Dear Eckard,
I was persuaded by your argument that "Alfred Nobel's legacy might guide us to the appropriate perspective" on how to steer the future:
You say "[M]athematics understands itself as a manmade creation, as a play with chosen rules, independent from physics", and a real line continuum of numbers and infinite numbers are ideas rather than realities. Similarly you say that physics' "belief that time is a dimension in which one can move back and forth as within space" is useful, but it gives "fallacious conclusions [about reality] including fatalism, denial of free will, and even denial of causality". In other words, the "Speculative and formalist tenets" of mathematics and physics "are not directly relevant to reality", and so they are not deserving of a Nobel Prize, and they are not a guide on how to steer the future.
You seem to be saying that patriotism that leads to war is naïve and against moral principles i.e. it is also a form of lack of realism. You quote Kant: "Peace is not a natural phenomenon" - it must be worked for. Nobel pointed "to the need of controlling the circumstances" and "That's why discoveries and inventions were and are valuable indirect contributions to peace and beyond", but these inventions must be "ethically acceptable".
Our obligation is to take "the global perspective" on our actions so that we don't "leave a destroyed earth ". And I agree with your conclusion: "Let's learn from nature and adapt our behavior here and now to the mostly self-made challenges which mankind will face. It isn't the barons; it is the sum of all discoveries, inventions, and even of the seemingly irrelevant personal decisions of anybody that will steer humanity. "
However I would disagree with your "Protection of environment and conservation of flora and fauna are subordinated to the logical priority of humans' point of view. They must not be generalized as independent goals":
I contend that we humans are not separate from, or more developed than, the universe we are part of. The idea that the universe developed completely new fundamental properties when humans came on the scene is typical human hubris (by underlying fundamental properties, I mean experience of information, subjectivity and creativity). Human hubris and narcissism says "I'm special! " In fact, the human body is itself an ecosystem - the "human microbiome" is "the microbial communities associated with the human body". The "average human body is carrying around 3 times more bacterial cells than human ones...There is general agreement that viruses outnumber bacterial cells, maybe by as much as 5 to 1. " The human body RELIES on "plenty of viruses, fungi, archaea, and single-celled eukaryotes" which COMPLETELY OUTNUMBER human cells, though they weigh less than human cells. This realisation that the human body is an ecosystem is very new - only about 10 years old. (http://microbio.me/americangut/img/FAQ_Human_Microbiome.pdf)
Another thing I would like to mention, relating to your discussion of numbers, is that if there is only this universe and no platonic realm, then how do we explain the reality behind the numbers that are found when nature is measured? I suggest in my 2013 essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1888 ) that numbers are hidden information category self-relationships.
Another thing I would question is "Considering reality equal to its subjective perception denies the well confirmed causal coherence of the world...Measuring something directly against an observer's own perception is impossible". I think it is clear that subjective perception is an experienced point of view that can be partially REPRESENTED with symbols (numbers, parameters, words) by an observer or indeed by the subject himself/herself. Subjective perception/experience IS physical/material reality that can be measured/represented from the point of view of an observer, but because of complexity, any sort of precision is only possible with fundamental particles/subjects.
Best wishes,
Lorraine
