Essay Abstract

Modern 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 Bio

Alexey 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

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

    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.

    I scored your essay, and also answered your other question on my page.

    • [deleted]

    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

    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

      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."

      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.

        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

          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.

          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.

          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

          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.

            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!

            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/

            Best wishes to your essay.

            For your blessings please................

            =snp. gupta

              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.

              Dear Steve,

              Thanks a lot for your compliments and good wishes!

              All the best,

              Alexey Burov.

              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