The Role of Humanity’s Development of Mathematics in Nature’s Evolution by Steven Patrick Pederson

Dear Stev,

You belong to the next generation of theorists. I downloaded your essay just out of curiosity to know how you approach the problem. Your one page essay reveals your worldview. You say, "Quantum mechanics is physics' most accurate description of the universe." I disagree. Quantum mechanics is just a result extracting method, not the actual description of the universe; arriving at conclusions (regarding the nature of universe) from mathematical relations can be tricky.

You say, "Mathematics in this context is not simply humanity's description of nature's deterministic processes; it is an element of how nature itself functions." Yes, I agree, but why? A down to earth answer: motion follows mathematical laws; it is motion that causes changes; changes can happen in no other way; so all changes in the universe follows mathematical rules.

Again, "We are part of nature and our actions, whether we are aware of it or not, serve its evolution." Yes, I agree. Evolution of life (even the day to day existence of life and our machines) has a direct correlation with expansion. Evolution can take place only in a deterministic world, not in a quantum mechanical world.

I consider myself a 'physicalist'. There are no mystical answers for physical questions. In my opinion, the equations of QM and GR are correct, but the physical interpretations based on these are incorrect. This may be heresy to the present generation of physicists; but still it may be truth. I invite you to read my essay and also visit may site, finitenesstheory.com

Steven -

Your brief essay hinges on an idea that's very important to me - "The quantum worldview does not see the universe as a clockwork machine, but as a problem solving system." Have you developed this thought further? Or have you seen this kind of approach to QM anywhere else?

You identify the "problem" as "maintaining temporal continuity," given that in any situation, there's no causal rule that defines what will happen next. That makes a lot of sense to me, though it's a short-hand description for something very complex - i.e. how the world is able to determine itself moment to moment, through a web of many kinds of interaction.

My current essay only deals with this issue indirectly, in terms of the mathematical language of physics. But some of my attempts to think about how this process works are reflected in essays I submitted to FQXi for the 2012 and 2013 contests. These both discuss the kinds of interaction-contexts that are needed to measure and communicate information.

I agree with you that the problem-solving functionality of the physical world should be seen in a broader evolutionary context. I think there's a special class of problems that plays a key role in nature - namely those for which every successful solution only recreates the problem once again. The best-understood example is the problem of biological reproduction. Every living organism in the world comes from a long line of progenitors, every single one of which somehow succeeded in solving this problem; yet each new organism faces this problem all over again itself. Self-reproduction is by far the most complex and difficult process any organism undergoes; yet it's ubiquitous in biology because it's what makes evolution possible.

I think the problem you refer to so succinctly in your essay is just this type of problem, in that each "outcome" depends on a long line of prior determinations, and contributes to setting up new situations in which new outcomes become possible. Though this is very different from linear reproduction in biology, it may also be a kind of evolutionary process - though one that gives rise to a macroscopic domain that seems to be governed by changeless, perfectly precise causal laws.

In the domain of human imagination, as you note, this kind of process flourishes. Not only in math but in every aspect of human existence, every new solution only generates more interesting and difficult problems.

Thanks for the chance to comment on your very interesting essay -

Conrad

Dear Pederson,

Very on topic and the content is well presented. I see what you mean as you write and that is appreciated. I do think that the idea that math can further natures evolution is backwards. If anything, i would wonder if nature evolved man to the point of developing the imagination required for elegant math. It is true that math and physics are pursued in their own right without application in sight. Some one, sometime will find a way to use math or science, and that is scary to me as a person of this earth. It is true also that our current level of understanding is only of the physical in science. To be a bit metaphoric, we with gr only can see the peel of the orange and not the sweetness of the fruit. So while our models are of the physical, that does not necessarily entail that nature is only physical. Just because we don't see more doesn't mean it isn't out there. So i agree with some of your more aesthetic points but do not agree with others. I really like how your point was made by your way of writing!

Dear Steven,

Your thesis seems to close to

Wheeler: It from bit. Otherwise put, every "it" -- every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself -- derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely -- even if in some contexts indirectly -- from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. "It from bit" symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom -- a very deep bottom, in most instances -- an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-or-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe.

You compare Mathematics and life to a problem solving (evolutionary) process.

Fine. Do you see the evolution of maths correlated to the evolution of our brain or are the maths living in a "a platonic heaven" waiting to be discovered.

Best,

Michel

Dear Steven,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Dear Patrik,

Thank you very much for reading my essay and other write-ups at viXra site.

I too have read your short-and-sweet essay, clearly expressing your views. Single reading is not sufficient to express comments, as your essay demands much thinking.

If you kindly give links of your papers, then i can learn more about your views on large-number and other things; and discuss.

With my best regards,

Hasmukh K. Tank