Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument

[Curious George]

i is square root of -1, but what is sqrt(-1) and abstraction of, and what is the complex number domain and abstraction of...from the physical world i.e.

It is an abstraction of an abstraction...yet multiply them together and you get real world meaning. That is not the point. An imaginary number is an abstraction nonetheless. I am not arguing with you here as I would suggest that there is math the abstraction and math the knowledge, you seem to be discussing the latter while trying to argue that the former doesn't exist. I think it is important to understand that math is both, and not to confuse the two.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is Brahman a conscious agent? Does Brahman think and act? According to this from Wiki, no.

If you're just giving a proper name to the principles known and unknown that orchestrate the elements of reality's interactions and determine their properties, then I have no problem with that. If you're implying agenticity, I would caution you that that is not justified.

But at such moments, we are at risk of assigning agenticity again - invoking gods.

It is not necessary to make the agent into a God. It may have its own consciousness and action (spooky action at a distance, not in the least like human consciousness)

Perhaps it's time to define "god." You seem to be describing an ultimate reality underlying existence that is conscious, but not wanting to call that a god

 

[Nous]

It is an abstraction of an abstraction...yet multiply them together and you get real world meaning. That is not the point. An imaginary number is an abstraction nonetheless. I am not arguing with you here as I would suggest that there is math the abstraction and math the knowledge, you seem to be discussing the latter while trying to argue that the former doesn't exist. I think it is important to understand that math is both, and not to confuse the two.

Abstractions of abstractions? Are you saying something distinguishable from "human invention"?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

i is square root of -1, but what is sqrt(-1) and abstraction of, and what is the complex number domain and abstraction of...from the physical world i.e.

Complex numbers have applications in physics and engineering: Complex number - Wikipedia . Doesn't that make them part of a mathematical description of reality like other kinds of numbers?

As an aside, I consider this amazing, both its discovery and truth:

e^(i•π) + 1 = 0


I feel like it should be telling me something about reality, but it doesn't.

 

[Yerda]

Complex numbers have applications in physics and engineering: Complex number - Wikipedia . Doesn't that make them part of a mathematical description of reality like other kinds of numbers?

As an aside, I consider this amazing, both its discovery and truth:

e^(i•π) + 1 = 0


I feel like it should be telling me something about reality, but it doesn't.

It tells you about the relationships between the terms. Is that not something about reality?

 

[Yerda]

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...

Can this not be a materialistic proposition?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

I just listened to your music - at least 30 seconds of each piece. Very nice.

Thanks. That's very old stuff. This is a very old account lol.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Umm no..its a hypothesis set forth to explain certain features of reality as pointed out in the OP, to be analyzed, tested and verified/falsified through empirical, rational and introspective techniques.

Not really. Even a hypothesis needs to fit the evidence out of the gate.

What you have there is plainly an eastern spin on the god of the gaps argument.

 

[psychoslice]

Could you explain how the proposition that there is more to the world than meets the eye is equivalent to the proposition that I am finding fault with the world?

There is no good or bad with the world, its just your interpretation, based on your conditioning and programming.

 

[Curious George]

Abstractions of abstractions? Are you saying something distinguishable from "human invention"?

I am saying that the square root of a number is an abstraction and that the square root of a negative number is an abstraction of that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It tells you about the relationships between the terms. Is that not something about reality?

Not in the sense that I meant. Right now, it's just a remarkable mathematical truth. I was thinking about how it might relate to physics.

 

[sayak83]

Can this not be a materialistic proposition?

I am not really interested in the labels as much, depends on what makes something "material".

 

[sayak83]

Not really. Even a hypothesis needs to fit the evidence out of the gate.

What you have there is plainly an eastern spin on the god of the gaps argument.

It certainly fits with every evidence out of the gate. Could you tell me what evidence it does not fit with?

 

[sayak83]

It's odd that instead of addressing my main points, you seem to want to criticize something I only brought in as an alternative guess and something I've said I'm not trying to particularly promote.

I have looked at the idea at some length as an alternative proposition that could be true. Thus I am simply sharing my reflections on the proposed worldview.

It's further interesting that you seem to be subjecting it to far more rigour than you have put into your own guess.

That is not the case. So far the discussion has centered on the three claims (1), (2) and (3) and whether they stand up to scrutiny based on current science. I can and will provide flesh to the Brahman hypothesis as the discussion turns there.

As you seem interested in this tangent, however: I don't think Tegmark is suggesting for a moment that we have yet discovered the exact mathematical structure that he speculates is the universe. We obviously haven't because our understanding is split between two different theories and there are still parameters that appear arbitrary. But then again, his idea is that every mathematical structure is real so our universe is just one (that happens to be complex enough to support intelligent life).

I won's discuss this tangent further.

It's also worth asking - if you don't think there is a good fit between mathematics and physical reality, what does that mean for your guess? Is the 'glue' not very good?

The realm of abstract mathematical structures and the realm of matter and its properties are seen to be inter-connected as they are two different manifestations of the underlying ur-entity Brahman. However, they are divergent manifestations, thus though connected, a 1-to-1 correspondence will not be found.

Well, it was advertised as "Why materialism is probably false" - what it actually seems to be is your guess as to how materialism might not be right - if we accept all your assumptions.

My reasons for positing why materialistic worldview is likely false or at least incomplete and why the Hindu Brahman-based worldview might be more promising.

This is fine. But I haven't seen anything that would lead me to attach any confidence in your guess, as yet...

Ok.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It certainly fits with every evidence out of the gate. Could you tell me what evidence it does not fit with?

It isn't that you can't fit the evidence to the conclusion. Creationists and religionists of all ilks do that every day.

It's that the evidence doesn't point at the conclusion. Your 'hypothesis' looks like this;

We have an incomplete knowledge of how matter works, therefore <insert preferred religious explanation> I could just as easily say <therefore Allah is great> as you could say <therefore Brahmin>

 

[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.

Thanks everyone for the discussion so far. So far it has been quite constructive and I would like to keep that spirit up. So far the primary objections to what I have said here have been,

For point (1), I have mislabelled energy, space and time as "stuff". I apologize for this. Here by "stuff", I was handwaving to entities, properties and phenomena accessible to the senses and instruments of science. For a clearer idea of what matter, energy, fields, space-time etc. are both I and @ratiocinator have pointed to the useful blog posts below. They are well-defined but hard to summarize, so whenever what I say in a handwavyy manner confuses anyone, please refer to below
Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy
Mass and Energy
7. Particles Are Quanta
Ask Ethan: What Is Spacetime?

For point(2), the objection was made that mathematics is a human construct or an abstraction from natural world. While these views exist (nominalism and fictionalism) , I find some form of mathematical realism (like structuralism that I referred to here) doing a better job of what mathematics its. It does seem odd that while successes in science has generated scientific realism as the dominant theory, some of the same people are chary of according the even more successful and rigorous branch of knowledge (justified true beliefs) i.e. mathematical knowledge the same degree of realism. This seems inconsistent.
Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument
But I am happy to discuss the nominalist arguments if someone is interested.

Point (3) touches on complexity and emergence and has not been discussed so far.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The point was made that I have not fleshed out very well what Brahman is supposed to be. That is a fair point. Here I will quote the words of Hindu seers who discussed Brahman in the Upanisadic texts dating to around 900 BCE. More philsophically oriented texts come later, but these will help locate the loose coalitions of ideas that are referred to by the term Brahman.

In an extremely poetical set of verses the seers portrays the relationship between the great natural and social elements (earth, fire, wind, water, law, truth..) and the living beings to be that of symbiotic interdependence (mutualism). Bees make honey. Thus the existence of honey is entirely dependent on the hard work of the bees. But similarly the bees eat the honey in order to sustain themselves. Thus the bees are entirely dependent on the honey for their existence. For example the seer says:-

The earth is the honey of all beings, and all beings are the honey of this earth. The radiant and immortal person (purusah) in the earth and, in the case of the body, the radiant and immortal person(purusah) residing in the physical body - they are both one's Self (atman). It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole (All).

The seer says that
1) All beings are like the bees and the earth are like their honey. That is, just like the bees, the beings create and sustain the existence of earth by their activity and in turn the earth sustain the existence of the beings just like honey does for the bees.
AND
2) The earth are like the bees and all the beings are like their honey. That is just like the bees, the waters create and sustain the existence of the beings by its constant action, and in turn the beings sustain the existence of the water just like honey does for the bees.

3) This strong mutualism goes for all elements of nature and the social world.

But what is the underlying reason why such a strong interdependent mutualism exists between all phenomena and the living beings? The underlying reason, is the hidden connection (upanisada) is that the person (Purusha) established in the nature of the phenomena and a specific feature of the living being is identical.

Thus the proposition is that the purusha established in theearth and the purusha established in the body of beings is the same and that they are both also identical to one's Self (atman). Thus a triple identity is made. But that is not all, the seer goes on to say,

It is immortal; it is Brahman; it is the Whole

Thus the Purusah in the earth, the purusah in the body are not only identical to each other and to the Self in beings, they are also identical to Brahman, the one immortal entity/principle/Truth/active-power that is established in and animates the entirety of existence (the Whole/All).


We get the same formulation for

Water and Reproductive Power
Fire and Speech
Wind and Breath
Sun and Sight
Quarters and Hearing
Moon and Mind
Lightning and Effulgence of Life
Thunder and Sound/Tone
Space and the Space of the Heart (where consciousness resides during sleep, see previous posts)
Dharma and Devotion to Dharma
Truth and Devotion to Truth
Humanity and being a Human
Self and the state of being a Self

Finally the discussion concludes with


This very Self (atman) is the Lord and King of all beings. As all the spokes are fastened to the hub and the rim of a wheel, so to one's Self (atman) are fastened all beings, all gods, all the worlds, all the breaths, and all these bodies.

We have come to the enduring simile of the wheel. The Self (Atman=Purusha, =Lord of Beings, = Brahman) is the central hub from which thousands of spokes emanate as the capacities of the Self and connects to the various phenomena of the social and the natural world , thus creating, sustaining and impelling the activity of the entire universe through interdependent - just a the spokes connect to and support the ever rotating rim of the wheel. This is the basic formulation that is also alluded in another set of descriptions like:-

As a spider sends forth its thread, and as tiny sparks spring forth from a fire, so indeed do all the vital functions (prana), all the worlds, all the gods, and all beings spring forth from this Self (Atman). Its hidden name (Upanisad) is "The Real behind the real", for the real consists of the vital functions, and the Self is the Real behind the vital functions.

Continued....

 

[sayak83]

Continued

Brahman is also described as the fundamental basis of all phenomena:-
Here is a dialogue between two seers:- Gargi and Yajnavalkya.

Gargi:- " Things above the sky, things below the earth, and the things between earth and sky, as well as those things people here refer to as past, present and future - on what, Yajnavalkya, are all these woven back and forth?"

Yajnavalkya:- " Things above the sky, things below the earth, and the things between earth and sky, as well as those things people here refer to as past, present and future - on space, Gargi, are all these woven back and forth?"

Gargi :- "On what then is space woven back and forth?"

Yajnavalkya :- "That is the imperishable (Brahman) Gargi, on which space is woven back and forth."

Now there are certain pointers to what it is and what it is not.

Firstly it, being within everything, controls and regulates their nature from within. The exposition takes the form of :-

This self of yours, who is present within but is different from X, whom X does not know, whose body is X, and who controls X from within- he is the inner controller, the immortal.

With X being sequentially identified as:-
Earth
Water
Fire
Intermediate regions
Wind
Sky
Sun
Quarters
Moon and Stars
Space
Darkness
Light
All Beings

Then Yajnavalkya also identifies this X with various aspects of the body:-
Breath
Speech
Sight
Hearing
Mind
Skin
Perception
Semen

This is the role of Atman as inner controller and connector of all phenomena. Next Yajnavalkya explains it role in conscious awareness:-

He sees, but he can't be seen; he hears, but he can't be heard; he thinks, but he can't be thought of; he perceives, but he can't be perceived. Besides him, there is no one who sees, no one who hears, no one who thinks, and no one who perceives. It is this self of yours who is the inner controller, the immortal. All besides this is mortal.

While this Self (Atman) in all things control their nature and to which all perceptual knowledge flows, it itself is not either a material or a mental entity. Rather it stands behind all material and mental entities. Thus:-

It is neither coarse or fine; neither short or long; it has neither blood or fat; it is without shadow or darkness; it is without air or space; it is without contact, taste or smell; it is without sight or hearing; it is without speech or mind; it is without energy, life force or speech; it is beyond measure; it has nothing within it or outside of it; it does not eat anything, nor does anyone eat it.


Basically it does not have the material or mental properties that are usually the focus of dualism debates. Upanisads usually consider mind, consciousness and mental states to be subtle forms of matter rather than a separate entity called spirit. Rather it posits Atman/Brahman as a kind of ur-entity on which (what is conventionally called) matter and mind both depend in the sense described above, but havomg none of their properties.

That is sufficient for now. All quotes are from Brihadaranyaka upanisad.

Strengths and weaknesses of the idea of Brahman and Atman discussed above? Thanks

 

[sayak83]

It isn't that you can't fit the evidence to the conclusion. Creationists and religionists of all ilks do that every day.

It's that the evidence doesn't point at the conclusion. Your 'hypothesis' looks like this;

We have an incomplete knowledge of how matter works, therefore <insert preferred religious explanation> I could just as easily say <therefore Allah is great> as you could say <therefore Brahmin>

Saying that a series of strongly interconnected entities are actually unified under a greater whole is hardly an empty proposition.

 

[sayak83]

Interesting.Thanks for sharing that.

I don't know much about Hinduism. Is Brahman a conscious agent? Does Brahman think and act? According to this from Wiki, no:

"Brahma (nominative singular), brahman (stem) (neuter gender) means the concept of the transcendent and immanent ultimate reality, Supreme Cosmic Spirit in Hinduism. The concept is central to Hindu philosophy, especially Vedanta; this is discussed below. Brahm is another variant of Brahman."

If you're just giving a proper name to the principles known and unknown that orchestrate the elements of reality's interactions and determine their properties, then I have no problem with that. If you're implying agenticity, I would caution you that that is not justified.

It is, however, a common cognitive bias, especially when reaching the limits of knowledge.

From Why People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World

"The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns. So we make two types of errors: a type I error, or false positive, is believing a pattern is real when it is not; a type II error, or false negative, is not believing a pattern is real when it is. If you believe that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind (a type I error), you are more likely to survive than if you believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator (a type II error). Because the cost of making a type I error is less than the cost of making a type II error and because there is no time for careful deliberation between patternicities in the split-second world of predator-prey interactions, natural selection would have favored those animals most likely to assume that all patterns are real.

"But we do something other animals do not do. As large-brained hominids with a developed cortex and a theory of mind—the capacity to be aware of such mental states as desires and intentions in both ourselves and others—we infer agency behind the patterns we observe in a practice I call “agenticity”: the tendency to believe that the world is controlled by invisible intentional agents. We believe that these intentional agents control the world, sometimes invisibly from the top down (as opposed to bottom-up causal randomness). Together patternicity and agenticity form the cognitive basis of shamanism, paganism, animism, polytheism, monotheism, and all modes of Old and New Age spiritualisms."

We also seem to have a capacity for spiritual experiences, by which I mean a sense of mystery, awe, gratitude, and connectivity. This has nothing to do with religion. Standing outside at night looking up at the stars and contemplating the incredible distance that the starlight has been traveling for years to reach out and touch you can evoke this reaction, as can understanding that we are made from the ashes of stars - that we were billions of years in the making.

But at such moments, we are at risk of assigning agenticity again - invoking gods.

Neil deGrasse Tyson did a nice presentation on just this topic which you can read at The Perimeter of Ignorance | Natural History Magazine or see in video format at

Tyson gives the example of Ptolemy from antiquity, who suggested that the sun, moon, and planet revolved around the earth since that is how it appeared from what felt like a stationary earth - a reasonable if incorrect idea.

But when it came to the problem of the apparent retrograde motion of the planets - illustrated and explained at Retrograde Motion - where they seemed to briefly stop, go backward, stop again, and reverse direction again, Ptolemy had reached the limits of his understanding, and at that moment, invoked his god, Zeus and described the spiritual experience I just described, but with his god credited:

"I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia" - Ptolemy

Nothing has been said or shown to challenge naturalism, a better word than materialism. While there may indeed be agenticity to the cosmos or beyond, we have no evidence of this, and are therefore not justified in assuming it or assigning it to reality.

I don't see much harm to making that leap of faith if one is approaching these matters from a philosophical and contemplative perspective and prefers to assign consciousness to these unseen principles as Ptolemy did, which seems to be the way with some Eastern religions.

The problem is when the god concept is used to manipulate you by organized, politicized religions.

While all of this is good, the concept of an agent is defined differently in India at least. In Western tradition, only conscious beings with free will are considered agents (probably because of theological and legal considerations regarding sin and culpability etc.). In India where linguistic philosophy (see panini) gets an early head start, things like agents, patients etc. are based on the structure of language. Thus any entity, living or non-living, that acts in the world is an agent. Causal potency is considered the defining criteria of agency, not consciousness or free will etc. Thus the strata of agency is hierarchically arrange from supra-human with vast causal potencies (sun, moon, weather, earth, all-beings, fire, water) to human to agents within a human (the senses and the mind are considered agents in their own right..thus a human being is an agent which contains multiple agents within himself) to animal agents to plant agents to inert stuff. Space was not considered an agent, being thought as passive ground of causation. Etc.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Perhaps it's time to define "god." You seem to be describing an ultimate reality underlying existence that is conscious, but not wanting to call that a god

Why should the 'ultimate reality' be changed into a God of a group's choice without much evidence to support it? Let it remain what it actually is.
That is what Hindus take Brahman to be. They do not burden it with desires, actions, forms, need to interfere in human affairs