Essay Abstract

Physical and mathematical concepts ultimately reflect the nature of the embodied human organism as well as its world. Non-computability in mathematics and randomness in physics refer to limits within an epistemic relationship between subject and object. However, non-computability signifies the ability of a self-reflective agent to transcend its own formulations. In contrast, natural randomness signifies the world's ability to transcend formalization in thought.

Author Bio

I am an independent scholar with longstanding interest in philosophy of science and mind. Publications include The Found and the Made: science, reason, and the reality of nature (2016)and Second Nature: the man-made world of idealism, technology, and power (2006). I have participated in several fqxi contests.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear Dan,

Thank you for your very clearly expressed view on reality.

I liked very much your approach to agents from a different structure like ours.

I am inclined to place these agents in different realities.

Your interpretations are touching mine, only the essence of reality is not yet touched. I also tried to do that, but I don't know if I succeeded, all interpretations are staying interpretations from conscious agents.

I enjoyed reading your essay and hope that you will also find some time to read an comment on mine.

Good luck

Wilhelmus de Wilde

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3411

Thank you for your Excellent essay Prof

Your words......

"The mapmaker (the human brain) is in the position of a pilot flying by instrument or a submarine navigator charting the underwater world. Like these characters in their capsules, the brain is sealed within the skull, with access to the putative outside only through electro-chemical signals, of which it must learn to make sense."

Very nice analogy you gave here. I got a small doubt here. What is the difference between human brain and mind? The mind and consciousness are same is it? What is consciousness actually???

Best

=Snp. Gupta

    Hi,

    If you are replying any of comments I posted on your essay, I request you to post a copy or intimation that you posted reply, on my essay

    "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy"

    also,so that I can continue discussion....

    Best Regards

    =snp.gupta

    4 days later

    Dan,

    Your scholarly essay approach involves delineated answers in the same manner as your perceived fact-based description of our relations with physical nature. You make our failings seem pre-programmed. These "grand generalities" couched in math are there but shared human efforts coming from varied cultures could serve as a check on these generalities. Allowing the interference of the political culture with the scientific culture certainly has tainted the scientific effort and what is produced, certainly evident with the climate change fiasco. I tend to believe that enhanced cognition, which scientists contend we are capable of, and better tools like quantum computers as well as a global scientific effort will further hone our tools, help erase muddled approaches and lessen limited knowledge. I believe that nature is not inherently inscrutable. I do agree that the "mathematical mind is ordained to transcend its own creations." Our stage 0 civilization on the Kardashev scale will take centuries to overcome the 3 "Us" if we survive that long. You describe well the tendencies seemingly embedded - conceptual maps, statistical scientific knowledge, forcing decisions, fear of alternative math, etc -- in our culture. Hopefully we can overcome with a shared global effort, enhanced cognition and better tools.

    Jim Hoover

    20 days later

    Dan,

    Wanted to let you know that I updated my essay and uploaded it a few minutes ago. Personally I feel that it is greatly improved. I did rate yours on 3/20, giving it a good rating, feeling it was one of the better ones.

    Please check mine out if you have time. Such honest, No BS, reviews are needed by all of us.

    Jim Hoover

    a month later

    Dan,

    I think you paint the correct 'overview' picture, and paint it well. Favourite snippets; nature 'transcends formalisation in thought', maths 'mirrors reality but potentially diverges from it, determinism is a 'property of equations'. Uncertainty relations are not specific to the quantum scale', and 'gotten out onto theoretical limbs'. All goos stuff. But a few questions.

    When logic and Philosophy itself remains best by paradox can we really insist it's "true by definition"? (I suggest it needs updating).

    Is decidability really only about 'which set'? i.e. We know a sphere has both clockwise and anticlockwise rotation. But what if you have to tell me which at any point you touch, then you find the equator? If nature is smooth not integer then is not observer undecidability inherent?

    Again I suggest important implications of that in my essay.

    Well done for yours, marked down for a good score.

    Very best

    Peter

    Hello Dan.Nice insight on decision making. rated You keep up the great Work.i have something on anthropic bias here https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3525.pls read/rate.all the best in the essay.

    6 days later

    Dan,

    Hope you have time to check mine out before the deadline: https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/3396

    Jim Hoover.

    Write a Reply...