The Physics of Sachchidananda (Items of potential interest)

[Guest guest]

List Moderators's Note: Welcome to the list dear Ulrich and we look

forward to your active participation. You are encouraged to post your

mentioned papers in the list and they will be beneficial to members

interested in those topics.

 

Although the following article was not on that list, it may serve best

as an introduction to my work. (I recommend reading this message not as

an email by via the web interface.) — UM

The Physics of Sachchidananda

by Ulrich Mohrhoff

Published in philoso.philica.com <http://philoso.philica.com/>

Abstract: Atwenty-five centuries old paradigm has passed its expiry

date. It is nolonger appropriate to ask: what are the ultimate building

blocks andhow do they interact and combine? The right questions proceed

from theassumption that what ultimately exists is a single,

intrinsicallyineffable Being. How does this manifest itself? How does it

come toconstitute an apparent multitude of objects? After treating you

to theanswers from contemporary physics, I turn to the deeper answers

fromIndian philosophy in general and Sri Aurobindo in particular.

Thatintrinsically ineffable Being relates to its manifestation in

athreefold manner: it is the substance that constitutes,

theconsciousness that contains, and an infinite Quality-Delight

thatexpresses and experiences itself. By a multiple exclusive

concentrationit assumes, first, the aspect of a multitude of separate

selves and,last, the aspect of a multitude of formless particles —

the latter inorder to set the stage for the Adventure of Evolution. I

conclude byexplaining why the laws of physics are essentially

tautological: if youwant to set the stage for evolution via a process

that results in amultitude of formless particles, then these laws must

have exactly theform that they do.

1. Quantum matters (sat)

Quantummechanics is the general theoretical framework of contemporary

physics.When properly interrogated, it tells us that a twenty-five

centuriesold paradigm has passed its expiry date. It is no longer

appropriate toask: what are the ultimate building blocks and how do they

interact andcombine? The notorious difficulty of making sense of the

quantum worldis not that we don't understand Nature's answers. It is due

to the factthat Nature fails to make sense of our questions.

 

Theright questions to ask proceed from the assumption that what

ultimatelyexists is a single, intrinsically ineffable Being. How does

thismanifest itself? How does it come to constitute an apparent

multitudeof objects? How does it realize their properties? If you turn

toquantum mechanics with questions of this sort, you will be surprised

atthe simplicity and straightness of the answers you get. Among them

isthe most economical creation story ever told: by entering into

spatialrelations with itself, that intrinsically ineffable Being gives

rise toboth matter and space, for space is nothing but the totality

ofexisting spatial relations, while matter is simply the

correspondingapparent multitude of relata — apparent because the

relations are self-relations.

 

Why self-relations?If you consider the so-called " ultimate constituents

of matter " bythemselves, out of relation to each other, they lack

properties. Thereason this is so is that all physical properties are

defined in termsof relations. This includes the shapes of things. The

form ofa composite object is the totality of its internal spatial

relations.Objects lacking internal relations, such as quarks and

electrons, areformless. In addition to that, quantum mechanics rules out

theexistence of intrinsically distinct substances.So if you contemplate

any two of the so-called " ultimate constituents " of matter by themselves,

you are contemplating one and the same thing twice. The true number of

" ultimate constituents " is one.

 

Assaid, the right questions to ask proceed from the assumption that

whatultimately exists is a single, intrinsically ineffable Being. Why

intrinsically ineffable?Well, if properties resolve themselves into

relations between Being andBeing, there is no property that can be

attributed to Being itself.

 

Of all the weird features of the quantum world, none is more baffling

than the supervenience of the microworld on the macroworld.

Supervenienceis a philosophical term for a relation between two types of

properties.Properties of type B are said to supervene on properties of

type A ifobjects cannot differ in their B-properties without differing

in theirA-properties. Here is an example from neurophilosophy: for a

devoutmaterialist, mind states supervene on brain states. This means

that iftwo brains are exactly alike then the corresponding minds must

haveexactly the same thoughts, sensations, perceptions, etc.

 

Themicroworld supervenes on the macroworld in the sense that

molecules,atoms, and subatomic particles have the properties that they

do becauseof what happens or is the case in the macroworld of tables,

chairs, andlab equipment. The properties of the microworld depend on

theproperties of the macroworld rather than the other way round as we

arewont to think. In the quantum world, to be is to be measured.A

property exists only if, only when, and only to the extent that

itspossession is indicated by a macroscopic event or state of affairs.

 

If quantum theory tells us how the world is manifested,rather than how

it is put together, then this dependence of the smallon the large is not

so very hard to understand. Quantum mechanicsaffords us a glimpse

" behind " the manifested world — the macroworld —at formless

particles, non-visualizable atoms, and partly visualizablemolecules,

which, instead of being the world's constituent parts orstructures, are

instrumental in its manifestation. But wecannot describe what lies

" behind " the manifested world except in termsof the finished product

— the manifested world. Here is an analogy: ifyou experience

something the like of which you never experiencedbefore, you are obliged

to describe it in terms of things that you did experience before. The

reason for the supervenience of the microscopic on the macroscopic,

however, is not merely a lack of descriptive terms but a lack of

attributable properties.

 

Hereis an example. We tend to think of space as an intrinsically

dividedexpanse, which is to say as something that has parts. Hence if

weimagine an object and a part or region of space, we tend to think

thatthis object — at any rate, its center-of-mass — has to be

either insideor outside that region. In reality, a region of space only

exists if itis physically realized — made real — for instance by

being thesensitive region of a detector. To be able to say truthfully

that aparticle is inside a certain region, we need a detector not merely

for indicatingthe particle's presence inside that region. In the first

place, thedetector is needed in order that that region be real and the

propertyof being in it be available for attribution to the particle. If

theregion is not realized, then it is neither true nor false but

meaningless to say that the particle is in it.

2. Involution (chit)

Ifthe quantum world is mysterious, so is consciousness. How can

amaterial thing be conscious? How can there be consciousness of

materialthings? The answer — at any rate, the short version of it

— is thatthere is no such thing as a material thing. There is a

single,intrinsically ineffable Being. This manifests itself, and

quantummechanics tells us how. But it does not only manifest itself.

Itmanifests itself to itself. It is not only that by which the world

exists but also the self for which the world exists. It is not only the

substance that constitutes but also the consciousness that contains. It

is both the sat and the chit of the Vedantic trinity sachchid?nanda

(sat-chit-?nanda).

 

Wehave seen, however fleetingly, how the one ineffable Being becomes

—without ceasing to be the one ineffable Being — an apparent

multitudeof propertyless particles. How does the one Self become an

apparentmultitude of individual selves? We all know first-hand what it

means toimagine things. So we can conceive of a consciousness that

creates itsown content. With a little effort we can also conceive of

thisconsciousness as simultaneously adopting a multitude of

viewpointswithin its content. We also know first-hand the phenomenon of

exclusiveconcentration, when awareness is focused on a single object or

taskwhile other goings-on are registered or attended to subconsciously,

ifat all. As Sri Aurobindo explains, it is by such a multiple exclusive

concentrationthat the one Self assumes the aspect of a multitude of

individualselves and loses sight, in each self, of its identity with the

otherselves and with the Self of all selves.

 

Once we have a multipleconcentration of consciousness, the action by

which the one Selfcreates its content differentiates into a subjective

action on the partof each individual qua self and an objective action on

the part of eachindividual qua substance. And once we have an exclusive

concentration of consciousness — which means ignorance, the Vedantic

avidya— these actions further differentiate, the subjective one into

aconscious and a subconscious part, the objective one into a

voluntaryand an involuntary part.

 

Ignorance, as we all know, has its degrees. Sachchid?nanda can deepen

its multiple exclusive concentration to the point that its

individualized subjective action — which is one of Sri Aurobindo's

definitions of mind — ceases. It can farther deepen its multiple

exclusive concentration to the point that even its individualized

objective action — which of Sri Aurobindo's definitions of life

— ceases. What then exists is a multitude of formless individuals,

for it is life (in this particular sense) that is responsible for the

existence of individual forms.

 

Thusit is one and the same process — namely, a multiple

exclusiveconcentration — that produces the multitude of selves and,

when carriedto its farthest extreme, the multitude of formless

particles.

3. The adventure of evolution (ananda)

Whatultimately exists relates to its manifestation in a threefold

manner:it is the substance that constitutes, it is the consciousness

thatcontains, and it is (subjectively speaking) an infinite bliss —

?nanda — and (objectively speaking) an infinite quality infinitely

expressing and experiencing itself.

 

Thenwhy does it hide in formless particles? Why does it subject

theirrelations to apparently self-effective laws? In this world,

sachchid?nanda is playingHoudini, imprisoning and enchaining itself as

rigorously as it can,challenging itself to escape, to re-discover and

re-affirm its powersin what seems to be a universe of mechanical forces

and random events.Its multiple exclusive concentration allows it to

enter various statesof ignorance and incapacity so as to experience

growth in knowledge andpower, the excitement of conquest and discovery,

the surprise of theunknown, the challenge of opposition, the triumph of

victory.

4. Closing the circle

Backto physics. Since the word " fundamental " does not have a

comparative, atheory is either fundamental or it is not. If a physical

theory isfundamental and complete, then it is capable of explaining

everythingelse and therefore incapable of being explained by anything

else —except teleologically, by pointing out the reasons why it has

theparticular form that it does.

 

Oneof the reasons why the general theoretical framework of

contemporaryphysics has the particular form that it does, is that

without it stableobjects could not exist, specifically, objects that

 

*

have spatial extent (they " occupy space " ),

 

*

are composed of a (large but) finite number of objects without spatial

extent (particles that do not " occupy space " ),

 

*

and are stable (they neither explode nor collapse as soon as they are

created).

 

 

The existence of such objects requires the fundamental theoretical

framework of contemporary physics to be exactly what it is, namely

quantum mechanics.

 

Quantummechanics is a probability calculus. Given the outcomes of

measurementsthat have been made, it allows us to calculate the

probabilities of thepossible outcomes of measurements that may be made.

And that's it.

 

Becausequantum mechanics presupposes measurements, its consistency

requiresthe existence of measurements. And it is eminently plausible

that theexistence of measurements in turn requires the validity of all

empirically tested physical theories— namely, the so-called

" standard model " and Einstein's theory ofgravity — at least as

effective theories (Mohrhoff, 2002, 2006 ). (Aneffective theory is a

theory that is valid over some but not all scalesof length.)

 

This is a humbling conclusion, for it means that all empirically tested

physical theories are essentially tautological.If you want spatially

extended objects that neither explode norcollapse the moment they are

formed, the validity of these theories isa must. To be precise, their

validity is guaranteed ifspatially extended objects are composed of

objects that lack spatialextent. This is the sole nontrivial input and

the only real mystery. Why are things that " occupy space " made of finite

numbers of things that don't?

 

We have seen why. The creation of a world of formless particles is the

final stage of an involution that has set the stage for the adventure of

evolution.

Further reading

Sri Aurobindo (1990). The Life Divine. Wilmot, WI : Lotus Light

Publications.

 

Mohrhoff, U (2000). What quantum mechanics is trying to tell us,

American Journal of Physics 68, 728-745.

 

Mohrhoff, U (2001). Beyond the cookie cutter paradigm. In Consciousness

and its Transformation: Papers presented at the Second International

Conference on Integral Psychology (edited by M. Cornelissen).

Pondicherry: Sri Aurobindo International Centre of Education, pp.

333-345.

 

Mohrhoff, U (2002). Why the laws of physics are just so. Foundations of

Physics 32, 1313-1324.

 

Mohrhoff,U (2004). Psychology all the way down. Paper presented at the

NationalConference on Indian Psychology, Yoga, and Consciousness,

Pondicherry,10-13 December, 2004.

 

Mohrhoff, U (2005). The Pondicherry interpretation of quantum mechanics:

An overview, PRAMANA—Journal of Physics 64, 171-185.

 

Mohrhoff, U (2006). Quantum mechanics explained,

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0607005.

 

Mohrhoff, U (2006a). Is the end in sight for theoretical pseudophysics?

In New Topics in Quantum Physics Research (edited by V. Krasnoholovets

and F. Columbus). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

 

Mohrhoff, U (forthcoming). The physics and psychology of Brahman.

 

Mohrhoff, U (2006b). Particles, consciousness, volition: a Vedantic

vision. Accepted for publication in Noetic Journal,

http://cogprints.org/4479/.

 

 

Mohrhoff, U (2006c). The Quantum World, the Mind, and the Cookie Cutter

Paradigm. Accepted for publication in Noetic Journal,

http://cogprints.org/4480/.

 

Mohrhoff, U (under review).Defending the Pondicherry interpretation: A

response to Shafiee,Jafar-Aghdami, and Golshani,

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0611055.