There is an ongoing PBS television series (also several books and also a website) called “Closer to Truth.” It is hosted by neuroscientist Robert Lawrence Kuhn. He has appeared in individual interviews and panel discussions with the cream of cosmologists, physicists, philosophers, theologians, psychologists, etc. from the actuality. on all the Big Questions surrounding a trilogy of general themes: Cosmos; Awareness; Sense. The trilogy dealt collectively with reality, space and time, mind and consciousness, aliens, theology, and so on. Here are some of my comments on one of the general topics covered, mathematics.

Is mathematics eternal?

# The number of potential equations is as close to infinity as there are no probabilities. But only a few reflect our reality (whatever it is). What role do others play, such as an inverse cube law or say that energy is equal to mass times the speed of light (not squared)?

Is mathematics invented or discovered?

# The idea that seven times six equals forty-two (7 x 6 = 42) is only true because we all agree that this is the case, just as we can and we all agree that a dollar bill Twenty dollars is relatively small ($ 20) is worth twenty dollars even though the special paper it is printed on may be worth or cost only twenty cents. So we also agree on that equation: a twenty dollar bill equals twenty dollars. But, if suddenly the vast majority of the population said that seven times six is ​​not equal to 42, but let’s say 24, then that would be the case and seven times six would no longer be equal to 42. The same applies with respect to the currency. If suddenly all the merchants said that your twenty dollar bill was only worth twenty cents, well, twenty cents will be worth it. Therefore, mathematics and mathematical equations are governed by almost absolute agreement or consensus, and therefore mathematics is an invention that does not exist in any sense of reality outside of that consensus. Seven times six equals forty-two or seven times six does not equal four-two – nor does it exist as a universal truth other than what we collectively determine by consensus is the case.

# I gather that one could express mathematics in the English language (French, Chinese, German, whatever). I mean, one plus one equals two is as valid as 1 + 1 = 2. So, the language of mathematics is a subset or a subpart of the English language (French, Chinese, etc.), and those languages ​​are used for all subjects. Of course, mathematics, written or in symbol form, is not just for physics and science. I guess part of the universal universe, well, the human one anyway, is to use math to do your income tax return and your household budget, and find out at the supermarket which brand of product is cheapest per unit of amount. Anyway, English is not universal and French is not universal and Chinese is not universal, but the English, the French and the Chinese would agree that 1 + 1 = 2 is universal, whether it is expressed in symbols or letters; hieroglyphs or characters. Even the “Grays” would probably agree that 1 + 1 = 2. However, is mathematics universal before any conscious mind was conceived in the philosophy of Mother Nature? Did 1 + 1 = 2 exist in some form, shape, or form nanoseconds after the Big Bang?

# Clearly there are concepts that cannot be expressed mathematically, such as beauty or Wednesday, so I suggested that the language of mathematics is a subset of some larger language, such as English, French, Chinese, or Klingon. There are probably billions of ideas that can be expressed in English, some of which involve math.

By “universal language”, I mean that mathematics will probably be the initial means by which we can begin to communicate with an extraterrestrial intelligence anywhere in the Universe. We probably have in common Euclidean geometry, arithmetic, Pi, etc. One would assume that one and only one straight line can join two points on a flat surface and that would be true anywhere in our galaxy and our Universe. That would be a universal. If you suddenly saw the traditional pictorial representation of a Pythagorean Triangle engraved or carved on the Martian surface, you would have to conclude that a non-human intelligence did the engraving or carving and that we have something in common that could set communication in motion.

# This is probably too simplistic, but things that can be discovered had actual existence or reality before life forms that evolved from non-living structures and substances existed, especially life forms with minds that have self-awareness, consciousness, intellect and reasoning skills. etc. Now, while Jupiter probably didn’t exist before intellectual life forms evolved within the Universe, the things that make up Jupiter certainly did. Therefore, Jupiter was discovered, therefore discovered, not invented.

Invented things had no current existence or reality before the evolution of life forms, especially life forms with intellect. Those invented things are so much physical things that would never have happened without an intellect to conceive of them, therefore making them like coffee makers, as well as concepts (like language and math and logic and beauty) that non-intellectual objects (like Jupiter ) would. I could never, never invent. Jupiter’s Great Red Spot ignores coffee makers and calculus! The calculation was invented by the intellect and some intellects consider it beautiful. Of course, once something is invented, that something in turn can be discovered. You didn’t invent calculus and you probably didn’t invent the coffee pot, but you discovered both as a result of someone else’s intellect. But, my conclusion is that if there is no intellect in the cosmos and there never has been, then there would be no calculus and no coffee makers.

# Perhaps other dictionaries are different from mine, but my dictionary defines “invent” or “invention” along the lines of “producing or creating with the imagination” or “the exercise of imaginative or creative power”. “Inventor” is “a person who invents”.

Now the cosmos is many things to many people, but unless each and everyone wishes to return to the concept of papsychism, I doubt that the cosmos has an active “imagination” or “imaginative power” and that the cosmos it certainly isn’t. ‘ta “person”. The act of invention appears to be a deliberate process, requiring intellect.

Natural evolution is not directed; it is not goal oriented. Mother Nature did not order the cosmos “to have humans.” On the other hand, artificial selection is directed; It is goal oriented. Humans (not Mother Nature) say “let there be a bionic ear”; “that there are medicines that allow people to live longer and healthier”; “Let there be designer babies without birth defects”; and “that there are robots with ‘artificial intelligence’ that can vacuum carpets and robotic ‘pets’ that can provide comfort to the sick and elderly in institutions.”

Therefore, I defend something in this sense: in the absence of the natural evolution of life forms on Earth, rocks, minerals and water (in one or more forms) existed waiting to be discovered when (and if) life arose and evolved on Planet Earth. In the absence of the natural evolution of life forms on Earth, calculus and coffee machines did not exist. These abstract concepts had to wait for the origin and evolution of life here on Planet Earth to finally invent them. There is no life: there are rocks, minerals and water. There is no life: calculation and coffee makers do not exist.

Certainly, mathematics has evolved, but only within intellectual capacity. Ancient humans who migrated from Africa 70,000 years ago probably didn’t know much more than bone head arithmetic. The ancient Greeks added geometry but did not know the calculus. Calculus came later and mathematics is still evolving today thanks to human intellect and inventiveness.

# If flesh and blood humans are a part of nature, and who can argue against that claim (aside from some far-right religious fundamentalists), then anything humans produce, evolve, or are replaced by cyborgs or androids . or artificially intelligent robots, they must also be part of the natural scheme of things. No problem. However, I still object to the phrase that nature “invented” inventors. Why not just drop the term “invented” and simply say that nature evolved to inventors? Again, “invented” implies a specific direction or goal that nature intended all along, and I maintain that anyone would be hard-pressed to set the “intention” on nature, unless, of course, they equated nature as a synonym. of a deity or deities.

# As long as mathematics has evolved within the confines of the intellect by intellectual beings (humans or other self-aware entities, including extraterrestrial intelligences, even artificial intelligences), then that’s okay. I would have a hard time adjusting to the notion that mathematics evolved from arithmetic to geometry, hence set theory and calculus and fractals, etc. everything between the Big Bang event and the origin of the first life forms.

# Many things existed before intellectually derived mathematics, mathematics that now describes things like orbits, collisions, and velocities. All of which raises an interesting question. Only one type of chemistry, a neurological chemistry, can discover and invent things. There are dozens of other types of chemistry such as soil chemistry, cooking chemistry, inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, biochemistry, mineralogical chemistry, metallurgy, petrochemical chemistry, pharmaceutical chemistry, digestion, photosynthesis, nuclear chemistry, etc. There are all kinds of chemical actions and reactions 24/7/52, endothermic reactions and exothermic reactions, but only one type of chemistry ends up knowing and understanding and discovering and inventing. That is a very deep line between the chemistry of the intellect and the chemistry of everything else.

# By the single type of chemistry, I should have qualified it by saying that it was, for lack of a better phrase, the chemistry of Mother Nature, a natural chemistry that evolved, well, naturally.

Now I quite agree that another chemistry, a chemistry discovered, invented and engineered by that neurological chemistry, our neurological chemistry, will be a metallurgically based chemistry, and will eventually rule the roost. Of course it could be a cyborg or android compound in the early stages; perhaps ultimately a fully fledged artificial intelligence (AI).

The interesting thing here is that while interstellar travel for that which houses our neurological chemistry (the human brain even separated from the human body) is difficult: great distances, slow speeds, limited lifetimes, huge amounts of environmental infrastructure required, etc. . – Interstellar travel for an AI is much more feasible. Distances and speeds may be the same, but life expectancy is now enormous and much more indestructible, and infrastructure requirements are reduced to a minimum, with no need for toilets. Human hibernation for interstellar travel will be much more difficult technologically compared to a ‘sleep’ switch for an AI. Therefore, when it comes to the Alien UFO Hypothesis (ETH), the ET part is much more likely to be an ETAI.