Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How do you explain the binary system? It has no number 2.

But you revealed it in your post: I'm using a different language. So... If there are different languages to math, then how is it different from languages? Both are human constructs, both are logical within their own context, both follow accepted rules.

Of course, math always means math. But then, language always means language as well.

Math and language are the same thing. Math in itself is a kind of language.

You don't want to confuse abstract mathematical concepts with their notation. A single apple is added to another single apple, and there are two apples. That doesn't change whether you notate that "1+1 = 2" or "1+1 =10," or call the sum "two," "dos," or "zwei"

 

[Darkstorn]

You don't want to confuse abstract mathematical concepts with their notation.

I haven't. I was replying to a post that was talking about counting, and there not being any different methods to it. I was describing such *methods*. Not the concepts.

A single apple is added to another single apple,and there are two apples. That doesn't change whether you notate that "1+1 = 2" or "1+1 =10," or call the sum "two," "dos," or "zwei"

I know. But those are different methods of counting the same thing. That's my only point in that post. Again; I am not arguing about the "universal nature" of mathematics.

 

[ratiocinator]

Thank you for providing your objections. I have laid out my reasons for believing as I do regarding the ontology if mathematics here below:-

The ontology of mathematics is, as I said, controversial and I can see no way of settling the matter. You titled the thread "Why materialism is probably false" - taking just one position on an untestable and controversial subject isn't a solid start.

This is not the place to go into it, but the same physical entity can be modeled by various mathematical structures depending on convenience (for example wave mechanics vs matrix mechanics for QM) showing that its improbable that physical entities themselves are mathematical.

All that shows is that the same structure can be described in different ways. I'm not actually trying to promote Tegmark's idea - it just seems like a better guess than yours because it is directly connected to how science describes things - and it's simpler.

Its also unable to account for dynamics and change. So far I have seen no attempt by science to explain the universe by mathematics alone. It cannot, because all mathematical relationships are true in a timeless fashion, while in the physical world, only a few of them are instantiated imperfectly over a limited period.

What a bizarre claim! Time and dynamics are modelled in mathematics just as much as everything else in physics is. There are two fundamental mathematical theories that between them describe all of physics at the most basic level. They are general relativity and quantum field theory. They already do describe the universe "by mathematics alone" - just so long as you pick the right one for the situation. The quest to unite them is a work in progress but it certainly is an attempt to describe the universe with one mathematical theory.

You are assuming that insights from religions cannot provide knowledge about the nature of reality. Can you justify that? Remember that there has been far more false scientific theories as true ones, one expects same from religious methods as well.

I'm not assuming that religion can't provide knowledge of the world - some part of it might be doing so. The problem is that with science, we have a methodology that allows us to test hypotheses and theories so that we can sort out those that more closely match the evidence available. When new evidence is available, then theories can be further confirmed or falsified.

Religion, on the other hand, lacks such a methodology. Hence there are many religions and divisions even within the same religion - and there is no way to tell if any of them are telling us anything about reality or not.

However do you have a rival theory as to why (1), (2) and (3) are seen to features of the world?

Only (1) is seen. - the other two are supposition and the connection to religion is arbitrary. I have provided one alternative guess, but it really doesn't matter. I'm perfectly content to say that I don't know the ontological status of mathematics and I don't know why maths works so well as a description of the physical world. Suffice to say that I don't find your guesswork in the least bit convincing and you have provided no evidence and no solid reasoning to support it.

"Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong." -- Richard Feynman

 

[sayak83]

I think he's trying to tell you that it's not really that much of an "entity", but in actuality, more like action. I.E kinetic energy.

That it's not stuff in any way or form.

Obviously energy can be sensed and detected by senses and instruments. Label it as one wishes ..."things that can be observed through detectors and senses".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If you read my post you will see I say math is just like human language. The OP makes math out to be something different. I was posting after following the op's threads.

Just so everyone is aware the binary system does have the number 2 it is 10.

I think that you already know and would agree with the following:

Some language is mathematical in form. A syllogism such as All men are mortal, Socrates is a man,therefore Socrates is mortal can be denoted geometrically with a small circle denoted as "Socrates" contained within a larger circle denoted "men" inside an even larger circle called "mortals."

And "knowledge is power" can be denoted with an equal sign between two words.

The word "a" as in "a day" means 1.

But languages like English transcend mathematics. How do you denote "I like to hike" mathematically?

To use another mathematical concept, we can say that mathematical language can be mapped onto a language like English, but not vice versa. That is, all mathematical notation can be rendered in English, but there is no mathematical equivalent of "red" or most other words.

 

[sayak83]

argumentum ad ignorantiam

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.

 

[Darkstorn]

Obviously energy can be sensed and detected by senses and instruments. Label it as one wishes ..."things that can be observed through detectors and senses".

But it's hard to call it a thing. It's more of a "relation" than a thing; A relation between two things. I just think calling it a thing in itself is a disservice.

 

[ratiocinator]

I think he's trying to tell you that it's not really that much of an "entity", but in actuality, more like action. I.E kinetic energy.

Yes.

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

 

[bobhikes]

I think that you already know and would agree with the following:

Some language is mathematical in form. A syllogism such as All men are mortal, Socrates is a man,therefore Socrates is mortal can be denoted geometrically with a small circle denoted as "Socrates" contained within a larger circle denoted "men" inside an even larger circle called "mortals."

And "knowledge is power" can be denoted with an equal sign between two words.

The word "a" as in "a day" means 1.

But languages like English transcend mathematics. How do you denote "I like to hike" mathematically?

To use another mathematical concept, we can say that mathematical language can be mapped onto a language like English, but not vice versa. That is, all mathematical notation can be rendered in English, but there is no mathematical equivalent of "red" or most other words.

Everything on the RF and on the internet is broken down into the simplest of math just some binary numbers. With those binary numbers we can create anything anywhere for display. With 3D printing this is even being done with reality.

Basic math is infinite and can be structured far greater than any language. All languages are finite, they only have a set of characters.

 

[sayak83]

But it's hard to call it a thing. It's more of a "relation" than a thing; A relation between two things. I just think calling it a thing in itself is a disservice.

Look, I know all this. Let us just say "entities detectable by senses and instruments of science" and leave it at that. Energy is one such entity. Here the word entity is broader than objects but also include motions, transformations etc. For a clearly spelled out understanding of matter and energy, see below:-
Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy
Mass and Energy

I was not focusing on that part in the OP.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I get that. I was more talking this point: "its basis is in counting which everyone in the world does the same".

That statement isn't true. People don't do it the same way. And ours was preceded by other systems. Such as tally marks, Latin numerals etc. There ARE different ways to count things. But just like language, they can all be translated.



No it doesn't. Number 2 is a very specific numeral. And it's not found in base-2. There is no number 2. 2 TRANSLATES as 10. And before we had these numerals, there weren't even 1 or 0 for that matter. These are very specific characters. They aren't math itself.

Also: Math is MUCH more than just counting. It is however the root of arithmetic. But again, math is more than just arithmetic.

From 10 Rules for Writing Numbers and Numerals

"what is the difference between a number and a numeral? A number is an abstract concept while a numeral is a symbol used to express that number. “Three,” “3” and “III” are all symbols used to express the same number (or the concept of “threeness”)."

[My apologies to the thread for continuing with this off-topic mathematical subthread. Hopefully the following will be interesting enough to justify posting it anyway.]

Did you know that you can count without using any numbers? Suppose that you are a rancher, and take a herd of cattle from an enclosure to graze. As each individual animal leaves the barn or corral or whatever, drop a stone in a sack. Later that evening, when returning them to their starting place, remove a stone for each animal that goes back in. If you run out of stones as the last member of the herd returns, they're all there, even though you don't know how many that is. And if you have stones left in the bag, you lost some cattle. If it's one or two, you can have a quantitative sense of the number of missing cattle, but beyond a certain threshold, all you know is that you've lost a lot of them.

This is called 1:1 ("1-to-1") correspondence, the most primitive form of counting. It's also the basis for Cantor's work on infinity, and generates some fascinating paradoxes. Are there more natural numbers or more even natural numbers? The natural numbers are 1,2,3,4,5,6 ... and the even natural numbers 2,4,6,...

Intuition tells us that the first set is twice as large as the second. But both are infinite. Can one infinite set be larger (have greater cardinality in mathematical parlance) than another?

It turns out that that can happen - one infinite set has greater cardinality than another - but not in this case. We can demonstrate this as Cantor did with 1:1 correspondence. We can pair each element in the first set with a unique element in the second set:

1. 2
2. 4
3. 6
etc.

The cardinality (count) of the two sets is equal just as it was with the stones and cattle. And once again, we don't have a count. There is no number for the cardinality of an infinite set, just a name (aleph-0 in this case). There is a larger infinite set that cannot be put into 1:1 correspondence (or any other ratio of rational numbers) with the natural numbers, the real numbers. The cardinality of that set exceeds aleph-0

If you enjoy these kinds of matters, take a peak at what is called Hilbert's Hotel at Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel - Wikipedia :

"Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel, or simply Hilbert's Hotel, is a thought experiment which illustrates a counterintuitive property of infinite sets. It is demonstrated that a fully occupied hotel with infinitely many rooms may still accommodate additional guests, even infinitely many of them, and that this process may be repeated infinitely often. The idea was introduced by David Hilbert in a 1924 lecture"

 

[sayak83]

What a bizarre claim! Time and dynamics are modelled in mathematics just as much as everything else in physics is. There are two fundamental mathematical theories that between them describe all of physics at the most basic level. They are general relativity and quantum field theory. They already do describe the universe "by mathematics alone" - just so long as you pick the right one for the situation. The quest to unite them is a work in progress but it certainly is an attempt to describe the universe with one mathematical theory.

Modeled, yes..but modeling is entirely different from saying its identical. There is a vast chasm of difference between modeling aspects of reality by math and saying reality is math. Two simple examples:- In many QM problems, many solutions are neglected as "unphysical". If reality was only math, this would not be the case. Further the idea that wave amplitude are related to probability of occurrence of various events comes entirely from empiricism. Similarly, the limit of velocity to the speed of light is not something one gets from mathematics. Etc.

Furthermore this thread is about comparing the relative strengths and weaknesses of materialistic metaphysics compared to an alternate ontology based on Hindu philosophy, given what we know today. Being agnostic is your preference, I choose to assess various worldviews and attach confidence estimates to them based on what is known so far.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Even if I accepted (for the sake or argument) your other two points, you've then just (apparently) made up "something more fundamental" and arbitrarily associated it with your religion.

Science says that in the beginning there was energy (physical) and all things arose out of it. Hinduism agrees and terms it 'Brahman' without making it into a God. That, I think, is a similarity. Some of us do not make the original cause into a God.

 

[Nous]

For everyone here who is claiming that mathematics is a human invention, then why don't we just make up the answer to the Riemann hypothesis and the other unsolved questions in mathematics?

 

[ratiocinator]

Modeled, yes..but modeling is entirely different from saying its identical. There is a vast chasm of difference between modeling aspects of reality by math and saying reality is math. Two simple examples:- In many QM problems, many solutions are neglected as "unphysical". If reality was only math, this would not be the case. Further the idea that wave amplitude are related to probability of occurrence of various events comes entirely from empiricism. Similarly, the limit of velocity to the speed of light is not something one gets from mathematics. Etc.

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.

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

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).

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?

Furthermore this thread is about comparing the relative strengths and weaknesses of materialistic metaphysics compared to an alternate ontology based on Hindu philosophy, given what we know today.

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.

Being agnostic is your preference, I choose to assess various worldviews and attach confidence estimates to them based on what is known so far.

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

 

[ratiocinator]

Science says that in the beginning there was energy(physical) and all things arose out of it.

No, it doesn't.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

argumentum ad ignorantiam

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

 

[Nous]

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.

There is no doubt that the thesis that everything that exists is made of objects that have mass and volume is false.

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.

It is true that scientific realism implies mathematical realism. Scientific Realism Begets Mathematical Realism

 

[Aupmanyav]

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)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Science says that in the beginning there was energy (physical) and all things arose out of it.

No, it doesn't.

Tell me about that. From Wikipedia, I read:

"The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Hubble's Law."
Big Bang - Wikipedia