Moira and Eileithyia for Genesis by Alexey and Lev Burov

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

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

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

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

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

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