Ideas and Ideals

Medieval thought in its philosophical, theological and poetic guise appeared to readers of Modern Times as the thought of the ‘highbrow’, which was facilitated by the scholastic method of research. The Renaissance era contrasted the ‘highbrow’ with a man rediscovering the world, who appeared as multidimensional, open to different traditions, and therefore unable to claim the completeness of knowledge. One of the main principles of thinking was the polylogicality of philosophical logic. And although this meant the coupling of various cognitive systems, taking place in the mainstream of communication (not generalization), the reliance on the Word and its expression of thought remained unchanged for everyone, which initially placed the philosopher in a religious atmosphere: the philosopher worked with something that expressed itself and was ready for its own renewal (philosophy was originally religious). This was realised by Nicholas of Cusa, who understood the original thought as having a willingness to think and the ability to think, which is why the text of the Bible seemed self-speaking. He was the herald of ‘scientifi c ignorance’. He was rather an ignoramus (a layman, a simpleton, a fool) relative to the ‘highbrow’ scholastics. But the introduction of the idea of the simpleton itself meant that the philosophical context included the whole of human life with its faith and hopes, education and upbringing of each person, which was expressed in S. Brant’s “Ship of Fools”, in the “Laudatory Word of Stupidity” by Erasmus of Rotterdam, in the “Letters of dark People” by W. Von Hutten and in the “Book about the Sage” by S. de Beauvel, an informative text, sometimes reminiscent of textbooks, which is the knowledge of a Simpleton.

The round table “The Pythagorean Argument of the Intelligent Design of the Universe” was held in the online format on 12, December, 2024. The discussion was held on the cycle of articles by A.V. Burov and A.M. Tsvelik “The Pythagorean Argument of the Reasonable Design of the Universe and its Critique” published in the journal “Ideas and Ideals” in Nos. 3 and 4 of 2023 and Nos. 1–3 of 2024. The discussion was attended by such scholars as Mikhail Arkadyev, Andrei Baumeister; Alexander Bobylev; Alexei Burov (moderator); Igor Dmitriev; Igor Dymov; Konstantin Zuev; Andrey Ivanchenko; Kirill Kopeikin; Irina Rybakova; Alexey Tsvelik.

The author proposes a hypothesis of two types of mechanisms of social self-organization: its launch and maintenance of structural integrity. These are two fundamentally different mechanisms. Social self-organization requires four mandatory conditions: (1) a set of interacting elements (individuals), homogeneous in origin and creating, due to their common habitat, a behavioral population system; (2) the obligatory identification of a pacemaker in the population, which “captures” the activity rhythms of other individuals, which is a condition for the emergence of heterogeneities in behavioral activity; (3) the lifetime of a population system must be significantly longer than the lifetime of an individual element; (4) the homogeneity of individuals and the complexity of their behavior in a long-existing population create conditions for functional subordination (heterarchy, in general sense).

The behavioral mechanism of self-organization in populations with complex behavior of individuals is reciprocal altruism. Altruism presupposes a hereditarily determined ability for sacrifi cial behavior. Its natural basis is the universal phenomenon of individual recognition and preference. The author examines four sociological concepts of self-organization, in which altruism is presented as a mechanism of self-organization: Ibn Khaldun, E. Durkheim, P.A. Kropotkin and P.A. Sorokin.

The mechanism for maintaining an already formed structure is different in nature; it is aimed at continuously ensuring solidarity. This is a “Game” that is implemented in two forms – competition (game) and performance (play). Game is not a specifically human attribute of social life. The content of the “game” satisfies the basic conditions of self-organization. The “game” has three important attributes: (1) isolation of the playing space and temporary organization; (2) the immutability and binding nature of the rules that set the order of actions and form a special ethos and ritual; (3) the game determines the emergence of associations that strive to survive and spread. The associations are based on altruistic behavior. The expansion of the game leads to the creation of male “alliances”; their forms are the basis of solidarity.

One of the objections to the Pythagorean argument is the reference to the authority of modern physicists, most of whom call themselves atheists or agnostics. Even if there had not been any atheists among the founding fathers of physics, something is wrong with the argument of the intelligent design of the Universe, since so many physicists of the last half-century do not believe in God, the critique goes. To answer this sort of objections, we discuss here the views of Richard Feynman, Steven Weinberg, and Stephen Hawking, each of whom called himself an “atheist”. We attempt  to show in what sense they indeed were atheists and in what sense they were not. Roger Penrose, the eminent physicist and thinker, called himself “rather agnostic”, but he was convinced of the universe’s purpose, and explained what this conviction was based on: not blind faith but the very special character of the physical laws and the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Penrose illustrated his metaphysical views by means of graphic images, one of which we discuss in a dedicated chapter.

Our review of contemporary physicist-philosophers would be very incomplete without the “practicing but unbelieving Christian” Freeman Dyson, with his concept of “the most interesting of all possible worlds”, and so we talk about him too.

We also consider Max Tegmark’s mathematical multiverse hypothesis and show that it does not stand up to criticism in light of the cognitive self-consistency of the universe.

Is it rational to reject the hypothesis of intelligent design when all other hypotheses about the cause of the highly refi ned nature of physical laws fail? The chapter “Absurdity and Skepticism” is devoted to this question.

At the end of this essay and the whole series, we familiarize the reader with the view of the mass man in science and the nature of his “atheism” that was expressed by Jose Ortega y Gasset, supported by Erwin Schrödinger, and commented on by Steven Weinberg.

The article analyses both the book of American philosopher ChristophCox “Sonic Flux: Sound, Art and Metaphysics” and a wide range of criti­cal publications dedicated to this book. The project “Sonic Flux” belongs tosonic materialism (a branch of “New Materialism’) also known as “Deleuziansound studies”. For Cox this means a development of “immanent metaphys­ics” launched by G. Deleuze. But while continuing the project of Deleuze,Cox inherits his predicaments. Their range is as broad as the specter of Cox’ssources covering philosophy, arts, theory of perception. Debates around theproject “Sonic Flux” highlighted such problems as the way Cox understandsmaterialism and how he understands access to reality. Cox’s correlation of fi­nite and infinite; particularity and universality, and anti-historicism are highlyproblematic for critics. Since Cox claims to develop a theory of sound art weassess his ideas from this perspective. This allows us to focus on modernism,anonymity and anti-humanism, central to Cox’s project but not to its criti­cism. A less important aspect – resentiment in Cox’s style – turned out to behelpful in drawing conclusions that the whole project “Sonic Flux” is builtupon a range of assumptions. Cox himself names some of them while weindicated some others.

The main conclusion of the article is the idea that the project “Sonic Flux” cannot provide an adequate theory of sound art nor contribute to sound stud­ies because it is too embedded in the worst kind of modernism and structural­ism. Such important notions of sonic materialism as autonomy and anonymity of sounds perfectly fit the tradition of Modernism while being completely alien to the sound studies.

Since the time of Galileo and Newton, physics has been engineered as a mathematical discipline, seeking its axioms, laws of nature, by means of specially organized experiments. The motivation of specifi cally this mode of cognizing nature was explored in the fi rst paper of this series, in which Christian Platonism and the Pythagorean crede of the founding fathers of modernity’s physics were discussed. The present article aims to lay out the cognitive strategy of physics as revealed by refl ecting upon its seminal discoveries. One central inquiry concerning physics is how exactly it has mined its axioms. Merely pointing to experimentation is insuffi cient. Experiments are conceived and executed as verifi cation of an already-formulated hypothesis, without which it would be indeterminate what should be observed and what there is to do with those observations. A hypothesis for a law is not derived from an experiment; on the contrary, it defi nes the experiment in order to be rigorously scrutinized by it.

The objective of this article is to demonstrate on facts that the strategy for hypothesizing physical laws has invariably emanated from the same wellspring as the originating metaphysical credo. This Pythagorean strategy is founded on the belief in mathematical elegance, high precision, and the universality of the sought-after axioms of matter. The quest for hypotheses went along the pathways of universal mathematical symmetries, equivalencies, invariances, correspondences, and analogies–complex enough to account for a plethora of relevant phenomena, yet simple enough to facilitate scientifi c discovery.

We are not the fi rst to propound this Pythagorean understanding of physics. This concept, as well as the term ‘Pythagorean strategy,’ was a quarter-century ago formulated and developed by the American-Israeli philosopher Mark Steiner (1942–2020) in his monograph, “The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem.” The present article serves as a free contemplation in the footsteps of that brilliant and still largely unparalleled tome.

This article is first in a series of publications on the problem of a special character of fundamental physical laws, which combine two opposite qualities: they are complex enough to allow fine-tuning to life,  yet simple enough to be discoverable by emerging intelligent life. In other words, the laws permit the emergence of not just living beings, but those capable of discovering these very laws. How could this be possible?

Known laws can be looked at from both logical, objective, and historical, subjective, perspectives. On the one hand – the logical – the successes achieved by physics testify to the adequacy of physical theories, to their conformity to the fabric of the Universe itself. This conformity is fundamentally different from fitting complex formulas to facts, like those implemented by the algorithms of Ptolemy, Copernicus or artificial intelligence. Fits describe only what is already embedded in them, whereas physical theories allow to predict phenomena that have never been observed, often unbeknownst  even to the authors of those theories. This predictive power  stems from the same qualities  as the ability to unambiguously falsify physical theories: the simplicity, universality, precision, and completeness of their mathematical principles. In addition to these qualities, and in addition to the fact that the fundamental physical laws possess numerous symmetries, invariants, and equivalences, they also permit that constructive richness of stable material configurations, that is chemistry, which is a necessary condition of life as we know it. Research of recent decades shows how finely tuned the physical constants are to meet this requirement: even small changes in their values would make chemistry impossible.  What is the reason for these amazing Pythagorean qualities of the Universe? Purposeful design of this rational elegance of nature, that is, the intelligent design of the Universe, appears to be the only passable answer to this question, as we intend to demonstrate in this series of publications.

On the other hand, the history of science testifies that the belief in the mathematical perfection of nature’s arrangement lies at the origin of modern physics, indicating both the possibility and, without exaggeration, the sacredness of cognition of the Universe. This belief is clearly visible in the worldview of the founders of mathematical physics, as a special, emotionally intense Pythagorean credo, a variant of Christian Platonism. The initial presumption of perfect design may not be recognized by the masses of scientists and philosophers who came later, and it may even be rejected by them verbally, but this does not cancel its status as the foundation of physics: there has been and is no other answer to the question of why the understanding of the Universe is possible and important for humanity.

The justification of the assumption of intelligent design as the cause of such specific laws of nature, on the one hand, and, on the other hand,  discerning and contemplating the meaning of the Pythagorean credo by granting it the status of a metaphysical working hypothesis, together form a dual objective-subjective logical structure, which the authors designate as the Pythagorean argument, as presented in this article.

This article examines unfulfilled identity, which is expressed in the subject’s inability to actualize his or her identity due to internal complexes or social pressures. First, the main types of mistakes that can lead to erroneous actions and processes are highlighted. These processes, form an unfulfilled identity. The first type of mistake is the misunderstanding of one’s own natural state and social expectations. In this case, the subject cannot relate his or her abilities, characteristics and functional properties to reality. As a result, there is a tendency to form only the apparent integrity of an identity that can easily collapse. As a result, the subject is unable to be fully established as a person. This kind of identity has been called a ‘failed’ identity. The second mistake is to shift perception to external factors, disregarding internal experiences and attitudes. Thus, one’s interests, needs, and desires are replaced by others that are taken from the environment. A substituted identity is formed, which also does not have the property of completeness because of the lack of systemic connections between the personality and reality. Such an identity is called ‘substituted’. The author discusses the main reasons for the formation of an unfulfilled identity. The reasons are divided into different systems: global, local-social and individual. Thus, the first cause is identified as globalization. Its influence covers all subsequent systems. Globalization leads to the blurring of norms, differentiation and separation of values and attitudes. The processes of upbringing within different social institutions are included in the local-social system. The author outlines the main problems of upbringing and growing up, which affect the formation of identity. Subjective distortions are on the next level, complexes and mistakes that lead to unfulfillment. They include the inability to concentrate and accept the consequences of choices, associated with a lack of responsibility; denial of biological determinants and the narrative of one’s own existence, a lack of life resources.

The world’s oldest 3x3 magic square, discovered/invented in Ancient China and now known as Luoshu 洛書/ ‘Document [from the River] Luo’, was endowed by Chinese tradition with unprecedented dignity and placed at the very heart of Chinese thought. The bewitching geometric-numerical imagery of Luoshu, open to a great many different visions, when reading-interpretation becomes the final moment of the very act of perception, turns this Chinese mandala into a real eye trap. With its disturbing persistence, it resembles the magically attractive ‘Zahir’ from Borges’ short story of the same name.

   Among the most diverse ritual and ideological instrumentalizations of the Luoshu magic square (from the sacred emblem of cosmic harmony to the requisite of a geomancer), the mobilization of this esoteric figure for the arithmetization of the cornerstone of all Chinese philosophy, the fundamentally non-verbalizable Tao, is dominant. The coding of the dao by the number 15 is reinforced by its spatialization, so that the entire “Document [from the river] Lo” appears as a map of the various trajectories of the Tao within this nine-field square. Moreover, the coincidence (in number 15) of differently composed sums appears as an inscrutable variety of paths leading to the same goal - the final implementation of Tao.

     By virtue of the validity of the equality 15 =mod10 5 the magic sum of the Luoshu square (Const₁₅) immutably, although covertly (in the form of a number 5), centers the entire Luoshu configuration. This secrecy of the magical constant (the latter is absent in the entire observable space of the “Document [from the river] Lo”) refers to the hidden “back-side” of Luoshu numbers, represented by the number 10 (in its role as a modulus of comparison in the arithmetic of residues modulo 10).

      Judging by the directly visible, so to speak, ‘front’ part of the magic square of order 3, it is allowed to count only up to nine in it. But the already absent-present magic sum (number 15), breaking the seemingly inescapable circle of arithmetic of residues, brings to light the comparison module (number 10) as Luosh’s hidden ‘truth’, which alone gives meaning to the entire nine-cell construction. Awareness of this truth is the first step in the transition to the ‘register of truth’ of this extraordinary gestalt. The subsequent connection to it of problems focused by the Pythagorean theorem radically expands Luoshu’s ‘register of truth’.

      The geometrized arithmetic of the Luoshu magic square, which is a unique spatial-numerical fixation of the seemingly fundamentally non-objectivable Tao (i.e., combining the apparently incompatible) marks the possibility of a paradoxical union of Heraclitus with Pythagoras, successfully realized by the Chinese tradition.