Vervaeke, Awakening from the Meaning Crisis

Philosophy
82

In case anyone is wondering if I’m only looking for criticism of others, check out the next one, 25, on Hegel. Vervaeke says Hegel has been called the “Aquinas of Protestantism” because he reconciled the mythical process of history of religion with the reflective contemplation of the modern era that relies on experimentation and evidence. Something I’ve been trying to do for a decade or so.

Vervaeke wraps up the session with the criticisms of Hegel, which themselves have problems, like Marx saying Hegel is missing how we participate in history and tries to put workers in the driver seat of change, for example.

Looking ahead, it appears things will move out of the philosophical and into political battles. But politicians claim a philosophical basis when they make policy, so you can’t get out of that hole completely.

83

I think we are using different perspectives of mathematics. People use mathematics with purpose. The universe doesn’t, it just functions mathematically

84

I think you are talking about something completely different, but I don’t know what it is. How do you know the universe functions mathematically? You don’t know everything about how the universe functions, so you can’t say how close your models are.

85

[quote=“lausten, post:84, topic:10251, full:true”]
I think you are talking about something completely different, but I don’t know what it is. How do you know the universe functions mathematically?

Because we can codify and symbolize it.

You don’t know everything about how the universe functions, so you can’t say how close your models are.

We don’t need to know everything about how the universe functions, to understand it is of a mathematical nature.
And Higgs proved that we can come close enough in using interactive values to actually produce a boson, a particle that cannot exist on its own

The Fibonacci Sequence appears in many natural patterns and is a result of “natural selection”. Thus, if nature selects for a mathematical patterns, then by definition it functions mathematically. Forget human numbers and substitute with “relational values”

I respect caution when proposing new science, but when the current functional evidence is overwhelming without a single alternative mechanism, why say we don’t know ?

We do know. We have known since Plato and Pythagoras.
Our problem is that we are not smart enough to find the final few equations that tie it all together.

This is exactly what Tegmark proposes.
He hypothesizes about 32 numbers (relational values) and a handful of fundamental
equations are all that is required for being able to imitate natural physical interactions.

We couldn’t even do science without maths. How would you represent naturally occurring mathematical behaviors? They are all around us!!

We did not invent maths, Nature did.
“Natura Artis Magistra” (nature is the teacher of art and science)

It was here long before humans and humans are nature’s crowning achievement if we learn to deserve it.

86

So we can codify and symbolize something that had to have functioned with unimaginable internal consistency within its folds within folds of harmonic cumulative complexity.

How could something like that (or the universe we observe) not be intelligible to smart minds and the mathematics they can invent?

You keep making it sound so special but you’re only looking in one direction.

Think about it,
if the universe had not had it’s current internal consistencies,
it could never have sported a planet with billions of years of life struggling to make their way (so to speak). And nothing like us would have ever existed.

Or?

87

[quote=“citizenschallengev4, post:86, topic:10251”]
How could something like that (or the universe we observe) not be intelligible to smart minds and the mathematics they can invent?

Humans do not invent mathematics, we codify and symbolize them.

It only needs to be quasi-inteliigent in a mechanical way and be reliable over a range of dynamic interactions.

Conscious Will has nothing to do with it. Evolution via natural selection is a mathematical function. We didn’t invent that, it invented us.

IMO, causal potential exists within every natural differential equation. The universe strives for balance.

These are all mathematical properties or functions.

88

“Understand as” exactly.

89

1+1=2… :student:

90

Those are symbols. You are abusing the word “proof”.

91

They are symbols. The equation is the proof.

92

It’s axioms and inferences. Logically sound doesn’t mean valid.

You’re dismissing half the discussion on this.

93

[quote=“lausten, post:92, topic:10251”]
It’s axioms and inferences. Logically sound doesn’t mean valid.

You are forgetting “predictive”. That is part of “proving” a claim.
Can you cite a single proven natural phenomenon that is illogical in essence?

You’re dismissing half the discussion on this.

I am not dismissing anything. You are suggesting that absence of proof is proof of absence.

94

I’m not the one claiming something is proven.

95

But why is there a debate at all about the functional effectiveness of mathematics and the logical laws on which it rests?

Mathematics has never failed unless it was incorrectly applied. It is not just self-evident, in our acceptable application of science we actually prove things with it.

Now we are still questioning if the universe is a mathematical object because math allows us to predict the future from conditions existing today. Every day provides proof that the world functions in a logical manner that can be codified and symbolized.

All of Science rests on mathematics, but after 3000 years, we still cannot say that the universe is a mathematical object that functions in a mathematical manner?

This is just the exact opposite of religion after 3000 years still being considered truth, without any evidence or utility at all. It’s the fact that God cannot be proven to be utterly baseless that keeps it in the box labeled “unproven but not impossible”, yet billions of people are wasting trillions of hours in an utterly useless pursuit of praying, instead of being useful and creative using mathematics.

96

I can’t discuss this with you if you don’t know what you are debating.

It could be that you are talking about ancient notions of what the universe is vs mathematical modern notions and I’m talking about meaning. I agree the universe can be described with math.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/12390

But that doesn’t tell me why I care about starving children on the other side of the world. The indifferent forces of nature obviously don’t care and don’t even have the capacity to care. But I do. I don’t care that the universe doesn’t care. I’m not looking for an ultimate answer, I’m looking for what I should do in my short time here, between the beginning of spacetime and the cold lifeless universe that entropy is creating.

97

Is there a functional difference between a mathematical differential equation that is causal to a dynamic action, say a pendulum, and your desire to right a perceived wrong ? The natural formation of symmetry, a mathematical function.

Causality does not stop with conscious “intent”. Causality is an imbalance that seeks correction. Ever watched single-celled Paramecium mating? It’s the only time they do NOT move.

The universe started in chaos but has now 14 billion years of “corrections” under its belt. And look at the artistry the universe has constructed. Just from trying to attain symmetry.

Scientists have described mating-type determination mechanisms in Paramecium

image
image1200×800 88.4 KB

> The mating process is one of the most important mechanisms for maintaining genetic variation in natural populations. The emergence of sexual reproduction turned out to be the most important evolutionary innovation that facilitated the evolution of eukaryotes.

Paramecium is a well-known genus of ciliated protists with a complex system of ‘sexes’, or mating types. Paramecium reproduces asexually, by binary fission, which is not related to the mating process. During conjugation, Paramecium of compatible mating types exchange haploid nuclei, equivalent to gametes. The nuclei of each organism then fuse to form a diploid genome. This genome is stored in germline micronuclei of the exconjugants. It then undergoes large-scale rearrangements in the somatic macronucleus, including the elimination of virtually all non-coding DNA.

Thus, there are two Paramecium cells before the formation of a conjugating pair, as well as after conjugation: no offspring are produced. However, by the time the two cells go their separate ways, both of them will have changed. Firstly, now they will have become genetically identical, and, secondly, they will both have acquired a new genetic identity, different from their ‘parental’ genotype.

more… https://english.spbu.ru/news-events/news/scientists-have-described-mating-type-determination-mechanisms-paramecium

98

That’s a great question. This is where argument breaks down. You are assigning a purpose to the universe. You don’t know it’s moving to symmetry

99

I see this from a different perspective. I am not assigning purpose to the universe and I am absolutely convinced that it is moving toward symmetry. All of science speaks of these fundamental constants that bring order to the chaos.

It is the universal constants that record the occurrence of regularly recurring patterns, and the evolution of complex universal mathematics.

I don’t think purpose makes any difference, except that purpose (motive, intent) requires understanding, and lack of understanding may lead to incorrect actions, whereas the universe makes no mistakes. It has no purpose other than to act mathematically when presented with a differential equation in a dynamic environment.

Symmetry in nature is all around us. If it isn’t, it is in process of creating or regaining symmetry. And it is not by accident, it’s mathematical.

The Fibonacci sequence in nature is an evolved equation for balancing vertical growth.

image
image1800×1192 246 KB

![image|259x194]
(upload://6KHb7cSArnsetEhTbqXu9u0u53D.jpeg)
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Spiral-symmetry-in-nature-6_fig4_237838275

And then spacetime itself may be fractal, as an expression of ultimate symmetry via self-similarity.

We commonly recognize when shapes demonstrate symmetry under the three familiar transformations of reflection, rotation, and translation. Fractals demonstrate a fourth type of symmetry ; they possess “self-similarity.” Self-similar objects appear the same under magnification.

Familiar Symmetries

image
image1290×606 87.7 KB

Scaling Symmetry

image
image1314×782 178 KB

http://www.brotherstechnology.com/docs/fractals.pdf

image
image750×500 92.4 KB

Fractal geometry is also common in chemistry. The phenomenon is expertly demonstrated by copper crystals, which branch out in all directions like tree limbs. Each “twig” is a new growth point—as it branches out, it develops into solid metallic copper. Because of their arborescent nature and unique reddish-brown color, copper crystals are often grown for art.

Note that in a dynamic environment perfect symmetry is impossible, but always an approximation. Hence the term “tolerance”.

It is the acceptable deviance from perfection and dependent on the physical properties of the interacting values.

What is Tolerance?

In terms of measurement, the difference between the maximum and minimum dimensions of permissible errors is called the “tolerance.” The allowable range of errors prescribed by law, such as with industrial standards, can also be referred to as tolerance.

It is clear that in a physical world, symmetry is the most efficient way to express mathematical patterns, such as mirror images.
image

Introduction

Many geometric concepts like lines

A line is a set of infinitely many points that extend forever in both directions. Lines are always straight and have no width.
A mathematical object.

Learn more…

or polygons

A polygon is geometric shape that is made up of straight line segments. Polygons cannot contain any curved sides, or holes. For example, a square is a polygon but a circle is not.

Learn more…

Polygons were “invented” by mathematicians.
Symmetry, on the other hand, is everywhere around us. Almost all plants, animals, and even we humans are symmetric.

100

Are crystals natural mathematical objects? These are minerals that grow!

Variations of Uric acid crystals in urine

9 years ago by Dr.E.I 0

image
Uric acid crystals are seen in a variety of shapes, including rhombic, four-sided flat plates (whetstones), wedges, and rosettes. Form in urine when pH < 5.5

They usually appear yellow-brown, but may be colorless and have a six-sided shape, similar to cystine crystals.

Uric acid crystals are highly birefringent under polarized light, which aids in distinguishing them from cystine crystals .

This does not just look like mathematical shapes and patterns, they are mathematical shapes and patterns.

101

So much I could say, but it’s getting tiresome. Of course meaning doesn’t matter to an Iron molecule or a star, but it matters to me. I’m the result of chaotic interactions that can’t be detected but we know occurred, that’s how evolution works. We don’t know if we are the ultimate work of billions of years and will make life better for a billion years more of unknown creatures, or if we are a mistake, a dead end on the tree.

You, the sun, the viruses, may not care or matter or have some other potential symmetry or not but I do. “Purpose” is a creation of sentience and I’m sentient. It fits the math, it’s true in all the senses of what “true” means. To say it doesn’t make a difference ignores the difference between a sunny day and a rainy one, between the love of a mother and anger born of jealousy.

It doesn’t have to mean anything to the math for an equation to say x <> y. But if x is a complex organism that remembers the past and anticipates the future then the word “purpose” means something. For how long, or who is aware of that meaning is not the issue.

2 Likes