Mathematically Mysterious by Andrew R. Scott

Hi, Andrew R. Scott,

Good essay on the basis of the formation of question it self. Though it is not answering the EQXi question.

By the way what is consciousness...

Hi, you seem to loose hope that science will ever be successful in understanding life, consciousness, intentions etc. But, science is a quest of truth. If life and consciousness truly exist in nature, why can't we prove it? Of course, we will have to include these subjects in the scope of modern scientific research.

A preliminary step towards a mathematical approach on 'will' or consciousness can be found in my submitted essay titled "Theoretical proof of biased will of nature as the origin of quantum mechanical results".

Hi there,

You might like Dan Bruiger's essay. I thought he dealt with the ambiguities of the question pretty thoroughly Not exactly well posed.

Regards, Don

Dear Andrew

I can only applaud your true remarks, as we are obligated do not deceiving ourselves, before teaching something to others!

While my essay takes a very different approach by making the default assumption of "mindless math = physical principles," yours poses the counter question of what is meant by the relationship of math to the world. We know it works well, but it is mysterious as Wigner pointed out in his "Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics."

LC

Dear Gupta! (copy)

Many thanks for your great opinion.

I am just happy to see that we are not alone in our views!

Maybe in any time people will be realized that the way of natural thinking is more preferable in science than any beautiful creativity! Now I am starting to study your work (with pleasure!) I will tell you about it after some time.

I suggest you to read M-r Andrew Scott's article where I find very costly remarks!

With best wishes!

Dear Dr. Scott,

Please excuse me for I do not wish to be too critical of your fine essay.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings about imaginary invisible "inflated view of the power of science of this bleak and ultimate truth."

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 comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Andrew

Thanks for this enjoyable article. I like the fact that you focus on the importance of knowing what we know and not know, and also the distinction between description and explanation.

John-Erik Persson

Hi Andrew, I was not at all unsure what was meant by the essay topic that was selected. You did a pretty good job of analyzing the issues involved in answering the topic question. I however, am pretty sure that the question was posed within the context of the viewpoint that goes back to the Pythagorean idea that nature is mathematics. That idea has many faults, and I tried to address them from the viewpoint of the so called scientific method. I see you took a different approach. Many of the issues that you raise are complementary to the issues that I addressed. I concluded that the scientific tools, as currently used, are inadequate to address the problem posed. So it is an ill posed problem as it stands. I did try to suggest alternative ways of dealing with the question, which is a fundamental question. I don't think that it really falls into the purview of science, and can not be answered by science, as it is really a question in philosophy.

I suggested that it is a problem that doesn't fit into the box that science tried to fit it into. So we have to find a different approach, since the tools of science are not suited to the solution of the problem that they posed.

Andrew,

I can understand the frustration you feel in dealing with the topic and as a non-scientist by training and experience, my concept of mindless was non-scientific. In retirement I'm hooked on science.

However, my comments went like this: Such laws are not mindless as the non-scientific definition of requiring no mental effort, but mindless in the sense of being only a neutral mathematical description of an observed phenomenon. Thus, there is no mindfulness to such laws. They do not dictate an aim but can boost efforts to rationally explain observed phenomenon in the course of humankind's endeavors.

I went to Aristotle for concept of goals and discovery and the scientific process in methodology for discovery and mindless laws.

Jim Hoover

Andrew R. Scott,

I read your essay. You have posed a question: What exactly are mathematical laws? In my opinion, the basic law (rule) of mathematics is the law of addition. 1+1 is always equal to 2. The rest of the mathematical laws follow from this. There are no separate mathematical laws for physics. In interactions, bodies have to follow mathematical laws.

I agree with you regarding quanta. Matter is grainy; and so space, time, and everything connected with matter are quantised. I propose that the 'fundamental unit' of matter always remain in 'motion', which is a mathematical relation connecting space and time. Because of motion, matter always remain changing, and the changes follow mathematical laws.

Jose P Koshy

Dear Andrew,

I very much enjoyed the vividly rebellious spirit of your essay, although I do not fully share your points. In particular, I do not see any reflection on the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" (Wigner), whose 'unreasonableness' points to the fact that it goes much farther than ability to count units. What I especially like in your text is your pointing to the mystery as the terminus of all explanations. I am very interested to see your comments to my essay.

Regards, Alexey Burov.

Andrew,

It was an enjoyable read and I liked the last point on 'mathematics describing and not explaining things'. I might have to ponder upon that. I am of the view that physical law is the only objective reality and math, (most probably) a product of human cognition provides a familiar language to discuss it. I saw in your comments that you don't expect to see an essay with a solution. I will overall disagree with your essay (while still enjoying it) and ask you take a look at my essay 'Intention is Physical' if you have the time. Perhaps you might find the explanation for how goals and intentions arise that you were looking for.

Cheers

Natesh

Andrew,

You say near the end, "We should enjoy the puzzles and the mysteries..."

So I wonder if you have any particular favourites amongst the physical mysteries that should be the target of investigation or attention (even if very difficult and hard to describe mathematically!)

For me, demonstrating the reality of objective wavefunction collapse is an important next step...

Regards,

David C.