Mathematics Replaces Cosmological Myth

[Enigma3]

In order to live mankind requires various sets of rules. Without rules or the codification of human life there certainly can be no law and order; nor can there be historical moments that are knowable by self-conscious reflection. The question remains whether absent any historical or political rules, there can exist any science (and technology).

The problem with these historical and political rules is that they are, scientifically speaking, all categorically untrue; man nevertheless needs these anthropocentric myths and rules even though they are all untrue. Scientifically there cannot exist a metaphysical ideal 'out' in the cosmos that justifies the need for particular qualia that mankind requires.

The question is whether the universe is intrinsically "ordered" in any non-mathematical manner. I think in terms of science the answer is no, it is not.

So Mankind needs to lie to himself in order to prop up this human-centric, ego-centric sets of rules (the qualia) even though they are untrue.

I don't know how we can say that human rules and codes are real in themselves, it seems we need to lie to ourselves in order to live and this seems to constitute a crisis.

--

[cladking]

In order to live mankind requires various sets of rules. Without rules or the codification of human life there certainly can be no law and order; nor can there be historical moments that are knowable by self-conscious reflection. The question remains whether absent any historical or political rules, there can exist any science (and technology).

The problem with these historical and political rules is that they are, scientifically speaking, all categorically untrue; man nevertheless needs these anthropocentric myths and rules even though they are all untrue. Scientifically there cannot exist a metaphysical ideal 'out' in the cosmos that justifies the need for particular qualia that mankind requires.

The question is whether the universe is intrinsically "ordered" in any non-mathematical manner. I think in terms of science the answer is no, it is not.

So Mankind needs to lie to himself in order to prop up this human-centric, ego-centric sets of rules (the qualia) even though they are untrue.

I don't know how we can say that human rules and codes are real in themselves, it seems we need to lie to ourselves in order to live and this seems to constitute a crisis.

--

I actually agree with some of this!

Two major points though; first is that you are assuming that the "rules" did not come from a science and second that any science requires humans and civilization. I might also point out that you are suggesting reality is subservient to math when in point of fact it is suservient only to logic and this logic can be quantified through math.

The "rules" arose through the application of theory derived from observational science. Ancient man observed the logic of nature and applied this logic to human behavior and civilization. It was only later confused into religion. Neither observational nor experimental science require civilization to work though, obviously, in practice both require enough stability over enough time that the scientists can build on the work of older generations. The sciences generate(d) enough technology to contribute, if not to stability, at least to the means to maintain central power structures and these structures created the stability.

[Enigma3]

I actually agree with some of this!

Two major points though; first is that you are assuming that the "rules" did not come from a science and second that any science requires humans and civilization. I might also point out that you are suggesting reality is subservient to math when in point of fact it is suservient only to logic and this logic can be quantified through math.

The "rules" arose through the application of theory derived from observational science. Ancient man observed the logic of nature and applied this logic to human behavior and civilization. It was only later confused into religion. Neither observational nor experimental science require civilization to work though, obviously, in practice both require enough stability over enough time that the scientists can build on the work of older generations. The sciences generate(d) enough technology to contribute, if not to stability, at least to the means to maintain central power structures and these structures created the stability.

How could plain math or science provide today's Western people with the inner resources to refrain from doing things that might harm them such as over-eating or gambling or dangerous hyper-sexual activity or going too much into debt (such as their forefather's religious based metaphysics did)?

The sciences, in my opinion, were once a part of natural philosophy, and that is how they originally evolved. But we have conquered nature now.

If math, science or technology could found human values then why are the values in such retreat, especially at a time when technology is leading us toward such heights?

It seems to me that mathematics is the true language of a comic society however, I don't see the Western societies as being able to survive long enough to get there. It is the Asians with their racial exclusivity and their family values who have a good chance going into the future.

The coming technological age in the West will not be based upon Enlightenment-era values of enlightened self interest; rather it will be a tragedy filled with internal strife. How do I know? It was their tattooed faces what gave them away...

--

[Dalek Prime]

As Zapffe has said, we anchor ourselves to fabrications and distract ourselves in order to continue existing.

[cladking]

The sciences, in my opinion, were once a part of natural philosophy, and that is how they originally evolved. But we have conquered nature now.

Before science was a part of natural philosophy there was a different science based on a language that reflected the wiring of the human brain. This wiring and hence the language were naturally logical. But all new learning had to be incorporated into language for it to work and eventually the language became too complex so it failed. But the results of the ancient science weren't wholly forgotten and they became in a somewhat confused form the basis of religion.

Unfortunately the new language which we still use 4000 years later results in a perspective from which the user can explain everything he sees by definition so we think we know far more than we actually do. We see what we understand and expect so we see that we know everything. We simply don't see the massive array and scale of our vast ignorance.

If math, science or technology could found human values then why are the values in such retreat, especially at a time when technology is leading us toward such heights?

Modern science isn't tied to reality directly so its results can't be applied to human values and human self evaluation. We are adrift and casting off the values that we can't understand.

It seems to me that mathematics is the true language of a comic society however, I don't see the Western societies as being able to survive long enough to get there. It is the Asians with their racial exclusivity and their family values who have a good chance going into the future.

Math isn't real. It isn't tied to anything real. Logic, the logic of nature, is real and math is merely a quantification of this logic.

The coming technological age in the West will not be based upon Enlightenment-era values of enlightened self interest; rather it will be a tragedy filled with internal strife. How do I know? It was their tattooed faces what gave them away...

--

Society is failing and government policies are largely to blame for the rapidity at which it is failing. The single biggest cause of the failure is Freud who somehow (ego id etc) got people to believe they aren't responsible for their actions nor the results of those actions. Today people are only responsible for what they say. A politician can cause tremendous mayhem and carnage but so long as he's politically correct he'll be reelected endlessly.

[Enigma3]

As Zapffe has said, we anchor ourselves to fabrications and distract ourselves in order to continue existing.

This statement of yours might be true of Dalek Prime and Zapffe- a couple of philosophers - but it is manifestly NOT true if one simply surveys the modern historical scene; their Cosmological world-view is secular when in the past it was not secular.

What the people today have anchored themselves to is obesity and debt and over consumption of all kinds on a scale that has never been seen in history before. This consumption has gotten so far out of hand that it is economically unsustainable. And while it is true that they embrace technology, I have to ask: at what cost? The coming technological (https://www.singularityweblog.com/17-de ... ingularity) singularity will be nothing but like taking drugs and lusting more and more.

In my opinion they have replaced warfare with selfish corruption and inevitable decline. It may be true that in past ages the nations were somewhat insane, but today they are hurtling to a catastrophic demise.


-

[Enigma3]

To cladking:

Thank you for your response cladking.

I would like to get your opinion on a few related topics. Do you believe that mathematics (or logic if you like) is a human discovery or a human invention?

It does seem convenient that we can use mathematics in such a way that it helps us explore the deep structures out in the universe. I mean, how is math possible as a means or a tool that we use to do so much that is good for us?

I would have to say that there are definitely patterns and certain shapes in the world that reminds one of math or of geometry. But nature does not exhibit numbers or pure geometric objects so if I had to decide I would say that math is an invention (but I believe that other space-faring people exist (i.e. aliens originating from other earth-like planets) and that we can communicate using mathematics (or logic).

In the end, when I look out at the large-scale structures of the stars or look inward at the smallest scales available (consider the Plank length) I don't see any numbers or logic; what I see is a natural world that (my guess) is alive in some sense.

Science assumes necessarily that there are no non-mathematical, non-scientific structure in nature; no Platonic ideas, no Gods, for example. But if there is no non-mathematical beings then who are we?

--

[Dalek Prime]

As Zapffe has said, we anchor ourselves to fabrications and distract ourselves in order to continue existing.

This statement of yours might be true of Dalek Prime and Zapffe- a couple of philosophers - but it is manifestly NOT true if one simply surveys the modern historical scene; their Cosmological world-view is secular when in the past it was not secular.



-

More true of others than Zapffe and I. And it has nothing to do with secularism or religiosity. You're in left field, when I hit to the right.

[Obvious Leo]

But we have conquered nature now.

Don't kid yourself, mate. We're like a fleabite on the arse of a brontosaurus. Nature managed just fine for billions of years before we came along to shit the nest and she'll manage just fine for billions of years after she's shuffled us off into extinction.

[cladking]

I would like to get your opinion on a few related topics. Do you believe that mathematics (or logic if you like) is a human discovery or a human invention?

It has aspects of both and neither.

People simply found that they could set numbers to logic. So long as the logic of nature isn't contradicted then it works.

In the end, when I look out at the large-scale structures of the stars or look inward at the smallest scales available (consider the Plank length) I don't see any numbers or logic; what I see is a natural world that (my guess) is alive in some sense.

Reality isn't as much mathematical as it is logical. It is not beholden to math.

Science assumes necessarily that there are no non-mathematical, non-scientific structure in nature; no Platonic ideas, no Gods, for example. But if there is no non-mathematical beings then who are we?

I don't believe this is true.

Science simply assumes that reality can be understood only through experiment and some basic definitions and axioms. Hypothesizing the existence of something that can't be detected or the non-existence of something which by definition can't be seen is beyond the province of science. Science virtually assumes the existence of consciousness by its definitions and perspectives.

Humans are, or at least were, as mathematical as everything else. Our language no longer is mathematical in nature and from its perspective many things are invisible. We have to lose our mathematical language as babies to acquire modern language.

[Obvious Leo]

Mathematics is a language tool and nothing more. It can be used to model a procedure of thought but to suggest that it can also be used to define a procedure of thought is the Platonist myth which has driven the science of physics into a conceptual cul-de-sac.

[cladking]

Mathematics is a language tool and nothing more. It can be used to model a procedure of thought but to suggest that it can also be used to define a procedure of thought is the Platonist myth which has driven the science of physics into a conceptual cul-de-sac.

-I sense you were replying to me and, if so, you misinterpreted my comment.

I'm not suggesting that modern language can be used as a means of mathematical thought.

I believe that all animals employ a language which reflects the wiring of the brain and is mathematical in nature. More accurately this wiring is logical and the metaphysical language that arises from it is logical and hence has a mathematical aspect. It is this difference in language that is the chief reason we can't communicate with animals. It is this difference which causes babies to babel and require many months to acquire language.

Otherwise I'm in close agreement but would use some different words.

[Obvious Leo]

-I sense you were replying to me and, if so, you misinterpreted my comment.

Actually I wasn't. I was making the more general observation that mathematical logic is merely a subset of formal logic because mathematical logic can only be applied to a particular narrative of reality which must first be specified in advance. In other words mathematical logic is intrinsically tautologous because it can only be applied to a THEORY. Obviously the same mathematics which is used to model a theory cannot be used to confirm its truth value, a point well made by the great man himself.

"It is the THEORY which determines what the observer will observe".....Albert Einstein

"Mathematics can be used to prove ANYTHING".....Albert Einstein

If we design our theories to predict specifically what the observer will observe and then model these theories mathematically then we can hardly feign amazement when our observer duly observes what the mathematics of our theories have subsequently predicted. The Higgs boson is a perfect example but modern spacetime physics is riddled with such confirmation bias because modern physicists are hopelessly unschooled in the philosophy of knowledge.