In a conversation at the World Science Fair, Theoretical Physicist Brian Greene posed a thought-provoking question to Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson regarding mathematics as the language of the universe. Tyson's sardonic reply hinted at the limitations of our understanding. Greene further expanded on this notion by suggesting a hypothetical encounter with an alien civilization, questioning whether our mathematical frameworks would resonate with their own understanding of existence.

Reflecting on the essence of human knowledge, one must consider that our understanding is fundamentally shaped by our subjective perceptions. The very act of questioning “what can be known” reveals that human knowledge originates from defining one unknown through another. Our experiences allow us to observe events and create cognitive mappings of cause and effect. However, our perceptions are inevitably flawed and incomplete, filtered through our individual perspectives. These perceptions become ingrained in our cognitive frameworks, which we continually reference as we journey through life.

This cognitive map is essential to our identity formation and our interactions with the world. It aids in interpreting events as they unfold, blurring the lines between the observer and the observed. The challenge lies in validating our perceptions; as we read this, the complexity of understanding becomes apparent. Doubt is an intrinsic part of the human experience. Certainty remains elusive, and our survival hinges on imperfect expectations based on past experiences.

We categorize knowledge based on how it aligns with our constantly evolving cognitive maps, often grappling with understanding its significance. Each individual carries a unique collection of meanings, intertwined in a rich tapestry of experiences that influences our internal states and shapes our interactions with the external world. We navigate the distinction between “I” and “Not I,” but discerning the boundary between these two can be challenging. Our identity is perceived as a cohesive entity with familiar traits, yet it is continually influenced by external factors.

Philosophers have long debated Immanuel Kant's concept of the "thing-in-itself." In light of our subjective maps, can we ever truly grasp what a living entity is, independent of the observer? Identity is a complex aspect of consciousness, and as we seek personal identity, our subconscious continuously engages in the process of negation, distinguishing between “I” and “Not I.” The “Not I,” whether living or non-living, serves as a crucial reference point in our identity formation. Without the “other,” our self-concept lacks the necessary reflection for development. Recognizing this interconnectedness means acknowledging that personal identity arises from an inseparable relationship with the surrounding environment, with no clear divide between self and others.

This realization may be the root of persistent doubts that characterize the human condition. As we traverse life, our subconscious navigation skills remain active. The desire for finality and a sense of belonging drives us, yet the journey itself is what sustains us. Each new understanding we encounter enriches our personal tapestry, while the pursuit of certainty remains a captivating illusion. Belief systems often emerge as a means to quell doubt, leading us to inadvertently become “other buoys” for those at different points in their journeys. A deeper understanding of our relational influence on one another could foster healthier connections, moving beyond superficial interactions.

A crucial aspect of this discourse is the role of representations. As we evolve, our tapestry accumulates signs that resonate with our senses and cognition. These signs guide us as we navigate our journeys, becoming the markers on our evolving maps. It is vital to recognize that our cognitive maps do not represent the actual terrain; instead, they serve as a reflective journal of our experiences. The terrain reveals itself as we engage with it, and as our maps grow, a clearer legend emerges, facilitating our navigation. We become our own cartographers, guiding ourselves and others. Over time, these signs become embedded in our culture. However, the inherent ambiguity we discussed earlier introduces variability into our journeys. Misinterpretation of signs can lead us astray.

Human culture is rich with diverse signs, and other living beings possess their own forms of communication. This interplay of meaning can be viewed as biological dialogue, termed “semiosis.” Humans utilize various semiotic tools, such as mathematics, language, and symbols, to navigate their environments. Likewise, animals engage in semiosis through patterns, sounds, and displays unique to their species and contexts. Each community and culture possesses its own semiospheres, reflecting the diversity of expression.

Recognizing that mathematics is merely one form of semiosis underscores the importance of acknowledging our limited perspective. Our mathematical models reflect a constantly shifting reality, serving as useful tools for our journey. However, they cannot fully encapsulate the complexities of existence or predict future developments. The narrative of our tapestry unfolds through semiosis, as our understanding of the universe evolves. Current research in quantum mechanics illustrates the non-local nature of particles, highlighting the limitations of mathematics in fully describing the universe. Materialists often seek solace in simplistic cause-and-effect scenarios, yet this desire stems from a deeper philosophical virus.

This thought virus, stemming from nominalism, has profoundly shaped our understanding of reality. Originating in the realms of philosophy and theology, it has influenced how we interpret our experiences and navigate our identities. The transition from oral traditions to written language, infused with rhetoric, has contributed to societal fragmentation. The advent of nominalism during the Middle Ages prompted debates over the nature of God and morality, leading to individualistic interpretations that often overshadow communal ties. This philosophical trend has persisted, influencing modern thought and contributing to divisions within science, religion, and society.

The impact of nominalism extends beyond philosophy, permeating politics, environmental attitudes, and interpersonal relationships. The symptoms of this ideological virus manifest in societal issues such as violence, addiction, and environmental degradation. The rapid pace of contemporary communication exacerbates the challenges of meaningful dialogue and understanding. Recognizing the significance of otherness in shaping identity prompts us to consider how to mend the fractures within our collective experience.

For further exploration of nominalism's influence on contemporary society, refer to 'The Nominalism List.'