Re: On "logical proofs"

[jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx]

To give an example regarding relevance/prescience:

Earlier, you mentioned the Ship of Theseus as being relevant in discussion of
computer science. I can't remember if it was regarding consciousness in AI or
some other emergent property. Now, we both agree that Plutarch had no idea
about computer science. Yet we agree it provides a useful mental model in the
development of AI

In the same way, can we not say that Zhuangzi's description of the Tao can be
useful to shape our understanding of Euler's formula, the principle of least
action, and resonance in quantum physics?

-- 
Aaron Lin
jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx
IRCNow (https://ircnow.org)

On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 01:03:21PM -0700, jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Does the idea of the One and the Many apply to this concept in physics?
> 
> Heat is motion, and motion is energy. Mass is energy. Light is energy. These
> are all manifestations of energy.
> 
> Plato, I imagine, was not thinking about this in Parmenides. Nor did
> Laozi thinking of the theory of relativity and the principle of least
> action when he described Wu Wei, but the parallel is striking. Again,
> consider this description of resonance:
> 
> https://ctext.org/zhuangzi/xu-wu-gui
> 
> "I will show you what my method is." On this he tuned two citherns,
> placing one of them in the hall, and the other in one of the inner
> apartments. Striking the note Gong in the one, the same note vibrated in
> the other, and so it was with the note Jiao; the two instruments being
> tuned in the same way. But if he had differently tuned them on other
> strings different from the normal arrangement of the five notes, the
> five-and-twenty strings would all have vibrated, without any difference
> of their notes.
> 
> This is foreshadowing resonance in quantum theory.
> 
> Without a doubt, the Tao te ching *did* inspire some physicists like
> Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. Perhaps it was retroactive
> inspiration, but consider for example Bohr's coat of arms:
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Niels_Bohr.svg
> 
> Are you OK if we discuss mathematics and physics concepts that I see
> parallels?  For example Euler's formula, Schrodinger's Equation, and
> Snell's Law of Refraction.
> 
> -- 
> Aaron Lin
> jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx
> IRCNow (https://ircnow.org)
> 
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 12:47:13PM -0700, jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > The search for truth, and science in specific, often does not proceed by
> > proof but by conjecture supported by internal consistency with empirical
> > evidence.  Proofs usually come later. To give a culinary analogy: To
> > conjecture correctly is to cook up a delicious idea. To write a rigorous
> > proof is wash the intellectual dishes.
> > 
> > The first proof of the Pythagorean theorem occurred much later than
> > Pythagoras. The earliest we have on record was by Euclid, yet the
> > theorem is named after Pythagoras, not Euclid. Fermat's Last Theorem was
> > named after Fermat who proposed the conjecture without proof, and not
> > Andrew Wiles who proved it with rigor 350 years later.
> > 
> > Many of our advances lack proof. Newton was unable to prove how
> > gravitational force could act at a distance. Do there even exist a
> > priori proofs for relativity or quantum physics? As I understand it,
> > these are conjectures consistent with empirical evidence. We can prove
> > relatively little. We cannot even disprove brain in a vat.
> > 
> > As a side note, how should the theory of education proceed? Should
> > education teach "absolute truth" as we currently understand it? But our
> > understanding of nature and science today is almost certainly wrong.
> > Should it therefore mirror how the human mind actually learns, by
> > teaching according to successive approximations of the truth? Rather
> > than teach what we perceive to be generalized universal truth, which is
> > likely to overwhelm a child and be correct anyway, it may make sense to
> > teach incorrect models which are easier to grasp.
> > 
> > Humanity first learned to model the cosmos through geocentrism, then
> > heliocentrism. Only after classical physics was firmly established did
> > humanity attempt the theory of relativity. The world proceeds first from
> > atomic theory and only later attempts subatomic particles and quanta.
> > 
> > But if teaching should be done via successive approximations, does this
> > affirm the usefulness of a noble lie?
> > 
> > As for Laozi and Zhuangzi being irrational and mystical, Zhuangzi lived
> > in the time of Plato, not the time of Kant or Huemer. It is more fair to
> > compare Zhuangzi with Plato, who was also quite mystical. Doubtless,
> > other less influential Taoists later polished the philosophy and
> > provided clearer arguments for it later on.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Aaron Lin
> > jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx
> > IRCNow (https://ircnow.org)
> > 
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2026 at 07:09:42AM -0700, jrmu wrote:
> > > Greetings Zinov and IRCNow-Offtopic,
> > > 
> > > I do not think Aquinas and Laotzi/Zhuangzi mean the same thing; at least, not
> > > so clearly.  There's no way I would have drawn the conclusion about imaginary
> > > numbers being valid truth from your excerpt of Aquinas.  I believe God is the
> > > essence of truth/logos, and since mathematics falls under logical truth, I
> > > suppose what Aquinas and Laozi said are equivalent. The
> > > Logos in Greek was translated as the Tao in Chinese in many of Bible
> > > translations, instead of the Word like in English. So, it makes sense that the
> > > Catholic conception is similar. (Incidentally, this belief
> > > is why I cannot reject mathematical platonism)
> > > 
> > > Yet there's no way I *personally* would have jumped from the Summa Theologica
> > > to imaginary numbers. I can, however, make that jump from the thesis that "the
> > > Tao is ineffable".  I don't think the Summa Theologica's ineffability of God is
> > > a core tenet of Catholicism, but 1) if it were, and 2) were it clearer that
> > > ineffability applied to mathematical truth, then yes 3) I would consider
> > > Aquinas prescient.
> > > 
> > > Do you have any arguments against my thesis that "the search for truth is what
> > > leads to a productive culture?" That is my main thesis, not that I'm choosing
> > > or rejecting analytical philosophy. I might read it eventually, but not for
> > > now, because for now I want to determine the universe of worthwhile philosophy,
> > > and I am unwilling to completely rule out Zhuangzi or the Tao Te Ching just
> > > yet. I have obviously not ruled out analytic philosophy because I downloaded
> > > all of Russell's books. But this heuristic will let me immediately reject some
> > > books in the Western Canon like Freud and Nietzsche, since they deny the
> > > existence of truth.
> > > 
> > > As for your approach to philosophy via rationality, is requiring rational
> > > "proofs" an arbitrary decision?  There may be valid reasons for why
> > > Laozi/Zhuangzi and others do not approach their philosophy with "proofs":
> > > 
> > > 1) They believe the truth to be self-evident (their most likely reasoning)
> > > 
> > > This is also done in the West. For example, the declaration of independence
> > > states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> > > equal". No effort is made whatsoever to justify the beliefs. It does not
> > > imply the conclusion is wrong.
> > > 
> > > 2) The proof is left as an exercise to the reader (since the author finds the
> > > proof boring and tedious)
> > > 
> > > I do this all the time! So did brilliant thinkers like Fermat -- "I have
> > > discovered a truly marvelous proof of this, which this margin is too narrow to
> > > contain." Fermat, of course, had no real proof: he just found the task tedious
> > > and boring.
> > > 
> > > 3) It is also entirely possible that the author is a fraud or cult leader
> > > 
> > > For Zhuangzi, his reasoning more likely lies with 1) and 2).
> > > 
> > > I wonder what benefit step-by-step "logical proofs" offer us. Lucretius' On the
> > > Nature of Things, for example, offered us many "proofs" of atomism. Many of
> > > those proofs are now obviously based on 1) incorrect premises and 2) absurd
> > > inferences logic which lead to 3) incorrect conclusions.
> > > 
> > > For example, Lucretius argues that taste and smell are based on how atoms hook
> > > together. The foul smells and tastes are due to sharp piercing hooks between
> > > atoms contacting our nose and tongue. This, he explains, is how all sensations
> > > occur from all things beind made of the same form of matter.
> > > 
> > > The 1) premise, the 2) inference, and 3) the conclusion are all wrong.
> > > 
> > > Is such a logical "proof" even helpful? Since the entire system of logic
> > > Lucretius uses is fallacious, how is it any better than Zhuangzi who simply
> > > omits the proof altogether?
> > > 
> > > The vast majority of the "proof-based" philosophical works are just as flawed
> > > as Lucretius. Bad proofs are not much different from no proofs at all.
> > > 
> > > Again, look at Plato's Parmenides and the One and the Many. Comically absurd
> > > logic arriving at a conclusion that may indeed be correct. In the end, what
> > > matters is the conclusion is correct.
> > > 
> > > It is enough for a mathematician to propose an interesting and *correct*
> > > conjecture without offering any proof. Goldbach's conjecture is interesting
> > > despite no proof. I am not obsessed with proofs, I am obsessed with arriving at
> > > the truth as quickly as possible. Fermat's Last Theorem recently was solved:
> > > "Together, the two papers are 129 pages long[4][5] and consumed more than seven
> > > years of Wiles's research time." "Only a small number of people were capable of
> > > fully understanding at that time all the details of what he had done". What a
> > > waste of human talent.
> > > 
> > > -- 
> > > Aaron Lin
> > > jrmu@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > IRCNow (https://ircnow.org)
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>