Foundations of Physics

, Volume 36, Issue 6, pp 765–794

On Math, Matter and Mind

Article

We discuss the nature of reality in the ontological context of Penrose’s math-matter-mind triangle. The triangle suggests the circularity of the widespread view that math arises from the mind, the mind arises out of matter, and that matter can be explained in terms of math. Non-physicists should be wary of any claim that modern physics leads us to any particular resolution of this circularity, since even the sample of three theoretical physicists writing this paper hold three divergent views. Some physicists believe that current physics has already found the basic framework for a complete description of reality, and only has to fill in the details. Others suspect that no single framework, from physics or other sources, will ever capture reality. Yet others guess that reality might be approached arbitrarily closely by some form of future physics, but probably based on completely different frameworks. We will designate these three approaches as the fundamentalist, secular and mystic views of the world, as seen by practicing physicists. We present and contrast each of these views, which arguably form broad categories capturing most if not all interpretations of physics. We argue that this diversity in the physics community is more useful than an ontological monoculture, since it motivates physicists to tackle unsolved problems with a wide variety of approaches.

Keywords

ontology mathematics physics consciousness 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Penrose R. (1994), Shadows of the Mind. Oxford University Press, New York, Sec. 8.7.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Penrose R. (1994), The Road to Reality. Knopf, New York, Sec. 1.4Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tegmark M. (1998). Ann. Phys. 270, 1, gr-qc/9704009CrossRefMATHMathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wigner E.P. (1967). Symmetries and Reflections. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rucker R. (1982). Infinity and the Mind. Birkhauser, BostonMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barrow J.D. (1992). Pi in the Sky. Clarendon, OxfordMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nozick R. (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lewis D. (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rudd A. (1998). “What it’s like, and what’s really wrong with physicalism: a Wittgensteinean perspective”. J. Conscious. Stud. 5(4): 454MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. V. Quine, ‘On What There Is’ and ‘Two Dogmas of Empiricism’, in From a Logical Point of View, 2nd edn., (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1980); Success and Limits of Mathematization, in Theories and Things (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1981).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Putnam, ‘What is Mathematical Truth’ and ‘Philosophy of Logic’, in Mathematics Matter and Method: Philosophical Papers Vol. 1, 2nd edn. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Colyvan, Mark, “Indispensability Arguments in the Philosophy of Mathematics”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2004 edn.), Edward N. Zalta, ed. URL =〈http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/ mathphil-indis/〉.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barrow J.D. (1992). Pi in the Sky. Oxford University Press, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Hut, Life as a Lab, 2004, http://lab.kira.org/lab.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hut P., Shepard R. (1996). J. Conscious. Stud. 3, 313–329Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hut P., van Fraassen B. (1997). J. Conscious. Stud. 4, 167Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Napper E. (1989). Dependent-Arising and Emptiness. Wisdom Publications, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J.-P. Changeaux and A. Connes, 1995 Conversations on Mind, Matter, and Mathematics (Princeton University Press, edited and translated by M. B. DeBevoise from the original Matière à Pensée, 1989), Chap. 7.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tipler F.J. (1994), The Physics of Immortality. Doubleday, New York, p. 210Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    J. Schmidthuber, “Lecture Notes in Computer Science”, in Foundations of Computer Science: Potential – Theory – Cognition, C. Freksa, ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1987), p. 201 ftp://ftp.idsia.ch/pub/juergen/everything.ps.gz.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. Tegmark, astro-ph/0302131, in Science and Ultimate Reality, J. D. Barrow, P. C. W. Davies and C. L. Harper, eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2004).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    P. M. S. Hacker, Insight and Illusion, (Oxford University Press, 1972).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cohen M. (2003) Master’s thesis. Dept. of Philosophy, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, IsraelGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Advanced StudyPrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhysicsWashington UniversitySt LouisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Physics & Kavli Inst. for Astrophysics and Space ResearchMITCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations