Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument

[ratiocinator]

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

Yes, that's a good summary of the big bang theory but it doesn't say "in the beginning there was energy (physical)...".

Energy isn't stuff - you can't have 'pure energy' (outside of science fiction). There has to be something that has energy.

"...Energy is something which objects can have, and groups of objects can have — a property of objects that characterizes their behavior and their relationships to one another."
From: Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

 

[Aupmanyav]

I am not pointing at a special divine energy. I am pointing at energy as science and to the extent that science understands it. Stuff/energy/fields/particles/space are intricately connected. Perhaps it is only a matter of observation. What actually it is, I do not understand and I doubt even science knows it.

"There has to be something that has energy.": The fun is that energy itself is the thing. Tell me if the atoms are made up of any thing other than energy.

That is why Hindu books said "Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti" (What exists is one, there is no second). And then they added "Nasti na nasti kinchana" (no, never, not in the least).
They went on to say "Sarvam khalu idam Brahma" (All things here are Brahman).
I am Brahman (Aham Brahmasmi), you too are that (Tat twam asi).

 

[ratiocinator]

"There has to be something that has energy.": The fun is that energy itself is the thing. Tell me if the atoms are made up of any thing other than energy.

No, scientifically, you are simply wrong. Nothing is made of energy. You can't make things out of energy any more than you can make things out of momentum.

Edit: To be fair, it's a common misconception - probably due to science fiction and people who know, but don't understand, the famous formula E = mc².

 

[Aupmanyav]

I agree. Even the God's particle did not prove it. But we do not have many other options (or rather, we have too many 'difficult to understand' options).
Mass generation - Wikipedia

 

[Darkstorn]

Even the God's particle did not prove it.

Did not prove what?

 

[ratiocinator]

I agree. Even the God's particle did not prove it. But we do not have many other options (or rather, we have too many 'difficult to understand' options).
Mass generation - Wikipedia

Mass isn't stuff either - you need something to have mass. Stuff (with the exception of space-time and gravity) is described by quantum fields - which is the best description of what it is that we have.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Did not prove what?

That mass is because of it.

Stuff (with the exception of space-time and gravity) is described by quantum fields ..

Yes, Sayak and myself are using stuff only in that sense.

 

[Robert Vincelette]

It the atomic scale things do not work according to mathematical cause and effect, quantum mechanics proves that they work by probability that approaches 100% very rapidly when ensembles of atoms react with other ensembles of atoms, so materialism is not exactly true.

 

[viole]

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.

Being unknown does not entail being 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.

Again, being unknown does not disprove materialism. And it could be a brute fact, like the existence of anything else trying to explain it. We just need an hypothesis less.

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.

And do you know why the putative explanation that you are about to present, has the properties it has?

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.

So, why Brahman has those glue properties? Is there a meta Brahaman that explains the lower Brahman, and so on?

Let me guess, you hit an explanatory bottom and you are happy with that.

I ask because I could use your arguments to prove that Braham, whoever that is, is probably false, too.

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.

Can you please meditate a bit, or get in connection with Brhaman, and tell me if the Goldbach conjecture is true or false?

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

Why atheists? Materialism entails atheism, so asking atheists AND materialists, is logically redundant.

Ciao

- ciole

 

[sealchan]

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.

It may be highly desirable and even entertaining to contemplate the nature of Brahman from which all this arises, but who is to say or know that that which arises does so reductively due to Brahman. What if Brahman creates the sub-atomic structure of the Universe but Brahman is then less involved with the atomic structure that arises out of the sub-atomic?

Or alternatively as Stuart Kauffman has proposed, what if there is not underlying God or Brahman but God exists in the creativity at each layer of wholeness which emerges out of the sub-layer below it and into the neighboring systems that interact with it?

And why, then, would any layer then be more fundamental than another?

I have recently thought that perhaps the intelligence of humanity might, in some vital way, actually co-create with God/Brahman the remote boundaries of the Universe even as we arise from it. This would be due to our consciousness developing awareness and being able then to effect changes to the Universe. What if Brahman is being born and shaped in the minds of our own collective endeavor to come into a deep relationship with the creation He "began"? What if there is no boundary at all to time and that now and before are but two places equally in the center of all that exists? In this way the creator need not precede the creation, nor the destroyer wait for the creation to take action.

I take this in part from a recent article in Science News about how scientists have been able to effect quantum entanglement in more and more particles. Such bleeding of the quantum, non-time/non-space aspect of reality into a more and more macro level (though not within our normal sensory awareness yet) leads me to think that we may some day come to realize that the past may, in fact, be created by measuring and taking action in the present.

Time sees all and all time reaches out to all other time in any direction. Who then is the creator, the destroyer and the preserver? Who has created anything until it has been known as created?

 

[Evie]

W

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.

here did the very first existing bit of stuff originate. Something cannot be brought out if nothing

 

[sayak83]

W

here did the very first existing bit of stuff originate. Something cannot be brought out if nothing

Universe, as a manifestation of Brahman goes through eternal cycles and is beginningless.

 

[sayak83]

Being unknown does not entail being false.
Again, being unknown does not disprove materialism. And it could be a brute fact, like the existence of anything else trying to explain it. We just need an hypothesis less.

Anything could be a brute fact, or it might not. The incompatibility of subatomic scales (QM) with galactic scales (GR) could also be a brute fact, but one does not see scientists stop creating and testing hypothesis that try to explain this fact. Knowledge grows by attempting to eliminate brute facts. We won't know unless we try.

And do you know why the putative explanation that you are about to present, has the properties it has?

Not right now. I do not know everything. There may be a reason though that requires future investigation.

So, why Brahman has those glue properties? Is there a meta Brahaman that explains the lower Brahman, and so on?

If you look at the more recent posts I made which showcased the original ideas about Brahman, one would see that Brahman is considered to be one ur-entity whose phenomenological manifestations are variously seen as the domain of matter, energy, space-time, maths and logic, consciousness etc. These domains are interconnected because of this.
Once one has a single entity, one does not need to move below this.

Let me guess, you hit an explanatory bottom and you are happy with that.

Yes.

I ask because I could use your arguments to prove that Braham, whoever that is, is probably false, too.

Not a who, what. Could you make an argument as to why Brahman is probably false?

Can you please meditate a bit, or get in connection with Brhaman, and tell me if the Goldbach conjecture is true or false?

Brahman is not a conscious entity that one can talk to (see the posts I made on Brahman).

Why atheists? Materialism entails atheism, so asking atheists AND materialists, is logically redundant.

True.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Looks like the regular God of the gaps argument.

 

[viole]

Not right now. I do not know everything. There may be a reason though that requires future investigation.

Not a who, what. Could you make an argument as to why Brahman is probably false?

Well, in your OP you say that materialim might be wrong because we do not know this and that.

Then you admit that you do not know why Brahman has the properties It has, and ask me how I could make an argument that Brahman might be false too?

Ciao

- viole

 

[sayak83]

Well, in your OP you say that materialim might be wrong because we do not know this and that.

That is not the argument at all. There are certain kinds of questions that require an explanation and certain kinds that do not. For example why the properties of matter are of such nature that that they can interact with each other to create complex emergent domains is a genuine scientific question, or why fundamental particles come in three families is also a genuine scientific question (scientific papers and theories are written about both). But other questions are more akin to "why does something exist rather than nothing" , which frankly are quite idle. If one is able to develop a fully worked out explanation for :-
1) How matter-energy-forces-space-time are integrated with each other
2) How and why they interact with mathematical regularity in accordance to the laws of physics
3) How does logical/mathematical/informational domains interact with physical domains
4) How and why the physical domain is so arranged that emergence of complex wholes become possible
5) How knowledge and consciousness is explained and how they interact with (1)-(4)

In terms of a single integrated well-validated theory, then nothing else needs to be explained. If, suppose, this theory posits an ur-entity like Brahman with certain features that explains and predicts the features above with precision, then, the justification for believing its existence is the success it has in explaining and predicting all these features of the world, which currently nothing can. Then saying, by this entity and not something else, is because, it and only it has shown itself able to provide these explanations and predictions and nothing else has.

 

[sayak83]

Looks like the regular God of the gaps argument.

No it is not.

 

[viole]

That is not the argument at all. There are certain kinds of questions that require an explanation and certain kinds that do not. For example why the properties of matter are of such nature that that they can interact with each other to create complex emergent domains is a genuine scientific question, or why fundamental particles come in three families is also a genuine scientific question (scientific papers and theories are written about both). But other questions are more akin to "why does something exist rather than nothing" , which frankly are quite idle. If one is able to develop a fully worked out explanation for :-
1) How matter-energy-forces-space-time are integrated with each other
2) How and why they interact with mathematical regularity in accordance to the laws of physics
3) How does logical/mathematical/informational domains interact with physical domains
4) How and why the physical domain is so arranged that emergence of complex wholes become possible
5) How knowledge and consciousness is explained and how they interact with (1)-(4)

In terms of a single integrated well-validated theory, then nothing else needs to be explained. If, suppose, this theory posits an ur-entity like Brahman with certain features that explains and predicts the features above with precision, then, the justification for believing its existence is the success it has in explaining and predicting all these features of the world, which currently nothing can. Then saying, by this entity and not something else, is because, it and only it has shown itself able to provide these explanations and predictions and nothing else has.

So, how is that different from Thor a few centuries ago? He used to be the only solution to the puzzle of lightnings.

Ciao

- viole

 

[sayak83]

So, how is that different from Thor a few centuries ago? He used to be the only solution to the puzzle of lightnings.

Ciao

- viole

thor is unfalsifiable and explains or predicts nothing. Not the case here.

An example. Hinduism predict that a fully worked out theory of consciousness will show that consciousness is graded and is present to lesser and greater extent in many complex wholes, though humans have it the most.

 

[viole]

thor is unfalsifiable and explains or predicts nothing. Not the case here.

Well, you are right, with the exception that he did not explain lighnings. He did.

So, how is Braman falsifiable?

Ciao

- viole