After watching some of Cedric Villani’s talks, having a little back and forth correspondence with James Colliander, and reading a certain essay of Nash’s on solving 3 player (pro-)cooperative games I think I have come to understand that mathematicians DO in fact speak to each other using our “common” language(s) (and then I suppose on their own time individually they use their own language and methods to further their own thinking, which hopefully somehow can be made congruent with what is common).
Fermat I think is relevant here, if I remember his bio correctly, in that he worked with “natural numbers” (I don’t know these definitions well at all I am afraid, but my point will get across; I think I mean to point to ‘natural’ numbers). And there is some transmutable relevant comparison to be made with languages or systems that can or cannot be considered Turing complete. That is to say, I think my thinking is super-Fermat-ical, yet oddly enough, I am quite certain it is “Turing Complete” in the most meaningful/useful way.
The inquiry into 3 player games should be seen as relevant to Cedric as he has expressed interest in regard to how we understand the cosmos (especially over long periods of time), and such an inquiry must be seen as related to the 3 body problem (which I cannot really discern whether we feel we have mastered it or not). Somewhere here I think is where I can show that I have insight that is not otherwise understood by “general academia” (or any other groups or persons).
My claim is basically that we are not treating the perspective of observation properly, whether in our theories, experiments, analysis, or conclusions. Although this would probably take some time (a couple years perhaps) to completely divulge and formalize, I think it is simple enough to understand philosophically, and so the merit of the insight CAN be scrutinized initially before it is presented in the same congruent manner I allude to in the introduction.
Basically we are not “removing” perspective from the equation, and so this taints what we collectively agree to having been observed. We mean to say this quite scientifically, but initially it doesn’t come across as such. Adam’s Smith’s (objective) observations in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, captures this quite well with the concept he calls “the impartial observer”-easy in theory, difficult in practice of course.
Spiritually, we say something like, “Everyone is one. We are all a part of the Whole”. And this is what Krishnamurti talks like (he has difficulty understanding how “mortals” see), because he comes by this understanding naturally, which seems to happen to certain individuals sometimes over long periods/large samples of mankind’s history (suggests an anomaly in the brain). Scientifically we can see and express this differently, without destroying the significance and stability of the current accepted paradigm(s), by noting that the ‘wholistic perspective’ is, rather, simply the aggregation of each of our subjective perspectives (as if ultimately “big-brother” turned out to be every citizens cell phone video camera readily available to scrutinize our public actions).
That is, we might mistake Bohm, for suggesting our thoughts are changing the paths of particles, when rather he means to express that our misunderstanding/misapplication of perspective is causing us to misinterpret what we are observing (and truly as we accept this we will see these two points mean the same thing anyways).
Now (unfortunately) formulaically or even theoretically (if we see these as different) we cannot really hope to pull out the perspective from the equation in such a way to relieve our theories and experiments of this kind of such tainting. There is an intrinsic difficulty here that may or may not be obvious to the reader.
This is where Ideal Money comes into play, which we as mere mortals, cannot hope to understand or abstract/conceive properly, again because of this intrinsic difficulty of not being able to observe from the “omniscient” (objective) perspective.
If we can (somehow) make the assumption that Ideal Money (which is really itself defined as an aggregation of our subjective valuation over a long period of time) is relevant in this way we might make use of a basic example of how our cosmos may have come about…
If we can assume that our universe came about through many iterations, then that it might have created, through some form of natural evolution, or randomness, order to eventually birth itself into a form that is stable enough (ie for a long enough time) to have created “life” as we are, and as we know it (there would be some probability to calculate that is currently clearly out of our reach, but relevant for various reasons). Then in regard to something such as 3 bodies finding a stable equilibrium (which is seemingly obviously “transmutable”, through division of perspective, to n-bodes), and the “gravitational” force that is the glue or currency that holds this stability together, we might understand that there are certain (universal) parameters that were levated or that somehow could be viewed as “having evolved” to support this stability (even if over a long time the universe isn’t considered wholly or perfectly stable).
Collectively or socially (at least perhaps also scientifically, academically, and individually as well), we tend to ask, what is the nature of the phenomenon that caused gravity, or that created optimal (low-probabilistic/unlikely) conditions for stability in various forms. I think we forget at that/this point to make the assumption that natural evolution caused such things, much like we ask “WHY did we (Egyptians) create the pyramids?” and forget that we might have wiped out our own histories for many many years until, by some chance, a great enough civilization arose, that (through natural selection vs. other civilizations) built its foundation on SOMETHING stable enough to “last” (there are other obvious reasons this happened but such natural evolution towards something that is “indefinitely stable” is specifically important here).
Now this is relevant to being able to think, express, and understand beyond dualism, which is really a scientific way of thinking ULTRA-balanced (there is an implied wiping out of a religious paradigm which we don’t today SEE as being religious). But in order for such insight, or way/perspective of observation to become socially useful there must be SOME technological progress (otherwise it will be rejected by academia which rightfully demands empirical evidence).
A long winded way, of saying, in order to move beyond dualism, collectively, we must make a technological/sociological leap, but that does not mean that we cannot work on the implications and ramifications of such change at the present time, between sincere players.
Also, as a sort of side note, I think we might see/understand the relation between non-cooperative games and cooperative games (and HOW it is we might solve the latter by reducing them to the former), and/or independent players vs. coalitions that might be formed, and what it means to try to bring together a ‘grand-coalition’, where all players act in some UN-calculable optimized unison whether as separate entities or as wholistic collective “consciousness”.