Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics vs. The Map is not the Terroritoy

[Phyllis Wagner]

I just read the book "The Nature of Consciousness" by Rupert Spira. In the afterword Bernardo Kastrup makes a quite good point I have some questions about.

Bernardo gives an example of how the Mathematics for Non-Euclidian Geometry were invented, basically as a theoretical challenge when everyone knew that space was flat. Einstein later showed that it turns out that space is indeed curved and all the theoretical mathematics is correct. There was even a paper written about such cases: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences 

Kastrup argues that this should not be a surprise to a non materialist. If the world is mental, it is reasonable that human rational thought is not seperate from it and can therefore model it accurately by intuition. 

This contrasts with the view that all science is just a model and the world is infinitely complex and can never be truly modeled. Some models are of course simplistic and totally wrong but if all truly is one, why couldn't the mind intuit correct models when these models come from the same source as the world itself, like witth the non-euclidian mathematics? 

 

Am i not getting something? Is Bernardo wrong ? Or is the "Map is the Territory" split to harsh ? 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Phyllis Wagner

[Vibroverse]

Mind is probably imagining a model and believing it, and then it is true. 

[tsuki]

I had similar thoughts about the correspondence of the small mind with the big mind.

However, there is nothing special about mathematics that allows it to model reality any better than other form of thought. Mathematics is extremely logical, to the point where computational process is mechanical. This is its strength because it forces the user to formulate their ideas very precisely, but it is also its flaw because it cannot deal with paradox. In order to advance mathematics, you have to be illogical and defy conventions that are absolute within other domains. You example of non-euclidean geometry is perfect for this. Everybody knew that the universe is flat until someone started questioning the 5th axiom. Then, all hell broke loose.

Also, the idea that the small mind is somehow limited is an illusion. Where do insights come from? Where does the Unconscious end? The "person" has never came up with a single original idea because it is a set of rules and axioms that can be questioned for self-transcendence.

Edited February 9, 2021 by tsuki

[Phyllis Wagner]

After contemplating a bit I came to this conclusion.

Maybe the models are never the thing itself, and they can't ever be totally accurate. But at the same time the best Mathematicians might be able to intuit shockingly accurate models about the movements of mind as a large.

[RedLine]

Am I the only one that thinks that this idealism vs materialist debate is stupid??. Both are false from the pov of direct experience, and I don't think one is more useful than the other to understand reality.

[Nahm]

2 hours ago, Phyllis Wagner said:

Am i not getting something?

I can’t get that there is no I. Awareness can be aware of the thought “I” though. 

[WelcometoReality]

@Phyllis Wagner Even if the mathematical model is a 100% correct model of how reality is behaving it's still just a model that is within reality. Remove reality and there is no model. Remove model and reality still exists.

[Leo Gura]

"The better the model the bigger the problem."

[Jodistrict]

Many pure mathematicians are disappointed when their work turns out to have an application.  Mathematics is so much more than a description of material reality.

[Breakingthewall]

according to Einstein, the most surprising thing about reality was that it was understandable for the human mind. It really is amazing that the human mind can create models that explain reality. a paleolithic human could understand the theory of relativity. not a chimpanzee. The difference is huge, not a small step

[Vibroverse]

I think noone knows what they are talking about and there is no permanent enlightenment, but just in the moment mood. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Vibroverse

[Moksha]

Not sure that a paleolithic human would have a clue, but Einstein lifted the curtain of Oz. Relativity, really?

[Breakingthewall]

@Moksha well a paleolithic human or any homo sapiens have the mental capacity of a human today. There are no mammalian steps that understand additions, others multiplication, until they reach some that can develop quantum physics. They are in the Garden of Eden, or outside. those inside understand nothing, those outside everything.

[Moksha]

17 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

@Moksha well a paleolithic human or any homo sapiens have the mental capacity of a human today. There are no mammalian steps that understand additions, others multiplication, until they reach some that can develop quantum physics. They are in the Garden of Eden, or outside. those inside understand nothing, those outside everything.

Paleolithics are inferior to homosapiens, on the level of cognitive capacity. Not coincidentally, they were superior on spiritual capacity. They were less bound by thought, and more connected to nature and being, than most of us are. Personally, I choose being.

[Breakingthewall]

You mean neanderthal! I mean the homo sapiens in the Paleolithic . And I agree, i choose being too. Be sapiens is difficult

[Moksha]

6 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

You mean neanderthal! I mean the homo sapiens in the Paleolithic . And I agree, i choose being too. Be sapiens is difficult

Sapiens = thought = suffering. It's all about being.

[Willie]

1 hour ago, Moksha said:

Personally, I choose being.

Being is a choice? Could God choose to not be?

somethingsomethingHamlet

[Moksha]

10 minutes ago, Willie said:

Being is a choice? Could God choose to not be?

somethingsomethingHamlet

God wrote Hamlet. I guess that makes Shakespeare divine? 

[Inliytened1]

16 minutes ago, Willie said:

 Could God choose to not be?

 

Yes, by forgetting its God.

[Phyllis Wagner]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

"The better the model the bigger the problem."

Would you agree with Bernardo that accurate models can be intuited because the model making itself is part of the oneness? Or do you see it as a totally separate human-centric process?