ScottRoberts wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 11:38 pm
Federica wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 9:58 pm
Ok, let's say I was referring to mathematical physicists. But, as you say, seen from the perspective of PoF, the risk for the mathematicians is the same, if they take pride in abstract mathematics, i.e. arbitrarily constructed rules of transformation of arbitrarily defined quantities. The construction is the form of their own thinking life, but in their view they edify or discover an independent, objectified reality. To the extent that the ideal interconnectedness escapes them - blinded by the illusion of purity and detachment from petty worldly concerns, and unaware of the implicit assumptions - they incur the same amorality as the physicists who aim to model the laws of nature as described. Unless any of them starts making use of those same formalized math relations from within a higher cognition of reality, in which case, as said, they realize its intrinsic morality.
Kind of going off-topic here, but I see it differently. In the first place, I would say that mathematical thinking is utterly concrete, not abstract. Indeed, it is almost the only ordinary thinking that is concrete. And that is because a mathematical concept is non-referential, while most thinking is referential. The concept of a triangle is the triangle, while our concept of a lion is not a lion. Also, what they deal with are independent and objective realities. They just don't happen to be very impressive as compared with, say, the thinking that can produce a tree. So to maybe get back on topic, I would say that the problem mathematicians have is, like the rest of us, they have other things to think about, like their academic standing, their relations with other people, etc. Their mathematical thinking in itself is not a problem.
Yes, let’s look at that for a minute, I don’t think it’s really off-topic. I understand your use of “concrete” and “non-referential” here. Cleric and Ashvin would say “sense-free thinking” and I understand why you call it "utterly concrete". Now I’ll try to point out the PoF perspective, I trust Ashvin will correct if necessary. The point is, there is still a way to think the
concrete thought of a triangle - or the concrete thought of a much more complex objective mathematical reality (not independent though, independent of what?) -
abstractly. It all depends on the quality of the mathematician's thinking activity.
Let's say there is a certain reality whose dynamism is expressed in form of mathematical relations. The mathematician’s thoughts condense into that reality. In this way, the reality becomes perceptible in thought-images of mathematical relations. If the mathematician understands those relations appearing in his thought-perceptions as an independent reality he just discovered, in the same way Joao da Nova discovered the island of Saint Helena but simply not referred to the world of senses, then his “concrete” thinking remain collapsed into abstract thought, since thinking doesn’t recognize itself as awakening in the living interconnectedness with the beings of the hierarchies who are holding on those relations, infusing them with their own being, so that the mathematician can fill them with self consciousness. In which case, his mathematical thinking is definitely abstract, and therefore, it is a problem.
Their mathematical thinking in itself is not a problem.
But there is no mathematical thinking
in itself. There is only conscious mathematical thinking flowing
within certain concrete reality, or abstract mathematical thinking
of those same relations.
ScottRoberts wrote: ↑Sat Oct 07, 2023 11:38 pm
Federica wrote:I don't know Tegmark's philosophy. I know very little of all these things, beyond what Cleric and Ashvin have written and linked to in this forum, that I'm trying to apply here.
You're not missing anything. I just like to ponder his idea that all is mathematics, though I would change it to saying that all is fundamentally mathematical thinking, albeit of a hugely higher order of complexity (
one that can create worlds), and imbued with feeling (not that our mathematical thinking is utterly void of feeling -- one can experience it as beautiful).
Just as it can't discover independent worlds, so mathematical thinking can't create them either, in PoF perspective, no matter the order of complexity. It can only
become conscious of these worlds, conscious of their shared reality, by growing into it from within. If we imagine that our non-referential, thought-out mathematical concepts create worlds - only because these thoughts have no reference in the world of matter, like a lion has - then we are falling in the trap of abstractness, when we remain unaware of the concentric nature of our thinking with respect to the rest of reality, that is, with respect to the complex interconnectedness of the spiritual beings the concepts are made of. We don't experience the true nature of that reality, we are only spellbound to its precipitation, that we read as an independent new world. But maybe you meant it in a different way that I haven't understood?