Mathematical Realism From Intuition To E

ACADEMIA Letters
Mathematical Realism – From Intuition to Esoterica

Deborah Arangno, PhD
There continues to be a vibrant debate whether Mathematics exists as a body of knowledge

only within the Human mind, a fabrication or invention of the Human intellect without any
extrinsic reality, or whether it exists as some abstract truth to be discovered. This paper will
argue that on the one hand the information gleaned from the process of science, namely knowl-
edge, is intrinsically approximative, given the protean nature of the material character upon
which this knowledge is based, whereas mathematics is that rational order undergirding the
very material world we experience, in fact the structure of reality itself, to which we are privy
due to a ratiocinative capacity of the Human intellect. When we study mathematics, we begin
to understand the intrinsic relationship between facts and wisdom.
Nevertheless, there should never be any confusion between the facts, gleaned by science,
and the insights, revealed by mathematics. There can be no fundamental conflict between
these two dimensions of our effort to understand reality. Science investigates a material uni-
verse, but falters at the boundary of knowledge on matters of transcendence, of meaning, of
being, of rationality itself.
Yet it is the scientist who testifies to that very aspect of reality beyond the physical world,
by relying on the assumption that there is indeed an order in the Universe. Science inherently
relies upon a fundamental faith, that the Universe is rational: for if there were no order, sci-
ence itself would be moot. Indeed, the scientist unknowingly testifies and depends upon an
assumption that there must be some intrinsic order and logic to the Universe, evident in the
symmetry and simplicity of its physical laws, as well as the complexity and beauty of the real
world those laws govern.
Academia Letters, April 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0
Corresponding Author: Deborah Arangno, PhD, darangno@hcc-nd.edu

Citation: Arangno, PhD, D. (2021). Mathematical Realism – From Intuition to Esoterica. Academia Letters,
Article 925. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL925.
1
The empiricist then, acts as the forensic scientist whose business it is to discern evidence
of that order – to reveal the logic undergirding the phenomena.
In short, there is a Mathematic reality evidenced in the material world around us, inherent
in “omnibus res”, and there is the Mathematics intrinsic to “ratio ipsa”, our very capacity to
perceive the Mathematic reality around us – a mathematical sense – which constitutes a kind
of second sight.
Mathematics has always given us insight into the reality of things – even those which elude
us empirically – from imaginary numbers to black holes. Even when we lack the faculty to
observe things we can know their existence simply because they ought to exist, mathematically.
Introduction
Wisdom is not mere knowledge or the ability to acquire and synthesize a body of apparently
useful facts. Since antiquity wisdom has been valued as an insight into truth, which itself then
transcends wisdom.
And while a kind of truth can be had of material existence – in all its multifarious com-
plexity via demonstrative and inductive science –nevertheless, the information gleaned from
the process that is science is ultimately approximative in nature – given that the material na-
ture upon which it is based constantly undergoes change, and hence the measurements and
information we deduce from this protean realm can only be described as constituting, as Plato
suggested in his great dialogue the Theaetetus, a species of true belief. [1] On the other hand,
there is that body of truth of a transcendent existence that admits of no neat empirical inspec-
tions; the transcendent arena – which can be argued is the domain of mathematical principles –
enjoys a kind of perdurition through time. Therefore the very methods and devices of science
alone are inadequate to the task of examining it.
Nevertheless, there should never be any confusion between the facts, gleaned by science,
and the insights, revealed by mathematics.
It is my contention that science is a limited pursuit, precisely because it is shackled to in-
formation, which at the fuzzy boundaries of knowledge, is a hinterland where science retreats
from the weighty questions that remain intransigent to its methodologies. Science can – and
often only inadequately – address processes or phenomena: that is, to say, science can only
study how something happens. Not why it does. Or, how it is possible that we are able to ask
at all.
It is necessary to inquire into the nature of the world, and the nature of the Human Being,
qua Human Being, not as exclusive to physical examination, but also in a metaphysical context.
And nowhere is this more evident than in mathematics.

2
The metaphysical is intrinsic to mathematical inquiry and language, which relies upon the
existence of transcendent truths.
For what is Mathematics but ideals, pure forms, immutable truths,
Universals, and the reality of absolutes – things which must derive from some transcendent
Logic…they are not constructs of the Human mind, only discovered by it. This endows the
mathematician with unparalleled insight.
Philosophically speaking, Mathematics has a two-fold nature: first, it is a logically intu-
itive instrument through which we are capable of discovering fundamental features of reality;
secondly, not only does Mathematics provide the undergirding structure of scientific explana-
tion of that reality, but reality itself conforms to mathematical truths, and the physical world
is governed by the rules and logic of Mathematics.
Said another way, there is a Mathematic reality evidenced in the material world around
us, inherent in everything, and there is the Mathematics intrinsic to reasoning itself, our very
capacity to perceive the Mathematic reality around us.
It is precisely this, our efforts to understand and interpret what our rational senses com-
municate to us, the rational order that we are capable of apprehending, which is the subject of
debate.
Indeed, we can argue the questions of why Mathematical ideas are universal, that the rules
of logic are ridgid in the sense that any interpretation of the same concepts is governed by the
same principles from individual to individual at a naı̈ve level, only subject to development of
mathematical maturity, in the same way that any of our other senses is. We can discuss the
question of the nature of Mathematics from the perspective of the Theory of Mind, as it were
a product of the cognitive domain, or in terms of semiotics, as in linguistic theory (indeed, to
deconstruct the meta-linguistic examination of semiotics, we must conclude as Locke (in his
Doctrina Signorum) that semiosis is fundamental to the whole of science – both elementary
research and the development of technology in applying the discoveries of science).
Mathematics is commonly recognized as the lingua franca of science. In that the study of
the physical world lends itself so naturally to the principles of Mathematics is itself a matter
for deep study, and that the physical world itself mirrors the laws of Mathematics is especially
vexing to anyone who maintains that Mathematics is a construct of the Human mind.
Perhaps this owes to a confusion with science itself, which is the attempt of the Human
to systematically study the world with some degree of rigor. I maintain that one is a body of
knowledge, a construct, of the Human community - which is science; and the other - Math-
ematics - is an external reality which is being discovered. I maintain that the Human, being
capable of reason, is equipped to apprehend Mathematical truths and develop a faculty to
reason, and also to recognize logical order in the world because of our innate sense of Math-

3
ematics around us.
So, while Mathematics is, on the one hand, a Human activity, application of logical pro-
cess to fundamental definitions, using inventive symbols and notation to articulate abstract
ideas and prove deep and complex truths; on the other hand, this is the same Mathematics ob-
served throughout the Universe, in the structure and mechanisms of the physical world, from
the microcosm of elementary particles to the macrocosm of stars and galaxies.
There continue to be those nominalists who insist, however, that Mathematics is a sub-
jective and inventive body of knowledge. Subtle and persuasive as their arguments might be,
it is their very ability to reason, and to craft such esoteric arguments which proves the meta-
physical nature of logic and Mathematics itself. It is quite simple: surely, we may be creative
in our methods or formulations, exhibiting ever-expanding maturity of insight, but we are
not inventing the fundamental Mathematical truths, we are only discovering and articulating
them. Surely, we may say we invented the zero perhaps. But this does not mean we invented
”nothing” – indeed, we scarcely understand it – but we can at least represent it symbolically,
conceptually with the zero. Likewise, we can say we invented the wheel, but certainly, we did
not invent the circle! To claim any more than that is hubris, if it is not merely naı̈ve.
Consider, in like fashion, any other concept in Mathematics. For example infinity. Argu-
ments rage over what in fact infinity might be, questions of its reality, of its nature…. again,
we labor to understand it, we formulate abstractions - sequences, limits - to snare it, but in
the end, we are left with mysteries, beyond our own design; mysteries which persist, which
pre-exist ourselves: a thing which we cannot claim to know - how then can we claim to have
invented?
Logic itself, although the formalities may owe to individuals - such as Frege or Popper,
et al. - is based on laws of everlasting truth. These are not subjective, as reason itself is
not subjective, but there exists some universal foundation upon which all rational process is
scaffolded and from which all logical abstractions derive.
The Transcendental Semantic: Communicating the Abstract

Mathematics has always given us insight into the existence of things – even those which elude
us empirically – from imaginary numbers to black holes.
Even when we lack the faculty to observe things we can know their existence simply
because they ought to exist, Mathematically.
In so much as mathematical theory is the articulation of abstract concepts, the student
quickly discovers that definitions and notation are crucial, providing explicit terms of com-
municating abstract ideas and intangible concepts. The great body of mathematical under-

4
standing that is possible when systematic logic is applied to these concepts is unlimited (and
the individual’s own capacity develops with his or her own “mathematical maturity”).
This highly articulated body of ideas is itself so consistently and elegantly defined so as
to constitute an objective reality, external to the Human mind.
The relationship between math and philosophy, and indeed, between math and science,
has always been symbiotic and coetaneous.
Classic Examples of Increasing Erudition in Mathematical Struc-

ture
Mathematical expression resulting from a scientific exploration of
the world has progressed from that of naı̈ve intuition to one which is highly complex and
erudite. We have witnessed periods of perceived upheaval in the scientific world, when newly-
formulated theories appeared to contradict their long-respected predecessors. The classical
theories which had successfully described and articulated the problems posed by the science
of the times, were discovered to be inadequate “outside the box”. And some
revolutionary idea was required. From this perspective, progress in Human development
can be viewed in terms of increasing “mathematical maturity” of the human race.
But Mathematical ideas are not invented, only discovered, precisely at that moment in
history when the human mind has matured to an intellectual sophistication capable of such
discovery. Then it is possible and likely that not a single individual will arrive at a break-
through, simultaneously. Such was the case when Sir Isaac Newton himself, in attempting to
explain the intangible force which attracts objects to earth, and planets to the sun, invented
a new mathematical notation, notation which was necessary for the innovation of infinites-
imal Calculus – in order to formulate his law of universal gravitation. He also applied this
new mathematics to harmonic motion, and thermodynamics. On terrestrial scale and at low
energies, Newton’s laws remain valid today in determining such things as the gravitational
attraction between objects, the behavior of springs, and the rate of cooling. [2]
Of course, since then we have acquired a deeper understanding of the relativistic physics of
both subatomic and cosmological systems, and gravity has been better described by Einstein.
Yet contemporaneously, Gottfried Leibniz had arrived at identical results on the conti-
nent. While shortly before, Descartes, de Fermat and Pascal had explored concepts that were
intrinsic to the foundations of Calculus. This is an illustration of a universal sense, as natural
as sight, which constitutes a kind of intellectual second sight.
Similarly, we have long had variations of the wave equation, but science – and mathematics

5
– took a great leap forward when Schrödinger introduced the wave equation for particles, in a
time-dependent non-relativistic form.
Heisenberg developed a matrix algebraic formulation to model the same quantum me-
chanics as Schrödinger.
In 1928, Dirac observed that only half the possible solutions to Schrödinger’s wave equa-
tion had been accounted for. Those solutions belonged to the familiar particles, which physi-
cists had already observed experimentally (e.g., the electron, the proton, the neutron…). A
set of mathematical (and therefore equally-valid) solutions had been neglected, prompting
Dirac’s “discovery” of a new particle – the positive electron, or positron.
He asserted that, though we had not “seen” them, these particles must exist – because
they did so Mathematically. They had only eluded us, he assumed, because of the limitations
of our empirical science. Dirac proceeded to mathematically describe in complete detail –
from electrical charge, to spin, to magnetic moment, to parity – all the quantum properties of
these new particles, now known as “anti-matter”. [3] These particles have indeed since then
been observed experimentally, by means of modern particle detectors (such as the spark and
ionization chambers, and the Cerenkov Detectors), using accelerators such as the cyclotron.
This led to rapid advancement in physics, with the identification of two new forces –
the weak, and the strong nuclear – deriving from sub-atomic particle interaction. A new
physics emerged. And the laws of Quantum Mechanics resulted, including in particular, the
laws governing two classes of matter: the fermions, or the “hard particles” of nature, such as
leptons, mesons, and baryons; and the bosons, which are the “quanta” of the force fields, such
as photons which generate electromagnetic fields, gravitons responsible for the gravity fields,
pions which are bound by the strong nuclear force hold hadrons together to form the nucleus.
But again, the Mathematics exposed the incompleteness of scientific knowledge, shedding
light on the possibility of fractionally-charged particles, referred to by Zweig as “aces” and
Gell-Mann as “quarks”. It was observed that hadrons are formed by elementary particles
holding quarks together, called gluons. that cause the strong nuclear force, and weak gauge
bosons, responsible for the weak force, as well as the Higg’s boson, thought responsible for
mass. There was also conjecture about the existence of “triplets” and “aces” and “partons”.
This involved the advanced mathematics of tensors and spinors. [4]
The mathematician as well as the physicist delved into the esoteric world of neutrinos
and quarks, able to decipher information about the Universe at a level never before possible
without an increasing mathematical sophistication. We could now better study not only the
sub-atomic world of elementary particles, but the universe on the astronomical scale, and
ultimately attempt to inquire about the origins of the Cosmos itself.
In fact our mathematics anticipated our discoveries of the Big Bang.

6
Once we formed a cohesive idea of that one isolated event, when all the matter of the
cosmos was concentrated at a mass-point singularity, prior to the existence of the material
Universe, we gained new insights…. the inflationary period, the formation of protostars,…the
fabric of the cosmological manifold, the space-time continuum itself.
It is however only natural, with the discovery of these new elementary particles, and de-
tection of them in the laboratory, and with our success in delving into the past of the Cosmos,
that – in the same way general relativity had illuminated a relationship between gravity and
electromagnetism – physicists have been eager to establish some kind of relation between
general relativity and the new quantum mechanics. But these have remained at odds.
Even today, despite our mathematical sophistication and incredibly advanced instruments,
we are still deprived of a so-called “theory of everything” which would simultaneously explain
the four natural forces at once, and finally glean some understanding of elusive phenomena
such as quantum entanglement, and the roles of “dark matter”, and “dark energy”…This will
require a truly radical Mathematics.
Considering that at a high energy state (1019 GeV), the electromagnetic weak, the strong
nuclear, and the gravitational forces are of the same strength, it is too compelling to think
there may be in fact an underlying cohesive theory which could adequately describe and
predict all natural phenomena, from chemical bonds, to electrical currents, to radioactiv-
ity, to meteorology, to the formation of crystals, and the birth of galaxies.
These are a few of countless vivid examples of what Chen Ning Yang observed in 1957
upon receiving the Nobel Prize for his pioneering work in Modern Physics, that “…nature
seems to take advantage of the simple mathematical representation of the symmetry laws. The
intrinsic elegance and beautiful perfection of the mathematical reasoning involved, and the
complexity and depth of the physical consequences are great sources of encouragement to
physicists. One learns that nature possesses an order that one may only aspire to compre-
hend.” [5]
Nowhere is this symmetry and beauty more apparent than in the study of Mathematics.
Or, perhaps Pythagoras said it best, in the 5th century B.C., when he reflected that “there is a
humming of the strings, there is music in the spacing of the spheres…. Geometry is knowledge
of the eternally existent.” [6]
This historical progression serves to illustrate that since science is the pursuit of under-
standing the Universe, the scientist implicitly acknowledges underlying order or we could not
search for “natural laws”.
• That is, order is the sine qua non of science.
• Order cannot proceed from random process.

7
• Order cannot be the result of a mechanistic Nature.
• Order is contingent upon the reality of deliberate and rational order.
• In the words of astrophysicist Paul Davies, “The equations of physics have in them
incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty….” [7]
This is heresy to anyone who has been indoctrinated to materialism and flies in the face
of all secular and relativistic doctrine.
But anyone who earnestly pursues understanding will find inadequate the dogma of rela-
tivism, and be dissatisfied with those purely materialist ideologies.
Conclusion
It would seem unnecessary – to the Mathematician at least – to need to establish relevance
between science and transcendent truths, for surely there can exist no real dichotomy. There
can be no fundamental conflict between these two dimensions of our effort to understand
reality. Science investigates a material universe, but falters at the boundary of knowledge, on
matters of transcendence, of meaning, of being, of rationality itself.
Yet do not scientists themselves testify to that very aspect of reality beyond the physical
world, by relying on the assumption that there is indeed an order in the Universe?
Theirs is a fundamental faith, that the Universe is rational: for if there were no order,
science itself would be rendered moot.
Indeed, the scientist unknowingly testifies and depends upon a faith that there must be
some intrinsic order and logic to the Universe, because of the symmetry and simplicity of its
physical laws, as well as the complexity and beauty of the real world those laws govern. The
empiricist then, acts as the forensic scientist whose business it is to discern evidence of that
order, to reveal the logic undergirding the phenomena.
Unfortunately, some scientists espouse a purely materialist ontology, those strict reduc-
tionists, who fear such intrinsic rationality, perhaps for fear of its deeper implications; but in
doing so, they appear to stumble from one discovery to the next, like the proverbial “blind
men and the elephant”, sightless and groping, piecing together a puzzle of indeterminate size,
dimension and design, yet relying on the belief that there is some deliberate design, some
logic to be discovered, some order to be understood, while rejecting the idea of underlying
order per se!
Not, as the materialist insists, did the Universe in all its bewildering complexity and
exquisite symmetry evolve by random process, or it would be pointless and in vain to search

8
for natural laws and order in a chaotic reality of probabilities and random chance. And to
no one is this more obvious than the Mathematician: for whoever knows math has begun to
penetrate beyond the merely phenomenal, to reveal a glimpse of noumenal creation.
REFERENCES:
[1] Plato, “Theaetetus”, 394 B.C.
[2] Newton, Principia Mathematica”, 1687
[3] Acosta, Cowan, Graham, “Essentials of Modern Physics”, Harper & Row, 1973 [4]
Eugen Merzbacher, “Quantum Mechanics”, John Wiley & Sons, 1970
[5] Chen Ning Yang, Nobel Prize Lectures, Les Prix Nobel, Physics 1957 [6] Pythagoras,
5th Century B.C.
[7] Paul Davies, Templeton Prize recipient, 1995
REVIEWS
J. Choza Review, 03/23/2021
Jacinto Choza, Universidad de Sevilla
“Mathematical Realism - From Intuition to Esoterica
D.C. Arangno
Deborah C. Arangno, in her note on the historical maturity of mathematical thought, pro-
poses the thesis of the convergence of realism and constructivism. These two positions have
clashed in a debate that, in a way, belongs to the past, and in a way is permanent.
The Pythagorean-Platonic thesis on the real character of mathematics as a whole has one
of its clearest modern formulations in Lobatchevsky’s sentence: “there is no branch of math-
ematics, however abstract, that cannot be applied one day to the phenomena of the real world
”.
The constructionism thesis perhaps has one of its best modern expressions in the sentence,
typical of Russell’s first stage, that “mathematicians are those scientists who do not know what
they are talking about but do not care either.”
Arangno seems to indicate that the two theses are valid. Sometimes mathematicians do not
know what they are talking about, but each time they learn more about what. Or, sometimes
mathematicians do not know what they are talking about, but physicists discover that a little
later. Perhaps mathematicians themselves pave the way for new discoveries.
Exemplary cases can be found in the history of science. First, an archetypal example is
the development of classical mechanics and mathematics carried out by Newton, Descartes,

9
Leibniz, Fermat, and Pascal. Second, the same kind of parallelism and convergence can be
seen in the development of quantum mechanics by Schrödinger, Dirac, and Gell-Man.
Scientific knowledge matures according to a process of convergence between physics and
mathematics according to which the human intellect, human knowledge, captures, in and
through mathematics, an increasingly noumenal and more esoteric reality. Arangno suggests
that this maturation can be studied from the point of view of the theory of mind and also from
the special semiotics within linguistics.
A noumenal reality is a reality that is undoubtedly known in terms of its existence, but
unknown in terms of its essence, and an esoteric reality is an enigmatic, mysterious, and even
sacred reality.
The indication of Arangno would be more consistent and stimulating if it made reference
to works of mathematicians after the 70s of the 20th Century. Because those same theses
that she points out are close to those of other realistic mathematicians, such as Max Tegmark,
Michio Kaku or Marcus du Sautoy, who open the way to neo-Pythagorean currents in the 21st
century.
The analysis of the mathematical realism of Arangno, or Sautoy, or Tegmark, leads to the
center of the noumenal and the esoteric. Arangno’s thesis calls for an examination of the
analogies between the mathematical realism of Jamblico and Proclo and that of string
theory. It calls for an examination of the analogies between Du Sautoy’s subsistent numbers
and Tegmark’s self-conscious numbers, on the one hand, and the pure mathematical forms
that form the Neoplatonic Demiurge’s cortege, which Jamblico and Proclus call angels, and
which they designate with the same name the Pseudo Dionisio and Tomás de Aquino.
The thesis pointed out by Arangno deserves to be continued, not only in the field of theory
of mind and linguistics, but even more so in one or more studies on the Neoplatonic demiurge
and string theory of the 21st century, in which it is also it can reveal the historical maturation
of mathematical thought.”
Rastko Vuković, Faculty of Mathematics, University of Belgrade
“Perhaps too “learned” style and a little “bookish”, the text presents views on mathemat-
ics that are becoming increasingly relevant today. This is primarily the author’s thesis that
mathematics becomes a logical-intuitive instrument by which we gain the ability to discover
the fundamental
features of reality. Also, that mathematics not only provides a solid structure for the scien-
tific explanation of reality but that reality itself obeys mathematical truths; the physical world
is governed by the rules and logic of mathematics. It is not far from modern beliefs.
The author goes further, assuming that there is some mathematical reality and that it is
inherent in everything and even our own thinking and ability to perceive it itself (mathematical

10
reality). And this is reminiscent of Fredkin’s “Other”! In addition, her views are almost
identical to those of Max Tegmark (Max Tegmark: Our mathematical world) and it is a pity
that she did not mention them.
All in all, I find the text interesting and actual, at least for those of us who are trying to
grasp the deeper meaning of mathematics itself.”
Walter Gomide, UFMT - Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso
“Interesting text. It points to the fact that Mathematics, with its relations that express
symmetry and certain “completeness”, can fill the gaps that are observed in successful physical
theories in describing the world. Somehow, Mathematics “creates worlds”, and those worlds
must integrate the real world in order for transforming it in a structure mathematically and
metaphysically more elegant.
I recommend the publication.”

11

Mathematical Realism From Intuition To E

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathematical Realism From Intuition To E

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ACADEMIA Letters

Mathematical Realism – From Intuition to Esoterica

There continues to be a vibrant debate whether Mathematics exists as a body of knowledge

Corresponding Author: Deborah Arangno, PhD, darangno@hcc-nd.edu

Corresponding Author: Deborah Arangno, PhD, darangno@hcc-nd.edu

Corresponding Author: Deborah Arangno, PhD, darangno@hcc-nd.edu

The Transcendental Semantic: Communicating the Abstract

Corresponding Author: Deborah Arangno, PhD, darangno@hcc-nd.edu

Classic Examples of Increasing Erudition in Mathematical Struc-

Corresponding Author: Deborah Arangno, PhD, darangno@hcc-nd.edu

Corresponding Author: Deborah Arangno, PhD, darangno@hcc-nd.edu

• That is, order is the sine qua non of science.

• Order cannot proceed from random process.

Corresponding Author: Deborah Arangno, PhD, darangno@hcc-nd.edu

• Order is contingent upon the reality of deliberate and rational order.

Corresponding Author: Deborah Arangno, PhD, darangno@hcc-nd.edu

Corresponding Author: Deborah Arangno, PhD, darangno@hcc-nd.edu

Corresponding Author: Deborah Arangno, PhD, darangno@hcc-nd.edu

Corresponding Author: Deborah Arangno, PhD, darangno@hcc-nd.edu

You might also like