Introduction
Over the course of the next few posts, my blog will be covering a range issues, including, but not limited to:
- the advantages associated with using the PSR as a theoretical foundation for idealism,
- the question of what precisely it means to say that “Matter is the visibility for Mind,” (and the implications associated with this view)
- the exact nature of “Pure Mind,” within the context of this system (beyond merely its definition as a function of the negation of subjective self-objectification)
- the question of what precisely it means to say that “Mind is reality experienced in (unindividuated) Time alone,”
In this post, I will still be covering topic 2.
Explanation
I want to expand on the last post, by explaining the scientific utility of Idealism. I intend to do this specifically by explaining the intersection between Idealism and the strong anthropic principle.
Over the course of this post, I will be invoking the biggest problems with the prevailing metaphysical paradigm of modern science–materialism. My intention it to expose the contradictions in modern science, in an attempt to create a better science which puts consciousness as the forefront of the metaphysical and physical scene. Ultimately, I argue that we need to reconceptualize of how we currently think about the evolution of the cosmos, life and consciousness.
the Bridge Between Science and Idealism
Before I get to the subtleties of my position, I want to first establish a connection between the position of Idealism and modern scientific consensus.
All Matter is reducible to Quantum probabilistic fields (i.e., information). Therefore, all Matter is reducible to the Mental processing of information.
This really speaks for itself.
The overarching scientific consensus is that all matter is ultimately reducible to information. The only difference between myself and the scientists who posit this theory of the Universe is that I have taken the additional (and logical) next step in concluding that all Matter is nothing more than a process of Mind, (i.e., all Matter is but the visible incarnation of the Mental processing of information). In other words, the overarching scientific consensus necessarily leads us to the conclusion of Idealism.
In truth, I don’t have the sufficient expertise to fully communicate the subtleties of the current scientific position on this issue. I know enough to know its implications as it pertains to the philosophy of metaphysics (because that is my area of expertise), but not enough to explain precisely how science reached this conclusion. I have a general idea, of course, but not enough to fill provide a comprehensive or substantive discussion.
For this reason, in order to avoid a superficial analysis of the science, I’ll content myself to simply dropping a link to an article which will, hopefully, do a much better job of explaining this issue than I could:
Let me be clear: I’m not saying “information” is a “new form of matter,” I’m saying information = matter, and matter = information. In turn, information is self-evidently a mode of perception/cognition. Therefore, matter = mental perception.
The bridge Between Science and Idealism Continued
Intro
In the section above, in the link I posted of the article from Big Think, there is a brief section which foreshadowed the “meta-scientific meaning,” I will be explaining in this section.
The brief section of the article in question stated the following:
“If the nature of reality is in fact reducible to information itself, that implies a conscious mind on the receiving end, to interpret and comprehend it. Wheeler himself believed in a participatory universe, where consciousness holds a central role. Some scientists argue that the cosmos seems to have specific properties which allow it to create and sustain life. Perhaps what it desires most is an audience captivated in awe as it whirls in prodigious splendor.”
Phillip Perry
This little paragraph gets so much right and so much wrong at the same time; that is to say, it gets so close to the metaphysical truth underlying Idealism, and yet is inescapably bound to the erroneous materialistic presuppositions of modern science.
The paragraph is correct to point out that “information,” presupposes a conscious mind for which the “information,” exists as such (i.e., there is no information unless it is information for someone). The paragraph is basically correct in stating that Universe is “participatory,” at least insofar as the “participation,” in question entails a collaboration between the Objective Material world and the Subjective Mental world which perceives it. In other words, this is just a recapitulation of the object-subject duality (no object [Matter] exists without subject [Mind]).
Then the paragraph nosedives into error by assuming that the Universe, in its hospitability to the evolution of consciousness, desires an audience.
I’m not taking issue with the obviously metaphorical use of the word “desires.”
Rather, I take issue with the implication that Matter, the objective universe, the thing which is perceived, is ontologically prior to Mind, the subjective universe, the thing which does the perceiving. That is to say, the paragraph seems to cling to the notion that it was Matter which produced consciousness, rather than consciousness which produced Matter.
Another way to phrase my problem with this paragraph is as such: most of the modern scientific community clings to a weak version of the anthropic principle instead of embracing the strong version of the anthropic principle.
The Weak and Strong Versions of the Anthropic Principle
In order to help you understand the difference between the two I suggest you watch this quick video:
In short, the distinction between the strong and weak versions of the anthropic principle is based on the direction of the causal relationship between observer and observed. Whereas the strong version of the anthropic principle assumes that the observer (Mind) is causally prior (or at the very minimum ontologically prior) to the observed (Matter), the weak version assumes that the observed (Matter) is causally prior (or at the very minimum ontologically prior) to the observer (Mind).
Another implication of this distinction is the following: whereas in the strong version of the anthropic principle, consciousness is an unavoidable and necessary condition of reality, in the weak version of the anthropic principle, consciousness is just a coincidental by-product of reality (it could or could not have been), and that fact that it exists in this universe is explainable in terms of the fact that “if it didn’t exist, we wouldn’t be here discussing its nonexistence.” In other words, in the weak version of the anthropic principle, the fact that we observe consciousness is but a tautology: if consciousness didn’t exist, there would be no conscious entity to remark upon its absence. Therefore, the world we live in exists in such a way as to lead to consciousness, because if it didn’t exist in such a way, we wouldn’t be here to remark upon the world not being that way.
As you can probably tell from the tone of the video the weak version of the anthropic principle is more popular than the strong version of the anthropic principle.
In the video, Dr.Hossenfelder gives a reason for the bias against the strong version of the anthropic principle. She specifically casts doubt on the scientific utility of the strong version of the anthropic principle, on the basis of her doubt that it could ever serve as a “better explanation for our observations (about reality).” She goes on to say:
I find it hard to see how a theory that starts from something as complicated as the human being could possibly ever be more explanatory than the simple reductionistic theories we currently use in foundations of physics.
Sabine Hossenfelder
Put simply, many people in the scientific community are not willing to embrace the strong version of the anthropic principle because they don’t see how it could be explanatorily better than the weak version of the anthropic principle. The weak version of the anthropic principle explains away consciousness without making it seem remarkable, while the strong version of the anthropic principle seems to put consciousness at the center-stage of reality (which is very counterintuitive because consciousness is such a mysterious phenomenon).
Why The Strong Version of The Anthropic Principle is True
I want to dispel the myth that the weak version is better than the strong version: I want to demonstrate precisely how the strong version of the anthropic principle serves as a better explanation (for our observations of reality) than the weak version of the anthropic principle.
The most immediate way to prove my point is by invoking what philosopher David Chalmers calls: “The Hard Problem of Consciousness.”
I discussed this problem already in a previous post of mine, so I won’t embellish the problem too much here. If you want to check out that post, see the link posted here.
The Hard Problem of Consciousness can be described as the problem of explaining why any physical state is conscious rather than nonconscious. In other words, “how does Matter make the leap from nonconsciousness to consciousness?” Why should matter give way to consciousness? How does the brain, which in itself is made up of non-conscious constituent matter, create the phenomenon of consciousness?
Many people are inclined to try to explain away consciousness in terms of neurological complexities. Many people think that a brain arranged in a certain way, activated in a certain manner, leads to consciousness. But this doesn’t solve the problem at all. Why, after all, should a certain arrangement and/or configuration of brain matter lead to consciousness? If you think you can explain consciousness in terms of material complexity all you are really doing is engaging in magical thinking, and hand-waving away the real issue: what in matter contains the capacity to create and/or cause that which is fundamentally immaterial, phenomenological, and qualitative?
How is my experience of the color red, caused by matter? Does matter contain redness? The electromagnetic spectrum may contain information that corresponds to the experience of the color red, but correspondence is not the actual experience itself.
Put simply, the Hard Problem of Consciousness basically exposes materialism as a philosophically/scientifically defunct explanation of the world. Matter does not cause Mind.
So what implications does this have on the anthropic principle?
Well, for one, it demonstrates that the weak version of the anthropic principle, which states that the Universe is what caused consciousness to come to existence, is untenable. In other words, the weak version of the anthropic principle, is not a good explanation of reality as we observe it, because it is predicated on a materialistic assumption that Matter causes Mind, but the Hard Problem of Consciousness unequivocally refutes the tenability of this proposition.
So if Matter does not cause Mind, what exactly is the relationship between Matter and Mind? Well, the materialist could theoretically resort to the position that, although Matter does not cause Mind, Matter is nevertheless, in some sense, ontologically prior to Mind.
My objection to this theoretical move is as follows: on what epistemological basis could you assert that Matter is ontologically prior to Mind? Is not Mind what is immediately self-given to every single one of us via internal perception, while Matter is only secondarily given to us via external perception? Wouldn’t we have indefinitely more epistemological reason to assume that Mind is ontologically prior to Matter? The only thing anyone ever knows is the fact that Mind (specifically their mind) exists–everything else is theory. So would not the most ontologically prior thing be the thing which is experienced as real before anything else?
This is exactly my rationale for endorsing the strong version of the anthropic principle: Mind alone is concrete, unquestionable reality, Matter is but a perception made possible via consciousness, via Mind. Matter cannot exist without a Mind to perceive it; Matter presupposes Mind. Therefore, though we can’t necessarily state that Mind causes Mind (insofar as Causality is a concept entirely internal to the concept of Matter), Matter can nevertheless be stated to be a projection of Mind, and ontologically posterior to Mind.
All of this leads us to one “radical” conclusion…
Matter is the Story of Mind
Matter is but the story that “Mind” creates in order to situate itself in reality.
Consciousness doesn’t exist because the Universe exhibits properties which are compatible with the evolution of consciousness; rather, the Universe exhibits properties which are compatible with the evolution of consciousness because Consciousness exists.
Consciousness, by which I specifically mean “Pure Mind,” (i.e., consciousness-in-itself) is fundamental and thus ontologically prior to anything else. The Universe does not cause or create consciousness; no, the Universe (Matter) is but a reflection, an incarnation, a visualization, of consciousness.
Put simply, consciousness-in-itself (“Pure Mind,”) is the firmament of all, the infolding of which is identical to consciousness-of-itself (“Mind,”) which itself attains the capacity for perception of the objective world (Matter), in which the firmament of all attains self-reflection. Pure Mind is the reflected, Mind is the means for reflection, Matter is the reflection.
Therefore, when I say “Matter is the story that Mind creates for itself in order to situate itself in Reality,” what I mean to say is this: Pure Mind knows itself via observing its own reflection in Matter, through the means of Mind. Pure Mind learns about itself in the process, while Mind, itself a means of the process, learns about its source through the reflection and through the process of doing the reflection (i.e., engaging in self-awareness of its role as a means for reflection [what I am doing right now]).
Fine-Tuning of the Universe, the Omniverse, The POP, and the Weak Antrhopic Principle
The strong version of the anthropic principle encompasses the weak version of the anthropic principle, and no where is this clearer than in the concepts of the fine-tuning of the Universe, the Omni-verse, and the POP.
According to the POP, all possible worlds exist in actuality. The POP, therefore, serves as the philosophical groundwork for the idea of the Multiverse and/or the Omni-verse. The idea of the Omni-verse, in turn, is very frequently used in conjunction with the weak version of the anthropic principle in order to account for the “fine-tuning,” of the Universe.
When, for instance, religious people bring up the fact that the Universe seems oddly “fined-tuned” for the creation of life, many atheists are prone to deflate the specialness of this fact by invoking the weak anthropic principle: “if the universe wasn’t ‘fined-tuned’ for the creation of life/sentience, we wouldn’t be here to observe that it wasn’t.”
Now, if the theist retorts: “but isn’t it remarkable that the one Universe which exists was configured in such a way to lead to life?! The fact that the fabric of existence so happened to stumble into the the right ‘fine-tuning,’ seems too coincidental, doesn’t it?”
A smart atheist will concede this fact: it would be very remarkable of a coincidence if the only Universe in existence was structured in such a way so as to be “fine-tuned” for the creation of life. Yet, the atheist doesn’t have to postulate that this is the only Universe in existence. A smart atheist may posit the existence of the all possible universes, along the lines of the POP, so as to disarm the specialness of this “fine-tuned,” Universe. The atheist, therefore, can respond: “the omni-verse is filled with every possible outcome, so the fact that we exist in a universe that just so happens to be conducive to life is not remarkable–this universe, and it’s ‘fine-tuning’ is but infinitesimal slice of the infinity of all possible realities. For every ‘fine-tuned,’ Universe there are infinite many others which are not.”
So far, I generally agree with the atheist, but I find myself needing to add one crucial addition: even this explanation of the Omni-verse, which is based on the POP, and is an attempt at salvaging the weak anthropic principle from the extraordinary implication that the only Universe in existence seems almost intentionally “fine-tuned” for the creation of life (something the atheist wants to avoid because of its likeness to theism), is ultimately nothing more than a mental projection. In other words, utilizing the POP to salvage the weak anthropic principle from its theistic implications, ultimately still leads us to the strong version of the anthropic principle (idealism).
Saying that reality is populated by every possible universe, is based on the POP, which in turn can only truly be grounded on the PSR–and by now, we should all know what the PSR leads us to: idealism.
“Mind” observes itself as part of an Omni-verse, but this is but a theoretical narrative by which “Mind,” can situate itself within the overarching context which is the endemic process of “Pure Mind.”
the Implications
The Universe exhibits the properties that make it sustainable for the evolution of life and consciousness, precisely because the Universe is nothing more than the story the Mind tells itself in order to situate itself in existence.
The most radical implication of this is that evolution is not what leads to consciousness, rather consciousness is what lead to evolution. Evolution is a real process that is fundamentally, retroactively constructed by the conscious Mind; it is a retroactive rationalization for the emergence of Consciousness offered up by Consciousness itself.
The following two videos summarize the implications of everything I have been saying over the course of the last two posts. Donald Hoffman recapitulates my message about the observable world (Matter) being nothing more than a representational appearance (“desktop interface,’ is the analogy he uses) for Mind, while reality in-itself (Pure Mind) exists beyond this representation. Moreover, Hoffman further connects consciousness to the process of evolution, such that consciousness serves as the ground of evolution rather than the other way around.
What Donald Hoffman says in this video is basically Schopenhauer’s metaphysical philosophy. The world we observe everyday is nothing more than a representation, a phenomena. However, a representation presupposes a represented–a representation requires a substratum of which it is a representation. This substratum is the thing-in-itself, the Noumenon.
The Noumenon is unknowable except for the fact that we, humans, are a part of reality, therefore must partake in the nature of reality as it exists in-itself, independent of representation. We are conscious beings, and therefore have an inner, qualitative life from which we have a what-it-is-likeness to be real-in-ourselves, independent of representation. The Noumenon may be “unknowable,” except for the fact that we are the Noumenon.
What precisely, then is this Noumenon, other than that very what-it-is-likeness? Noumenon is awareness/consciousness itself. Let me clarify before confusion arises: there is no particular flavour or taste to this what-it-is-likeness; there is no particular experience which is associated with the feeling of being Noumenon. Rather, Noumenon is the precondition for all possible experience. We all intuitively are that thing which Noumenon is, but we cannot become self-aware of it lest it become distorted by our filters of representation. The moment we fix our mental gaze into the feeling of what-it-is-like to be ourselves, we immediately lose sight of it. Only a calm, empty mind (often achieved in meditation and in deep sleep) is one with this Noumenon.
In the following video, Donald Hoffman defends his position a bit more, this time further reinforcing the radical implication that the content of the material world is nothing more than a mere representation for some given mind (a recapitulation of my ontological system):
The following is an additional video that further articulates the rationale for idealism.
Conclusion
With the conclusion of this post, we are one final step closer to the completion of this series.
In this post we expanded on the implications of Idealism, and its intersection with science. We argued that the material world is nothing more than an appearance for the mind and/or a representational filter of perception. We followed the implications of this viewpoint, to the point of arguing in favour of a counterintuitive position: consciousness grounds the entire cosmological process of the Universe, and therefore the entire process of cosmological evolution ranging from the Big Bang, to the formation of the solar system, to the evolution of life on Earth is all grounded by consciousness rather than the other way around.
In the next post, I will be exploring topic 3.
Leave a Reply