Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument

[sayak83]

As we uncover the workings of the natural world certain things become clear:-

1) Stuff (matter-energy-space-time) interact with each other in highly predictable ways which we call "laws of nature", "causality" etc. However the reason for the existence of this structured patterns of behavior and their invariable attachment with stuff is unknown.

2) The laws of nature themselves are mathematical, a realm of abstract and extraordinarily rich realm of reality that is "somehow" glued into "stuff" through these laws and accessible to knowledge through rationality. Why should there be such a realm of abstract rational world of mathematics and why they intermingle with stuff is also not known.

3) Stuff..connected with the mathematical world via the laws of nature, is extraordinarily and unexpectedly fecund, coalescing in property rich groups with utterly novel qualities and functions starting from molecules, crystals, living things, stars, galaxies and sentient beings. The repeated (and apparently limitless) potential of emerging wholes with novel properties all stacked on top of each other (from molecules to man i.e.) from "stuff" is observable and describable; but why stuff has such properties is unknown.

Therefore Hindu-s propose that there is something more fundamental than matter-energy, laws of nature, mathematics and consciousness/information. On this more fundamental entity all these domains rest, and of which these various domains are aspects of. And this singular fundamental entity, which we call Brahman, provides the connecting glue and the structural richness around which stuff is coalescing to make it manifest in the sensory plane. This provides a "why" explanation rather than a what and how explanation. Such an explanation is needed as the interconnectivity of stuff, laws, maths, information, consciousness and repeated emergence are not mere facts, but extraordinary features that cannot be left unexplained.

And just like biology has provided us with senses to see stuff and rationality to see mathematics..it has also provided us with inner capabilities, which when honed through meditation or other proper spiritual practices, can help us grasp this fundamental entity undergirding all these domains of knowledge...at least to some extent.

That is the argument that I would ask atheists and materialists to consider.

 

[fantome profane]

The argument is can be summed up like this. Matter is very different than we thought it was, therefore matter isn't matter. I don't find this line of thinking logical, or impressive. And some use this illogical argument as licence for all manner of nonsense.

 

[sayak83]

The argument is can be summed up like this. Matter is very different than we thought it was, therefore matter isn't matter. I don't find this line of thinking logical, or impressive. And some use this illogical argument as licence for all manner of nonsense.

No, it cannot be summed up like this. Strawmanning arguments is also not very impressive.

 

[sayak83]

I read this over a few times and I can't really understand how your arguments bring you to that conclusion.

Could you explain what was the difficulty?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I might be misunderstanding your argument as you're making it, but here goes my reply. Math is an abstraction in that it takes abstract models of reality and puts labels and definitions to predictable observations for reference. But that doesn't mean math is this ephemeral 'other' separate from the material world. Just like language isn't, even though it's just as much an abstraction of concepts and models of reality. Therefore I do not believe that math or language can be considered a 'realm of reality.' At least no more significant a 'realm of reality' than a written story might be. I can conceive of an idea, but, imo, that idea doesn't demonstrably have actively independent existence outside physical systems, but are emergent from those physical systems.

 

[sayak83]

I might be misunderstanding your argument as you're making it, but here goes my reply. Math is an abstraction in that it takes abstract models of reality and puts labels and definitions to predictable observations for reference. But that doesn't mean math is this ephemeral 'other' separate from the material world. Just like language isn't, even though it's just as much an abstraction of concepts and models of reality. Therefore I do not believe that math or language can be considered a 'realm of reality.' At least no more significant a 'realm of reality' than a written story might be. I can conceive of an idea, but, imo, that idea doesn't demonstrably have actively independent existence outside physical systems, but are emergent from those physical systems.

Its quite clear that language is a set of symbols that is referencing entities in reality and thought. However, its not clear that mathematics is an abstraction of the real world. Majority of mathematics proceeds autonomously with very little connection with phenomena of nature and only a small portion of it is retrospectively found useful to describe the regularities in nature. It is true that originally mathematics may have been studied as an abstraction from real world in Egypt and Sumer (though Greeks, the best mathematicians of the era did not think so), but given the enormous extension of mathematics (ZFC set theory, transfinite mathematics, analysis, topology etc.) that basically proceeds on its own belies the claim that that is what mathematics is.

Some believe that mathematics is a form of fiction. But given that mathematics has such rigorous methods of sorting truths from falsehoods and such extensive structure (as well as applicability), this does not seem to have much justification.

Those will be my objections. Most of math does not appear to an abstraction of anything in nature, and it does not appear to be a fiction either.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Its quite clear that language is a set of symbols that is referencing entities in reality and thought. However, its not clear that mathematics is an abstraction of the real world. Majority of mathematics proceeds autonomously with very little connection with phenomena of nature and only a small portion of it is retrospectively found useful to describe the regularities in nature. It is true that originally mathematics may have been studied as an abstraction from real world in Egypt and Sumer (though Greeks, the best mathematicians of the era did not think so), but given the enormous extension of mathematics (ZFC set theory, transfinite mathematics, analysis, topology etc.) that basically proceeds on its own belies the claim that that is what mathematics is.

Some believe that mathematics is a form of fiction. But given that mathematics has such rigorous methods of sorting truths from falsehoods and such extensive structure (as well as applicability), this does not seem to have much justification.

Those will be my objections. Most of math does not appear to an abstraction of anything in nature, and it does not appear to be a fiction either.

The argument that math isn't an abstraction doesn't seem very convincing to me. Having rigorous methods for sorting truth is something every science has, and certain philosophies and usages of language, too. It doesn't mean it's a fiction, necessarily, but that the models mathematics represent are frameworks for understanding reality created by critical minds using it, not something ephemeral or independent from the mind. Like science, really. A process for finding truth, not a truth in of itself, and not existing independent of thought.

 

[Curious George]

The argument that math isn't an abstraction doesn't seem very convincing to me.

I think he is suggesting that we are not discussing math that is the abstraction but math that is the knowledge the abstraction allows us to gain.

 

[Sapiens]

As we uncover the workings of the natural world certain things become clear:-

1) Stuff (matter-energy-space-time) interact with each other in highly predictable ways which we call "laws of nature", "causality" etc. However the reason for the existence of this structured patterns of behavior and their invariable attachment with stuff is unknown.

OK.

2) The laws of nature themselves are mathematical, a realm of abstract and extraordinarily rich realm of reality that is "somehow" glued into "stuff" through these laws and accessible to knowledge through rationality. Why should there be such a realm of abstract rational world of mathematics and why they intermingle with stuff is also not known.

No.

3) Stuff..connected with the mathematical world via the laws of nature, is extraordinarily and unexpectedly fecund, coalescing in property rich groups with utterly novel qualities and functions starting from molecules, crystals, living things, stars, galaxies and sentient beings. The repeated (and apparently limitless) potential of emerging wholes with novel properties all stacked on top of each other (from molecules to man i.e.) from "stuff" is observable and describable; but why stuff has such properties is unknown.

Since not (2), then not (3). One out of three does not cut it.

Therefore Hindu-s propose that there is something more fundamental than matter-energy, laws of nature, mathematics and consciousness/information. On this more fundamental entity all these domains rest, and of which these various domains are aspects of. And this singular fundamental entity, which we call Brahman, provides the connecting glue and the structural richness around which stuff is coalescing to make it manifest in the sensory plane. This provides a "why" explanation rather than a what and how explanation. Such an explanation is needed as the interconnectivity of stuff, laws, maths, information, consciousness and repeated emergence are not mere facts, but extraordinary features that cannot be left unexplained.

While what you suggest may (or may not) be the case, (2) and (3) do not support your suggestions.

And just like biology has provided us with senses to see stuff and rationality to see mathematics..it has also provided us with inner capabilities, which when honed through meditation or other proper spiritual practices, can help us grasp this fundamental entity undergirding all these domains of knowledge...at least to some extent.

That is the argument that I would ask atheists and materialists to consider.

You have provided no support what-so-ever for your claim.

 

[sayak83]

The argument that math isn't an abstraction doesn't seem very convincing to me.

As an example, What are imaginary numbers abstractions of?

Having rigorous methods for sorting truth is something every science has,

Sorting truths in science depends on experimental and empirical observations. Hence truths in science are dependent on nature. This is not the case for mathematics.

and certain philosophies and usages of language, too.

Philosophy and language are not unified. Many languages exist, and so do many philosophies which are mutually incompatible..showing that they are more on the subjective side of things.

It doesn't mean it's a fiction, necessarily, but that the models mathematics represent are frameworks for understanding reality created by critical minds

Yet, most mathematical work is not about creating frameworks for understanding reality at all. Mathematical knowledge does not proceed in this fashion, and much of mathematics remain unconnected to any such framework.

using it, not something ephemeral or independent from the mind. Like science, really. A process for finding truth, not a truth in of itself, and not existing independent of thought.

Mathematical truths are not mind-independent? As far as I see, mathematical truths and proofs are self-standing and do not refer to anything outside of the mathematical domain. While science does import mathematics to model reality, physical reality is not really used or referred to in extending mathematical knowledge through new proofs etc. So, in what way, does it depend on phenomena of physical reality? It seems the opposite. Features of physical reality appears to manifest a subset of mathematical truths for some reason.

 

[sayak83]

OK.
No.
Since not (2), then not (3). One out of three does not cut it.
While what you suggest may (or may not) be the case, (2) and (3) do not support your suggestions.
You have provided no support what-so-ever for your claim.

Explain your No to (2)

 

[Curious George]

As an example, What are imaginary numbers abstractions of?

.

The square root of a negative.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The argument is can be summed up like this. Matter is very different than we thought it was, therefore matter isn't matter. I don't find this line of thinking logical, or impressive. And some use this illogical argument as licence for all manner of nonsense.

Cut out the nonsense, but still the fact remains, we really do not know anything about stuff (space/energy) except perhaps that it is fluctuating all the time. That is perhaps the only property of 'what exists' that we know. As the books say 'Neti, neti' (not this, not that).
Can't put my faith on physical laws. Things can move at a speed more than that of light. Physical laws can ditch us any time they like - the law of entropy, for example.

 

[psychoslice]

The material world is a beautiful world, we are here to enjoy this world, we are not here to find fault in this world, if you do then you have no idea how to enjoy it, or anything, your life is a wast, you miss out on this world, your whole existence was nothing but a wast.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, we should not waste life. We live only once. But what exactly is enjoyment? Is posting in a forum enjoyment?

 

[ratiocinator]

Therefore Hindu-s propose that there is something more fundamental than matter-energy, laws of nature, mathematics and consciousness/information. On this more fundamental entity all these domains rest, and of which these various domains are aspects of. And this singular fundamental entity, which we call Brahman, provides the connecting glue and the structural richness around which stuff is coalescing to make it manifest in the sensory plane. This provides a "why" explanation rather than a what and how explanation.

Except that it doesn't - it's just a story. Seriously, how do you propose that we test this proposal in order to distinguish it from a guess?

And BTW - energy isn't stuff.

 

[fantome profane]

Cut out the nonsense, but still the fact remains, we really do not know anything about stuff (space/energy) except perhaps that it is fluctuating all the time. That is perhaps the only property of 'what exists' that we know. As the books say 'Neti, neti' (not this, not that).
Can't put my faith on physical laws. Things can move at a speed more than that of light. Physical laws can ditch us any time they like - the law of entropy, for example.

I agree that there are things that we do not know and do not understand about space/time and energy. But to draw any conclusions about materialism (or anything) based on the fact that we lack knowledge and understanding suggests an obvious logical fallacy.

 

[bobhikes]

Mathematical truths are not mind-independent? As far as I see, mathematical truths and proofs are self-standing and do not refer to anything outside of the mathematical domain. While science does import mathematics to model reality, physical reality is not really used or referred to in extending mathematical knowledge through new proofs etc. So, in what way, does it depend on phenomena of physical reality? It seems the opposite. Features of physical reality appears to manifest a subset of mathematical truths for some reason.

I enjoyed following the thread but I would like to interject.

Mathematics is a human creation just like language but its basis is in counting which everyone in the world does the same. So unlike language it has developed the same all over the world. Also we have taken this counting method and applied formula's to it to fit the physical reality and they don't quite work perfectly because its a human creation.

This does not take away from the Theory that Brahman is the glue but it removes math as a reason.

 

[Darkstorn]

So unlike language it has developed the same all over the world.

No it hasn't. There are different systems. So it's actually just like language. They all make sense within their own context so math always "works". But there are many different ways to do it. A base 8 system is different from our base 10 for example.

 

[bobhikes]

No it hasn't. There are different systems. So it's actually just like language. They all make sense within their own context so math always "works". But there are many different ways to do it.

What are these different systems that are not based off of counting. Please explain.