At some point I'm going to do the
final edits on my book on the question of what one might call 'is-ness' - a series
of chapters that attempt to tackle mathematical and philosophical questions
related to the question of why there is something rather than nothing. In the
meantime, I'll try to summarise the kernel of the book's content in a short
blog post. Here goes:
To attempt a philosophical stab at
the big question of existence, I get about as far as I think I can get - which
is roughly this. Something underpins reality - by that I mean there is a grand
explanation for why existence 'is' - a reason that something exists instead of
nothing. From what we've covered in previous blog posts, it's evident to me
that physical reality isn't it. This leaves, I think, only two plausible
contenders: God or mathematics.
Unlike our interpretations of God
and mathematics, physics just doesn't seem to amount to a complexity powerful
enough to contain an ultimate explanation. When we think of complexity, we
think of a lower level complexity and an upper level complexity. The lowest
level complexity would be something containing just a single bit of
information. But once we start to think of an upper level complexity, we find
that there really is no limit to how complex complexity can get. To me, such a
realisation necessitates either one of the following:
A} Mathematics is the reason that
existence 'is'.
B} God is the reason that existence
'is'.
Which is most likely to be true - A,
B or neither? If it's neither A nor B then we are going to have to think up an
alternative - and the trouble is, I don't think we humans have one, or are capable
of arriving at one. It seems like it has to be God or mathematics, or possibly
a concession that the mind goes blank, but where's the fun in that? So, on the
question of whether it's God or mathematics, let's explore further.
Some statements can follow from
other statements. If a minute is longer than a second, and an hour is longer
than a minute, it naturally follows that an hour is longer than a second. Some
statements are verified by having evidence to corroborate them. A 2017
Ferrari's 0-60mph time is shorter than a 2017 Nissan Micra's 0-60mph time, and
it would be easy to corroborate this in a race.
The classic problem with
general statements about ultimate existence is that neither of those qualities
apply - that is, there are no further statements that can support them, and
there is no evidence to corroborate them.
If there's no evidence for a
statement, and that statement also follows on inferentially from any other
statements, we run up against the Münchhausen trilemma - which says that we
have only three options when providing proof:
1) The circular argument in which
theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)
2) The regressive argument in which
each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving unending proof
after proof)
3) The axiomatic argument, which
rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)
The circular argument says that X therefore
Y, and Y therefore X. For example, if the Bible is the word of God it will say
it is the word of God; the Bible says it's the word of God, therefore it is the
word of God. If the conclusion is also one of the premises, the argument is a
logical fallacy.
The regressive argument is where we
have a statement P that we try to explain by P1, which needs explaining by P2,
and so forth - carrying on into an infinite regress of Ps. For example, God (P)
is the cause of the universe. What then caused God (P1)? What then caused the
cause of God (P2)?, and so forth.
The axiomatic argument is an
argument that is self-evidently true without recourse to further proof. For example, a
whole orange is greater than a segment of that orange. There is no logically valid
argument that says a part of something is greater than the whole of that thing.
I've thought a lot about why God or
mathematics are our best two ultimate explanations for reality, and therefore
our two best efforts at conceiving that which is behind the existence of
nature. With God or mathematics I think we give ourselves the best chance of
reaching a final theory that may avoid circularity; a final theory that may
halt the regression; and a final theory that requires the least amount of difficulty
in providing justification.
To see why, consider our studies of
biology; we can break down biology into eukaryotes, and eukaryotes into introns
and exons, and further into encoding, and further into the physics of atoms and
electrons, and further all the way down to mathematics. Breaking down different
elements into isotypes is not the same thing, though, as breaking down numbers
into different constituents of numbers, because with the latter we never depart
from mathematics. To ask what is more primary than chemistry or biology is
easy; to ask what is more primary than mathematics is probably to be guilty of
asking something insurmountably difficult.
However, mathematics doesn't help us
defeat the tripartite problem found in the trilemma. Regressively mathematics seems to be
a self-containing system; and axiomatically it provides a bedrock on which
numbers are found. It also has a degree of circularity in that at a human level
of perception it is bound up in human minds interpreting our own interpretation
of reality. But it doesn't seem to me to satisfy the answer to the primary question
of 'is-ness' quite as well as God does, and I think there is a subtle reason
why, which I'm now going to explain.
Rather than having to choose between
God and mathematics, it makes better sense to me to postulate God and
mathematics together, with God being primary and mathematics being a property
of that primacy cause. It seems to me impossible to even conceive of the mind
of God without mathematics, because mathematics is a primary property of
thinking.
This is because sentience involves
the concept of quantification - there is nothing thought can do without the
involvement of numbers. Numbers to thinking are rather like the property of
wetness is to water. By the same logic, it seems to me we can't have
mathematics without an up and running sentience to think it.
Consequently, out of the two I can
make more of a case for God being the primary cause and mathematics being a
necessary part of God's mind than I can mathematics being the primary cause
with no sentience behind it. To postulate God as the ultimate cause is not to
deny that mathematics is more primary than nature - for mathematics may well be
instantiated in the mind of God. As I said, it may not even make sense to talk
of God's mind or consciousness without imputing some kind of mathematical
framework inhered in those Divine thoughts (if God is triune in nature, as
Christianity tells us, then numbers are implicit in God's tri-aspectual
personality) .
If the Divine mind is
the ‘is-ness’ that contains the primary Truth (capital T) that governs
existence, then His is the reality from which there is no sense of beyondness. If
God is the creator and the Aseity we are looking for to close down the
explanatory protocols, then it would stand to reason that it is His mind that
has an ontology whose non-existence would be an impossibility, and therefore
the reason there is something rather than nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment