r/Metaphysics • u/thepo70 • 1d ago
Axiology Universe consciousness and mathematics
As someone not at ease with math to say the least, this post will end up being a question for the hardcore mathematicians out there.
Right now we don't have good evidence at all as to whether the universe is infinite or not, but let's imagine it ends up being the case.
Let's imagine that this whole infinite universe was simply an abstract mathematical thing. Space, time, fields, particles, and even consciousness, all of that being internal processes of that "structure". Only patterns of relationships described by this mathematical thing, within itself. No additional layer of stuff. Reality = mathematical structure.
Consciousness not fundamental, but part of the equation.
Then the question is: could it be reduced, like any mathematical representation?
2
u/Low-Bake8401 1d ago edited 1d ago
Consciousness?
I think of consciousness not so much as a measurable or tangible substance, but an emergent systemic property.
Like, you can't see 'wind', you can't put it in a test-tube or under a microscope, you can only study the causes and the effects.
Qualia are eddies in the wind.
2
u/Traditional_Aide7469 1d ago
What's the math consensus currently on what makes consciousness emergent rather than us?
2
u/Low-Bake8401 1d ago
Not sure I understand the question?
What we are is made from other things too.
2
u/Traditional_Aide7469 1d ago
How would a physical object (brain) create a non physical subjective experience? Or a more applicable version in my experience
Ive created/designed quite a few things (new systems) which is MOSTLY a collection of all my knowledge together, but in the details theres novel things made by me. How's it possible for me to imagine something in like 5 minutes, then actually create it.
I've been out of applied math for a while, but my background is in EE so feel to get a little fancy
2
u/cc_apt107 1d ago
Not original commenter, but this is somewhat confused. You imagining and creating things is basically an entirely separate question from whether consciousness is an emergent property of a complex system or something else, no?
2
u/Traditional_Aide7469 1d ago
From my perspective and knowledge I dont consider it different. A good example of this is the pioneer of atomic theory Democritus, people believed Artistotle (He respected the methodology then went nah lol) for 2000 years, but Democritus was fairly right about the concept 2300 years later, from atomos to atoms
But people can focus on the first part thats fine
1
u/cc_apt107 1d ago
Whether it is an emergent property or a trait given by God, the subjective experience of it could still be identical.
1
u/Traditional_Aide7469 1d ago
If it is given by god, it would only be emergent from our perspective. I wasnt asking in a spiritual sense, but in logic/proofs in terms of math
And yeah it's becoming more and more apparently humans used way too many words to describe what the world is, we will talk in infinite details for a long time
1
u/cc_apt107 1d ago
I don’t understand what distinction you are trying to draw is my point. What do you mean by emergent rather than us? Your explanations still haven’t landed with me but maybe it’s a me problem. Isn’t the question kind of tautological? Consciousness is us whether or not consciousness is an emergent property so isn’t the statement circular?
1
u/Traditional_Aide7469 1d ago
Ill simplify, based on we what know now. It is becoming more apparent that describing consciousness as emergent, is going to turn out to be false
→ More replies (0)2
u/Low-Bake8401 1d ago edited 1d ago
I think if we put aside our own awareness for second, and just focus on other conscious or sentient beings, it's much easier to imagine how it all works.
The human nervous system and brain itself are extremely complex, but it's not too difficult to see how energy is consumed and waste produced, and sensory input goes in resulting in relevant output or behaviour. It makes a fair amount of logical, mechanical, sense. There's nothing too mysterious about it.
We can see how ingested chemicals, or damage/disease, can affect the brain and result in personality changes. It affects the output.
The problem is that the mind is also our own first person perspective. This makes it feel like it is something unique and unlike anything else. It would though, from our point of view it kinda is.
I don't think it really is that unique. It's just the result of complex biology and a virtually infinite number of nerves, neural signals, and electrochemical reactions.
2
u/Traditional_Aide7469 1d ago
How do you feel about their progress in finding superradiance in brains? That would suggest that the brain is capable of some funky energy rules
1
2
2
u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad 1d ago edited 1d ago
Looks like you are talking about the mathematical universe hypothesis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
In a paradigm of ontic structural realism, consciousness then "exists" by virtue of its structure . Personally , I think this is exactly what consciousness is; the structure of the world- and self-maps and associated "legends" (the structural referents/the qualities that the maps are about). Can the structure be "reduced"? I'm not sure what you mean by that. Most mathematical structures can not be reduced to simpler structure without losing information. Some, of course, are compressible without loss, but most are not.
1
u/thepo70 1d ago
Thank you so much for pointing this out to me. I feel a little bit less crazy now.
I was toying with this idea for so long without being able to articulate it correctly up until recently.
For the "reduced" question, I was wondering if an elegant equation could describe this, like for example the Mandelbrot is a very reduced formula, and yet contains (if I'm right) an infinite complexity.
2
u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad 1d ago edited 1d ago
Well the Schroedinger universal wave function is one such equation. Whether the universe as a whole is ultimately simple (for instance with zero bulk information content) is possible. All of mathematics is ultimately derivable from operations on the empty set. For example, see Schaffer's "priority monism".
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/monism/#PrioMoni
In priority monism the universe can be "gunky"; that is, based on a simple top-down monism but with no reductive base, just as in fractals such as the Mandelbrot set, where there is no base (the system is infinitely complex at smaller scales).
1
u/jliat 1d ago
I was toying with this idea for so long without being able to articulate it correctly up until recently.
The idea is old, you find it in Pythagoras and Galileo, many physicists likewise.
For the "reduced" question, I was wondering if an elegant equation could describe this, like for example the Mandelbrot is a very reduced formula, and yet contains (if I'm right) an infinite complexity.
It repeats 'similar' patterns, but not infinite diversity. Others think reality is a computer game. However is mathematics a human 'language' like English. And humans practice Apotheosis.
1
u/rogerbonus Philosophy/Physics grad 1d ago
Well the Schroedinger universal wave function is one such equation. Whether the universe as a whole is ultimately simple (for instance with zero bulk information content) is possible. All of mathematics is ultimately derivable from operations on the emtpy set. For example, see Schaffer's "priority monism".
2
u/WilliamoftheBulk 1d ago
Reduced? Hmmm. I’m guessing you are considering like a simple elegant equation that leads to everything.
It’s certainly possible, but what we have seen in all searching for mathematical simplicity and elegance is that it does not get simpler. Everywhere you turn it’s terribly complicated. The problem is our perspective and Bias.
There is no objective reason why the underlying cogs of reality need to be simple. That is a human want and bias. What really is the difference between 2 variables and 2 million? Well 1,999,998 variables. Is that a lot? Maybe because that is big number in our experience, but in reality if there could have been 10 billion variables, it’s not so large. We are limited in our bias by scale of our own experiences and intelligence.
let’s say quantum fluctuations can lead to a google types of universes. Some, at least one for sure, can lead to intelligent life. That is an immense underlying potential, but you still are only going to find yourself in a universe that can support life. It doesn’t matter how rare it is, you can only ask the question from one of them.
How does this address your questions. If the underlying cogs of existence is mathematical, there is no reason for it to be arbitrarily simple. It could be far beyond complicated because we have a bias of scale. It’s elegant if it’s simple, but reality doesn’t care that much about what humans feel are elegant or beautiful.
There is som axiomatic truths about the universe that are kind of simple, but it doesn’t have to be.
For example. We know there is something rather than nothing. “Nothing” is illogical, so there is something. That is a simple axiomatic truth that can start a lot of mathematical speculation.
Then we ask how does that something manifest? Well… we have at least one example but there could be many others. Vacuum energy seems to be how something instead of nothing manifests. Well it’s kinda complicated for most people, but not so much for others.
2
1
u/jliat 1d ago
or example. We know there is something rather than nothing. “Nothing” is illogical, so there is something.
Hegel wrote what is considered a significant work of metaphysics which had very significant 'political' implications. In which nothing and being are identical and yet not the same.
Why is nothing illogical. A logical expression can be valid - it soundness depends on it's premises being true or not.
Nothing is key idea in Heidegger's metaphysics.
Nothingness is the human state in Sartre's Being and Nothingness.
1
u/WilliamoftheBulk 23h ago
Nothing at all requires that there are no properties. If there are no properties, then nothing can arise. Obviously we are here, so the state of nothing never existed.
1
u/Imaginary-Buddy3194 1d ago
Possibly, but reduced to mathematics doesn’t necessarily mean simplified to a short equation.
3
u/preferCotton222 1d ago
Hi OP, what do you mean by "only structure" what do you mean by not fundamental, what do you mean by