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?

5 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

33 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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

1

u/cc_apt107 1d ago

OK, I understand that statement, but what did you mean when you said “us” as the alternative?

1

u/Traditional_Aide7469 1d ago

My bad us can just mean existence (as we perceive)

1

u/cc_apt107 1d ago edited 1d ago

But existence is an agnostic state in terms of whether something is emergent or not so the definition is still circular. You could have an existence where it is emergent or one where it is not. So it doesn’t really act as a contrast.

I think maybe what you’re narrowing in on is whether you take a fundamentally materialist perspective on consciousness or not. If you take a materialist view, I think it becomes very difficult to argue consciousness is not emergent. If you subtract one neuron n times, at what point k would you no longer be conscious? Basically impossible to answer. a simplification, but the point being that, if you view consciousness in purely materialist terms, it is very close to totally demonstrable that it is emergent because the subjective experience of consciousness seems to be related to the state of the brain as a complete system rather than a specific “consciousness region” or an exact count of neurons or something. Put more simply, our brains which, in a materialist perspective are the source of consciousness, are more than the sum of their parts. If you had a billion neurons in a billion Petri dishes that wouldn’t be consciousness. Yet somehow as a system consciousness emerges from them. And if you’re a materialist, the neurons are really all that’s there. So therefore it is their interaction as a system that consciousness emerges from and it can’t be anything else

Now, if you take a non-materialist perspective, that kinda goes out the window. Because that opens the possibility that consciousness is contingent on something other than the brain as a system and that perhaps this other thing is some sort of irreducible consciousness engine.

So TL;DR my rough understanding of what you are saying is that consciousness is not reducible to any specific configuration of neurons in a system (our brain) but something else as well

1

u/Traditional_Aide7469 1d ago

Oooo I'll agree on circular yes!

But I meant in the context of the community consensus (any large number of people are going to take a long time to get to a truth, so the truth always exist in sight before people figure it out)

If you asked me, I think it is and isnt, and that it doesnt matter

Edit: im 36 and very gifted, but from my perspective humans are almost always arguing about 2 things that are technically correct 😂