Can the universe be broken down into pure mathematics?

Arguably, yes, but that doesn’t disprove the existence of a conscious equivalent of light that is sufficient to itself. [1]

So, for example, Emily Dickinson achieved Nirvana. [2] The chemical reactions within her nervous system helped mediate that. You can represent those chemical reactions with mathematical formulas. However, a mathematical equation representing Nirvana is still not the same as experiencing Nirvana. (A mathematical equation representing the chemical reactions involved in the experience of an orgasm is obviously not equivalent to having achieved orgasm.)

Additionally, the mathematics involved would be unimaginably complex.

Levels of conscio-attainment from highest to lowest:

- The realm of spirituality beyond conception
- The realm of spirituality that still involves conception
- The realm of art
- The realm of philosophy
- The realm of science
- The realm of mathematics [3]

The higher levels of conscio-attainment involve higher levels of neuro-computation. Irreducible complexity exists within computer and neuronal computation. [4] We can discuss irreducibly-complex computation where even a few parts of the machine or system out-of-place destroys functioning.

Advanced irreducibly-complex neuronal computation creates experience, awareness, and consciousness. (If I put a pole through my brain, most of my brain is still intact, but I’ve destroyed enough of the machine that the irreducibly-complex programming required for consciousness is destroyed.)

It takes extremely high levels of irreducibly-complex computation to create experience, intuition, logic, awareness, etc. It takes extremely high levels of irreducibly-complex computation to even allow me to read the words on this page.

The best computers can now beat humans at chess. Computer programs for chess are more advanced than our neuronal programs.

However, the highest levels of elegance in computation go beyond how many simple computations can be done over and over again. The highest levels of elegance in computing involve increasingly advanced levels of irreducibly-complex computations.

A high number of repetitive lower-level computations is not equivalent to a higher-level, irreducibly-complex computation.

(A million Playstation 1’s running at the same time cannot provide the experience of playing a Playstation 4 game. Only an actual Playstation 4 can provide that.)

The human brain is at an extraordinarily advanced level of computing. Can human experience ever be broken down into pure mathematics? Arguably, yes, but the mathematics is unimaginable at our present moment.

Computers have beaten humans at chess. However, can computers beat humans at art? Can computers write great literature?

In order to do so, there would need to be a mathematical algorithm detailing what precisely constitutes great art or great literature. And the reality is that everybody has their own opinion on the subject. You might get a group of scholars that generally agree that certain pieces of work are outstanding, but that group opinion is still not the same as a genuine mathematical proof.

Thus, the advanced neuronal computing involved in creating art likely involves many higher-level, irreducibly-complex processes. People can’t even provide the mathematical formula for what constitutes truly great art and what does not. Thus, computers are nowhere near being able to replace humans in artistic or even philosophical realms, much less being able to simulate genuine human experience or experience higher level consciousness like Enlightenment or Nirvana.

(That doesn’t mean math will never get there, but right now we aren’t even at a level where we have **perfect** mathematical representation of all subatomic phenomena. In order to break human experience down into pure mathematics one would have to first break it down into chemical processes. Those chemical processes are an extension of the behaviour of subatomic particles and we don’t even have **perfect** mathematical models for how those work.)

There is an irreducibly-complex neuronal program that is common to most humans—the programming for the human soul. Not all *Homo sapiens* have that programming, (in my opinion,) but most do and the ones who do always experience it the same way.

Imagine a futuristic scenario where math and computing reach a level where a computer can genuinely **experience** Nirvana. It still doesn’t mean that you or I exist in Nirvana.

Think about a robot that is programmed to **experience **having fun at a beach party. It doesn’t mean you or I are experiencing that.

[1] The Source and The Infinite Light

[2] Enlightenment

[4] I detail the evolutionary mechanism for irreducible complexity here: Angiosperm Evolution

I’ve always loved this question. Use to love reading the articles that the stanford site puts out on it.

LikeLike

Do you have a link to any of those articles?

LikeLike

If you scroll through stanford encyclopedia of philosophy plato.stanford.edu you will get a good grasp of the arguments 🙂 There are so many interesting takes it would be hard to find them all!

LikeLike

Thanks 🙂

LikeLike