give me the possibility of clarifying important aspects. A Portuguese writer said “Do not affirm the error of a truth before changing its context. Unless it gives you joy to be stoned.” Unhappily, the short size of this essay has limited my capacity of changing...
view entire post
Dear Alexei
Thank you very much for your comments and your vote. Your doubts are certainly the ones of others and your comments give me the possibility of clarifying important aspects. A Portuguese writer said “Do not affirm the error of a truth before changing its context. Unless it gives you joy to be stoned.” Unhappily, the short size of this essay has limited my capacity of changing current context. So, allow me to try to do it now.
The classic definition of Intelligence is just a useless description of human mind, grounded in the belief of our exclusive nature.
Do you think your computer is “Intelligent”? I think your answer is “no”. But why? A personal computer has memory, it can play music, make calculations, answer questions by finding the answers in the net – some can even talk with you. So why is not the computer “Intelligent”? The reason is that it cannot answer a question like: What killed the dinosaurs? (it can present current hypotheses, but that is not the answer, just hypotheses); or “does dark energy really exist or is just an ad hoc parameter?”; or “how to do a non-polluting and inexpensive car”?; or “how life was created?”; etc. That is the capacity computers do not have (yet).
Now, lets see your questions
About my definition of Intelligence you say:
1 - It looks as a circular logic to me, since not only "mind" and "problem", but "database" already imply "intelligence".
From the above I think that now you understand that what you say is wrong. Database is the content of memory; your computer has databases, a book can have databases. Intelligence uses them but they are not Intelligence, in the same that you use the computer but the computer is not you. And also a problem is not Intelligence, of course.
2- about your mention of Poincare, of course that Poincare has influenced me. As it happened with Einstein, by the way. I read it more than 30 years ago. It is not only with Poincaré or Compton that you can find resemblances – also with Darwin, as I detailed explain. In this case, it is Darwin that has inspired me the most.
3 – “"Is nature able to generate by itself something with new properties? The answer is yes, of course."
This I do not understand. How can you know that with certainty? If you said that you believe in that, I would understand; however, if you wanted to claim it obvious, I would disagree. “
I explain: take an electron and a proton; they immediately converge and form a Hydrogen atom. This atom is something new with new properties, is not so? And these atoms then can merge and form other atoms, with new properties. Therefore, the answer to the question is obviously yes, of course. I explained in the essay why I say that.
4 – “The problem is that these long molecules are not just long, but they are specially ordered, and the order is important. They are like long meaningful texts, not just like long arbitrary sequence of letters.”
Again you are not correct and in two ways. One is that I don’t claim to explain the creation of life, just the appearance of the long organic molecules it requires – molecules of the kind of DNA and with the capacity of auto-replication. The other is that the order is not so important as you seem to think because there are (or were) many thousands of different types of bacteria, presenting a huge diversity of DNA, and these are just the survivors of a still much larger set of previous cells. Now you have to consider the huge number of those large molecules that were produced in the described Earth early environment during near one gigayear – it’s an astronomical number, making the possibility of obtaining specific sequences a reasonable value.
When we see something different of what we are used to think, the first reaction is to consider that the author is wrong; the possibility that he/her is correct is so low that we do not consider that possibility. But it can happen.
Once again, I thank you very much for your comments. I hope that I was able to clarify your questions, which are consequence of the short size of a text that had to analyze such a complex subject.
I hope to ear from you again, this is a fruitful discussion.
Alfredo Gouveia de Oliveira
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Mar. 23, 2017 @ 20:53 GMT
Dear Alfredo,
1.
Database is not intelligence, of course, but, as I said, it implies intelligence. That is why it seems circular to define intelligence through databases. The same is true for "problems", "solutions", etc.
3,4.
I would not consider a Hydrogen atom as something new compared to proton and electron, since at certain condition there must be a lot of these atoms as soon as you have enough electrons and positrons. This is not true for life: apparently probability for life origin, with all the required atoms provided, is so low, that it cannot be explained by the physical laws. Life can be considered as really new, and it is a big question if nature could produce it itself.
Cheers,
Alexey.
Alfredo Gouveia Oliveira replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 13:32 GMT
Dear Alexey
Once again, I repeat that I never said that I was even trying to explain how life began; what I am explaining is how molecules of the kind of DNA were produced. Between this and life is an enormous distance and I am surprised that you made such confusion.
Differently of your argumentation, the production of molecules of the kind of DNA has, at least, a reasonable property...
view entire post
Dear Alexey
Once again, I repeat that I never said that I was even trying to explain how life began; what I am explaining is how molecules of the kind of DNA were produced. Between this and life is an enormous distance and I am surprised that you made such confusion.
Differently of your argumentation, the production of molecules of the kind of DNA has, at least, a reasonable property in the scenario I defined - this is not a guess, I calculated it.
Concerning life, even if one believes that it was created by God, one has to think that God did not created life from nothing. Or from clay. It is more reasonable to think that the material universe provided the material components of Life. For a believer in God, the role of God is to give life to matter, not to manufacture all life components.
So, you see, in nothing I said, God is put in question in any way - quite on the contrary. To put God in question is to pretend that the universe was made in seven days and life from clay. Would you disagree with me in this point?
I can say to you that during my life I had a set of experiences that I cannot explain by any known physical property, or by coincidences, etc; and one of them concerns precisely something that is written in the Bible - something of the utmost importance for the near future of mankind. Therefore, I know very well that the universe is much more than the description Physics can do. And this is not a "belief", its a knowledge from experience; and as I am an experienced empiricist, I am not in mistake when I state this. For me, "God" is a way to address everything that does not belongs to the material plane but I have no idea of what it might be because I have not enough data.
For us to know anything about any subject, we first have to be ready to accept all possibilities; if we are not, we will just be believers in something that pleases us. Jesus went to the desert to find the answer He was looking for. Only then He knew.
Although there are arrogant physicists that consider that Physics is able to explain everything, that periodically produce statements of the kind "to know all about the universe we are just missing this small aspect", they are just stupid and ignorant persons that not even have an idea of how far you are of understanding the universe. However, that is not the case of most scientists. Physics may conflict with "religious" explanations for physical phenomena but not with the essence of Religion, i.e., with the perception that the universe is not just matter. A bad physicist thinks that what he/her does not knows, does not exist; but that is not the methodology of science; a serious scientist analyses the data available and in relation to anything else he/her has only to assume ignorance. In this way there is no possible conflict between Science and Religion because they address different fields.
One thing that I assumed still a teenager is that to achieve some knowledge one has to drop the word "belief". Be it in Physics, Religion, whatever field. And drop it also in the negative form - we shall not "believe" or "not belief" in anything. I strictly follow Descartes method. That is a hard way, and with many problems, but is the only way for those that really want to know.
I hope that now, after this loooong message, you may understand me better.
All the best
Alfredo
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 15:05 GMT
Dear Alfredo,
Thanks for the clarifications. I agree with you in many aspects, while the details can be discussed and specified. In particular, I would stress that the spheres of knowledge and beliefs cannot be fully separated; in some sense they need, support and critically help each other. To start a complicated experiment, one has to believe in its significance, in his own ability to do the hard and challenging job, in the abilities of his colleagues. Gaining knowledge requires a belief in the corresponding values. In our essay we quoted Descartes and Einstein beliefs in God who does not deceive and is not malicious; this belief is a key one for the fundamental science, notwithstanding that many scientists have no idea about that. From another side, knowledge can either support or shake beliefs. For instance, Galileo just believed that "the book of nature is written in the language of mathematics", while Wigner wrote about that as a fact of "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics". This fact supported the old Pythagorean-Galilean belief, but did not prove, of course, that humanity will succeed to describe the new levels of physical reality by means of elegant mathematical theories.
Thanks again,
Alexey.
Robert Groess wrote on Mar. 25, 2017 @ 09:47 GMT
Dear Alexey & Lev Burov,
Thank you very much for your enjoyable essay. Your perspective of beauty in what we perceive around us, including "mathematical beauty" is key consideration that many people ignore or choose to ignore when building abstractions to formulate problems to solve analytically. In many cases in the past, it seems they may not have been all that successful in this separation, being silently seduced by the beauty of mathematics in the first place. (For example the Copernican system insisting planets orbit in perfect circles.) I also love how you so eloquently put it in your conclusion that, “To see in mathematics nothing but a collection of all possible, value-neutral, formal systems is no better than to view the art of sculpture as a collection of all possible articles made of stone”. Wonderful!
Thank you again and I have in the meantime rated your essay too.
Regards,
Robert
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 26, 2017 @ 05:05 GMT
Dear Robert,
Your compliments to our essay are especially pleasant, since you see the core of our text on the background of that strange blindness of the spirit of time. Thank you!
I've learned something new from your composition and left my comments and a couple of questions on your page.
All the best,
Alexey.
Member Marc Séguin wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 00:38 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev,
Congratulations for another strong essay! The subject of this year’s contest truly called for an examination of the connection between thought and matter. In your view, thought is “cosmic, even super-cosmic”, and you defend the need for a non-deceiving (Descartes), non-malicious (Einstein) God to make sense of our Universe and of the truthfulness of our thought processes. I too struggle with the search for a first principle that would ensure, among other things, the “lawfulness” of the Universe. I am willing to accept that, in the space of all possibilities, there are local domains that are shaped by god-like super-intelligences, but I cannot see how this explanation can be scaled to encompass all of reality. So I am still searching for a way to have All-that-Exists be a self-existing ensemble that is overall devoid of characteristics and information, and to have local minds and ordered worlds “co-emerge” within it. We do not share the same hypotheses about fundamental metaphysical axioms, but we do share the same yearning that made Schrodinger say that knowledge truly has value when it contributes to the synthesis toward answering the demand, “Who are we?”.
By the way, in my current essay, I refer to your “Pythagorean Universe” essay from the last contest, specifically about the difficulty in accounting for the stability of the universal constants of physics by simply invoking the Anthropic Principle. It’s always a pleasure to read your essays, and I am already looking forward to the next contest. In the meantime, I wish you good luck in this one!
Marc
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 22:31 GMT
Dear Marc,
Many thanks for your encouraging words and very clear reference to one of the most important ideas of our
Pythagorean Universe. I just left my comments on your current essay at your page, with a hope that our compliments, supported by the score, will not be overshadowed by some criticism there.
We wish you good luck too!
Alexey Burov.
Author Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Mar. 27, 2017 @ 23:42 GMT
Strangely for us, recent posts of Edwin Eugene Klingman disappeared from this place. Dear Edwin, if you did not intend this and wish to see there the same or updated version of your post, you are more than welcome to do that.
Alexey.
Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 00:33 GMT
Dear Alexey,
I managed to remove the post in which I misquoted you. As we seem to disagree on the Wigner issue, there is no need to revise and repost. However I've noted that there are some other issues which we do agree on that I may post later.
Thanks for your gracious understanding, and your many meaningful posts, here and on other's threads.
My very best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 01:16 GMT
Dear Edwin,
Thanks for the clarification. We are looking forward to see your new posts in our space. Please do not worry about possible disagreement with us expressed in your comments here; actually, we appreciate clear and distinctive criticism in our address, considering that as a help.
Cheers,
Alexey.
Yehuda Atai wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 09:40 GMT
Hi Alexey,
It was refreshing and interesting to read your essay.
I hold the view that thought and cognition are ontological and we are continuously ratifying our reality. (see my essay:"we are together, therefore I am")
It is all embedded in the qualities of the Movements attributes, which make us unique and singular.
Thanks again
Yehuda Atai
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 12:43 GMT
Hi Yehuda,
Thanks for reading our essay and pointing my attention to yours; it sounds interesting, I will read it soon. Meanwhile, it would be a pleasure to see your specific comments, either critical or complimentary, and questions.
Regards,
Alexey.
Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Mar. 28, 2017 @ 20:12 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev Burov,
On another thread [Robert Groess'] you made notice of a quote from P. Anderson:
"
In fact, the more the elementary particle physicists tell us about the nature of the fundamental laws, the less relevance they seem to have to the very real problems of the rest of science, much less society."
The statement is not unlike Steven Weinberg's remark,...
view entire post
Dear Alexey and Lev Burov,
On another thread [Robert Groess'] you made notice of a quote from P. Anderson:
"
In fact, the more the elementary particle physicists tell us about the nature of the fundamental laws, the less relevance they seem to have to the very real problems of the rest of science, much less society."
The statement is not unlike Steven Weinberg's remark, that
"
The more comprehensible the universe becomes, the more it also seems pointless."
David Berlinski, a mathematician, remarks
"
He had a point. The arena of the elementary particles… is rather a depressing place, and if it resembles anything at all it rather resembles a florescent lit bowling alley seen from the interstate, tiny stick figures in striped bowling shirts jerking up and down in the monstrously hot and humid night. What is its point?"
I suspect the 'stick figures' are Feynman diagrams. [By the way, if you have not read Berlinski's
The Devil's Delusion, I think you would enjoy it very much.]
Anyway, you then asked, "If it is so, what do you think is the value of the particle physics for the humanity?", and you discussed the high cost of particle physics research, questioning the payoff.
The Higgs candidate has been found, as was to be expected by anyone who has read Andrew Pickering's
Constructing Quarks, and
supersymmetry, once felt to be a
requirement for the Standard Model, is nowhere to be seen. No other particles are predicted [only resonances]. As you know from my essay, I view physics, particularly quantum physics, as mathematical projections onto physical reality. Due to its appropriateness in many physical situations the statistical nature of quantum mechanics delivers the goods. In particle systems QFT is essentially a bookkeeping system, based on a simplistic 'creation' and 'annihilation' formalism. I believe it is primarily a way to fit theory to data.
In contrast, I've found over several years that the predominant model from which QM is often heuristically derived is Stern-Gerlach, and physicists, after approximately a century, still do not understand the physics of one silver atom in an inhomogeneous magnetic field. In fact, I am, with others, building an experiment that will significantly affect QM if our research results are positive. We're self-funded, and, if successful, will have more impact on "real world" physics than the next few years operation of the LHC is likely to. So I agree with your implied sentiment.
My very best regards,
Edwin Eugene Klingman
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 00:42 GMT
Hi Edwin,
Many thanks for a lot of interesting things in your post.
Now Berlinski is in my Kindle collection, promising delicious reading tonight; thank you!
Sorry that I have to disagree that "no other particles are predicted [only resonances]" (if I understood you correctly). Certainly many elementary particles were predicted in various years and on various grounds: positron (and thus entire anti-matter), neutrino, all quarks, weak bosons, and Higgs boson, of course. All these predictions were based on belief in mathematical elegance of the laws of nature, shared by great physicists.
Asking the question about the value of the Particle Physics, I do not mean to diminish it; my goal is just to study opinions, circulating in the scientific community. Strangely enough, I hear only about byproducts and curiosity, as if there is no direct value and as if human curiosity does not have millions of other targets. My own vision on that is indirectly expressed in our "Moira and Eileithyia" and "Pythagorean Universe", and it seems that the value I see in the fundamental science is a top secret for the colleagues.
I am intrigued about your planned experiment intended to clarify QM. Do you have something published on that? I wish you success, of course!
Our best wishes,
Alexey.
James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 29, 2017 @ 22:19 GMT
Alexey,
In reviewing the essays I have read, I noticed you are a scientist at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory. I have been following the LHC news and noticed among other things they are looking for evidence of dark matter. I had mentioned in my comments on your essay the speculation I provided in my essay about dark matter, feeling it is a byproduct of the interactions of normal matter, its forces, and the SMBH in the center of galaxies. It is probably my amateur speculation that dark matter will only be found in the field. With your background, I would be interested in your thoughts.
Jim Hoover
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 02:08 GMT
Hi Jim,
In that matter, I am an amateur as well; my field of expertise is different. The only thing I could confirm for sure is that physics of dark matter, for today, continues to be entirely dark.
Soon you will see my comments on your page.
Cheers,
Alexey.
James Lee Hoover wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 04:29 GMT
Alexey,
Your essay effectively describes the ideal beauty that should be and can be the unifying source of discovery that brings stellar order of knowledge and survival that celebrates rather than shrinks humanity. Those who puff up their importance and act to shrink humanity are liars. I think we are among many experiments in humanity in the universe. Two weeks ago, I gave you high marks for how effective your words of inspiration are.
Thanks for checking out my essay:
I appreciate you mentioned "life's higher meaning". Don't you think that the biggest discoveries and inventions of humanity happened in following this meaning, not the goals of survival and comfort? If so, would it be correct to try to explain the core of human beings by means of entropy and survival? In our essay we are trying to show that this approach leads to the Epimenides paradox. One more question relates to the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics": how it can be accounted in the framework of your paper?
Life has a higher meaning but there are those who would destroy all life around them for their own glory. Perhaps you have more faith in this higher ideal being the imperative.
Jim
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 11:41 GMT
Jim,
Thanks again for the compliments in our address. Of course you are right pointing to some of dangers for humanity; I would just add, that within materialistic worldview individual life cannot value much. No surprise, that the two monstrous regimes of the last century were based on materialistic teachings, and Darwinism was an important part of the ruling ideology for each of them.
I just rated your essay, good luck!
Alexey.
Michael Alexeevich Popov wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 16:21 GMT
Уважаемые Alexei and Lev,
Taking Ancient Platonism seriously is usually considered as some sort of pre - pre - Kantian simplification in today's philosophy. Both Poincare and Einstein Relativity theories are based on Kant's heuristics, but not on Platonism. Mathematical intuitionists, Schrodinger and Dirac expressed similar attitude on Kant transcendental aesthetics as well. Club of Alternative Natural Philosophy Association ( neo - Kantian researchers ( Eddington, Dirac, Bondi,Bronstein )of fundamental constants as Kant's synthetic a priori judgments ) also attempted to find suitable aesthetic generalizations in the terms of neo - Kantianism but not Platonism. Weyl's " Pythagoreanism" was not also "pure Platonism " because Weyl was well- known neo Kantian.etc. In other words, philosophically, in order to use simplified ancient method of philosophizing in our 21st century is needed to prove that your method is suitable indeed.
In modern metaphysics "Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" is connected with fundamental question of Kant- how are synthetic a priori judgments possible ?
Dmitry Gawronsky brilliant Russian neo - Kantian mathematician and philosopher(1883-1949) Marburg school of neo - Kantian philosophy suggested that the philosopher must not rely on idle metaphysical speculations but has to know how synthetic a priori is actually applied in scientific practice (1912).
Some details of such sort of academic thinking could be found in my essay entitled " Kantian answers ".
С самыми наилучшими пожеланиями в не слишком постоватом мире философии
Michael
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 18:34 GMT
Dear Michael,
Thanks for reading and commenting our essay. If you have any question, you are very welcome to ask.
Cheers,
Alexey Burov.
Rajiv K Singh wrote on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 16:48 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev Burov,
Ah! You make such valiant and passionate appeal to our senses of beauty that it becomes hard for us to even think of constructing any arguments that defies the centrality of beauty. Having apologized for this violation of beauty in the hands of rationality, let me commit that anyway.
Beauty has many forms, as you too captured in your essay, but you remained...
view entire post
Dear Alexey and Lev Burov,
Ah! You make such valiant and passionate appeal to our senses of beauty that it becomes hard for us to even think of constructing any arguments that defies the centrality of beauty. Having apologized for this violation of beauty in the hands of rationality, let me commit that anyway.
Beauty has many forms, as you too captured in your essay, but you remained confined to the beauty of mathematics. As someone said, "Beauty lies in the eyes of beholder [i.e in the senses of the perceiver]", I see so many other forms of beauty that are equally magnificent and grand as mathematical beauty, that mathematics alone does not appeal to me as the sole source of the genesis. Of course, none other is eternal as mathematics. I will not find heart to ask -- what gives beauty the causal power?
Since you assert, "Eternal beauty calls to new manifestations; by evincing the contemplation of itself", I see a problem with eternity. If it is truly eternal, then what is still left to make 'calls to new manifestations' that has not already been called before? Genesis of universe in the hand's of mathematics has this problem too.
There is another dilemma that I run into: I see the emergence of senses via certain mechanisms that are not entirely deterministic. That is, the universe must have certain degree (within limits) of indeterminism. Mathematics cannot deal with imperfections, where its elegant forms break down. Therefore, contemplating that imperfections have the causal power to create appreciation for perfection and the beauty in mathematics is again an Epimenidic error. Atoms do not dance to the perfect tunes of mathematics.
You ask, "If the two branches of being were totally alien to each other, how could they interact? If they have a common ground, how can that ground be understood?". What if they do not interact, but are inseparable in such a manner that interaction of physical states constructs the semantics for another, as I have tried to work out. This way, the path to subjectivity is laid down with the processes of objectivity.
Please correct me if I exhibit certain misunderstanding of your essay, since I found it too abstract without much help to feel the ground below. Moreover, it also has certain elements tied to certain culture and history.
Rajiv
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 30, 2017 @ 23:16 GMT
Dear Rajiv,
Thank you for the exquisite praise in our address and for your pithy questions which by the necessity can only be briefly addressed here.
1. “mathematics alone does not appeal to me as the sole source of the genesis”
We agree; you may find some arguments in support of that in our composition.
2. “Of course, none other is eternal as...
view entire post
Dear Rajiv,
Thank you for the exquisite praise in our address and for your pithy questions which by the necessity can only be briefly addressed here.
1. “mathematics alone does not appeal to me as the sole source of the genesis”
We agree; you may find some arguments in support of that in our composition.
2. “Of course, none other is eternal as mathematics.”
We never said that, especially with such a certainty.
3. “what gives beauty the causal power?”
We never said that the power of beauty is causal. Inspiration belongs to the kingdom of freedom.
4. “If it is truly eternal, then what is still left to make 'calls to new manifestations' that has not already been called before?”
That’s a wonderful question. Imagine that somewhere in another galaxy, billions years ahead, somebody, not too different from Einstein, after long contemplations discovered General Relativity. Wouldn’t that be a new manifestation of the eternal beauty?
5. “the universe must have certain degree (within limits) of indeterminism.”
We never denied that.
6. “contemplating that imperfections have the causal power to create appreciation for perfection and the beauty in mathematics is again an Epimenidic error.”
We agree and appreciate your clear understanding of our Epimenidic instrument. What is missed in your consideration is Cartesian implication of human ability to see clearly and distinctively perfection of mathematical ideas. That is where Descartes introduces his trust to God as a foundation of cognition. In this respect, our mentality is not fully foreign to divine’s.
7. “What if they do not interact, but are inseparable in such a manner that interaction of physical states constructs the semantics for another, as I have tried to work out.”
Since we did not yet read your essay, we can only mention that “semantics” already implies mind, so this logic looks circular. We will read your essay and reply on your page.
Thanks again and good luck!
Alexey and Lev.
view post as summary
Rajiv K Singh replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 02:57 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev,
Thank you for taking the discussion forward. This response is to express reasons of my ignorance as I had also said that even though I liked the persuasive arguments favoring the 'power of beauty', which I can feel within, but the essay was too abstract to make me feel the ground under my feet.
>> 1."mathematics alone does not appeal to me as the sole...
view entire post
Dear Alexey and Lev,
Thank you for taking the discussion forward. This response is to express reasons of my ignorance as I had also said that even though I liked the persuasive arguments favoring the 'power of beauty', which I can feel within, but the essay was too abstract to make me feel the ground under my feet.
>> 1."mathematics alone does not appeal to me as the sole source of the genesis"
> We agree; you may find some arguments in support of that in our composition.
>> 3. "what gives beauty the causal power?"
> We never said that the power of beauty is causal.
I suppose, I formed the incorrect ideas from the following.
"It is with the power of beauty that the existing is connected with that which is only being summoned into existence: Being with intention and goal. The world was created for its beauty, and man—as one who may hear that and respond."
Essay ends with, "Beauty is the Moira and Eileithyia for birth", and its title is, "Moira and Eileithyia for Genesis". So, even though I did not know the background of ""Moira and Eileithyia", I presumed that you are constructing a rationale for the creation.
>> 2. “Of course, none other is eternal as mathematics.”
> We never said that, especially with such a certainty.
No, you did not say that explicitly but I was looking for reasons why the beauty of mathematics is isolated from others to have such 'existential' powers. Though, you do say, "Eternal beauty calls to new manifestations; by evincing the contemplation of itself". Even though cosmos holds the beauty at such grand scale that can take the breath out everytime one contemplates its majesty, but cosmos may not be eternal.
>> 4. "If it is truly eternal, then what is still left to make 'calls to new manifestations' that has not already been called before?"
Thanks for appreciating it, but this confusion stemmed again from the the same presumption of 'beauty being source of existence'. In fact, I must have read 5 times, "Eternal beauty calls to new manifestations; by evincing the contemplation of itself, it beckons birth...", yet I had difficulty forming a picture of how beauty could 'evince the contemplation of itself'. Only now I understand that it is through an agent with 'aims and desires'. So now, it appears that 'aims and desires' are fundamental source of such beauty. In fact, it is very much in line with -- mathematics is creation of minds like ours, which may not have any limits.
> Cartesian implication of human ability to see clearly and distinctively perfection of mathematical ideas. That is where Descartes introduces his trust to God as a foundation of cognition. In this respect, our mentality is not fully foreign to divine’s.
Can I presume that "our mentality is not fully foreign to divine’s" is your determination, and therefore belief, from Cartesian argument, or is it just a reflection of what Descartes proposed?
> "Inspiration belongs to the kingdom of freedom."
My god, what nuggets! It can roil one into such recursive mental exercise, that one will begin to see beauty of abstract thoughts, if one has not seen already, which in fact could be the source of mathematical thinking.
And thank you for proposing to peruse my essay. I do hope that you discover why placing information, and semantics irrevocably in the domain of minds may have kept us from not making headway on the understanding of emergence of minds. Please do not hold anything in criticizing it plainly, all nuggets from you will be welcome!
Rajiv
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Mar. 31, 2017 @ 04:34 GMT
Dear Rajiv,
We are touched by your response, with your ambition to disentangle some of our hidden meanings. Yes, we left some puzzles for our readers, and let us keep them not quite unveiled :) Now it's our turn to read your essay and try to pay you back.
Thanks again and see you on your page,
Alexey.
Neil Bates wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 01:53 GMT
Alexey and Lev,
Congratulations for this beautiful philosophical overview and your literate delving into the fundamentals. That is how a scientist and humanist should collaborate. It is true that the confrontation of the subjective sense of self, against the mechanical world supposedly revealed by physics, is the primary dilemma of thought as well as a source of discomfort to reflective persons. It is the intuitive absurdity of Leibniz's Mill, the idea that any machinery can give rise to our thoughts and feelings. I addressed that very dilemma in a past essay of mine:
Flashlights, Mirrors, Real Brains and Willpower: Steering Ourselves to Steer Our Future. I will have more to say later about the specifics of the issue and your answers to it, right now I wanted to make sure I gave proper credit to the arc of your effort.
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 02:29 GMT
Dear Neil,
Thanks for your kind words. We envision certain ideals as to what the language should be when it comes close to what great thinkers called Good and Beauty, and your compliments assure us that we have not gone too far past our mark. We'll read your old essay while waiting for the further comments you intend.
Alexey and Lev
Yehuda Atai wrote on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 07:58 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev
Thanks for commenting on my essay and the interest in it.
As to your question: Mathematics define the relations that exists in the physical system, and the effectiveness of mathematics "is probable that there is some secret here which remains to be discovered" as you well quoted Wigner work. In my view the subjectivity is embedded in the uniqueness and singularity of every movement-phenomenon. This uniqueness is embedded in the qualities of its attributes. In every movement there are attributes like behavior, character, matter, form, communication-language, memory, aims (purposes) etc. As such the physical occurrence of the phenomena is not based on causality principle but rather on the process of selecting the subjective action that exits to the phenomenon in its relation to others.Causality is special case in the occurrence of a phenomenon. A mathematical model can and should be developed for such activity.
Ethics are not a higher level, or "above" ontological occurrence of the phenomenon, and it is embedded in the perception of reality by the subject.
Love is a degree of quality in the attribute of "character" of each movement or the assembly of movements.
It is all ontological and the beauty in reality stem from the eminent subjectivity and uniqueness of each movement which gives us the transcendental glory effect within reality. In the essay, I explained that reality is being continuously ratified itself as being a unique self organization though we continuously changing. "alexey" is ratifying "lev" and so on. There wasn't like you in the past nor in the future, you are unique and singular.
With great ratification and appreciation
Have a great weekend
yehuda atai
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Apr. 1, 2017 @ 13:57 GMT
Dear Yehuda,
Your essay shows the value of individual things, while most of others concentrate on the universal aspects of reality. Mathematics tells about latter, arts focus on the former, and each is ratified through its special beauty.
Thank you,
Alexey.
Lorraine Ford wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 05:00 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev,
I was inspired and impressed by your beautiful argument in the first part of your essay. It is very important to repeat this argument often e.g. “the hypothesis of aleatory or mechanical emergence of thought from matter should be rejected, and not even due to the significant hurdles of its scientific weakness and unfalsifiability but because of its Epimenidic...
view entire post
Dear Alexey and Lev,
I was inspired and impressed by your beautiful argument in the first part of your essay. It is very important to repeat this argument often e.g. “
the hypothesis of aleatory or mechanical emergence of thought from matter should be rejected, and not even due to the significant hurdles of its scientific weakness and unfalsifiability but because of its Epimenidic character, its entailment of cognitive suicide.”
But I hope you don’t mind if I criticise the ideas in the second part of your essay. You asked me to be “as critical as you like”!
From my point of view, the main issue is: do the things of the universe have the power, or does the power lie outside the universe in a Platonic realm? By “the power” I mean: the ability to generate/create rules, to know rules, to implement rules. By “the things of the universe” I mean: particles, atoms, molecules and living things.
I assume a self-sufficient universe, which has very different implications for the nature of reality than a universe plus Platonic realm combination. Rather than abstract beauty (Kallone) “always deciding the fate” (Moira), I see the things of the universe as having the power to create new initial-value rules (e.g. the outcomes of “quantum randomness” can be seen as re-initialising one or more variables), within the limits of existing earlier-created law-of-nature rules. I.e. the things of the universe are free within limits.
Re “in its idea, mathematics is entirely detached from all that is specific to humanity and even to nature. It is a composition of pure, abstract, timeless reason, reason per se.”:
I see mathematics differently. To me, mathematics is a purely human-derived study that creates representations of
possible relationships and investigates their properties. So mathematics is about categories and relationships that together form new categories; and the conclusions that logically derive from such relationships; and the conclusions that logically derive from all possible types of relationships; and numbers. To me, what we call “logic” is like a property of relationships and assumptions: logic does not have a separate existence.
We human beings can understand representations of mathematical relationships/ rules because relationships/ rules represent the essence of the structure of physical reality. So to me: 1) the content of human (and animal and cellular) consciousness is reducible to categories and relationships, where categories are just transposed relationships, and categories are concepts i.e. they are subjective experience; and 2) law-of-nature rules are reducible to categories and relationships, where mass and charge are examples of categories, and where numbers (initial values, i, and even the non-algebraic number pi) found in nature must ultimately derive from real relationships where the numerator and denominator categories cancel out, forming a number, i.e. a thing without a category. I.e. reality has more underlying infrastructure than expected.
So, I see similarities, not differences, between consciousness, laws-of-nature and mathematics. Mathematics is “beautiful” because it mirrors something about reality, about ‘Who are we?’ (Schrodinger).
Regards,
Lorraine
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 22:51 GMT
Dear Lorraine,
We are pleased to see you in our space; many thanks for coming and speaking!
Both your compliments and criticism are very valuable for us, because of the independence, courage and will to the deepest truth we see in your thinking. Our responses to your objections follow.
1.
“From my point of view, the main issue is: do the things of the universe have...
view entire post
Dear Lorraine,
We are pleased to see you in our space; many thanks for coming and speaking!
Both your compliments and criticism are very valuable for us, because of the independence, courage and will to the deepest truth we see in your thinking. Our responses to your objections follow.
1.
“From my point of view, the main issue is: do the things of the universe have the power, or does the power lie outside the universe in a Platonic realm? By “the power” I mean: the ability to generate/create rules, to know rules, to implement rules. By “the things of the universe” I mean: particles, atoms, molecules and living things”
Let’s accept this as the main question, Lorraine. The answer seems obvious: the material objects do not have any ability to change fundamental laws of nature. It is unthinkable for the electrons to decide and agree about values of their spin and charge, photons cannot change Maxwell equations, galaxies cannot change the laws of gravity; neither animals nor humans can do any of that. However, one may try to express your question in a bit different way, as a question about thinking entity, existing within the universe and permeating it, sort of immanent Soul. Although I would not debate in favor of this hypothesis, but I have a sympathy to it, and it seems sufficiently reasonable to me. Let’s assume it is true, that the World Soul does exist. I could assume then, as a reasonable follow-up, that the Soul is responsible for the origin of life, its evolution, and appearance of thinking beings on our planet and maybe not only. All these constitutes a worldview called panpsychism. The main problem of the panpsychism is addressed in the next item.
2.
“I assume a self-sufficient universe”
In your essay, you also use a word “closed” for that. Here is the main problem of the panpsychism, which assumes, as you do, that the universe is self-sufficient. If the Soul is a part of the universe, how It can be responsible for the fundamental physical laws? To choose and hold them firm through the Big Bang until now, the Soul must be more than a part of the universe, It must be the Author, which authority cannot be shaken by whatever happening with the material world. Thus, the Soul must be either a part or an agent of the transcendental Creator. This constitutes the main argument against panpsychism with its closed self-sufficient animated universe.
3.
“I see mathematics differently. To me, mathematics is a purely human-derived study”
That is clear from your essay and the special ‘anti-Platonist’ comment on your page. The question is if your anti-Platonic belief is true? I do not see on your page any reflection on the pro-Platonic arguments, so your denial of Platonism looks unjustified to me.
One argument for the mathematical Platonism is historical: in the long history of mathematics, from the Pythagorean schools and up to now, none of high level mathematicians denied Platonism, as far as I know. The latest confirmation of that fact I saw right at this contest, on a page of George Ellis; he noted, “I talked with Andrew Wiles last year about the Platonic nature of Mathematics, and he strongly believes that good working mathematicians all agree they are exploring mathematical structures rather than inventing them.” This argument should be already sufficient, I think, to accept Platonism, keeping in mind a sharp rationalism of the high-rank mathematicians, with huge variety of their cultural backgrounds and personal qualities, for all epochs. This historical argument can be complemented by a logical one. J. Dieudonne wrote in his last book, that Mathematics was formed by two core ideas of Greeks: the idea of proof and the idea of the World of Forms. The latter gave mathematicians the power of pure mathematical thinking, free from any care about possible loadings of the ideas by external contents of matter, nature or humanity. That is why Platonism was and is so important and inseparable from the pure mathematics, wherefrom all mathematical discoveries came. That is why the beauty of Mathematics, according to the top mathematicians, has nothing to do with specific features of our biology or even natural world, as we stressed in our essay.
At the end, I’d like to thank you again for your interest to our text, your compliments and clear objections. I hope you will find useful this exchange of ideas. And yes, special thanks for your rating of our essay!
All the best,
Alexey Burov.
view post as summary
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 02:29 GMT
Dear Lorraine,
After Alexey and I have discussed his answer to you, we realized that you do, in fact, provide a reason against the Platonic world, whose consideration is missing in his post. In bringing that up, I also wanted to ask for a clarification on your essay and your other posts as regards a certain difficulty I'm having with them. I cannot seem to get away from a confusion between...
view entire post
Dear Lorraine,
After Alexey and I have discussed his answer to you, we realized that you do, in fact, provide a reason against the Platonic world, whose consideration is missing in his post. In bringing that up, I also wanted to ask for a clarification on your essay and your other posts as regards a certain difficulty I'm having with them. I cannot seem to get away from a confusion between what you call the universe, a synonym of "all there is", and that which traditionally is viewed as only a part of "all there is," usually called material reality, determined (sans quantum chaos) by laws of nature. In the former sense, there can only be one universe, but in the latter we can envision many different worlds in different relationships with each other, not all of them material or even temporal, such as the Platonic world providing laws to the rest.
In my conversations with "anti-Platonists," I seem to consistently come up to an underlying protest against realism's perceived overbearing perfection and determinism. Yet your objection seems to be different (although I cannot seem to find it now, so please correct me if I'm misinterpreting). You say that in postulating the Platonic world we express distrust to the universe to be self-sufficient. I'm not quite sure how to understand that. In light of the two definitions of "universe" above, would you say that the following quote from C.S. Lewis' Miracles is a criticism to your idea?
"You must go a little away from her, and then turn round, and look back. Then at last the true landscape will become visible. You must have tasted, however briefly, the pure water from beyond the world before you can be distinctly conscious of the hot, salty tang of Nature’s current. To treat her as God, or as Everything, is to lose the whole pith and pleasure of her. Come out, look back, and then you will see … this astonishing cataract of bears, babies, and bananas: this immoderate deluge of atoms, orchids, oranges, cancers, canaries, fleas, gases, tornadoes and toads. How could you ever have thought this was the ultimate reality? How could you ever have thought that it was merely a stage-set for the moral drama of men and women? She is herself. Offer her neither worship nor contempt. Meet her and know her. If we are immortal, and if she is doomed (as the scientists tell us) to run down and die, we shall miss this half-shy and half-flamboyant creature, this ogress, this hoyden, this incorrigible fairy, this dumb witch. But the theologians tell us that she, like ourselves, is to be redeemed. The ‘vanity’ to which she was subjected was her disease, not her essence. She will be cured in character: not tamed (Heaven forbid) nor sterilised. We shall still be able to recognise our old enemy, friend, playfellow and foster-mother, so perfected as to be not less, but more, herself. And that will be a merry meeting."
Lev
view post as summary
Lorraine Ford replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 15:39 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev,
To clarify, I contend that there is only one universe. It is self-sufficient and “all there is”.
I don’t like C. S. Lewis’s attitude towards “Nature”. He doesn’t believe that he is a part of Nature. He doesn’t actually love Nature: it is merely an interesting object to him, he believes he is above it. He doesn’t see that he himself is what...
view entire post
Dear Alexey and Lev,
To clarify, I contend that there is only one universe. It is self-sufficient and “all there is”.
I don’t like C. S. Lewis’s attitude towards “Nature”. He doesn’t believe that he is a part of Nature. He doesn’t actually love Nature: it is merely an interesting object to him, he believes he is above it. He doesn’t see that he himself is what Nature is, and that he is not more than what Nature is.
Re “do the things of the universe have the power…?”:
I’m contending that reality is not Fate; I’m contending that living things genuinely have free will to navigate towards a goal. So what is free will? Free will is the ability of things to move themselves
relative to the block universe. Moving “relative to the block” merely requires that one or more outcome variables are initialised to a new number, such as what clearly occurs in the outcomes of “quantum randomness”. I’m contending that the outcome of “quantum randomness” is lawful because it is representable as a one-off local initial-value rule or equation having been injected into to the local system. So I’m saying that free will exists, and that it is all about generating a new local initial-value rule/law in order to move
relative to the block universe. I’m claiming that we live in a different type of universe than what is commonly imagined.
Re panpsychism, “the Soul”, “the Author”:
Perhaps in the beginning, when law-of-nature rules were generated, the universe was one thing; and subsequent to that, the universe became many things.
Re Platonism:
The Platonic realm concept has a number of flaws. One is the sheer extravagance of a realm containing every possible number and rule. Another is the issue of what interconnects this Platonic realm with the universe: seemingly it would be a Law, representable as a mathematical equation that
doesn’t live in the Platonic realm. But I would question that a Platonic realm is necessary, if the universe is such that it generates its own rules.
Regards,
Lorraine
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 19:18 GMT
Dear Lorraine,
I feel that some more comments from my side might be useful.
Re panpsychism, “the Soul”, “the Author”:
I do not see your attention to the the fundamental laws of nature. They are very specific, as we stress in our essay, they are mathematically elegant, they are universal and anthropic. Altogether, they are discoverable. Panpsychism may stay only by means of disregarding this.
Re Platonism:
"what interconnects this Platonic realm with the universe" was never thought as one more equation or law. Traditionally this connection was attributed to the God's will, or its synonym, Mystery. The necessity of Platonic World is shown in my previous post on the ground of unanimous agreement of great mathematicians and the logic behind it.
We agree that reality is not pre-determined, we believe in free will of humans, and even, in a reduced sense, of animals. The world is unpredictable even for its Creator.
Cheers,
Alexey.
hide replies
George Gantz wrote on Apr. 2, 2017 @ 13:37 GMT
Alexey and Lev -
You have given us a lovely essay, one which draws together physics, philosophy, literature and aesthetics. I like the point you make that trying to explain thought from the material is self-contradictory. Of course, I happen to agree.
The interposition of the three spheres of physical, mental and mathematical (a la Penrose) also makes sense, although this model...
view entire post
Alexey and Lev -
You have given us a lovely essay, one which draws together physics, philosophy, literature and aesthetics. I like the point you make that trying to explain thought from the material is self-contradictory. Of course, I happen to agree.
The interposition of the three spheres of physical, mental and mathematical (a la Penrose) also makes sense, although this model leave us in a "tri-ality". Penrose highlights the mystery by which these three are unified. The triune conceptualization may be a more accurate description of reality than Cartesian dualism, but still leaves us searching for unity.
I'm not convinced beauty is the integrating solution. If, as you point out, the compelling attraction to beauty is simply a subjective reflection of the inevitability of cognitive and therefore evolutionary success, then beauty could be epiphenomenal rather than fundamental. Love, on the other hand (as I argue), is the defining feature of intention and integrates the "tri-ality" into a whole.
In your reply comment on my essay (The How and the Why of Emergence and Intention), you asked me about my response to your initial comment --- I said "Ah, yes, the Demiurge strikes again." This was my attempt at humor. In your comment you referenced the "Demiurge" (Descartes' evil demon) as a theme in your current and previous essays --- my comment was a pun on "Demi" (meaning half part) and "urge" (meaning desire or intention), and "strikes again" (since it was a theme in both your essays).
I also said "I'll be most interested in seeing how you can sail the empirical arguments through the treacherous shoals between the rocks of Godel and QP" This is a reference to Scylla and Charybdis (in Greek myth) - and my argument that empirical evidence and mathematical reasoning cannot overcome the paradoxes of quantum indeterminacy / complementary or Godellian incompleteness.
My reference to "how the Upper Mind conceives of intentionality." is also a humorous play on words (you used the term "Upper Mind"). To the extent one believes in an Upper Mind (as I do - although in my essay I avoided extending the concept of cosmic intentionality to cosmic agency), one would, I think, agree that the conceptions of such a mind would constitute intentions in our world.
Thanks again for your thoughtful comments on my essay, and for the excellent essay you have contributed. Good luck!
-George Gantz
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 16:32 GMT
Dear George,
Thanks for your compliments and careful reading. Contemplating Being as a tri-ality of spheres, as thinks Penrose, or a tree-ality of systems, as you express in your essay, there hides a unifying mystery. Shall we argue whether the mystery is at the center or at the top? Love or Beauty, which unifies reality? Perhaps they are aspects of the same. But then again, how could the...
view entire post
Dear George,
Thanks for your compliments and careful reading. Contemplating Being as a tri-ality of spheres, as thinks Penrose, or a tree-ality of systems, as you express in your essay, there hides a unifying mystery. Shall we argue whether the mystery is at the center or at the top? Love or Beauty, which unifies reality? Perhaps they are aspects of the same. But then again, how could the center be also the top?
One common objection to Platonism is that relations have no meaning without the relata, that there have to be things before there can be relations between things, forms of reason being relations. So, if we defend Platonism, wouldn't we contradict ourselves if we question primacy of love on account of it being a relation? It seems Plato himself didn't see it along those lines, and to me also love seems to be of different kind.
Perhaps it is a question to you more than to us, though, since you have made a stronger claim, it seems. Your essay concludes by stating that it "provided evidence that cosmic intentionality is a reasonable, consistent and complete inference about why the universe is the way it is," and that it is such through the cosmic principle of love. But, is it really
that consistent and reasonable? Mathematics, even if conceived as consisting purely of relations, is quite thinkable as a standalone world; the word "abstract" seems to mean just that. But can you really claim that love is also abstract and would exist without conscious beings, whom it connects? Where was this cosmic principle before the second conscious being was born (for there to be at least two)? Or do you imply that multiple conscious beings have existed always, that there wasn't a "second"? If always, and assuming they are temporal, then time extends back into infinity, an idea apparently fraught with contradiction. On the other hand, if temporality is an illusion, so is free will and with it our existence as individuals, in which case, there no longer is a multiplicity of subjects to relate with love, thus no love itself. It seems that either you have to take back the cosmic principle you propose or its reasonableness and consistency. Or do you have something in mind for which I haven't accounted here? Have you changed your mind about the "ineluctable paradoxes" since your previous fqxi essay, "The Hole at the Center of Creation"?
From this perspective, were we to claim, like Plato, that beauty is ultimately fully atemporal, the picture would appear to be quite consistent and reasonable. We do not. We don't say that "compelling attraction to beauty is simply a subjective reflection of the inevitability of cognitive and therefore evolutionary success." We point out an interplay between beauty that is objective and eternal and our subjective and temporal attraction and response to it. We say that "beauty breathes freedom" and "a belief that we are marionettes, even in God’s hands, is incompatible with inspiration for a worthy response." In either case, however, while for evolutionary success beauty could be considered epiphenomenal, Epimenides forbids it be so for the cognitive success in mathematics.
If beauty and love are more fundamental than reason itself, can we use the terms of reason, such as the term "fundamental", to show which one is more fundamental?
I'll leave the hard questions for Alexey to answer. Thanks again and good luck to you as well!
Lev
view post as summary
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Apr. 3, 2017 @ 19:54 GMT
Dear George,
Apparently Lev has left for me the easiest of your questions,
"I'll be most interested in seeing how you can sail the empirical arguments through the treacherous shoals between the rocks of Godel and QP."
Well, I do not think that our arguments are empirical; rather they take into account the achievements of physics, reflecting on them to get something new for philosophy. Godel's theorems and QP are not rocks for us; I would call them good news. The former rids mathematics from a nightmare to be exhausted, suggesting infinity of different interesting problems; the latter opens the door for free will, saving the physical law at the same time. Ontologically, the freedom of will is above reason, so its paradoxes can be accepted as soon as its primacy is realized.
Many thanks for your generous compliments and deep questions!
Alexey.
George Gantz replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 03:16 GMT
Alexey –
Yes, I had made that remark before reading your essay. My apologies. Your arguments extend well into the philosophical. I agree that Godel and QP are ultimately good news for physics – they confront the serous thinker with paradoxes that force new thinking, to those who are willing to grasp the challenge.
Lev –
I quite agree that there is no meaning without relata. Indeed, as discussed in The Hole at the Center of Creation, there is nothing before the beginning. (Ah - it is so hard to talk about nothing!) Creation starts with a distinction – something from nothing – one separated from the void – the infinite partitioning into the finite. The act of distinction (in my metaphysic) creates the form/math in which substance/energy flows. This is an intentional act of love – manifest in the relationship of creator with creation. We can speak of this love abstractly, but it is not an abstraction – it is an actual flowing intention.
Beauty in my view is a response, a perception, a reaction by sentient beings to that which is created. Beauty is thus contingent on sentient intention and a consequence of love.
As to what is reasonable, I quite agree that it is a paradox to attempt a justification of love with reason. But my reasoning is also supplemented with experience – the sense of beauty in the flight of birds – the exquisite joy of a child at play.
It would be a delight to discuss our two essays in a coffee shop somewhere. The FQXi comment process is a poor substitute for conversation!
Deep regards – George
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 19:02 GMT
Many thanks, George!
To increase our chances for that coffee shop discussion, I've just sent you a LinkedIn connection request. In case you will happen to be in the Chicago area, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Yours, Alexey.
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 06:59 GMT
Dear, George, I agree. Here seems little more than a good place to outline basic positions. My Gmail is just a catenation of my first and last name. Now I have one more amazing conversation to look forward to. If you happen to travel past Chicago, Cafe Descartes is on me!
hide replies
Patrick Tonin wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 07:07 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev,
Your essay is very nicely written, I like your prose and poetry. If I had one criticism to make, it would be that you ask to many questions and some of them seem to be left unanswered, but maybe I should read your essay again.
All the best,
Patrick
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 19:07 GMT
Dear Patrick,
Your compliments have a special weight for us. Thanks!
Could it really happen that some of our questions are left unanswered? :^)
Cheers,
Alexey.
Vladimir Rodin wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 18:32 GMT
Dear Alexey and Lev,
To the dithyrambs which have sounded into your address, I need to add my voice only. Your work is really good, clever and poetical. But however, I will afford some speculations concerning the topic.
I suppose that the Mathematics is a contour map of that beautiful landscape which is named as the Laws of Nature which Beauty is a image (reflection) of Harmony. Harmony is the ideal of mind motivating it (mind) to evolution, i.e. to perpetually tendency to Harmony.
My very best regards,
Vladimir A. Rodin
http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2752
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov wrote on Apr. 4, 2017 @ 23:33 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
Many thanks for your encouraging voice. Apparently, your speculations above are in full harmony with ours, aren't they?
I just started reading your essay, so you may expect some comments on your page.
Cheers,
Alexey.
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 18:51 GMT
Dear Vladimir,
I have to admit that mostly I am puzzled by your composition, so that I do not even see how it does relate to the topic of this contest. One thing though attracted my attention in a special way:
"Eternity in our Universe is just a moment for the next level Universe, which our one is nested in, as a spatial pixel."
This image reminded me the butterfly parable of Chuang Chou (Zhuangzi), leading to his famous question, repeated much later by Descartes: what if all wanderings toward goals are totally misleading and futile, as dreams? Apparently, the Chinese sage left this problem unresolved, while the French father of science gave his circular solution. I guess this problem belongs to the core of the contest's topic.
Cheers,
Alexey Burov.
Peter Jackson wrote on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 18:31 GMT
Dear Alexey & Lev,
I've just returned to your essay. Very well written but I struggled with it the first time so didn't comment or score it. ..But as you don't mine quibbles!: You seemed to dismiss any possibility of a
'thought & matter' relationship before moving away to eulogize mathematics. I'd hoped you may see the architecture described in mine and other similar and excellent...
view entire post
Dear Alexey & Lev,
I've just returned to your essay. Very well written but I struggled with it the first time so didn't comment or score it. ..But as you don't mine quibbles!: You seemed to dismiss any possibility of a
'thought & matter' relationship before moving away to eulogize mathematics. I'd hoped you may see the architecture described in mine and other similar and excellent essays. You haven't commented on mine, but have you looked and considered them?
From philosophy I find Dennett's view the most coherent; that there really is no longer a problem. Are you familiar with that? He describes looking at a laptop at screen & mouse scale and saying "We can't possibly understand how that really works"! Do you refute his views?
From AI we now produce learning, decision making and consequential decisions drawn from memories serving the first via neural feedback loops which then becomes what we call an 'aim'. Any input can trigger some response. The models here show similar if far more complex mechanisms from multi trillion particle systems. Can you identify what more fundamental effect is required to replicate most mental processes?
And is Haldane's supposed 'self contradiction' not logically meaningless?
I do agree and embrace other parts, particularly the geometers. I hadn't seen Hardy on Euclid’s and Pythagoras’ theorems;
"...there is a very high degree of unexpectedness, combined with inevitability and economy." Thanks for that. Interestingly I extend Pythagoras to 3D dynamics to identify a classical derivation of QM. Certainly 'unexpected' (except by John Bell!) not to mention shocking, but falsifiable and self evident none the less, for any not too scared to look!
I've found some from Fermilab have old doctrine fermly embedded! but I do hope you'll get to read mine carefully, do some rationalisation and comment.
Many thanks for your patience, and well done. Very best.
Peter
view post as summary
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Apr. 5, 2017 @ 22:02 GMT
Dear Peter,
With your criticism, your compliments are especially valuable. Thank you.
We tried to show that the naturalistic approach to the mind-body problem leads to the Epimenides paradox; for this approach, there is no reason to trust and value any knowledge, except maybe one directed to more comfort. The problem of trust and value is at the corner of any serious cognition. You may find it in the Greek skepticism, in the Vedic Maya, in the butterfly parable of Chuang Chou, in the evil demon problem of Descartes, in Einstein’s act of faith to the non-malicious God, in the Haldane’s refutation of the dictatorship of the ‘atoms of brain’. Theoretical Physics may be meaningful only if the fundamental trust to and value of knowledge are established, provided that reason can accept that ground. It is not the case for the naturalistic approach, as we briefly outlined. By itself, science cannot establish its own ground of trust and meaning. In more details, you may read about that, for example, in a recent book of Thomas Nagel “Mind & Cosmos”.
Since I am keeping as a rule to read essays of those who spent their time on mine, I will try to succeed with yours before April 7th.
Thanks again and all the best,
Alexey.
Gary D. Simpson wrote on Apr. 6, 2017 @ 23:02 GMT
Alexey and Lev,
Well Done! Your essay is thoughtful, elegant, and subtle. It is a logical extension of the previous essay topic.
If I understand what you have presented, you argue that sentience must be a property of matter and its structure. The essence of your argument is that any other hypothesis will lead to a self-contradiction.
In addition, you present evidence to support this belief as follows: Many mathematicians have a shared belief in the beauty and elegance of Mathematics. Since they independently arrive at this viewpoint, their minds must all share a similar structure that aligns their minds and hence their thinking with something more fundamental. Perhaps this is similar to a group of people all looking at the same light off in the distance.
Furthermore, some people have the ability to apply intuition to produce new hypotheses that are elegant and fit within several parts of mathematics. This is viewed as additional supporting evidence.
If I describe your ideas with just a single word, that word must be "elegant".
Best Regards and Good Luck,
Gary Simpson
report post as inappropriate
Author Alexey/Lev Burov replied on Apr. 7, 2017 @ 01:56 GMT
Hi Gary,
Thank you so much for your generous compliments and associated images.
In the first part of our essay we tried to show that
the hypothesis of aleatory or mechanical emergence of thought from matter should be rejected, and not even due to the significant hurdles of its scientific weakness and unfalsifiability but because of its Epimenidic character, its entailment of cognitive suicide. Some people appreciate that, others disregard, while a small portion of our readers understand this in the exactly opposite way. Clearly, this issue is not easy at all.
Your meditation, finished with
some people have the ability to apply intuition to produce new hypotheses that are elegant and fit within several parts of mathematics is ours as well. We see here the same light, Gary!
Special thanks for rating our essay and all the best,
Yours, Alexey.
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.