Summary:
Definition of Stochastic Transtheistic Pre-determinism(Popper): There exists a spirit who knows now (i.e. at present instance) every event of the future.
Black swan events: Even if two particles or organisms always had exactly same properties till present instance of time, it is possible that they may have different properties in the next instance of time.
Physicists rarely mention the concept of block universe and how it solves the problems of Quantum Mechanics. They do not mention it partly because it conflicts with the Big Bang theory and mechanical framework of universe and partly because it violates free will of experimenter. However, it is explainable with pre-determinism.
Also, Stochastic Pre-determinism makes additional falsifiable predictions: a. Substance dualism is true ie consciousness is fundamental not emergent b. Metempsychosis is true c. Senses are not the source of knowledge but are channels or mediums of knowledge. It is possible to acquire knowledge of future, past, remote and fine through non-sensory channels. d. Discrete spacetime
This largely matches with Digambara Axioms and Gödel’s axioms.
Contents:
Possible and popular interpretations
Proposed interpretation
Argument from Physics
Argument from Discrete Mathematics/Computer Science
Argument from Crowdsourcing
Argument from Mainstream Mathematics
Argument from Invention Discovery Equivalence
Consequences
Continuum Hypothesis
Appendix 10a. Two games in Town: Continuous SpaceTime/Big Bang/Emergent Consciousness vs Discrete SpaceTime/Digambara Eternal Universe/Fundamental Consciousness 10b. Three outstanding problems, one logically consistent solution 10c. Why you have not heard of Block Universe before 10d. UCLA Professor opinion 10e. Note I by Jeffrey D Long 10f. Note 2 by Jeffery D Long 10g. Note 3 by Jeffery D Long 10h. Life as per Robert Rosen
There is no doubt at all that the issue of determinism versus indeterminism was a central, dominating theme of Popper’s thought. There are three mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive frameworks that doesn’t require supernatural cause: Scientific Determinism, Transtheistic Pre-determinism and Indeterminism.
Current two most popular frameworks are:
a. Scientific Consensus (Scientific Determinism/Closed Universe/Presentism): Body is “a complex machine” that works according to the deterministic laws of a Newtonian world. Brain is made of matter, which must follow the laws of nature. There is no ghost in the machine. Quantum mechanics play no part in workings of brain.
- Stephen Hawking
b. Mainstream Consensus (Absolute Indeterminism/Open Universe/Presentism):
My three arguments against scientific determinism are: approximate nature of scientific knowledge, asymmetry of past and future and inability of predicting growth of our knowledge with time (because if we can predict growth of our future knowledge then that knowledge will be immediately available which is a contradiction.) These arguments, while conclusive against scientific determinism, are not conclusive against pre-determinism. But they are sufficient for me to conclude that future is open. - Karl Popper
Mathematics assumes human beings can acquire perfect knowledge. Science says perfect knowledge is not possible. Two ideas are in direct conflict. I sided with science because I was not very good with mathematics, so I rather question the assumptions on which mathematics is based. - George Soros
A determinist model of brain cannot claim a scientific status because it could not be falsified by testing. - George Soros
Stochastic Transtheistic Pre-determinism asserts that: a. All events in this world are fixed, or unalterable, or predetermined b. It also asserts that they are known to a spiritual being and c. They are not predictable by scientific means i.e., it admits black swan events. Thus, it primarily asserts that the future is as little changeable as is the past. Everybody knows what we mean when we say that the past cannot be changed. It is in precisely the same sense that the future cannot be changed, according to pre-determinism.
Perceived finite indeterminism is actually synthesized at every instance of time by psycho-chemical interaction between two infinities in opposite directions: the positive infinite intellect of each living entity that is capable of knowing past and future with perfection is being relentlessly interfered by or attenuated by negative infinite fine matter at every instance of time to realize finite indeterministic cognition for each of the living entity. There is indeed ghost in the machine. Pre-determinism does not preclude the appearance of indeterminism and realization of black swan events.
..the effort to reduce all concepts and correlations to as few as possible logically independent basic concepts and axioms.
There has always been present the attempt to find a unifying theoretical basis, consisting of a minimum of concepts and fundamental relationships, from which all the concepts and relationships might be derived by logical process. This is what we mean by the search for a foundation of the whole of physics. The confident belief that this ultimate goal may be reached is the chief source of the passionate devotion which has always animated the researcher.
From what has been said it is clear that the word foundations in this connection does not mean something analogous in all respects to the foundations of a building. Logically considered, of course, the various single laws of physics rest upon this foundation. But whereas a building may be seriously damaged by a heavy storm or spring flood, yet its foundations remain intact, in science the logical foundation is always in greater peril from new experiences or new knowledge than are the branch disciplines with their closer experimental contacts. In the connection of the foundation with all the single parts lies its great significance, but likewise its greatest danger in face of any new factor. When we realize this, we are led to wonder why the so-called revolutionary epochs of the science of physics have not more often and more completely changed its foundation than has actually been the case. - Albert Einstein
Foundation of physics needs to change if we want to account for consciousness. - Ed Witten
….it seems to be that a ‘fundamental’ physical theory that lays claim to any kind of completeness at the deepest levels of physical phenomena must also have the potential to accommodate conscious mentality. Some people will try to evade (or belittle) this problem, arguing that consciousness simply ‘emerges’ as some sort of ‘epiphenomenon’. Accordingly, so it would be claimed, there is no importance, for the emerge of consciousness, in the precise type of physics that happens to underlie the relevant (not necessarily biological) processes. A standard position is that of computational functionalism, according to which it is merely computational activity. I have argued strongly against this view (partly using reasoning based on Gödel’s theorem and the notion of Turing computability), and I have indeed suggested that consciousness actually depends upon the missing .. theory.
- Roger Penrose
As alluded by Einstein, A small change in foundation of physics can cause a big change in understanding of universe without altering most of the secondary sciences.
There are two competing foundations or frameworks: Aristotelian Framework and Digambara Framework.
First, the similarities: • Abstract objects don’t exist • Intellect cannot be subsumed into matter because it is fundamentally different type of object compared to matter
There is only one subtle difference between Aristotelian Framework and Digambara Framework of Universe. However, this very subtle change in framework completely reverses some of the results related to cognition, morality, and happiness.
Aristotelian Framework says law of excluded middle can be applied only to finite sets because human mind cannot comprehend completed infinity. Also, physical universe is finite with very few exceptions.
Digambara Framework says law of excluded middle can be applied to infinite sets because human mind can comprehend completed infinity. Also, infinities are much more common, widespread, and integral in universe than implied by Aristotelian Framework.
https://plus.maths.org/content/index.php/does-infinity-exist
This page is maintained by Cambridge University See reference to eastern infinity in comments
Following corollaries automatically follow from Digambara Framework: • Eternal recurrence and by extension rebirth is true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return • Materialism is false. Eternal “individual knowledge field” is the source of knowledge while senses and mind are only channels or medium of knowledge. • This “individual knowledge field” or intelligence, with which each individual is endowed including animals, is infinitely more powerful than matter (finite state machine) and is capable of knowing entire universe in a single instance of time with all of its general and special details.
Following corollaries automatically follow from Aristotelian Framework: • Eternal recurrence and by extension rebirth is false. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_return#Christian_response • Mind cannot exist independent of body / cognitive process cannot exist independent of manipulative Process. Knowledge is acquired o through eyes via action-at-a-distance and o through other senses and mind locally. • Human knowledge is finite as it is sourced from senses and mind which are material and finite.
Digambaras point to Gödel’s incomplete theorem as proof for their framework. Aristotelians says existential proofs are not admissible in science. You must provide a constructive proof aka a real example of at least one individual who possesses infinite knowledge to convince us. Digambaras say art of realizing infinite knowledge is lost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_proof
Digambara Framework agrees with Digambara logic.
Digambara logic goes to extra-ordinary length to explain workings of the universe by purely logical means without resorting to any supernatural causes. Digambara logic tries to identify and differentiate between life and matter and their origins - both at microscopic level as well as at macroscopic level - without resorting to any supernatural causes. Digambara logic also tries to explain their inter-dependent evolutions - both at microscopic level as well as at macroscopic level - without resorting to any supernatural causes. Digambara logic also tries to explain their transformations from microscopic level to macroscopic level and vice versa - without resorting to any supernatural causes.
Aristotelian Framework is largely in agreement with western religions and science.
Another difference is that Aristotelian foundation limits consciousness and free will, whatever it means, to only human beings. Digambaraism, in contrast, asserts that difference between consciousness of human beings and other biological beings is that of quantity and not of quality.
So, to summarize: The proposal is to add an additional factor, variously known as “life” or “knowledge fields” or “intelligence” to the list of current fundamental concepts like space, time, motion, rest and matter. And add metempsychosis as the fundamental mechanism of interaction between intelligence and matter.
It is not possible to create random events from deterministic means - Van Neuman. In other words, it is not possible to create random events from purely inert means which implies that random events can only be created by life concepts i.e., by non-inert means which implies that life concepts are also fundamental irreducible concepts like space, time, motion, rest and matter. Each individual life as understood by mainstream biology has evolved from one such individual primitive microscopic life through a chain of births and deaths.
Corollary: As a true random sequence is an infinite sequence (mathematical consensus), each individual life is past-eternal and future-eternal spending most of time in primitive microscopic form because those forms are found to be the most numerous and are the simplest, lowest-energy state of life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigoda
About a quarter of Americans believe that reincarnation is true.
Liberalism rightfully maintains existence of “individual soul” as axiomatic but doesn’t provide formal proof and mismodel the principle due to their use of Aristotelian logic and their sole focus on human beings.
Here, a more comprehensive approach is taken in modelling individual soul. It is done by replacing Aristotelian logic with Digambara logic.
Or in other words it is proved, startlingly, that Digambaraism, which has the strictest interpretation of individualism, is true.
Quote from Wikipedia article on Mathematics: “There is no general consensus about exact scope or epistemological status of Mathematics.”
There are two models of knowledge: Aristotle’s model of knowledge and Digambara model of knowledge. Please see Wikipedia’s article on infinity to confirm.
Mathematicians don’t like contradictions. They like consistency. Hence, they assume that everything is knowable i.e. knowledge is infinite. Reasoning being that you can’t be 100% sure that something is unknowable without first knowing everything, which is a contradiction and mathematicians avoid contradictions even at the expense of uncommon assumptions.
Mainstream Science’s model of universe is based on Aristotle’s axioms and Aristotle’s model of knowledge. Aristotle’s model of knowledge is not compatible with mainstream Mathematical model of knowledge. Hence, Mainstream Science’s model of Universe is not compatible with fundamental mainstream Mathematical axioms.
Digambara model of universe is based on Digambara model of knowledge. Digambara model of knowledge is compatible with mainstream Mathematical model of knowledge. Hence, Digambara model of Universe is compatible with fundamental mainstream Mathematical axioms.
Digambara model of Universe predicts universe has no beginning and that reincarnation is true which violates Aristotle axioms but are affirmed by mainstream Mathematical axioms. Digambara model of Universe also predicts human mind is potentially infinitely more powerful than Turing machine which violates Aristotle axioms but is affirmed by mainstream Mathematical axioms. Digambara model of Universe also predicts universe is completely comprehensible i.e., there are no “unknown unknowns” which violates Aristotle axioms but is affirmed by mainstream Mathematical axioms. Digambara model of Universe also predicts substance dualism is true i.e., mind can survive without brain which violates Aristotle axioms but is affirmed by mainstream Mathematical axioms.
Mainstream Science’s model of Universe predicts there is beginning of the Universe which violates mainstream Mathematical axioms but is compatible with Aristotle axioms. Mainstream Science’s model of Universe also predicts human mind cannot be more powerful than Turning machine which violates mainstream Mathematical axioms but is compatible with Aristotle axioms. Mainstream Science’s model of Universe also predicts universe is not completely comprehensible which violates mainstream Mathematical axioms but is compatible with Aristotle axioms. Mainstream Science’s model of Universe also predicts substance dualism is false i.e., mind is machine which violates mainstream Mathematical axioms but is compatible with Aristotle axioms.
Digambara axioms are not compatible with Aristotle’s axioms but are compatible with mainstream Mathematical axioms. Original Mathematics was also based on Aristotle’s axioms. However, George Cantor, a German mathematician, improved upon axioms of mathematics by properly modelling “actual infinities”. Cantor, being a devout Christian, as well as his contemporaries, were startled by Cantor’s results and were well aware of profound philosophical implications of his work (that human beings can know completed infinity).
Christianity is largely compatible with Aristotle’s axioms, but not with mainstream Mathematical axioms. Individualism part of Christianity is compatible with both Aristotle’s axioms and Digambara/Mathematical axioms.
Aristotle/Christianity: Everything is finite except God. Individual exists. Current consensus: Everything is finite except for Space and Time. God doesn’t exist. Individual exists. Person and Property. John Locke. Karl Popper. Atheism/Buddhism: Everything is finite except for Space and Time. God doesn’t exist. Individual doesn’t exist.
Digambara: Many more things are infinite apart from space and time. knowledge/intelligence come in two flavors: potentially infinite and actual absolute infinite. Hence, no requirement of existence of separate absolute indirect creator aka God. Individual exists without requirement of existence of Creator (Independent Origination with Permanence).
Any Physicist/Mathematician who argues along this line is automatically branded as a Platonist. This implicitly implies that mainstream physicists are Aristotelian.
Mainstream viewpoint based on axioms of Aristotle is not consistent with experiments.
CIA has done research in extra sensory perception. Here is their conclusion:
A large body of reliable-experimental evidence points to the inescapable-conclusion that extrasensory perception does exist as a real phenomenon, albeit characterized by rarity and lack of reliability. It appears as a low-capacity, high-noise information channel exhibiting data rates orders of magnitude less than normal perceptive processes. Almost by definition extra-sensory perception must involve in an essential way the operation of the human mind. There exists no satisfactory theoretical understanding of these phenomena. - CIA
Wikipedia says all mathematicians are epistemologically Platonists without knowing it. I would restate that statement, based on above, as: All mathematicians are epistemologically Digambaras without knowing it.
All scientists are epistemologically empiricist. All mathematicians are epistemologically Digambaras.
“Epistemological status of mainstream mathematics is Digambaraism and scope of mainstream mathematics is observable universe as well as non-observable universe in all of its generalities and specialties”
“Epistemological status of mainstream science is empiricism and scope of mainstream science is observable universe”
Laws are eternal but Universe has beginning. So, laws are discovered whereas everything else is man-made. Works of mathematicians, podcasters, theoretical physicists, and computer programmers is eternal/discovered and hence is not patentable, but the work of pharmacists-physician-GMO is created/invented and hence patentable. This results in degradation of works of mathematicians, podcasters, theoretical physicists, computer programmers and technologists (discoverers and hence non-patentable) for the benefit of pharmaceutical companies, physicians and GMO companies (so called inventors and hence patentable). However, according to Digambara universe, everything is discovered. All knowledge already exists.
Sharp distinction between invention and discovery has also been refuted by Church-Turing thesis half a century ago. This implicitly favors Digambara universe and refutes Aristotelian universe.
However, our laws still strongly practice unprincipled distinction between invention and discovery in conformance with Aristotelian universe.
Aristotelian model implies that “extreme ascetism” is not the source of real happiness. Aristotelians believe “golden mean” of consumption and austerity is the source of real liberty and real happiness. In fact, extreme ascetism is considered a social ill in modern Aristotelian society and is banned. Digambara model, on the other hand, implies that “physical and mental restraint” is a virtue and the source of real liberty and real happiness.
Aristotelian Framework says universe should be exploited by human beings so long as it is done on a sustainable basis. Digambara Framework says each “knowledge field” in the universe is separate and independent. Each one should not be disturbed as far as possible.
Aristotelian Framework says extrovertism is virtue while Digambara Framework says introvertism is virtue.
Above are three complete reversals observed from just a small change in Framework.
Continuum Hypothesis Continuum Hypothesis in mathematics states that there are no sets which are larger than “countably infinite” sets, but smaller than “uncountably infinite” sets. There is no formal proof of it but is widely held to be true. Digambaraism also affirms Continuum Hypothesis and calls these two types of sets as “noncountable sets” and “endless sets” respectively.
Appendix:
Mathematics says infinite knowledge can be realized. Science says infinite knowledge cannot be realized.
Potentially infinite knowledge grasps information serially producing vibrations in the process. Realized infinite knowledge grasps all the information in the universe with all its generalities and specialties simultaneously in a single instance of time.
Aristotle/ Humanism / Abrahamism / Buddhism / Science says Humans cannot realize infinite knowledge, either only God can or no one can.
Gödel / Digambaraism / Mathematics says Humans can realize infinite knowledge and can grasp all the information in the universe with all its generalities and specialties simultaneously in a single instance of time.
10a. Two games in Town:
Big Bang/String Theory (mainstream scientists) • Forced to fit in arbitrary Aristotelian Axioms (this statement actually copied from a comment of the most popular science blog) • Property Dualism: All lives including humans have beginning at birth and end at death. Continued exploitation and enslavement of non-human lives. • Mind and brain are identical. • Not compatible with individualism and interactionism in the absence of God.
Digambaraism (supported (partially) by rebel physicists) • Compatible with global mathematical Axioms. • Universe has no beginning no end (existential proofs are mainstream in mathematics). • Substance Dualism: All lives including humans have no beginning and no end and they are transformable from one type to another. • Mind is (potentially) infinitely more knowledgeable than finite state machine. Mind has ability to know entire universe in one instance of time with all its generalities and specialties. While this sounds startling, it is in line with fundamental mathematical axiom of excluded middle (that it is self‐evident or knowable a priori, or a presupposition of all knowledge, or that it cannot be denied without self‐contradiction), also aptly known as “principle of omniscience”. This is also in agreement with first conjecture in Gödel’s Disjunction, which Gödel believed to be true. • Compatible with individualism and interactionism without any additional non-observable dimension/god/God. • Has discrete spacetime which is compatible with both causal set theory – a suggested replacement of general relativity and quantum mechanics. • Fixed background as speculated by exiled theoretical physicist Lee Smolin (Lorentzian Ether Theory, preferred version of motion and rest). Also considered unsettled by Popper. • Compatible with free will theorem of quantum mechanics.
If there is conflict of opinion about potentiality of mind between science and mathematics, which side should you choose? If you choose mathematics, then Digambaraism, substance dualism, individualism and interactionism are true. If you choose science, then materialism is true.
10b. Three problems, one logically consistent solution:
There are three outstanding problems 1. Relation between math and science and unreasonable effectiveness of math in explaining universe 2. Relation between general relativity and quantum mechanics 3. What happens before life and after death
Only one solution that matches with empirical experience, mental experience, and reasoning without resorting to supernatural cause: Digambara Ontology, Epistemology and Soteriology.
Epistemological axioms, Ontological axioms and Soteriological axioms of a candidate model of universe have to be consistent with each other and can be derived from each other using logic, direct observations, direct experiences etc.
Digambaraism is epistemologically, soteriologically, and ontologically consistent.
Constitution of universe should not have contradictions. Otherwise, you can reach to different results depending on the starting point, which is not possible.
10c. Internet Article: Why Haven’t you Heard of the Blockworld Before?
Good question! The basic answer is that you haven’t been reading books and papers on modern physics or philosophical papers or books dealing with time. Oh, and, even within physics it is kind of an obscure subject and there are six basic reasons for that.
Reason number 1 is that it sounds crazy. Almost everyone, including most physicists who study modern physics are locked into a view of the world that came from the 19th Century, before Einstein’s special relativity appeared in 1905. Philosophers call it presentism. In presentism, it looks like we have all these particles here and they were formed at the Big Bang and all the particles are moving forward in time, the past is gone and the future isn’t out there yet.
The blockworld view says something else altogether. It says the past, present and future are all equally real and all of it is frozen in place like a sculpture carved in stone, then it is our consciousness that is moving through the blockworld. This is very hard to believe even though it is obviously true. To quote Einstein:
For we convinced physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion however persistent.
Reason number 2 is that the blockworld seems to imply that there is no such thing as free will and physicists generally want to believe in free will. It looks like whatever happens in the blockworld, including whatever it is we decide was fixed in advance. Physicists would be right that we have no free will if all people consisted of is matter since it is the matter that is frozen in place. But if there is a spiritual part to a human being, a human soul, that is moving through the blockworld the human soul could be free to make decisions.
Reason number 3 is that the blockworld concept that comes from relativity and it has been widely believed for a long time that relativity and quantum mechanics (the other part of modern physics) don’t fit together very well. To physicists, this makes it look like something important is missing and so they’ve spent an awful long time trying to make relativity and quantum mechanics fit together. But times are changing a bit. One researcher involved in the study is physicist Antoine Suarez and here is a quote from him:
… the ongoing work on nonlocality is helping us to better understand the relationship between quantum theory and relativity. Initial mis-understandings and controversies hid a deep unity which is now appearing. Relativity and quantum theory share the very same experimental basis, and derive from the same principles. They are two inseparable aspects of one and the same description of the physical reality.
In addition to Suarez there are also a small number of physicists who are proposing the relational blockworld interpretation of quantum mechanics where they argue that relativity and quantum mechanics fit together very nicely.
Reason number 4 is big. Physicists who’ve been studying the matter all realize that the blockworld implies that there is an omniscient person who knows the future.
One also knows that the experiments violating the Bell inequalities are compatible with the orthodox relativity if one is prepared to embrace “pre-determinism” … .
However, this view’s demanding philosophical underpinnings, such as its denial of (libertarian) free will and evident need for an all-knowing agent might limit its appeal …
Fifth reason is that the subject is basically very theoretical and at this time it does not appear that study of this subject will produce anything practical like bigger bombs or faster computers. So there is no reason for anyone to invest in it.
Sixth reason is that it implies that big bang theory is false.
Those are the reasons you haven’t heard about the blockworld before. The important bottom line from all this is that the blockworld proves there is a spiritual part to human beings, a soul that is moving through the blockworld. It is all pretty hard for scientists to embrace, so they haven’t, at least not so far.
10d. Dean Buonomano, a professor at UCLA and author of “Your Brain Is a Time Machine: The Neuroscience and Physics of Time”, gives a simple explanation of the theory of eternalism:
In the context of physics, there’s two general views of the nature of time. One we can think of is “presentism,” which only the present is real. And the second, we can think of as “eternalism” in which the past, present, future are equally real. And under this view, now is to time as here is to space.
It’s called the “block universe” view in physics — in which everything has, in a sense, a manner of speaking, already happened.
10e. It would be difficult to conceive of a system of thought and practice more radically at odds with the dominant materialistic paradigm of Western modernity than Digambaraism. I find that when I teach my course on the “Religions of South Asia” at Elizabethtown College, the tradition that my students consistently find to be most “other” to their values and way of life is not Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, or Islam, but Digambaraism. Why is this so? Whereas most of my students tend to assume that the material world exists for human consumption, for the gratification of human physical needs and desires, Digambaraism teaches that, for human beings, the material world is primarily that which is to be renounced. Whereas most of my students celebrate their physical existence as something to be enjoyed, the religious among them regarding life as “sacred,” Digambaraism teaches that the most course in the life is one of “mental and physical restraint” pursued in the name of liberation from physical existence. Whereas most inhabitants of the region in which Elizabethtown College is located are voracious meateaters, Digambaraism teaches not only vegetarianism, but even the avoidance of injury, as much as possible, to insects and micro-organisms. - Jeffery D Long
10f. Among the numerous intellectual traditions indigenous to South Asia, the Digambara tradition is distinctive in a number of important ways. Not least among these is its view of consciousness as inherent to all living beings. According to Digambara tradition, not only are all living beings possessed of consciousness, but this consciousness is also, in each being, potentially infinite in extent. Indeed, the ultimate soteriological goal of the Digambara path, as a spiritual practice, entails the attainment of a unique, absolute awareness (kevala jñāna) in which the practitioner realizes a state of literal omniscience. The attainment of this state is taken, in the Digambara tradition, to be an extremely difficult achievement that requires many lifetimes of rigorous ascetic practice. For beings who have not attained this state – the vast majority of beings in the cosmos – consciousness is realized only in a relative way that is dependent upon the amount and type of karma to which a given being is bound. Karma is seen in the Digambara tradition as a type of matter that adheres to a living being, or jīva, and obscures the infinite potential inherent in that being, thus giving rise to the great variety of organisms that exist in the world. This Digambara understanding of consciousness gives rise to a set of doctrines – the Digambara doctrines of relativity – that are among the most important contributions of the Digambara tradition to world philosophy. This is an approach which affirms the relativity of perspectives but avoids a skeptical relativism that would deny the possibility of ever grasping the truth at all. - Jeffery D Long
10g. In taking the implications of his research seriously, Tucker has raised the question, “What scientific model of reality might explain phenomena of this kind better than materialism is able to do?”
In Tucker’s work, importantly, he does not display an extensive or in-depth knowledge of Indian philosophical traditions such as Vedanta, Digambaraism, or Buddhism. This is important because he cannot be accused of having a communal axe to grind in advancing his theory, one implication of which is that these traditions have been right about many things in the basic account of reality that they give. Tucker’s theory puts forth the idea that consciousness is fundamental to the nature of being. Certain aspects of quantum theory also fit well with Digambara philosophy. The fact that the same entity can be validly described as both a wave and a particle, for example, is consistent with the Digambara teaching of anekantavada, the multi-faceted nature of reality, nayavada, the teaching that reality can be viewed from many perspectives, and syadvada, the teaching that truth can be expressed in a variety of seemingly contradictory ways. And like Digambaraism, of course, it affirms the phenomenon of rebirth itself–including rebirth across species. Interestingly, Tucker’s cases even include one in which a child seems to remember a past life as a snake. This affirms not only the view of consciousness as distinct from the physical body, but also their view that consciousness is not limited to human beings. - Jeffery D Long
10h. Why are living things alive? As a theoretical biologist, Robert Rosen saw this as the most fundamental of all questions-and yet it had never been answered satisfactorily by science. The answers to this question would allow humanity to make an enormous leap forward in our understanding of the principles at work in our world.
For centuries, it was believed that the only scientific approach to the question “What is life?” must proceed from the Cartesian metaphor (organism as machine). Classical approaches in science, which also borrow heavily from Newtonian mechanics, are based on a process called “reductionism.” The thinking was that we can better learn about an intricate, complicated system (like an organism) if we take it apart, study the components, and then reconstruct the system-thereby gaining an understanding of the whole.
However, Rosen argues that reductionism does not work in biology and ignores the complexity of organisms. Life Itself, a landmark work, represents the scientific and intellectual journey that led Rosen to question reductionism and develop new scientific approaches to understanding the nature of life. Ultimately, Rosen proposes an answer to the original question about the causal basis of life in organisms. He asserts that renouncing the mechanistic and reductionistic paradigm does not mean abandoning science. Instead, Rosen offers an alternate paradigm for science that takes into account the relational impacts of organization in natural systems and is based on organized matter rather than on particulate matter alone.
Rosen said that organization must be independent from the material particles which seemingly constitute a living system. As he put it:
“The human body completely changes the matter it is made of roughly every 8 weeks, through metabolism, replication, and repair. Yet, you’re still you –with all your memories, your personality… If science insists on chasing particles, they will follow them right through an organism and miss the organism entirely.”
Central to Rosen’s work is the idea of a “complex system,” defined as any system that cannot be fully understood by reducing it to its parts. In this sense, complexity refers to the causal impact of organization on the system as a whole. Since both the atom and the organism can be seen to fit that description, Rosen asserts that complex organization is a general feature not just of the biosphere on Earth-but of the universe itself.
Links:
https://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/religion/buddhism-and-eastern-religions/pravacana-sara-kunda-kunda-acarya-together-commentary-tattva-dipika-amtacandra-suri Digambara Bible, Cambridge University Press
Experimental confirmation: Reincarnation research at University of Virginia: https://med.virginia.edu/perceptual-studies/
Experimental confirmation: CIA’s Extra Sensory Perception research: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00787r000200190002-0
https://plus.maths.org/content/index.php/does-infinity-exist
https://plus.maths.org/content/index.php/do-infinities-exist-nature-0
https://towardsdatascience.com/when-science-and-philosophy-meet-randomness-determinism-and-chaos-abdb825c3114
Created on October 31, 2022 at 04:51:13. See the history of this page for a list of all contributions to it.