To See or Not To See, That Is the Question

To understand the world we live in, we must first see it as it is. Not as "trained" or manipulated to see it. Where do our ideas come from? Our ideas about God, about right and wrong, about how we should live... are they chosen, or... what?

                                                                         Journal note, Aug. 25, 1985

A long lost friend sent me this verse, with the follow up explanation:

I looked to see
What I thought I saw,
But what I saw
I did not see.

"How many times do you think you see something, then turn to look and what you thought you saw wasn't what you were really looking at; in the real sense of it. On a more philosophical angle, every day we see past what's real to what we want to see, but only when we make efforts to truly see things for what they are we realize it's not what we wanted to see. Our minds and hearts trick us every day into believing what isn't real." ~ S.P.

 

In the end, the question is not merely “To see or not to see,” but whether we possess the humility and discipline to look again—especially when the first glance flatters us or confirms what we already believe. Every inherited idea about God, morality, politics, or human purpose arrives pre-loaded with the fingerprints of culture, fear, comfort, and desire. The verse from my friend reminds us that our minds are masterful editors, cropping out inconvenient details and airbrushing reality until it matches the story we prefer.

The longer I live the more I've come to distrust the popular narratives we're all supposed to accept and believe.  The "Big Bang" theory? The Population Bomb? The global warming apocalypse? That we're descended from monkeys?

True sight is not a passive act but an act of rigorous reconsideration, and a willingness to admit we were wrong when or if it leads to that. It's uncomfortable, yet it is the only path that leads out of the hall of mirrors and into something solid enough to build a life upon.

And once we have tasted that unfiltered view—even briefly—we cannot unsee it without doing violence to our own integrity. My friend’s words linger as both warning and invitation: keep looking, keep turning your head, keep questioning the comforting shapes your heart insists are there. In a world drowning in curated illusions, the most radical thing any of us can do is to see what is actually in front of us, accept it for what it is, and then decide, with open eyes, how we shall then live.

What Does Math Teach Us About Deep Reality

"2 plus 2 equals 4. In all places and for all time, 2 plus 2 equals 4. But why? What does math tell us about the nature of reality? "

So begins a pretty juicy hour-long discussion about mathematics by three very smart men. Is math something humans invented—or something we discovered? And why does it describe the universe so uncannily well? 

In this episode of Uncommon Knowledge, Peter Robinson has assembled a panel comprised of mathematicians David Berlinski, Sergiu Klainerman, and Stephen Meyer to explore one of the deepest mysteries in science and philosophy: the reality of mathematics.

* * * 

You can find Uncommon Knowledge on the Hoover Institution channel on YouTube. If you enjoy grappling with life's biggest mysteries, or having your foundational belief structures challenged (or affirmed), you'll likely find a home here. The ideas discussed are often decidedly contrarian if you've blindly wallowed in mainstream narratives.

The program features a profound discussion on the nature of mathematics and its role in understanding reality, hosted by Peter Robinson and featuring guests David Berlinski, Sergio Klainerman, and Stephen Meyer in Salzburg, Austria. The central theme revolves around the objective nature of mathematics and its implications for comprehending the universe, exploring whether mathematical truths are inventions or discoveries.

Something I gleaned from my physicist uncle, which is re-asserted in these discussions, is that science is not a settled matter. True science is an ongoing exploration that finds answers that always end with "this is what we know for now." True science must be coupled with humility, willing to be proven wrong. 

The great tragedy of science this past century is how much it has been infected by politics. As a result, massive rivers of financial support go to science projects that support political narratives. I've written before about how free speech has been squashed or discouraged. I'd not considered the degree to which free inquiry suffered in the sciences.  

The purpose of this blog post is to recommend and encourage you to listen to this episode of Uncommon Knowledge titled Why Does 2 + 2 = 4. Here's what you'd be digging into.

Mathematician David Berlinski emphasizes the inherent stability and objective nature of mathematical truths such as numbers, suggesting they cannot be reduced to more fundamental entities. He asserts that mathematics has a consistent reality independent of human thought, challenging purely materialistic interpretations of the universe.

Sergio Klainerman, a mathematician known for his contributions to the study of hyperbolic differential equations, argues for the objectivity of mathematics, comparing it to physical reality. He illustrates this with the example of black holes, whose existence, while not directly observable, is predicted by consistent mathematical theories, thereby underscoring the non-empirical nature of mathematical knowledge.

Author Stephen Meyer, a philosopher of science and a leading proponent of the intelligent design movement, explores the philosophical implications of mathematical certainty, contrasting it with the empirical uncertainty of scientific hypotheses. He suggests that the high degree of certainty in mathematical proofs points towards a conceptual reality that transcends material existence, potentially indicating a divine or intelligent design.

The key concepts in this video include:

Mathematical Objectivity and Reality: The speakers explore how mathematical truths reflect an objective reality, questioning whether they are discovered or invented. This discussion intersects with philosophical notions concerning the existence of a conceptual realm.

Mathematics and Transcendence: Stephen Meyer and others discuss whether the objectivity of mathematics infers a transcendent reality, possibly residing in the mind of a divine being, challenging materialistic views of the universe.

Historical and Practical Impact: The panel examines the historical trajectory of mathematical ideas, such as the imaginary unit 'i' (square root of -1) and its significance in quantum mechanics, illustrating how abstract mathematical developments can profoundly influence scientific understanding.

Philosophical and Aesthetic Considerations: The conversation delves into philosophical mysteries around the existence of mathematical concepts, with reflections on whether beauty in mathematical theories serves as a guiding rule of thumb in scientific discovery.

Materialism and Interpretations of Reality: The limitations of materialism are discussed, with the panel considering non-material explanations for mathematical realities, echoing Newton's views on divine order.

One thing I like is how host Peter Robinson acknowledges that hs is standing in the shallow end of the pool when discussing these subjects with these others. Whether it's your field of interest or not I think you'll find the rewards of following along to be worth the work.

* * * 

Quite recently my interest in mathematics has been re-ignited by reading James Nickel's "Math Circles" on his Biblical Christian World View website. But what really captured my attention in this video was the title and its connection to Orwell's 1984. When Winston has been broken down inside the Ministry of Love, the phrase “2 + 2 = 5” is one of the most powerful symbols of totalitarian control. The Party isn’t satisfied with controlling actions—it wants to control reality. If it can make you accept that 2 + 2 = 5, then truth is no longer objective and reality becomes whatever authority says it is.

The goal isn’t just obedience—it’s belief. Winston isn’t “reformed” until he doesn’t just say 2 + 2 = 5 but when he actually accepts it and believes it as true.

We're not there yet, but there are certainly signs of that freedom of thought has been under attack these past 100 years. C.S. Lewis pointed out the erosion taking place in his Abolition of Man. If those in power can redefine the most basic truth, they can control everything else. 

Because 2 + 2 = 4 seems so obvious, we can fail to grasp the implications that accompany this reality. It's only a starting point, but this episode of Uncommon Knowledge can open your mind to think more deeply about the amazing universe we find ourselves in.

 

Why Does 2 + 2 = 4? What Math Teaches Us About Deep Reality

Is Reality Optional? Thomas Sowell’s Sharp Warning Against Wishful Thinking

My copy, purchased in 1994

When it comes to thinking clearly and speaking pointedly about contemporary issues, there are few better minds than that of Thomas Sowell, an American economist, social theorist, and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He's widely regarded as one of the most influential conservative thinkers of the past half-century for his clear-eyed, data-driven critiques of liberal social policies and his emphasis on empirical reality over ideological wishful thinking.

In 1993, Sowell published a short but powerful collection of essays titled Is Reality Optional? And Other Essays. Don’t let the title fool you — this isn’t some abstract philosophy book. It’s a no-nonsense straight-talking takedown of the idea that we can simply ignore reality when it doesn’t fit our favorite theories.

If you step off the roof of your house there will be consequences, whether you believe in the law of gravity or not. So, too, there are laws of economics, which we ignore to our own peril.

Sowell’s central argument is blunt: too many intellectuals, activists, and politicians treat reality as optional. They believe that with enough good intentions, clever policies, or bold social engineering, we can reshape human nature, fix complex problems, and create a better world — even if the evidence says otherwise.
He contrasts two very different ways of looking at the world. One vision (which he calls the “unconstrained” or visionary view) sees humans as highly malleable. If society has problems, it must be because of bad institutions or not enough compassion. The solution? Big government programs and new theories to remake everything.
The other view (the “constrained” or tragic vision) is more realistic. It says human nature has built-in limits — scarcity, self-interest, imperfect knowledge, and trade-offs. Good policy, Sowell argues, must work with these limits instead of pretending they don’t exist.
A quote on the back cover (of my copy) captures the problem perfectly:

““Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good. In area after area—crime, education, housing, race relations—the situation has gotten worse after the bright new theories were put into operation. The amazing thing is that this history of failure and disaster has neither discouraged the social engineers nor discredited them.” (EdNote: This was more than three decades ago, and the trend has continued unabated.) 

Sowell points to real-world examples in crime, education, welfare, housing, and race relations. Again and again, “bright new ideas” were tried, problems got worse, and yet the people pushing those ideas rarely faced any consequences. 
He repeatedly warns against what he calls “intellectual hubris” — the dangerous belief that experts know better than millions of ordinary people making decisions in their own lives. Sowell stresses the importance of empirical evidence and common sense (which, as they say, is as rare as the dodo). Start with observable facts and historical results, not beautiful-sounding theories.
At just 192 pages, Is Reality Optional? is short, readable, and often contrarian. Sowell writes like a man tired of watching the same mistakes get repeated while reality keeps sending the bill.
In a world full of grand ideological promises, Sowell reminds us of a simple truth: reality is not optional. You can ignore scarcity, incentives, trade-offs, and human nature for a while — but eventually, they push back.
Here are a few quotes that will give you the flavor of Sowell's ideas.

On Economics vs. Politics

“The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”

On Faith Masquerading as Science

“Some things must be done on faith, but the most dangerous kind of faith is that which masquerades as ‘science.’”

On Forgiveness and Being Right

“People will forgive you for being wrong, but they will never forgive you for being right—especially if events prove you right while proving them wrong.”

A few more notable quotes from the book:

--“Ordinary people, lacking that gift [of ignoring reality], are forced to face reality.”

--“The welfare state is the oldest con game in the world. First you take people’s money away quietly, and then you give some of it back to them flamboyantly.”

--“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.”  

Recommended: Thomas Sowell, who was born in 1930, is still alive and kicking. YouTube has a treasure trove of videos that will give you an opportunity to engage directly with Sowell's ideas. His brain is stuffed with truckloads of facts from a lifetime of research, facts that often remain buried because they fail to fit the Progressive narrative.