1: \documentclass[twocolumn,amsmath,nofootinbib]{revtex4}
2: %\documentclass[12pt]{article}
3:
4: % Packages:
5: \usepackage[dvips]{color}
6: \usepackage{latexsym} % Gets \Box etc
7: \usepackage{amssymb} % \gtrsim, \geqslant, etc etc:
8: % see /opt/texmf/tex/ams/doc/amsguide.ps
9: %\usepackage{amsfonts} % \mathfrak and \mathbb{x} (Blackboard bold)
10: % \usepackage{amsbsy} % \pmb and \boldsymbol
11: %% \usepackage{amsmath} % Screws up \beq and \eeq
12: %% \usepackage{amstex}
13: %\usepackage{rotate} % rotates PostScript figures
14: \usepackage{graphicx}
15: \pretolerance=5000 %Not too many hyphens
16: \hbadness=2000 %I don't want to hear about underfull hboxes
17:
18:
19: % ======================================================================
20: % Abbreviations specific to this paper:
21: % ======================================================================
22:
23: \newcommand{\com}[1]{{\sf\color[rgb]{0,0,1}{#1}}}
24:
25: % \newcommand{\percent}{\symbol{'045}}
26: \newcommand{\hide}[1]{}
27: \newlength{\labwid}\newlength{\labmarg} % For setting label widths
28:
29: \newcommand{\response}[1]{\noindent\underline{#1}}
30:
31: % ************************************************************************
32: % **************************** DOCUMENT BEGINS ***************************
33: % ************************************************************************
34:
35: %\let\ns = \normalsize
36:
37:
38: \begin{document}
39: %\twocolumn[\hsize\textwidth\columnwidth\hsize\csname@twocolumnfalse\endcsname
40:
41: \title{On Math, Matter and Mind}
42:
43: \author{Piet Hut$^1$, Mark Alford$^2$ \& Max Tegmark $^3$}
44:
45: \affiliation{$^1$Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540}
46: \affiliation{$^2$Dept.~of Physics, Campus Box 1105, Washington University, St Louis MO 63130}
47: \affiliation{$^3$Dept.~of Physics \& MIT Kavli Inst.~for Astrophysics and Space Research, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139}
48: \date{Submitted to Foundations of Physics October 20, 2005; accepted December 21} % Do not use \today (arxiv version needs fixed date)
49:
50: \begin{abstract}
51: We discuss the nature of reality in the ontological context of
52: Penrose's math-matter-mind triangle. The triangle suggests the
53: circularity of the widespread view that math arises from the mind,
54: the mind arises out of matter, and that matter can be explained
55: in terms of math.
56: Non-physicists should be wary of any claim that
57: modern physics leads us to any particular resolution of this circularity,
58: since even the sample of three theoretical physicists writing this paper
59: hold three divergent views.
60: Some physicists believe that current physics has
61: already found the basic framework for a complete description of
62: reality, and only has to fill in the details. Others suspect that no
63: single framework, from physics or other sources, will ever capture
64: reality. Yet others guess that reality might be approached
65: arbitrarily closely by some form of future physics, but probably based
66: on completely different frameworks. We will designate these three
67: approaches as the fundamentalist, secular and mystic views of the
68: world, as seen by practicing physicists. We present and contrast each
69: of these views, which arguably form broad categories capturing
70: most if not all interpretations of physics.
71: We argue that this diversity in the physics community
72: is more useful than an ontological monoculture, since it motivates physicists to tackle
73: unsolved problems with a wide variety of approaches.
74: \end{abstract}
75:
76: \maketitle
77:
78: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
79: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
80: % Body of paper begins
81:
82:
83: \section{Introduction: the Role of Metaphor}
84: \label{sec:intro}
85:
86: Although physicists agree on the formalism of their theories and the
87: methodology of their experiments, they often disagree about the
88: question of what it all means.
89: % MGA: I cut these lines because they dilute the point.
90: %for human beings living in the world, confronted with questions of
91: %life and death, and with responsibility for choices to be made.
92: A few hundred years ago, this was only to be
93: expected, since at its inception, physics covered very limited aspects of
94: the world. However, now physics can arguably lay proper
95: claim to providing an effective description of all material processes,
96: if not in practice then at least in principle. And with no obstacles
97: visible to a full understanding of the dance of matter and energy in
98: space and time, what aspect of the world would not be amenable to an
99: analysis by physics, again at least in principle?
100:
101: The obvious objection would be to point out that notions such as
102: meaning or beauty or responsibility have been explicitly filtered out
103: of physics, as part of its methodology. To believe that you could
104: remove some of the most important aspects of human experience, and
105: then hope to fully reconstruct them through the mathematical formalism
106: of physics strikes many as absurd. This view, that physics can only
107: cover limited aspects of our experience, we will call the secular
108: view. The opposite view that holds that a straightforward application
109: and further exploration of the current framework of physics will
110: eventually cover and explain all of reality we will call the
111: fundamentalist view.
112:
113: There is a reason for choosing religious terms for our metaphors.
114: First of all, they indicate a mind set, a psychological attitude that
115: corresponds quite closely to the ones we will discuss among physicists.
116: Secondly, they are universal, in that the tension between the more
117: fundamentalist and the more secular views of religion occur everywhere,
118: in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on.
119:
120: \begin{figure}
121: \begin{center}
122: \includegraphics[width=3in]{mmm_sym.eps}
123: \end{center}
124: \caption{Our starting diagram, based on a similar one
125: by Penrose \cite{Penrose}}
126: \label{fig:mmm}
127: \end{figure}
128:
129: There is one other type of viewpoint that is widespread across
130: religions, and that is the mystic view of the world. Many religions
131: %contain practitioners
132: have produced mystics
133: who use precise methods and descriptions in
134: order to find deeper forms of truth that will eventually transcend
135: both methods and descriptions, leading to insight that is utterly
136: down-to-earth but that cannot be captured by the net of description.
137:
138: Among physicists, the mystic view holds
139: that a future form of physics may come arbitrarily close to a genuine
140: understanding of reality, both from a pragmatic and an ``insight'' point
141: of view. However, to what extent this insight can be captured in any
142: way through presently familiar forms of mathematical physics or any
143: other future form of physics relying on description, is not clear and
144: is left as an open question. This may sound presumptuous, but there
145: are good historical reasons to expect fundamental changes in what is
146: considered legitimate physics. For example, the discovery of quantum
147: mechanics toppled some of the notions held most near and dear by
148: physicists, such as reproducibility of experiments.
149:
150: %The rest of this paper is organized as follows.
151: In summary, we will discuss three broad categories of world views
152: that physicists may hold, which we label fundamentalist,
153: mystic, and secular. They differ in their view of whether a physics
154: framework will ultimately give access to all of reality. The three
155: answers are, respectively: yes, the current framework; yes, a future
156: framework; no, no framework present or future.
157: %This essay is based on a series of 1999 discussions
158: %between the authors while they were all
159: %at the Instutute for Advanced Study, and
160: In what follows, the fundamentalist view is
161: advocated by Max Tegmark, the secular view by Mark Alford, and the
162: mystic view by Piet Hut.
163:
164:
165:
166: A useful starting point for the debate is the Matter-Mind-Math
167: triangle (Fig.~\ref{fig:mmm}), put forward by Penrose \cite{Penrose,Penrose2}.
168:
169: This figure encapsulates the idea that
170: matter somehow embodies mathematics, the mind arises from
171: matter, and mathematics is a product of the mind. If such a circular
172: production seems unsatisfactory, we can ask which
173: of these three arrows should be removed.
174: In Section~\ref{sec:weak} we see that the fundamentalist, secular and
175: mystic viewpoints each find different parts of the diagram to be
176: the weakest, and we set forth their arguments and counter-arguments.
177: This sets the stage for Section~\ref{sec:beyond}, where each viewpoint
178: gives its version of how the diagram should be.
179: Their strengths and weaknesses are debated vigorously
180: in Sections \ref{sec:Mysticdisc}-\ref{sec:Fundamentalistdisc}.
181: We close with the three different visions
182: of the future in Section~\ref{sec:out} and a brief
183: conclusion in Section~\ref{sec:concl}.
184:
185:
186: %------------------------------------------
187: \section{Three critiques of the Penrose diagram}
188: \label{sec:weak}
189:
190: \subsection{The Fundamentalist Critique}
191:
192: \begin{figure}
193: \begin{center}
194: \includegraphics[width=3in]{mmm_max.eps}
195: \end{center}
196: \caption{Fundamentalist critique of the Penrose diagram}
197: \label{fig:nonFundamentalist}
198: \end{figure}
199:
200: I am a mathematical fundamentalist: I single
201: out math as the underlying
202: structure of the universe, and disagree strongly with the
203: symmetry between math, mind and matter
204: that is expressed in the Penrose diagram. I have no problem with
205: the reduction of the world around us, including our minds,
206: to mathematical laws of physics --- rather, I find it elegant and beautiful.
207: I am therefore
208: happy with the Math$\to$Matter and Matter$\to$Mind links, but
209: object to the Mind$\to$Math link.
210:
211: \subsubsection{Against Mind $\to$ Math Link}
212: \label{sec:FundamentalistPlatonic}
213:
214: I adopt the formalist definition of mathematics:
215: it is the study of formal systems.
216: Although this pursuit itself is of course secondary to the human mind,
217: I believe that the mathematical structures that this process uncovers
218: are ``out there'', completely independently of the discoverer.
219: Consequently, math is not a product of the human mind, and there
220: should be no Mind$\to$Math link.
221:
222: Math is also unique in its ability to
223: circumvent the classic problem of infinite regress, where every
224: explanation of a statement in human language must be in the form
225: of another unexplained statement. The trick is the emergent concepts
226: idea of section 2.E in \cite{Tegmark}.
227: Although whims of human fashion influence the choice of which
228: particular formal systems we explore at any one time, and which aspects
229: thereof, we are continually increasing the amount of charted
230: territory.
231: The street map of mathematical structures is ``out there'',
232: and any intelligent entity who begins to study any corner of
233: it will inevitably discover at least the main plazas and connecting
234: boulevards, even if many charming back alleys and sprawling
235: suburbs are missed due to cultural prejudice.
236: The key is that the explorer needs no a priori explanation of what
237: concepts like integers, vectors or groups mean, since she herself will introduce notation
238: for them and create her own interpretation of them.
239: Mathematics is thus the same whether it is discovered by
240: us, by computers or by extraterrestrials.
241:
242: \subsubsection{Defense of Math $\to$ Matter Link}
243: \label{sec:MathMatterDefense}
244:
245: Although I respect the Secular ``shut-up-and-calculate'' attitude
246: (Section \ref{sec:secularcritique})
247: I feel that the evidence favors the Math$\to$Matter Link.
248: Physical theories are considered successful if they make
249: predictions that are subsequently verified.
250: The view that the physical world is intrinsically mathematical
251: has scored many successes of exactly this type, which in my opinion increase
252: its credibility.
253: %\com{[MGA inserted:]}
254: The idea that the universe is in some sense
255: mathematical goes back to the
256: Pythagoreans, and appears again
257: in Galileo's statement that the Universe is a grand book
258: written in the language of mathematics, and in Wigner's discussion of the
259: ``unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences''
260: \cite{Wigner}.
261: %\com{[end insert]}
262: After Galileo promulgated the idea,
263: additional mathematical regularities beyond his wildest dreams were
264: uncovered, ranging from the motions of planets to the properties of atoms.
265: After Wigner had written his famous essay,
266: % on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics,
267: the standard model of particle physics
268: revealed new ``unreasonable'' mathematical
269: order in the microcosm of elementary particles,
270: and my guess is that history will repeat itself again and again.
271: I know of no other compelling explanation for this trend
272: than that the physical world really is completely mathematical,
273: isomorphic to some mathematical structure.
274:
275: Let me briefly elaborate on what I mean by this hypothesis that mathematical and physical existence
276: are equivalent. It can be viewed as a form of radical Platonism,
277: asserting that the mathematical structures in Plato's realm of ideas or
278: Rucker's ``mindscape'' \cite{Rucker}
279: exist in a physical sense. It
280: is akin to what John Barrow refers to as
281: ``$\pi$ in the sky'' \cite{BarrowPi}, what Robert Nozick called the
282: principle of fecundity \cite{Nozick} and what David Lewis called modal realism \cite{Lewis}.
283: However, it is crucial to distinguish between two ways of viewing a physical theory:
284: from the outside view of a physicist studying its mathematical equations, like a bird
285: surveying a landscape from high above it, and from the inside view of an observer living in the world
286: described by the equations, like a frog living in the landscape surveyed by the bird.
287: From the bird perspective, the physical world is
288: a mathematical structure, an abstract, immutable entity existing outside of space and
289: time. If history were a movie, the structure would correspond not to a single frame of
290: it but to the entire videotape.
291:
292: Consider, for example, a world made up of pointlike
293: particles moving around in three-dimensional space. In four-dimensional spacetime -- the
294: bird perspective -- these particle trajectories resemble a tangle of spaghetti. If the
295: frog sees a particle moving with constant velocity, the bird sees a straight strand of
296: uncooked spaghetti. If the frog sees a pair of orbiting particles, the bird sees two
297: spaghetti strands intertwined like a double helix. To the frog, the world is described
298: by Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. To the bird, it is described by the geometry
299: of the pasta -- a mathematical structure. The frog itself is merely a thick bundle of
300: pasta, whose highly complex intertwining corresponds to a cluster of particles that
301: store and process information. Our universe is of course far more complicated than this example,
302: since we do not yet know to what mathematical structure it corresponds.
303: Part of the challenge here is that
304: reality can appear dramatically different in frog and bird perspectives, and the phenomenology linking them
305: can be more difficult than finding the correct mathematical structure itself.
306: It took the genius of Einstein to realize that frogs living in Minkowski space would perceive
307: time to slow down at high speeds, and that of Everett to realize that
308: a single deterministically evolving quantum wavefunction in Hilbert space contains within it a
309: vast number of frog perspectives where certain events appear to occur randomly.
310:
311:
312:
313:
314: \subsubsection{Defense of Matter $\to$ Mind Link}
315:
316: %I believe that consciousness is a phenomenon that arises in
317: %certain highly complex physical systems that process information,
318: % i.e., that there is nothing wrong with the Matter $\to$ Mind link.
319: I believe that consciousness is the way information feels when being processed.
320: Since matter can be arranged to process information in numerous ways
321: of vastly varying complexity, this implies a rich variety of levels and types of
322: consciousness.
323: The particular type of consciousness that we subjectively know is then
324: a phenomenon that arises in certain highly complex physical systems that
325: input, process, store and output information.
326: This implies that there is nothing wrong with the Matter $\to$ Mind link.
327:
328: This hypothesis has clearly not been proven. However, this can
329: hardly be held against it, since it can strictly speaking
330: never be proven: I cannot even prove to my colleagues that I personally
331: am self-aware---they simply have to take my word for it. Moreover,
332: the spectacular successes of computers and neural networks over
333: the past decades have arguably made the hypothesis appear less
334: implausible than before.
335:
336: Although believing in this hypothesis may make some people feel less happy
337: about what they are, I have so far seen no hard scientific evidence
338: against it. Rather, many objections seem to be based
339: on a combination of human vanity and wishful thinking.
340: Humanity has already had its collective ego deflated so many times
341: (by Copernicus, Darwin, Freud, infinite Universe cosmology,
342: Deep Blue, etc.) that yet another demotion would not bother me at all.
343: I am what I am and will continue to enjoy feeling the way
344: I subjectively feel regardless what the underlying explanation
345: turns out to be.
346:
347:
348:
349: %----------------------------------------------------
350: \subsection{The Secular Critique}
351: \label{sec:secularcritique}
352:
353: \begin{figure}
354: \begin{center}
355: \includegraphics[width=3in]{mmm_mark.eps}
356: \end{center}
357: \caption{Secular critique of the Penrose diagram}
358: \label{fig:nonSecular}
359: \end{figure}
360:
361: I am a secular scientist. I enjoy
362: practicing science, and believe that it is of great practical
363: importance and intellectual value. Everyone should take science
364: seriously, while remembering that
365: it is a human creation, not an all-embracing metaphysics.
366: I am therefore happy with the Mind$\to$Math link.
367: I appreciate the scientific interest and usefulness of
368: physiological explanations for human behavior, but
369: I am unenthusiastic about the Matter$\to$Mind link as a metaphysical
370: claim. I disagree strongly with the Math$\to$Matter link.
371:
372: \subsubsection{Against Math $\to$ Matter Link}
373:
374: All physical scientists are impressed by the ``unreasonable effectiveness
375: of mathematics in the natural sciences'' \cite{Wigner}.
376: That effectiveness is indeed spectacular. But
377: the Math$\to$Matter linkage in the Penrose diagram tries to go further,
378: inferring from the effectiveness of math that it is
379: itself the ultimate substance of the universe.
380: Wigner, however,
381: avoiding metaphysical speculation, simply concluded that
382: we should be grateful for the effectiveness of mathematical methods,
383: and get on with the business of exploiting them. I agree with him.
384:
385: I will give my detailed criticism of the Math$\to$Matter link
386: in section \ref{sec:sec_vs_fund}, where we discuss the
387: Fundamentalist's version of the MMM diagram, in which this link
388: plays the foundational role. For now I just want to point out that
389: although our current theories of physics and our current way
390: of doing mathematics may seem inevitable, we should be wary of
391: assigning them any kind of fundamental status. History shows
392: that both physics and math have changed markedly over time.
393: %And anything with which we are deeply familiar, such as
394: %our native language, will give us that feeling of inevitable rightness.
395:
396:
397: The Fundamentalist suggests that math is
398: a particularly secure foundation because
399: it can resist the infinite regress of explanation
400: via ``emergent concepts''.
401: But an infinite regress of explanations only arises when one is confronted
402: by the ultimate skeptic, who demands proof of everything.
403: Such a person will not believe the ``emergent concepts'' claim either,
404: since it cannot be proved.
405: For any normal person, explanations will be accepted at some point,
406: the infinite regress will never arise, and math will not
407: be needed as a foundation for knowledge.
408:
409:
410: \subsubsection{Against Matter $\to$ Mind link}
411: \label{sec:antimaterial}
412:
413: Like the Mystic, I am unenthusiastic about
414: the Matter$\to$Mind link, if it is taken as a form of reductionism
415: that states that the
416: mental phenomena are ``really just material processes'', as if the
417: material were somehow more fundamental than the mental. Of course
418: it is conceivable that everything could be reduced to physics,
419: but it is also conceivable that it could not. Our scientific theories
420: are not definitive accounts of nature's secrets, so there is no point
421: in worrying about what it would be like if they were.
422: And what happens as our theories of the material world become
423: better and better? Is there a gradual reduction of the mental
424: to the physical? Not at all.
425: We can find out as much as we like about
426: the brain, but this does not provide a new and better foundation
427: for our concepts of mental things \cite{Rudd}.
428: For example, science may
429: find brain processes that correlate with mystic experiences,
430: or genes that determine shyness.
431: Such progress is extremely interesting, but it happens not
432: to tell us anything about the {\em meaning}\/ of
433: ``the mystical'' or ``shyness''.
434:
435: Of course, scientific progress does influence our beliefs and attitudes.
436: Rather than saying that our friend is possessed by demons
437: or went crazy we may now
438: talk about whether he is suffering from paranoid schizophrenia or
439: manic depression. These are not just synonyms for ``crazy'', they
440: represent a richer picture of the person involved, a more specific set
441: of assumptions about his probable behavior, even a different view of
442: his curability and humanity. Our mental concepts have evolved, but
443: they have not been reduced to physical ones. Even if, as the
444: Mystic fears (section~\ref{sec:mystic_critique}), we started
445: talking in materialistic terms---``My brain processes are causing me to
446: leave the room''---would that mean we were now right where we had been
447: wrong before?
448:
449: I therefore find myself sharing
450: the Fundamentalist's professed indifference to scientific discoveries
451: about how the brain works. Would people
452: feel diminished if it became possible to build Turing-test-passing
453: machines? I don't think so. The machines we
454: currently make are stupid. If we made dazzlingly intelligent, kind and
455: beautiful machines we would see nothing wrong in being like them.
456: We would probably claim they were patterned after our image.
457:
458: \subsubsection{Defense of Mind $\to$ Math Link}
459: \label{sec:QP}
460:
461:
462: The Fundamentalist (Section~\ref{sec:FundamentalistPlatonic}) and the Mystic
463: (Section~\ref{sec:MysticTranscendence}) both express the view that
464: Math cannot be dependent on the human mind because mathematical
465: correctness has a solid ``out-there'' feeling about it.
466: I do not find this a compelling argument.
467: Many conceptual systems with which we are deeply familiar
468: give us that feeling of inevitable rightness. For example, the
469: grammar of ones native language has exactly this character: one
470: ``stumbles over'' the incorrectness of ungrammatical sentences.
471: Even morality has a solid core of indisputably right and wrong
472: types of actions to which we have an immediate and visceral response,
473: though we normally do not discuss these because we take them
474: for granted and spend our time arguing over the more ambiguous cases.
475:
476: The denial of the Mind $\to$ Math link corresponds to the
477: Mathematical Platonist doctrine that mathematical objects have
478: an independent existence of their own. It is interesting in the
479: context of the MMM diagram to note that the main argument for
480: Mathematical Platonism is the ``Quine-Putnam indispensability argument''
481: \cite{Quine,Putnam}
482: which exploits the Math-Matter connection. Quine and Putnam
483: point out that mathematics is an essential component of science, as are
484: other exotic entities such as electric fields and protons.
485: So if we grant that electric fields and protons exist independently
486: of us, then we should give the same status to the mathematical
487: objects (real numbers, Hilbert spaces, etc) that we use in science.
488: Many philosophical objections have been raised against the
489: Quine-Putnam argument \cite{StanfordMathPhil}.
490: As a physicist I find it unconvincing because
491: there is a wide range of entities that are posited in physical
492: theories, from fairly concrete ones like electric fields
493: to more abstract ones like an object's wave function,
494: or its center of gravity, that we don't (all) think of as
495: ``existing'' or ``being real'' in the
496: normal sense of those words. So just because something plays
497: a role in our theorizing doesn't mean it is a real object.
498: And when a physicist argues that something is real
499: he or she invokes a specific instance where the object
500: is present:
501: ``of course electric fields are real: you can tell that
502: there's an electric field around a proton because it pushes
503: other positive charges away.'' One couldn't speak of
504: Hilbert space or the complex plane as giving away its
505: presence in a similar way.
506: This is related to the fact that what physicists do when they
507: check whether their theories give a good description of the real
508: world is very different from what mathematicians do when they
509: check whether their results are true. In fact, by scientific
510: standards (and that is what Quine and Putnam
511: are ultimately appealing to) mathematics really
512: doesn't have a ``check against nature'' step in its
513: procedures at all. Checking whether a theorem is true is
514: not like an experiment, it is more
515: like checking whether a sentence is grammatical.
516:
517: In his critique of the Mind$\to$Math link, the Fundamentalist
518: asserts that any
519: intelligent entity will agree with us about math. For example, aliens
520: from another planet might have incomprehensible ideas about many
521: things, but their math would map on to (or extend) ours.
522: This is a rather vague statement
523: because it would be up to us to decide which parts of the alien {\em \oe{}uvre}
524: we call ``math''. It could just reduce to the empty statement that
525: if we pick out the parts that look like our math, then they will
526: map onto our math. The Fundamentalist takes it as an article of faith
527: that a nice mapping, covering a reasonable amount of
528: material, would necessarily be found, but
529: this need not happen. We might be faced with ``inscrutable aliens'',
530: in whose behavior we cannot cleanly identify anything
531: that corresponds to ``doing math''.
532: For example, their successful feats of engineering might not be based on
533: a coherent mathematical theory of physics but on
534: what looks to us like a set of rules of thumb.
535: Another possibility is ``pragmatic aliens'' \cite{Barrow},
536: who study mathematical questions,
537: but with a different approach from our own.
538: Like us, they have proven Fermat's last theorem:
539: they simply computed millions of examples, and declared
540: it true. Their mathematicians have developed such numerical methods to
541: a high art, and have numerical ``proofs'' of many theorems that we had not even
542: conjectured. They seem unimpressed by the rigor of our
543: analytic proofs, arguing that
544: that there is little fundamental
545: difference between the small chance that their numerical
546: searches have missed errors in their theorems, and the small chance
547: that we have failed to notice errors in our analytic proofs.
548:
549: Of course, even if we find we can agree on
550: math with all the aliens that we have met, it still wouldn't cast doubt
551: on the Mind$\to$Math link. It would just mean that in certain respects
552: our minds are alike. One could speculate on evolutionary reasons
553: for that, or simply accept it as a fact. And of course, the next
554: batch of aliens might turn out to be different.
555:
556:
557: %---------------------------------------------
558: \subsection{The Mystic Critique}
559: \label{sec:mystic_critique}
560:
561: \begin{figure}
562: \begin{center}
563: \includegraphics[width=3in]{mmm_piet.eps}
564: \end{center}
565: \caption{Mystic critique of the Penrose diagram}
566: \label{fig:nonPiet}
567: \end{figure}
568:
569: I take a mystic view of science. Unlike the Secularist, I expect that
570: science will ultimately give us profound insights into the real nature
571: of the world. But unlike the Fundamentalist, I believe these will not
572: emerge in any straightforward way from science as it is currently
573: constituted. Rather, I expect science to metamorphose into something
574: so different that it is literally inconceivable for us. So in that
575: sense I agree with the Secularist that physics will probably see
576: upheavals even (far) more fundamental than the discovery of quantum
577: mechanics. And I agree with the Fundamentalist that Science will
578: ultimately come arbitrarily close to a full understanding of reality.
579:
580: The reason I like the word `mystic' is that the future science I
581: envision will be so different from current science, and the role of
582: elements such as math and experiments will be so different from what
583: they are now, that we have not the foggiest idea of what these will
584: look like. The structures of a future science will remain a mystery,
585: and the only thing we can be pretty sure of is that our current lines
586: of reason will be seen to be naive and superficial, compared with the
587: newer and deeper insights.
588:
589: So let me be clear: the word `mystic' for me points to a form of
590: probing into mysteries, as it was meant in Medieval times. Note
591: that mystics were very keen to try to show structure and to enumerate
592: parts of that structure -- the term `mystic' just happened to get a
593: bad rap later on, and is now unjustifiably associated with attempts
594: to confuse and muddle a situation.
595:
596: As for the Penrose diagram, I have deep doubts about all the links.
597: Making these links now, before a future unification, seems premature.
598: I strongly believe that the process of unification, which has
599: successfully uncovered intrinsic links between, e.g., electricity and
600: magnetism, space and time, matter and energy, will
601: continue. What can be more different than matter and energy? Their
602: unification was totally unexpected. If history is any guide, future
603: unifications will occur that are currently equally unexpected. And
604: one example may well involve our three M aspects, matter, mind, and
605: math. These three can then no longer can be treated as independent
606: notions that have the power to point to each other.
607:
608: Drawing arrows, in my view, is simply a precursor to the program of
609: unification, in which nature is discovered to be already unified more
610: than we had thought. It was through tracing the arrows between
611: electricity and magnetism -- how exactly can an electric charge
612: generate a magnetic field, and a magnet generate an electric field --
613: that electromagnetism was discovered.
614:
615: Science, like any human activity, is ultimately given in experience,
616: and understood through the lens of conscious experience. Within
617: experience, we can discern subject and object poles. The trend of
618: science, so far, has been to explain/reduce all phenomena to processes
619: that are described purely in terms of objects. The rise of the
620: subject is seen as somehow being a byproduct of sufficiently complex
621: phenomena, taking place in brains, material systems that can be fully
622: described objectively. While not denying the correlations between
623: subjective experience and objective processes in our nervous system, I
624: do not want to buy into an unquestioned prior status of the object
625: pole over the subject pole of experience \cite{Hut0}.
626:
627: The Fundamentalist defends the Matter$\to$Mind link on the basis
628: of advances in neurophysiology.
629: I do not deny that a
630: deep understanding of the material structure of the human brain will
631: shed a lot of light on the way {\it in which} we experience; but the
632: very fact {\it that} we experience may completely fall outside such
633: an explanatory framework. My guess would be that such a question
634: requires a shift to a wider horizon of knowledge/meaning/explanation
635: \cite{Hut1,Hut2}.
636: %And in addition, such a shift may well shed light upon the explanatory
637: %structure based on correlations between third-person descriptions of
638: %neural processes and first-person descriptions of felt experience.
639:
640: Let me give an analogy.
641: % Without a clock we could still make rough
642: % measurements of time, by feeling our pulse, or by looking at the way
643: % the Sun moves across the sky.
644: Imagine a world in which there are no
645: periodic phenomena, and hence no clocks of any type in nature.
646: Someone living in such a world may not easily discover the concept of
647: time, and certainly not a concept of a linearly progressing time, that
648: can be mapped onto a one-dimensional line of real numbers. But it would
649: be wrong to draw the conclusion: no clocks no time, hence clocks
650: produce time. Similarly, it is too simple to say: no brains no
651: experience, hence brains produce experience. Reality may be a lot
652: more subtle. Brains may tune into an aspect of reality that is
653: explicitly filtered out when setting up laboratory experiments and
654: when formulating mathematical regularities summarizing the lab
655: experiments. This is just one analogy, and merely meant to illustrate
656: the fact that there is a lot more room within the ``horizon of knowing,''
657: than we normally consider.
658:
659: To try to explain our experiences as somehow arising out of matter is
660: a tempting project.
661: And of course there is a very tight correlation
662: between the thoughts we think and the precise electromagnetic and
663: chemical processes in and between our brain cells.
664: However, the problem with identifying brain states with experience
665: is that we are short-changing ourselves.
666: When people talk
667: about their experience by invoking
668: scientific images, such as ``my hormones drive me to do such and such''
669: or ``my taste buds enjoyed so and so'',
670: they are
671: using technological thinking as a mode of alienation.
672:
673: When the Fundamentalist says ``I am what I am'',
674: it strikes me as hopelessly naive. While a sudden new discovery will not
675: instantaneously change the way we experience the world, by
676: the time the new knowledge seeps into the way we view the
677: world, it definitely colors the way the world presents itself
678: to us. The existence of placebos is just one striking example
679: of this phenomenon.
680:
681: \subsubsection{Transcendence of all three links}
682: \label{sec:MysticTranscendence}
683:
684: I neither want to attack nor defend the three links in the Penrose diagram,
685: in any absolute way. Rather I want to transcend them, after first defending
686: them in a relative way.
687:
688: The proper defense of all three links is not by ascribing to them
689: any power in terms of causality, but by pointing to meaningful
690: correlations that exist between the three M-elements. To take the
691: example of a movie: within the movie, all kind of phenomena seem to
692: `cause' other phenomena, in rather precise ways, but we know that the
693: real cause lies in the projector, and in the process of shooting the
694: film in the first place. The correlations are still important, since
695: without them the movie would be just a heap of flickering lights
696: without meaning. But the importance of the correlations is strictly
697: limited to the framework of the movie, and has no fundamental meaning
698: whatsoever.
699:
700: So perhaps this is what makes me a mystic, in that I am uttering
701: seemingly contradictory statements. Among the three of us, I am the
702: only one who can accept all three links, without being bothered by the
703: circular nature of the `vicious triangle' links. Since I only ascribe
704: relative meaning to them, I have no need for any foundation. None of
705: the elements within the story of reality is absolute or basic; all
706: elements emerge simultaneously from a deeper unification, speaking in
707: physics lingo. In Buddhist lingo, for example, this could be called
708: co-dependent arising \cite{Napper}.
709:
710: The Platonic position of the Fundamentalist, that mathematical truth
711: exists all by itself, is extremely appealing because it seems to
712: correspond closely to our experience. When we struggle with a
713: mathematical problem, and finally find a solution, we sometimes
714: ``stumble'' upon it in a way that is rather similar to the way we
715: stumble over a chair. The resistance that mathematical objects show
716: to our attempts to prove what later turns out to be false is akin to
717: the resistance that physical objects show when we try to wish them
718: away -- both appear to have an existence independent of the presence
719: or absence of individual humans. In this sense, I am sympathetic to
720: Alain Connes' notion of archaic mathematical reality as being as real
721: as physical reality \cite{CC}.
722:
723: The Secular view that matter and mind have their own meaningful
724: existence I also find extremely appealing, within our every-day
725: explanatory framework. In practical terms, it makes sense to
726: deal with the world around us in terms of material objects and
727: energetic processes, and it also makes sense to treat our experience
728: as something that has equal pride of place.
729:
730: The problem arises when we try to isolate elements from this
731: story, and point to some of them as truly fundamental. In my view,
732: a future physics will transcend any story we have woven so far.
733:
734: \section{Beyond the Triangle: Three Views}
735: \label{sec:beyond}
736:
737: \subsection{The Mystic View: the Other-Source Diagram}
738: \label{sec:Mystic}
739:
740: \begin{figure}
741: \begin{center}
742: \includegraphics[width=3in]{mmm0.eps}
743: \end{center}
744: \caption{Mystic's view: Other-source Diagram}
745: \label{fig:Mystic}
746: \end{figure}
747:
748: \noindent {\bf Mystic:}\\
749: I'm against all three arrows in the original picture. In my alternative
750: picture, ``?'' stands for an origin that cannot be easily described, the way
751: each of the other three can. Our three M's are more like the shadows on
752: the wall of Plato's cave; or in another metaphor, they are the fish
753: that can be dragged up with the nets of discursive/conceptual thinking.
754: The Source or Origin lies beyond that, and is more real than
755: any particular element of what we conventionally take reality to be.
756:
757: Note here that in fact, upon finer scrutiny, the separation between ``?''
758: and the three M's is only illusory. The real mind cannot be captured
759: in a description, nor can the real matter. I'd say that even the real
760: math cannot, if you include the living intuitive process of discovery.
761:
762: \subsection{The Secular View: the No-Source Diagram}
763: \label{sec:Secular}
764:
765: \begin{figure}
766: \begin{center}
767: \includegraphics[width=3in]{mmm_nosource.eps}
768: \end{center}
769: \caption{Secular view: No-source Diagram}
770: \label{fig:Secular}
771: \end{figure}
772:
773: \noindent {\bf Secularist:} \\
774: In so far as the relationship of matter, mind, and math can be
775: expressed in the form of Penrose-type diagrams, I prefer figure
776: \ref{fig:Secular}. It presents mind and matter as two
777: different concepts, but ones that are used together in a single
778: picture of the world.
779: It places math at a lower level than matter
780: and mind: math is a particular mental activity, among many others.
781: There is no reason to give it
782: a privileged position above, say, morality or language use.
783:
784: %There are non-mathematicians, but everyone lives
785: %in the world of mental and physical things.
786:
787: Although mind and matter are separate in this diagram, I do not want to
788: imply that they are disjoint (dualism). I see them as two aspects
789: of the world that we happen to distinguish quite sharply.
790:
791: \subsection{The Fundamentalist View: the Radical Platonist Diagram}
792: \label{sec:Fundamentalist}
793:
794: \begin{figure}[t]
795: \begin{center}
796: \includegraphics[width=3in]{mmm_mathsrc.eps}
797: \end{center}
798: \caption{Fundamentalist view: Radical Platonist Diagram}
799: \label{fig:Fundamentalist}
800: \end{figure}
801:
802:
803: \noindent {\bf Fundamentalist:}\\
804: My view is that mathematical structures
805: (the cube, manifolds, operator algebras, etc.)
806: exist quite independently of us humans, so
807: math must be promoted to the fundamental vertex, as in
808: figure~\ref{fig:Fundamentalist}.
809: The human mind then emerges from math, as a self-aware substructure
810: of an extremely complicated mathematical
811: structure \cite{Barrow,Tipler,Schmidthuber,Tegmark,TegmarkMultiverse}.
812: Each such substructure
813: subjectively perceives itself as existing in a physically
814: real sense.
815: Given the mathematical equations that describe our Universe,
816: an infinitely intelligent mathematician could in principle
817: deduce the properties of both its material content and the
818: minds of its inhabitants.
819:
820:
821:
822: \section{Debating the Mystic's Other-Source diagram}
823: \label{sec:Mysticdisc}
824:
825: \subsection{Secular Critique of Mystic's Other-Source Diagram}
826: Firstly, I would say that the main difference between the
827: Mystic and the Fundamentalist
828: is in the question of timing. The Fundamentalist thinks we already
829: know the ultimate constituents of the world; the Mystic thinks we will
830: come to achieve such enlightenment in the future. This makes it harder
831: to criticize the Mystic's approach, because it does not yet have
832: any specific form, but the basic objection is the same: why will we
833: be entitled to declare the final victory at some particular moment?
834: When is the right time to promote whatever picture we have found
835: workable to metaphysical status?
836:
837: Secondly, I do not think it is meaningful to invoke a hidden or
838: ineffable source. If it cannot even be described, what role
839: can it play in our quest for knowledge? Playing with the
840: definition of the word ``real'' seems to me to be a similarly
841: arbitrary exercise.
842:
843: Thirdly, I do not think that math deserves to be put on the
844: same footing as mind and matter. There are non-mathematicians, but
845: there is nobody who is non-mental or non-material!
846: What determines which human activities we include as separate poles
847: connected directly to the ineffable origin? Why not include
848: language, music, art, and so on?
849:
850: \subsection{Mystic's Response}
851:
852: I see science as converging further and further toward what is true
853: about reality, but I don't expect there to be a particular point at
854: which we can declare victory. The road toward deeper insight may
855: be unending, simply because the degrees of what can be called insight
856: may be inexhaustible. Classical mechanics seemed to give complete
857: insight, in principle, but quantum mechanics offered a type of insight
858: that was qualitatively deeper and other. I have no reason to expect
859: this process of discovery to stop. My main point is not that we will
860: reach a final truth, but rather that we will never reach an absolute
861: boundary beyond which we cannot progress in getting closer to the truth.
862:
863: As for the ineffability of a source, that is just a relative notion.
864: When all you have are concepts such as electricity and magnetism, then
865: electromagnetism is ineffable, since it doesn't fit into your framework.
866: It has to be invoked as a new type of source that can be projected in
867: your existing framework, very much like the shadows in Plato's cave.
868: But then you enlarge your framework in order to include the new source.
869:
870: By the way, the requirement that any source should be describable is
871: not something I want to buy into. Just as quantum mechanics has
872: tossed out some of the deepest held convictions of classical mechanics,
873: similarly I expect a future science to throw out some of what we now
874: still see as absolutely essential for the scientific method. Our current
875: notion of a description may be one of them. We already see a harbinger
876: of this shift in quantum mechanics, where the perfectly effable classical
877: idea of an exhaustive description of all degrees of freedom of a particle
878: has turned out to be impossible.
879:
880: As for the Secularist's existence proof for non-mathematicians,
881: I agree. However, I had in mind something wider than technical
882: mathematics. If we want to classify what we find around and in us under
883: the three headers of matter, mind, and math, we'd better take each of
884: these terms rather generally. Under matter we take anything physical,
885: such forms of pure energy like radiation, or even the vacuum
886: nowadays. Similarly, under math we should take any conceptual
887: structure that we use in our mind in order to make sense of both mind
888: and (material) world. Language, logic of all sorts (including common
889: sense reasoning), any distinctions that are found to be useful I would
890: group here under ``math'' -- take counting, for example, as a mapping
891: operation to divide things in the world into distinct categories.
892: In this way, I think you will agree that there are no non-conceptual
893: humans, as long as they function normally.
894:
895: In other words, I don't think we are dealing with mathematics here as
896: just one of out many academic subjects, such as physics or biology or
897: art or literature. The first two subjects
898: apply more to the ``matter'' corner of
899: our triangle, the latter two more to the ``mind'' corner of our triangle,
900: but ``math'' stands out as the surprising fact of the regularity of the
901: world, or if you like, the surprising fact that we can view the world
902: in such unexpectedly regular ways and get away with it, without
903: contradictions, and with the ability to make accurate predictions.
904:
905: \subsection{Fundamentalist Critique of Mystic's Other-Source Diagram}
906:
907: My main objection to both the other source view and the no-source view
908: is an admittedly emotional one: I perceive them as defeatist.
909: Figures~\ref{fig:Mystic} and \ref{fig:Secular}
910: both indicate that the quest for a fundamental theory of everything is
911: ultimately doomed, and that the best we can do is go
912: off and meditate or optimize a ball bearing.
913: %are approaching the limits of
914: %what can ever be understood scientifically.
915: %Therefore fundamental
916: %physics research
917: %is ultimately doomed, and the best we can do is go
918: %off and meditate or optimize a ball bearing.
919: Although the Mystic hopes for great conceptual breakthroughs ahead,
920: I am not persuaded by his hypothesis that we will come arbitrary close to a complete understanding while
921: remaining precluded from ever attaining it.
922: I also find the Mystic battle plan disturbingly vague, failing to understand what specific steps we should take
923: to explore the object pole.
924: In contrast,
925: Figure~\ref{fig:Fundamentalist}
926: can be taken as a specific battle cry to forge ahead in search of the equations
927: of a truly fundamental theory. This theory may turn out to be too
928: complex to be comprehensible to us humans, but at least there's hope.
929: We shouldn't give up without trying!
930:
931: \subsection{Mystic's Response:}
932: I applaud the
933: enthusiasm of the Fundamentalist, and I share it. I only differ in the
934: direction in which I think we are likely to find the answers.
935: The Fundamentalist is in effect looking for the lost key under
936: the lamp post. He takes the objectivistic program, in which
937: everything is explained in third-person terms as interacting objects,
938: and hopes that that program will carry the day. But I see that as a
939: limiting case of a wider program, in which first-person experience
940: and a study of the subject {\it qua} subject will augment our already
941: very detailed studies of objects.
942: Within that wider program, I think we have much more of a chance to
943: find a horizon in which we can see how all of our experiences hang
944: together in a meaningful way, without artificially reducing everything
945: to a particular subset of privileged phenomena.
946:
947: What we really need to do is to go back to the state of science as it
948: was in the days of Galileo. He focused on some very simple experiments,
949: in which he rolled balls from inclined planes and the like. I think
950: we should similarly focus on very simple experiments in which we take
951: the subject equally seriously as the object, and try to see where that
952: leads us. Such an approach may well point the way to deeper forms of
953: unification, including the unification of subject and object \cite{Hut0}.
954:
955: \section{Debating the Secularist's No-Source diagram}
956: \label{sec:Seculardisc}
957:
958: \subsection{Fundamentalist Critique of the Secularist's No-Source Diagram}
959: The Secular view
960: seems even more defeatist to me than the Mystic one.
961: In the Mystic's view, there is at least an underlying unity that we may
962: one day be able to understand better. The Secularist
963: doesn't even want to bother searching for an underlying reality,
964: since it simply doesn't exist. We are admonished to stop seeking a
965: deeper understanding since there is nothing deeper to understand.
966: %We cannot know this unless we seek.
967: I am convinced that there is a deep explanation for it all,
968: the only question being whether we can understand it
969: from the frog perspective of our limited human minds.
970:
971:
972: \subsection{Secular Response}
973: The Fundamentalist needs to open his eyes to the world that
974: lies outside theoretical physics. Of course there is a thrill in the
975: thought that your research is opening up the blueprints of
976: the universe, but it is the guilty pleasure of surrendering to
977: vanity and parochialism. To submit to it, you
978: must convince yourself that we are living at a special time,
979: when the basic structure of math has been determined (``formal
980: systems''), and the final theory of physics is at hand. These
981: metaphysical yearnings are easy to empathize with, but
982: the whole approach is shamelessly ahistorical.
983: It has beneficial side-effects (the ability to raise public
984: enthusiasm, for example) but also leads to a devaluation of the
985: normal process of day-to-day science.
986:
987: The Fundamentalist says we should be searching for an ``underlying
988: reality''. I agree that the laws of nature are not immediately
989: obvious, but reality itself is not lying under anything.
990: It is available for us to explore by scientific or other
991: means. Scientific methods have been highly successful in
992: giving us a coherent picture of and control over the world we live in.
993: In any
994: reasonable sense of the word ``understand'', I believe there are many
995: aspects of the world that we either already understand or can hope to
996: understand in the future. However, the
997: Mystic and Fundamentalist both want to go
998: further, to an {\em unimprovable} understanding. They have some concept of a
999: hidden universal truth. But this can only be defined as that
1000: which is yielded by the method
1001: they suggest for finding it, and there is no reason to think
1002: that this method will converge to a unique result.
1003:
1004: \subsection{Mystic's Critique of the Secularist's No-Source Diagram}
1005: Even though the Secularist claims not to be a dualist,
1006: and affirms unity between
1007: the aspects of mind and matter, his description of mind and matter as
1008: two different ``aspects'' makes the two so separate as to make it very
1009: hard for me to see where the unity lies. At least a material
1010: reductionist has a clear form of unity to show for, in that everything
1011: is considered to be reducible to (properties of) matter. In the
1012: Secular view, the two ``aspects'' that we
1013: ``happen to distinguish sharply'' form
1014: an effectively dualistic picture of the world.
1015:
1016: The whole notion of dualism as having any ultimate standing,
1017: explicit or implied, goes against
1018: all that we have learned in the history of physics. Time and again,
1019: we started studying two seemingly separate topics, like space and time,
1020: or electricity and magnetism, or matter and energy, only to find out that
1021: they were merely poles or aspects of a single
1022: more fundamental entity, such as
1023: spacetime, electromagnetism, or matter-energy. In other words, physics
1024: teaches us that dualistic descriptions are nothing but harbingers of a
1025: deeper level of non-dual understanding.
1026:
1027: Even apart from my intuition as a physicist, all I ever see in
1028: dualistic thinking is some form of either
1029: laziness or fear. Yes, it is much simpler to keep the world neatly
1030: partitioned, and then to study either side of the fence at leisure.
1031: Crossing the fence requires more work and is more risky, in that it
1032: may well undermine, at either side of the fence, many prejudices held
1033: near and dear for a long time.
1034:
1035: Specifically, the strongest argument against dualism is: if mind and
1036: matter really have nothing to do with each other, how come they show
1037: up in the same world, and how come they do {\it seem} to interact so
1038: tightly?
1039:
1040: %{\sf [This is the mystic reply to the secular response below.
1041: %Can it be cut out, or woven into the previous paragraphs?]}
1042: %At the danger of using again a metaphor that might be easily misunderstood,
1043: %let me mention again the notion of a dream or a movie: what seems to be
1044: %totally different in either one, seen as part of the implied content
1045: %of the dream/movie, can be seen to be all part of the same texture.
1046: %The separations are part of the message, not of the medium.
1047: % MT: I took this out since the main idea had been introduced earlier.
1048:
1049: \subsection{Secular Response}
1050: %
1051: Perhaps the Mystic and Fundamentalist are reading too much into my
1052: diagram: it is drawn in a pragmatic rather than a metaphysical
1053: spirit. By their standards I should refuse to draw any diagram at
1054: all.
1055: I see my diagram as similar to the common-sense one
1056: that divides living beings into plants and animals. These are
1057: obvious categories that reflect important distinctions.
1058: That is all it is trying to say.
1059:
1060:
1061: \section{Debating the Fundamentalist's Radical Platonic diagram}
1062: \label{sec:Fundamentalistdisc}
1063:
1064: \subsection{Secular Critique of the Fundamentalist's Radical Platonic Diagram}
1065: \label{sec:sec_vs_fund}
1066:
1067: The Math$\to$Matter link plays a crucial role in the Fundamentalist's
1068: diagram. It corresponds to a very strong set of statements:
1069: \begin{list}{}{
1070: \setlength{\itemsep}{-0.7\parsep}
1071: \setlength{\topsep}{-0.7\parskip}
1072: }
1073: \item[{\bf (F1)}]Physics is converging to some set of ultimate laws,
1074: \item[{\bf (F2)}] Our study of mathematics is converging towards an
1075: ``ultimate math''.
1076: \item[{\bf (F3)}]The ultimate laws will be expressed
1077: in terms of the ultimate math.
1078: Thus math has a special relationship to the material world.
1079: \item[{\bf (F4)}] It is plausible (or perhaps just aesthetically appealing)
1080: that the ultimate math is not just an external reality, but that
1081: our Universe consists of it.
1082: \end{list}
1083: I find all these claims to be either meaningless or dubious.
1084:
1085: \noindent %\hangindent 2em
1086: \underline{Against (F1)}:\\
1087: It is not clear that physics is converging to a set of ultimate laws.
1088: Physics has changed greatly even in the last 100 years.
1089: Our basic understanding of space and time was revolutionized, and even
1090: the core concept of the determinism of physical law was radically
1091: revised by quantum mechanics, which introduced elements of randomness
1092: that classical physicists would have found unbelievable. There is
1093: no reason to think that physics is now immune to such upheavals, or
1094: that it ever will be.
1095: A related question is: when will we declare
1096: that the convergence is complete? The cost of testing our
1097: ``fundamental'' physical theories
1098: has escalated dramatically over the last
1099: few decades as the relevant energy scale rises.
1100: It seems likely that as these theories are successively
1101: improved, it will become harder
1102: and harder to do the experiments that would test them.
1103: The theory that survives
1104: uncontradicted may do so mainly because the difficulty of falsifying it
1105: becomes insuperable. Another way to say this is that the time between
1106: revolutions in physics will become longer,
1107: and at some point one will not be able to tell whether
1108: it is infinite. When this happens, the human need for novelty
1109: will lead science down other, more rewarding, paths than
1110: the search for a fundamental theory.
1111:
1112: \noindent %\hangindent 2em
1113: \underline{Against (F2)}:\\
1114: Math is certainly progressing, but there
1115: is no reason to think that it is converging to a definite
1116: structure, with fixed questions and established ways to address them.
1117: Consider the history of math. There was mathematics
1118: before Hippasus the Pythagorean showed that $\sqrt{2}$ is irrational;
1119: mathematics before Russell's paradox, when it was thought
1120: that arithmetic could be reduced to set theory;
1121: the famous battle between intuitionists and formalists,
1122: before G\"odel showed that there were true but undecidable
1123: propositions; the computer proof of
1124: the 4-color theorem by Appel and Haken.
1125: In each case we find that progress did not just fill in some
1126: gaps, but modified the idea of what mathematics is or
1127: should be. Mathematics has taken radical turns in the past
1128: and will do so in the future,
1129: stepping out in new directions that confound attempts to
1130: systematize it once and for all.
1131: % In Ref.~\cite{Tegmark}, % section (F.2)
1132: % The Fundamentalist illustrates the instability
1133: % in mathematicians' own idea of their enterprise
1134: % when he argues that anything worth calling a theory is included in math
1135: % because ``the {\em currently} popular formalist definition
1136: % of mathematics$\,\ldots\,$is so broad$\ldots$''
1137: % (my emphasis).
1138: %Like any human endeavor, it changes in ways you
1139: %could never expect.
1140: I think this makes it impossible to formulate a
1141: coherent concept of the ``ultimate mathematics''.
1142:
1143: \noindent %\hangindent 2em
1144: \underline{Against (F3)}:\\
1145: %
1146: It is striking that mathematical methods have been outstandingly
1147: successful in physics. But what is the content of the assertion that
1148: any supposed ultimate laws of physics must be ``mathematical''?
1149: As I argued above,
1150: mathematics has evolved over time. It has also been strongly influenced by
1151: physics. Five hundred years from now physicists may be using methods
1152: that we would find hard to recognize, and mathematics may
1153: have grown to include those methods simply because they work for physicists.
1154: Or perhaps the intellectual map will have changed to the point where
1155: we can't cleanly identify a domain that we would call ``physics''.
1156: Perhaps the Fundamentalist would prefer to claim that
1157: ultimate physical laws will have the character of what we {\it now}
1158: call mathematics. That is simply a statement of faith, and
1159: the Fundamentalist does not offer any reason to believe it.
1160:
1161: \noindent %\hangindent 2em
1162: \underline{Against (F4)}:\\
1163: (a) Plausibility.
1164: %The vagueness of a concept such as ``the ultimate math'' makes it
1165: %impossible to come up with evidence or tests of plausibility
1166: %for the proposition that it is the metaphysical basis of the world.
1167: The Radical Platonist position
1168: is just another metaphysical theory
1169: %(``it is all just mathematical structures'')
1170: like solipsism, and even materialism.
1171: %(``it is all just particles obeying laws of nature'').
1172: In each case one starts with a decent theory (mathematical
1173: descriptions of nature, sense-data as the basis of cognition) and then
1174: raises it to an object of worship, as having finally captured the
1175: essence of reality. Philosophers from Kant to Wittgenstein have
1176: criticized such thought for taking loose use of language to an extreme
1177: where it fosters intellectual illusions \cite{Hacker}. In the end the
1178: metaphysics just demands that we use a different language for saying
1179: what we already knew. But what is the difference?
1180: Nothing is gained by reformulating ``it is
1181: dark in here'' as ``I have few visual sensations'' or ``the local
1182: intensity of electromagnetic radiation is low''. Talk of
1183: conscious beings as ``self-aware substructures'' is a similarly
1184: empty transcription.
1185:
1186: % In Ref.~\cite{Tegmark}, the
1187: % Fundamentalist claims that Radical Platonism makes testable predictions, for example,
1188: % that the world must be 3+1 dimensional. However, his arguments
1189: % depend on very specific assumptions, such as
1190: % electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, and general relativity. All he
1191: % shows is that his criteria for existence require that the laws of
1192: % physics be different in higher-dimensional worlds.\\
1193: %
1194: \noindent (b) Aesthetic appeal.
1195: It is not clear that Math $\rightarrow$ Matter is aesthetically
1196: attractive. Even if there were some ultimate mathematics, it might be
1197: nothing like what we {\it now} call math. It could easily seem as
1198: ugly and contrived to us as irrational numbers and Russell's
1199: ``repaired'' set theory did to their contemporaries when they were
1200: formulated.
1201:
1202:
1203: Finally, the Fundamentalist describes himself as a formalist and a
1204: Platonist, but these are contradictory. A Platonist believes
1205: mathematical truths are truths about some world of mathematical
1206: objects, while a formalist believes that math is just the sum of all
1207: strings that you can get by manipulating symbols according to rules,
1208: starting with arbitrary axioms. As G\"odel's theorem shows, these are
1209: two different things: the methods allowed by formalists cannot prove
1210: all the theorems in a sufficiently powerful system.
1211: There are systems as powerful as
1212: arithmetic that are consistent and complete, and that therefore {\em
1213: cannot be axiomatized} (Ref.~\cite{Barrow}, p.~126),
1214: and so are outside the formalist structure.
1215: This spells doom to the Fundamentalist's project. The idea that math is
1216: ``out there'' is incompatible with the idea that it consists of
1217: formal systems.
1218:
1219: \subsubsection{Fundamentalist reply}
1220:
1221: I would rephrase my assumptions as a Fundamentalist as follows:
1222: \begin{itemize}
1223: \item {\bf Assumption A1:} That the physical world
1224: (specifically our Level III multiverse \cite{TegmarkMultiverse})
1225: is a mathematical structure.
1226: \item {\bf Assumption A2:} Mathematical multiverse:
1227: % Mathematical democracy:
1228: that all mathematical structures exist ``out there'' in the same sense.
1229: \end{itemize}
1230:
1231: The Secularist (F1) critique of A1 is focused on the question of whether
1232: our understanding of physics will converging towards fundamental laws.
1233: I believe that if we fail in this quest, if will be because of the
1234: limitations of our human minds rather than because of the nature of reality:
1235: I view it as almost tautological that there are some fundamental
1236: laws that nature obeys:
1237: I assume that there is an external reality that exists independently of us humans,
1238: and the laws of physics are how this reality works.
1239: Denying this external reality would be flirting with solipsism,
1240: and I view it as human vanity taken to the extreme.
1241:
1242:
1243: Although the (F2 \& F3) critique above suggests that ``ultimate math'' is vague
1244: and undefined, there is nothing vague about my two assumptions.
1245: The notion of a mathematical structure is rigorously defined in any book
1246: on Model Theory. The integers are well-defined even though most of
1247: them have never been used in human calculations, and mathematical
1248: structures are likewise well-defined even though most of them have yet
1249: to be explored by mathematicians.
1250: The Secularist argued in Section~\ref{sec:QP} that
1251: alien mathematics might be unrecognizable to us.
1252: If so, it would only be because we
1253: are uncovering a different part of what is in fact a consistent and
1254: unified picture, so math is converging in this sense.
1255: The reason why this is far from apparent is that
1256: our development of mathematics is in a very early stage, nowhere near
1257: a systematic classification of even the most basic
1258: structures/formal systems. Our
1259: attention is therefore drawn to interesting features in the
1260: mathematical landscape such as theorem $X$ or formal system $Y$, and
1261: we may not yet see the forest for all the trees.
1262:
1263: %The (F4) objection that
1264: %mathematical thinking can become a mode of alienation takes the
1265: %anthropic principle to a comical extreme, implying that the universe
1266: %must be devised so as to not make us feel alienated.
1267: %\com{[MGA: See sec.~\ref{sec:secularcritique}: I no longer say that.]}
1268: %The same can be
1269: %said about the (F4) objection involving aesthetic appeal,
1270: %bearing in mind that by Assumption 2, we are part of merely one
1271: %particular mathematical structure in the vast Level IV multiverse of
1272: %all structures.
1273:
1274: The secularist criticizes (F4) for loose use of language.
1275: To me, {\it all} use of human language is necessarily loose and hence
1276: insufficient for describing an external reality existing independent of us.
1277: This is why nature speaks the language of mathematics and
1278: why I am advocating mathematical language to describe reality.
1279:
1280: The objection that (F4) may be aesthetically unappealing
1281: takes the anthropic principle to a comical extreme, suggesting that the universe
1282: must be devised so as to make us like it (note also that by Assumption 2, we are part of merely one
1283: particular mathematical structure in the vast Level IV multiverse of
1284: all structures, some subjectively more elegant than others).
1285: I view the mystic's objection in Section~\ref{sec:mystic_critique} to technological thinking as a mode of alienation
1286: as either invoking similarly wishful thinking
1287: (``our universe must be devised so as to not make us feel alienated'')
1288: or as encouraging thought control.
1289:
1290: % Support for assumption 1/F3: GENERALITY OF MATHEMATICS:
1291: Aside from Wigner's above-mentioned ubiquity of mathematics in
1292: physics, a second argument supporting assumption A1 (and F3) is that abstract
1293: mathematics is so general that {\it any} fundamental ``theory of
1294: everything'' that is definable in purely formal terms (independent of
1295: vague human terminology) is also a mathematical structure. For
1296: instance, a TOE involving a set of different types of entities
1297: (denoted by words, say) and relations between them (denoted by
1298: additional words) is nothing but what mathematicians call a
1299: set-theoretical model, and one can generally find a formal system that
1300: it is a model of. In other words, if the physical world exists
1301: independently of us humans, it is not obvious that it can avoid being
1302: a mathematical structure.
1303:
1304: %% CLOSURE ARGUMENT
1305: %This argument also makes assumption 2 more appealing,
1306: %since it implies that {\it any} conceivable parallel universe theory can be described
1307: %at Level IV. The Level IV multiverse, termed the ``ultimate Ensemble theory'' in
1308: %Tegmark (1997) since it subsumes
1309: %all other ensembles, therefore brings closure to the
1310: %hierarchy of multiverses, and there cannot be say a Level V.
1311: %Considering an ensemble of mathematical structures does not add anything new, since
1312: %this is still just another mathematical structure.
1313: %What about the frequently discussed notion that the universe is a computer simulation?
1314: %This idea occurs frequently in science fiction and has been substantially
1315: %elaborated (\eg, Schmidthuber 1997; Wolfram 2002).
1316: %The information content (memory state) of a digital computer is a string of bits, say
1317: %``$1001011100111001...$'' of great but finite length, equivalent to some large
1318: %but finite integer $n$ written in binary. The information processing of a computer is
1319: %a deterministic rule for changing each memory state into another (applied over and over again),
1320: %so mathematically, it is simply a function $f$ mapping the integers onto themselves
1321: %that gets iterated: $n\mapsto f(n)\mapsto f(f(n))\mapsto...$.
1322: %In other words, even the most sophisticated computer simulation is
1323: %just yet another special case of a mathematical structure,
1324: %and is already included in the Level IV multiverse.
1325: %(Incidentally, iterating continuous functions rather than integer-valued ones
1326: %can give rise to fractals.)
1327:
1328: % Support for assumption 2: tautological
1329: Given A1, a second argument for assumption A2 (and F4) is that if two entities are
1330: isomorphic, then there is no meaningful sense in which they are not
1331: one and the same \cite{Cohen}. This implies assumption A2 when the
1332: entities in question are a physical universe and a mathematical
1333: structure describing it, respectively.
1334: %To avoid this conclusion, one would need to replace the phrase
1335: %``{\it is} a mathematical structure'' by ``{\it is described by} a mathematical structure''
1336: %in assumption 1, and argue that only the latter holds.
1337: To avoid this conclusion that mathematical and physical existence are
1338: equivalent, one would need to argue that our universe is somehow made
1339: of stuff perfectly described by a mathematical structure, but which
1340: also has other properties that are not described by it.
1341: However, this
1342: violates assumption A1 and implies either that it is isomorphic to a
1343: more complicated mathematical structure or that it is not mathematical
1344: at all. The latter would be make Karl Popper turn in his grave, since
1345: those additional bells and whistles that make the universe
1346: non-mathematical by definition have no observable effects whatsoever.
1347:
1348: %Another appealing feature of assumption 2 is that it
1349: %provides the only answer so far to
1350: %Wheeler's question:
1351: %{\it Why these particular equations, not others?}
1352: %Having universes dance to the tune of all possible equations
1353: %also resolves the fine-tuning problem of \sec{TuningSec} once and for all,
1354: %even at the fundamental equation level:
1355: %although many if not most mathematical structures are likely to be dead and devoid
1356: %of SASs, failing to provide the complexity, stability and predictability that SASs require,
1357: %we of course expect to find with 100\% probability that we inhabit a
1358: %mathematical structure capable of supporting life.
1359: %Because of this selection effect, the answer to the question
1360: %``what is it that breathes fire into the equations and
1361: %makes a universe for them to describe?'' (Hawking 1993)
1362: %would then be ``you, the SAS''.
1363:
1364: Finally, I find the objection involving G\"odel to be very interesting
1365: and subtle. My hypothesis is that only G\"odel-complete (fully
1366: decidable) mathematical structures have physical existence. This
1367: drastically shrinks the Level IV multiverse, essentially placing an
1368: upper limit on complexity, and may have the attractive side effect of
1369: explaining the relative simplicity of our universe. If you define
1370: mathematical structures as (equivalence classes of) models of axiom
1371: systems \cite{Tegmark}, then they are guaranteed to be
1372: G\"odel-complete (consistent). Please note that although we
1373: conventionally use a G\"odel-undecidable mathematical structure
1374: (including integers with Peano's recursion axiom, etc.) to model the
1375: physical world, it is not at all obvious that the actual mathematical
1376: structure describing our world is a G\"odel-undecidable one ---
1377: lacking a theory of quantum gravity, we have certainly not found it
1378: yet. Even a world corresponding to a G\"odel-complete mathematical structure could
1379: in principle contain observers capable of thinking about G\"odel-incomplete mathematics,
1380: just as finite-state digital computers can prove certain theorems about
1381: G\"odel-incomplete formal systems like Peano arithmetic.
1382:
1383: The classification project for consistent mathematical structures may
1384: well prove far too difficult for us humans to complete, but even
1385: partial success in this endeavor could be useful, since the tiny
1386: fraction of mathematics uncovered so far has gone such a long way in
1387: understanding the physical world. So let's not give up without trying!
1388:
1389: %When I label myself a Platonist,
1390: %I'm not referring to any interpretation of the mathematical
1391: %truth concept. % , which G\"odel has indeed shown
1392: %Rather, I'm referring to the ontological status of
1393: %mathematical structures.
1394: %I believe that math is not only ``out there'', but also (almost by
1395: %definition) that it is the only structure that is.
1396: %By being ``out there'', I mean being independent of our
1397: %idiosyncratic and subjective human ways of describing things.
1398: %A mathematical object like the dodecahedron group
1399: %can be described by logical symbols invented by human mathematicians
1400: %in infinitely many different ways --- what we mean by ``the'' dodecahedron
1401: %is the equivalence class of all these descriptions and is
1402: %therefore, by definition, independent of our way of describing it.
1403:
1404:
1405: \subsection{Mystic Critique of the Fundamentalist's Radical Platonic Diagram}
1406:
1407: On the convergence of math, I remain agnostic. I agree that, historically,
1408: new developments were completely unpredictable, and unexpected. And yes,
1409: there is a ``resistance'' to mathematical objects that
1410: makes them in many aspects like physical objects. As I mentioned
1411: earlier, you can stumble on properties of triangles, like you can
1412: stumble on furniture. In that sense, there are certainly not a matter
1413: of fashion or convention (although the framework, within which there
1414: are defined, may be; I guess that is Secular's main point).
1415: The Fundamentalist's belief that the current framework is more than
1416: fashion is, I guess, a belief. I don't see clear arguments in favor
1417: of it, although I must say, intuitively, it is
1418: rather appealing.
1419:
1420: I share the Secularist's doubts about the idea that the world is
1421: ``made of math''. My argument against this is that it seems to me like a
1422: category mistake. The category of existence of physical objects is
1423: different from the category of existence of mathematical objects. For
1424: one thing, this particular chair here exists, and is distinct from a
1425: ``chair in general'. Triangles always belong to the latter category;
1426: I've never come across a particular triangle with an individual
1427: existence like that of that of a chair.
1428:
1429: My intuition tells me that mathematics can never be exhausted.
1430: Whenever we have tried to formalize a system in the past, we wound up
1431: formalizing some neatly delineated piece of turf, very interesting by
1432: itself, but leaving out unexpected other developments that did not fit
1433: the mould. Unless the Fundamentalist comes up with a very good
1434: argument for the possibility of finding an overarching ``space of all
1435: models'' together with a clear structure governing that space, I don't
1436: see how his project could ever work. In mathematics, asking such
1437: questions as ``what is the set of all sets'' has always run into
1438: inconsistencies. I would expect something similar to happen here.
1439:
1440: In summary, I love the Fundamentalist project of
1441: classifying mathematics to such an extent that the parallels between
1442: ``what is there'' in math and ``what is there'' in physics become
1443: compelling. I don't expect this project to be possible, in the end, but I
1444: do expect interesting insight to come out of trying to make it work,
1445: so therefore I'm all for it.
1446:
1447: \subsection{Fundamentalist Response}
1448: The resolution to the category issue is that the entire Universe
1449: is a single mathematical structure, subsuming within it all particular physical objects.
1450: %{\sf [Perhaps a few more words here about how the category
1451: %issue is actually resolved? }
1452: %As an amusing aside, two completely identical chairs would actually
1453: %lose their distinct identities since they are made of
1454: %physically indistinguishable particles.
1455: %{\sf [I am inclined to cut this sentence. It turns on
1456: %exactly what we mean by ``completely identical'', which is an
1457: %academic issue anyway.]}
1458:
1459: %I view the mystic's objection in Section \ref{sec:mystic_critique} that technological thinking
1460: %can become a mode of alienation as either encouraging thought control
1461: %or taking the anthropic principle to a comical extreme, implying that the universe
1462: %must be devised so as to not make us feel alienated.
1463:
1464: I share the Mystic's concern that the Radical Platonist program may be
1465: extremely difficult for us humans to carry though even if the
1466: underlying assumption is correct. However, it's worth a shot!
1467: My description of my vision for the future (below)
1468: lists a few areas where it should be possible to make
1469: at least limited progress.
1470:
1471: \section{Three visions of the future}
1472: \label{sec:out}
1473:
1474: \subsection{The Fundamentalist Vision}
1475: If the radical Platonist view is correct, both arrows in
1476: Figure~\ref{fig:Fundamentalist}
1477: deserve intense study since there is real hope of understanding
1478: them better. This means continuing with
1479: ``business as usual'' in both fundamental physics research
1480: and brain/consciousness research.
1481: However, it also suggests research in some slightly unconventional
1482: directions as described below.
1483:
1484: If all mathematical structures are equally real, then the one we
1485: inhabit is but one in a vast ensemble, and should be expected to be
1486: the most generic one compatible with our existence. In the
1487: terminology of \cite{TegmarkMultiverse}, this ensemble or ``Level IV
1488: multiverse'' is vastly more diverse than the Level I multiverse of
1489: spatial horizon volumes, the Level II multiverse of different
1490: post-inflationary domains where the same fundamental laws have
1491: produced different effective laws from its landscape of possibilities,
1492: and the Level III multiverse of unitary quantum mechanics. To test
1493: this prediction, it is interesting to work out how the Universe would
1494: differ if physical constants or equations were altered, quantifying
1495: the degree to which it appears fine-tuned for life.
1496:
1497: The ultimate classification problem in mathematics would
1498: be to classify all formal systems. Very little progress has
1499: been made in this direction because of the great difficulties
1500: involved, but any further insights about the structure of
1501: mathematics could shed more light on the nature of physics.
1502:
1503: As described in Section~\ref{sec:MathMatterDefense},
1504: a mathematical structure can be viewed in two ways:
1505: from the bird perspective of a mathematician or from the
1506: subjective frog perspective of a self-aware substructure in it,
1507: like us. Since the relation between these two perspectives
1508: can be extremely subtle, a more systematic study of such phenomenology
1509: issues will be important --- otherwise our candidate mathematical theories will not make
1510: testable predictions, and we may not even recognize the
1511: correct equations if we stumble across them.
1512:
1513: Finally, since all mathematical structures are equally real in this
1514: view, we need to keep a very open mind as to what we are looking for.
1515: There is no room whatsoever for subjective nostalgic bias
1516: towards structures that resemble cozy classical concepts, or rejection
1517: of theories because they are ``too crazy''.
1518:
1519: In conclusion, I feel that the fundamentalist vision is the most specific and falsifiable of
1520: the three, subsuming the Secularist's to-do list and adding to it items that are less vague than the Mystic's.
1521: There are real calculations to be done here, and my opinion is that
1522: controversial philosophical arguments should never be used as excuses not to make calculations.
1523:
1524:
1525: \subsection{The Secular Vision}
1526:
1527: Can a Secularist express a vision for the future? The whole
1528: point of the secular view is to avoid grandiose posturing. I have
1529: already given my expectations about the future of fundamental physics
1530: (Section \ref{sec:secularcritique}): as it becomes harder
1531: to obtain experimental data against which to test our most
1532: fundamental theories, it will become harder to know whether we should
1533: believe them. One cannot
1534: predict how fundamental physics will then progress. It might
1535: continually find unexpected directions in which to proceed, such as the
1536: one hoped for by the Mystic. It might change so drastically that
1537: we would no longer recognize it as physics, or even science.
1538: Finally, it might simply atrophy away.
1539:
1540: If I grapple with any deep mysteries, they are not about the meaning of
1541: science, but about the way people see the world. Science is the process of
1542: building a picture of the world that is, where possible,
1543: quantitatively accurate. It strikes some balance between conservatism
1544: (making minimal changes to established pictures) and radicalism
1545: (abandoning pictures that do not work). But many people feel that
1546: science is incomplete without a deeper claim than mere predictive
1547: power. They want to tilt the balance towards conservatism, treating
1548: the picture, current or future, as metaphysical truth. The mystic
1549: and fundamentalist thinkers show this tendency, and, in a wider
1550: context, some of the most successful religions
1551: display an extreme form of such conservatism,
1552: requiring adherence to a rigid set of beliefs that vary very
1553: slowly. It is striking, and mysterious to me, that so many people feel
1554: a strong need for such a frozen picture.
1555:
1556: What impresses me is the degree to which our current understanding
1557: of the universe would be utterly incomprehensible to previous
1558: generations. It seems very reasonable to expect
1559: that human ideas will continue to develop
1560: in unpredictable ways, and that the theories of the future will
1561: explore directions that we cannot even imagine today.
1562: Ironically, it may be the fundamentalist and mystically inclined
1563: thinkers who bring this about. I am inclined to
1564: believe that those who think that
1565: their theories uncover the deep structure of the world
1566: are the ones who are driven most strongly to make essential and
1567: revolutionary contributions
1568: to the progress of theoretical physics.
1569:
1570:
1571: % It is naive to expect that a sufficiently dramatic event
1572: % could change such basic tendencies. But it is
1573: % exciting to imagine that someday we may come
1574: % in contact with recognizably intelligent beings with whom we
1575: % share no genetic or cultural connection. Then we may learn a new
1576: % Copernican lesson, for our concepts rather than our astronomy.
1577: % We may well find ourselves baffled, our categories
1578: % impotent and our assumptions defied. Even in the absence of such an
1579: % exotic stimulus,
1580:
1581: \subsection{The Mystic Vision}
1582: We have painted ourselves in a corner, scientifically, by describing
1583: the whole world in objective terms, and finding less and less room for
1584: ourselves to stand on. The challenge we now face is not to reduce
1585: ourselves also to objects, but to explore ways to let science
1586: naturally widen its area of investigation, while staying true to its
1587: methodology of peer review, based on an interplay between theory and
1588: experiment, with experiment having the last word.
1589:
1590: For the last four hundred years, natural science has studied the
1591: object pole of experience in ever increasing detail. While this has
1592: so far been a sensible approach, we are now reaching the limits of a
1593: purely object-oriented treatment. In various areas of science, from quantum
1594: mechanics to neuroscience and robotics, the subject pole of experience
1595: can no longer be neglected. Most likely, science will change
1596: qualitatively with this required extension of its methodology.
1597:
1598: This will not happen overnight. I expect this program to be carried
1599: out over a period of time comparable to the time it took to get
1600: the science of the object up and running, perhaps a century, quite
1601: likely a few centuries. But this process cannot and should not be
1602: hurried by wishful thinking or by external agendas. Imagine what
1603: would have happened if physicists had listened to William
1604: Blake, two centuries ago, who fulminated against their clockwork
1605: picture of the Universe. If they had tried to start a new
1606: ``poetic physics'' by trying to force Blake's notions into the accepted
1607: framework of physics, they would have been led astray. Nothing has
1608: come, fortunately, from ``communist biology'' in the days of Lysenko or
1609: the ``Aryan physics'' of the Nazis.
1610:
1611: Real progress in physics can only come from within, from a
1612: necessity to introduce wider frameworks of explanation and
1613: interpretation to accommodate experimental facts that cannot be
1614: satisfactorily dealt with in the existing frameworks.
1615: % It was more than a hundred years after Blake's complaints that
1616: After Blake's complaints, more than a hundred years passed before
1617: physicists discovered quantum mechanics, which showed that the
1618: material world is indeed really a far cry from a clockwork universe.
1619: The original dogmas of repeatability and strict causality, in the
1620: classical sense in which nothing happens spontaneously, were shown to
1621: be incorrect. These ideas had been extremely helpful to get physics
1622: off the ground. But in the end they were forms of dogma that had to
1623: be discarded.
1624:
1625: The beautiful thing about physics is that it has an orderly way to
1626: conduct revolutions, and to discard older ideas; or more accurately,
1627: to assign older ideas to their proper domain of limited significance,
1628: while moving on to more accurate descriptions of reality. I expect
1629: that a thorough exploration of the presence and ways of functioning of
1630: the subject, on a par with that of objects, will revolutionize science
1631: in a constructive way, within this century and the next.
1632:
1633: \section{Conclusion}
1634: \label{sec:concl}
1635:
1636: We have discussed the nature of reality in the ontological context of
1637: Penrose's math-matter-mind triangle. Physicists have widely differing
1638: views of the
1639: % MGA:
1640: deeper meaning of physics,
1641: % role that physics plays in the world in which they live,
1642: and we have found that we three authors reflect this disparity.
1643: Despite
1644: our similarities in research interests, knowledge and cultural
1645: background, we espouse conflicting views that we have termed
1646: fundamentalist, secular, and mystic. A key message for non-physicists
1647: reading this paper is therefore that they should
1648: % MGA: commented out:
1649: % dismiss any claims that physics has settled this issue and
1650: be deeply suspicious of any
1651: self-proclaimed popularizer or other ambassador claiming to speak on
1652: these matters on behalf of the consensus of the theoretical physics
1653: community.
1654:
1655: A second noteworthy conclusion is that despite these disagreements,
1656: we advocate rather similar paths forward.
1657: This illustrates that physicists can vary strongly in their
1658: interpretations of the meaning of physics, while agreeing quite well on how
1659: it should be done.
1660:
1661: Looking to the immediate future of physics,
1662: one thing that we agree on is that the diversity in views in the
1663: physics community is healthier than an ontological monoculture.
1664: Our best hope of making progress on the
1665: open questions of physics is to tackle them with
1666: a wide variety of ideas.
1667:
1668:
1669: \smallskip
1670: \noindent {\bf Acknowledgments}\\
1671: The authors are grateful to the Institute for Advanced Study in
1672: Princeton for providing the stimulating environment for our early
1673: discussions, which over the past eight years evolved into this paper.
1674:
1675:
1676: \begin{thebibliography}{9}
1677: \frenchspacing
1678:
1679: \bibitem{Penrose} R. Penrose, {\it Shadows of the mind}
1680: (Oxford University Press, New York, 1994), Section~8.7.
1681:
1682: \bibitem{Penrose2} R. Penrose, {\it The Road to Reality}
1683: (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1994), Section~1.4.
1684:
1685: \bibitem{Tegmark} M.~Tegmark, gr-qc/9704009, {\it Annals of Physics},
1686: {\bf 270}, 1 (1998).
1687:
1688: \bibitem{Wigner}
1689: E. P. Wigner, {\it Symmetries and Reflections}
1690: (MIT Press, Cambridge, 1967).
1691:
1692: \bibitem{Rucker}
1693: R. Rucker, {\it Infinity and the Mind}
1694: (Birkhauser, Boston, 1982).
1695:
1696: \bibitem{BarrowPi}
1697: J. D. Barrow, {\it Pi in the Sky}
1698: (Clarendon, Oxford, 1992).
1699:
1700: \bibitem{Nozick}
1701: R. Nozick, {\it Philosophical Explanations}
1702: (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1981)
1703:
1704: \bibitem{Lewis}
1705: D. Lewis, {\it On the Plurality of Worlds}
1706: (Blackwell, Oxford, 1986)
1707:
1708: \bibitem{Rudd}
1709: A. Rudd, {\it What it's like, and what's really wrong with
1710: physicalism: a Wittgensteinean perspective},
1711: Journal of Consciousness Studies {\bf 5}(4), 454, 1998.
1712:
1713: % \bibitem{Ruelle}
1714: % D. Ruelle, 1998 {\it Conversations on mathematics with a visitor from
1715: % outer space.} Preprint.
1716:
1717: \bibitem{Quine}
1718: W.V. Quine, `On What There Is' and `Two Dogmas of Empiricism',
1719: in ``From a Logical Point of View'',
1720: 2nd edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1980;
1721: "Success and Limits of Mathematization", in ``Theories and Things'',
1722: Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981.
1723:
1724: \bibitem{Putnam}
1725: H. Putnam, `What is Mathematical Truth' and `Philosophy of Logic', in
1726: ``Mathematics Matter and Method: Philosophical Papers'' Vol. 1, 2nd edition,
1727: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979.
1728:
1729: \bibitem{StanfordMathPhil}
1730: Colyvan, Mark, ``Indispensability Arguments in the Philosophy of Mathematics'',
1731: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2004 Edition),
1732: Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = $\langle$http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/ mathphil-indis/$\rangle$.
1733:
1734: \bibitem{Barrow} J. D. Barrow, {\it Pi in the Sky} (Oxford University
1735: Press, New York, 1992).
1736:
1737: \bibitem{Hut0} P. Hut, Life as a Lab, 2004,
1738: http://lab.kira.org/lab
1739:
1740: \bibitem{Hut1} P. Hut and R. Shepard 1996,
1741: Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3, 313-329
1742:
1743: \bibitem{Hut2} P. Hut and B. van Fraassen 1997,
1744: Journal of Consciousness Studies, 4, 167
1745:
1746: \bibitem{Napper} E. Napper, {\it Dependent-Arising and Emptiness}
1747: (Wisdom Publications, Boston, 1989).
1748:
1749: \bibitem{CC}
1750: J.-P. Changeaux and A. Connes, 1995 {\it Conversations on Mind, Matter, and
1751: Mathematics} [Princeton University Press, edited and translated by
1752: M.B. DeBevoise from the original {\it Mati\`ere \`a Pens\'ee, 1989}], chapter 7
1753:
1754: \bibitem{Tipler}
1755: F. J. Tipler, {\it The Physics of Immortality}
1756: (Doubleday, New York, 1994), p.~210.
1757:
1758: \bibitem{Schmidthuber} J.~Schmidthuber, in
1759: {\it Foundations of Computer Science: Potential - Theory
1760: - Cognition}, ed. C.~Freksa, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, p.~201
1761: (Springer, Berlin, 1987),
1762: {\it ftp://ftp.idsia.ch/pub/juergen/everything.ps.gz}
1763:
1764: \bibitem{TegmarkMultiverse} M.~Tegmark, astro-ph/0302131,
1765: in {\it Science and Ultimate Reality},
1766: J.D.~Barrow, P.C.W.~Davies, C.L. Harper, eds. (Cambridge Univ.~ Press, Cambridge, 2004)
1767:
1768: % in {\it Science and Ultimate Reality: From Quantum to Cosmos}, honoring John Wheeler's 90th birthday,
1769: % J.D.~Barrow, P.C.W.~Davies
1770:
1771: \bibitem{Hacker}
1772: P. M. S. Hacker, ``Insight and Illusion'', Oxford University Press, 1972.
1773:
1774: \bibitem{Cohen}
1775: M.~Cohen 2003, Master's thesis, Dept. of Philosophy, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Israel
1776:
1777: \end{thebibliography}
1778:
1779:
1780: \end{document}
1781:
1782:
1783: \bibitem{Dennett} D. Dennett, ``Consciousness Explained'', Little, Brown and Co, 1991.
1784:
1785:
1786:
1787: # Quine, W.V., 1976, "Carnap and Logical Truth" reprinted in The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays, revised edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 107-132 and in Benacerraf and Putnam (1983), pp. 355-376
1788: # Quine, W.V., 1980a, "On What There Is", reprinted in From a Logical Point of View, 2nd edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 1-19
1789: # Quine, W.V., 1980b, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", reprinted in From a Logical Point of View, 2nd edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 20-46 and in Hart (1996), pp. 31-51 (Page references are to the first reprinting)
1790: # Quine, W.V., 1981a, "Things and Their Place in Theories", in Theories and Things, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 1-23
1791: # Quine, W.V., 1981b, "Five Milestones of Empiricism", in Theories and Things, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 67-72
1792: # Quine, W.V., 1981c, "Success and Limits of Mathematization", in Theories and Things, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 148-155
1793: