Bernado's Mathematical Universe

[Squidgers]

I was curious to find out if Bernado addresses the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in any of his discussions or writings.

How does a mathematical universe spring from a non-mathematical consciousness?

If consciousness is mathematical, shouldn't that be a central part of the premise? It would certainly give more room for rigor in the metaphysics if there were a mathematical component.

Does Bernado attempt to marry any current scientific mathematical knowledge of fundamental reality (topics such as Quantum chromodynamics) with his theory of consciousnesss?

[SanteriSatama]

I was curious to find out if Bernado addresses the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in any of his discussions or writings.

How does a mathematical universe spring from a non-mathematical consciousness?

If consciousness is mathematical, shouldn't that be a central part of the premise? It would certainly give more room for rigor in the metaphysics if there were a mathematical component.

Does Bernado attempt to marry any current scientific mathematical knowledge of fundamental reality (topics such as Quantum chromodynamics) with his theory of consciousnesss?

I'm also curious what mentions, if any, he makes of philosophy of mathematics in his books. The main issue of Hard Problem is that qualia are not reducible to quantification, and BK became interested in idealist philosophy after he in the role of computer scientist realized that AI in that sense is a no go.

On the other hand, BK defines disassociation as the mathematical structure of Markov Blanket.

[AshvinP]

I was curious to find out if Bernado addresses the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in any of his discussions or writings.

How does a mathematical universe spring from a non-mathematical consciousness?

If consciousness is mathematical, shouldn't that be a central part of the premise? It would certainly give more room for rigor in the metaphysics if there were a mathematical component.

Does Bernado attempt to marry any current scientific mathematical knowledge of fundamental reality (topics such as Quantum chromodynamics) with his theory of consciousnesss?

I have no direct answer to your question, but I was disappointed when listening to the first minutes of BK's recent interview with Johannes Kieding when he remarks that "I don't think there is any reason to believe our cognitive apparatus has evolved to get to the point" where we can cognize all truth. It's not even that I disagree with him on the "all truth" point, but it disappoints to hear the lack of epistemic confidence in human cognition, which is becoming all too familiar these days from all corners of the metaphysical spectrum, religious and secular, materialist and idealist, etc. As you say, there is very little appetite or ambition for "rigor in metaphysics", and even the people who take philosophy-metaphysics most seriously, like BK, are not at all immune from this pessimistic-always-bordering-nihilistic outlook.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I was curious to find out if Bernado addresses the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in any of his discussions or writings.

How does a mathematical universe spring from a non-mathematical consciousness?

If consciousness is mathematical, shouldn't that be a central part of the premise? It would certainly give more room for rigor in the metaphysics if there were a mathematical component.

Does Bernado attempt to marry any current scientific mathematical knowledge of fundamental reality (topics such as Quantum chromodynamics) with his theory of consciousnesss?

If you haven't already read it, as far as I know, the closest BK comes to addressing in a detailed way how math, and the related generation/evolution of fractal patterns and cellular automaton (see videos below), factors into his model would be in chapter 12 of Dreamed Up Reality, and the subsequent appendix wherein he reveals the computer code he used to develop the accompanying imagery—all above my pay grade, so I can't really offer any succinct summary here.

Btw, the videos below may also be pertinent to the overlap of math and music

[SanteriSatama]

If you haven't already read it, as far as I know, the closest BK comes to addressing in a detailed way how math, and the related generation/evolution of fractal patterns and cellular automaton (see videos below), factors into his model would be in chapter 12 of Dreamed Up Reality, and the subsequent appendix wherein he reveals the computer code he used to develop the accompanying imagery—all above my pay grade, so I can't really offer any succinct summary here.

Btw, the videos below may also be pertinent to the overlap of math and music

The Sierpinski fractal is very beautiful, but I can't agree with the conclusions that BK draws here:
https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2016/03 ... -bang.html

the importance of symbols for conveying insights that transcend language and linear logic.

Symbols don't transcend language, they are language. Linear logic is easy to transcend, but that does not mean that multilinear etc. logics are beyond language. .

The cognitive ‘big bang’ is not a process unfolding in time. Rather, it’s a qualitative pattern of distribution of mental contents across the map of human cognition. This complete pattern exists now and only now.

Saying that nested forms of time (durations inside durations) are not time does not bring any clarity, but hides the connection between Bergson-durations, CPT-symmetry of QM (ie. palindromic time) and dynamic holography in the mystifying "now", which shuts down further thinking and discussion.

Cellular automatons are wonderful in the sense that they are generated by relatively simple algorithms which are "computationally irreducible" in the sense that their behavior is not deterministic. Stephen Wolfram notes:

”If the behavior of a system is obviously simple – repetitive or nested – then it will always be computationally reducible. But it follows from the Principle of Computational Equivalence that in practically all other cases it will be computationally irreducible.”

Computational Equivalence means that there if close correspondence between phenomenal complexity and computational complexity. And we don't have any atemporal theory of actual computation. The doubly nested loop of triangles and squares in the video still remains computationally reversible and reducible, the simplest deterministic forms of cellular automatons.

I don't want to underestimate the beauty and importance of BK's experience, but as we are doing here philosophy, it's important to discuss the interpretative frame and conclusions. First time deep experience of absence of Law of Excluded Middle (LEM) restricting thinking and experiencing can indeed be very liberating. And that's the concrete meaning of nesting - durations can have increasingly complex internal resolutions, when the Middle is opened, instead of excluded and shut down. The "singularity-point" interpretation is first described as elusive: "This point of origin, this Source of it all, however, remained elusive."

If it is "elusive", why insist on postulating it as the main interpretation? Reason for such interpretation does not need to more complex than current Western/scientific thinking still largely conditioned by point-reductionism of the formalist-physicalist paradigm.. Of course the idea of growth from center does not mean that a pixel (or "point" or "singularity" or whatever has inherent and substantive existence as, the open center remains part-whole relation.

Very beautiful and wonderful such!

Also the following basic generative algorithm is based on repetition and nesting by "concatenating mediants", which is math jargon for simply gluing to together symbol strings from left and right to empty spaces on each row:

< >
< <> >
< <<> <> <>> >
< <<<> <<> <<><> <> <><>> <>> <>>> >
etc.

In philosophical interpretation, this symbolic language does not start from mystical "singularity point", but the basic more-less relation of mathematics, which can be further interpreted as the open interval of Bergson-duration <>, for which very rich mereology can be developed, together with simple but powerful computational formal language.

Reductionism is not suggested, only that as far as universe is mathematical and computable, it is also programmable. And ethically, programmability should be made as easy as we can and availabe to each of us, hopefully working together for better win win games for all children of Mother Earth.

[Soul_of_Shu]

< >
< <> >
< <<> <> <>> >
< <<<> <<> <<><> <> <><>> <>> <>>> >
etc.

Thanks for all the plentiful pointers ... I have a question ...

><
> >< <
>> >< >< >< <<?

[SanteriSatama]

Thanks for all the plentiful pointers ... I have a question ...

><
> >< <
>> >< >< >< <<?

> >< <
> >>< >< ><< <


if we follow the same algorith of "concatenate mediants".

[Soul_of_Shu]

if we follow the same algorith of "concatenate mediants".

I'm trying to follow, and seem to end up here ...

[SanteriSatama]

if we follow the same algorith of "concatenate mediants".

I'm trying to follow, and seem to end up here ...

You jump straight to the endgame, over the boring mechanically simple steps. Good intuition!

[Squidgers]

Symbols don't transcend language, they are language. Linear logic is easy to transcend, but that does not mean that multilinear etc. logics are beyond language. .

Would you say that reality is mathematical ontologically?

If reality is not at all ontologically mathematical, how would math map to reality at all? What is mathematics actually showing us about nature?