God-A Convenience Theory ?

Update : See comments below.

Somedays back, I had been asked a question about the existence of God. The question was whether the existence of God is a convenience theory and I thought about it now. Does existence of God needs logical demonstration ? I would say it needs logical demonstration for people who are bent solely on logic. By demonstration, I don't mean a proof. Proving the existence of God may be next to impossible. But, it can be logically argued that God exists. Consider this simple argument which treats God from a dualistic point of view (not necessarily my view and Vedantic view).

1. The only thing that is permanent is change.
2. Change cannot be perceived without something which is changeless.
3. Our thoughts, feelings and emotions change.
4. The changeless entity which perceives our changing thoughts, feelings and emotions is God.
5. Therefore, God exists.

Of course, one can counter the above arguments by saying all is subject to change and so what I have written is neither true/not true. Other than this, is there any logical flaw in this argument ? Any of you guys who has studied philosophy of religion can you please tell me what type of argument is this (like ontological, cosmological etc.) ?

Update : Points (1) and (2) needs little clarification. (1) and (2) is based on the emprical world whereas (3) and (4) is for the personal world. This means, (1) and (2) is true with respect to our senses while (3) and (4) is validated because of (1) and (2). Also, I have changed the order in (1) and (2) although it doesn't matter much.

Scientific Inaccuracy

Hurricane Rita merged into the eternal clouds after registering not even a single drop of rain in our place and I began to wonder the scientific accuracy we have got here. Few hours before its arrival, there wasn't an iota of doubt that its going to bring heavy rains to our neighborhood. The weather station announced the chance of rain to be 100 %. It makes me only laugh about the predictions. I think accurate prediction (even in hours) is almost impossible with the present computational resources. First, I am not sure whether the simulation models are exact. Second, even assuming an exact simulation model, the precision we have is insufficient for the cause. Even if we are able to approximate the real time by millions of bits, there are more than millions left to cause inaccuracy. Probably quantum computers may be able to make a significant contribution but exact prediction may be next to impossible from what I see. A funny scene from 'Swadesh' comes to my mind. Shahrukh Khan, a NASA engineer tries to explain his position to a layman in an Indian village that he predicts rains with satellites. The layman immediately looks at the skies and says there is no rain in another 2 days and asks our hero why he is complicating things.

In my opinion, its better if meteorologists start to search for a rational basis for astrology than rejecting it as a mere pseudo-science. When we have such a huge scientific inaccuracy, it makes me wonder whether philosophical accuracy (accurate depiction of two similar philosophical ideas through a common language, like a common representation of Vedanta and Quantum Mechanics) is possible at all in near future.

P.S : I am not discrediting the acheivements of meteorology. Its just that I think it has a very long way to go from here.

It Rains

Now that Rita is going to torment us like anything, let me pose this question.

When we say 'it rains', what does 'it' refer in the phrase ? Rita rains may be ?!!

Brahman and Objective Reality.

Following an interesting debate that took place in Anand's post recently, I thought I'll post a view on Brahman and objective reality. Rene Descartes, the father of modern philosophy talks about three types of realities-eminent reality, formal reality and objective reality. The definitions are as follows:

(1) Objective reality: x is objectively real if x is the object of an idea (this comes close to what in modern terminology would be subjective reality - existing 'in' the mind).
(2) Formal reality: x is formally real if x has actual existence in the world represented by an idea (i.e. exists 'outside' the mind).
(3) Eminent reality: x is eminently real if x exists without limitation or imperfection, as contained within a higher level of being (from the standpoint of the world in which we exist, that which is eminently real exists potentially, not actually).

For example, when we think of the sun, we think of it as a two dimensional disc. This idea of the sun which exists in the mind is the objective reality. The actual existence of the sun as a three dimensional sphere with hot gases is the formal reality. The eminent reality is something like God which exists potentially but cannot be comprehended actually (by all).

Also, Descartes gives a nice hierarchy of these realities. He says, eminent reality contains formal reality and objective reality, formal reality contains objective reality (three dimesional sun exists which appears as two dimensional disc) and the objective reality can stand alone. I think this is analogous to three types of realities mentioned in Visishtadvaita. The philosophy of Visishtadvaita is based on Tatvatriya as mentioned in this post. Tatvatriya is the classification of realities into insentient (Achit), sentient (Chit) and Brahman which corresponds to objective reality, formal reality and eminent reality respectively. The objective reality (idea of insentient things) exists in the mind, the formal reality (like consciousness or sentient things) is outside the mind and it can comprehend objective reality and thus resulting in a kind of inclusion. Similarly, Brahman or eminent reality includes formal reality and objective reality. Descartes attributes God to eminent reality. A note should be made here that Visistadvaita doesn't suppose any kind of inclusion between achit and chit, where as Descartes assumes such inclusion.

Anyway, coming back to the question of Brahman and objective reality, we can conclude something from the above observation. This view reconciles the debaters views that Brahman is not the objective reality and Brahman is the basis for the objective reality.

The Meta-Complex Brahman

A tribute to Sri Adi Sankara

Man discovered counting. As a crude mortal he was naturally satisfied with the elementary counting 1,2,3,...etc. He was living with just food and water, the gross annamaya kosha (anna means food so layer (made) of food) till one day he felt the intense need for energy (prana) to hunt and solve equations like x+2 = 0. These equations were not solvable in the domain of natural numbers (this needs x = -2). Thus, pranamaya kosha (layer of energy) gave raise to negative numbers. Did he feel happy ? No. His wandering higher mind (manas) wanted to solve larger system of equations like 2*x = 3. The integers were insufficient for this cause (this requires x = 3/2). Hence, manonmaya kosha (layer of mind) gave raise to fractions. Okay, is that all what he wanted ? How can he ever be satisfied with fractions which doesn't solve the equation x*x = 2 ? His intelligence (vignanam) urged even more. The vignanamaya kosha (layer of intellect) found the real numbers like sqrt(2) satisfied his cause. How can a man ever be happy ? Isn't this a basic contradiction in life ?There are still some complex equations like x*x = -1, which has no solution in the domain of real numbers. He confuses ananda for happiness while it denotes bliss. He wants happiness at any cost and invents complex numbers. The anandamaya kosha (layer of bliss) drives him to complex numbers. He is now not in the plane of ordinary mortals. He is full of bliss and boldly proclaims this is the largest system of numbers possible. He stops there saying there is no higher system than complex numbers**, no higher state than ananda, no higher being than Brahman. He proclaims Brahman is complex or Brahman is ananda, beyond the state of intellect, beyond the system of real numbers. But, he is not able to conceive the idea put forth by a genius of the highest state, a genius of a much higher evolution, a genius who can put all mathematicians to shame and a genius who can claim Brahman is more than complex, Brahman is more than ananda*^ and Brahman is beyond the highest being. That is Sri Adi Sankara.

** There is a proof for the algebraic closure of complex numbers which is essentially saying there is no system higher than complex numbers (in terms of solving polynomial equations) similar to saying Brahman is ananda.
*^ Sri Adi Sankara says anandamaya kosha is also a kind of maya and hence not really real - courtesy: Radhakrishnan Sarvepalli, Indian Philosophy, Pg 167-168 .

Tatvatriya Vs States of Existence.

Often I used to wonder about dreams. To many people, dreams are unreal. One of the reasons that I could think of for the unreal nature of the dreams, is that, sleep constitutes 1/3 rd of the day which is less compared to the waking state. I think if we spend equal time in sleeping as we do in the waking state, then dream state could be as real as being awake. Anyway, one of the nice thing about Vedanta philosophy is that it takes into consideration of all the three states of existence, namely, the waking state, the dream state and the dreamless state. There is another state of existence called turya or the super-conscious state which we'll leave it for now.
The philosophy of Visishtadvita identifies three principles known as Tatvatriya. They are achit, chit and Brahman. Insentinent things are classified as achit, sentinent things are chit and Brahman is the one who possesses both achit and chit as an organic whole. These principles are similar to the three states of existence. In our waking state we are in contact with the insentinent things or achit, in the dream state we know our sentinent being alone which is chit and in the dreamless sleep we are one with Brahman**.

** This idea of being with Brahman in deep sleep is an Advitic view which I have used freely.

Reductio ad Absurdum

UPDATE : For people who want to skip the theorem can look at an easier illustration of Reductio ad Absurdum in the bottom of the post.

Reductio ad Absurdum or Proof by Contradiction is one of the usual techniques followed by mathematicians to prove a theorem in mathematics. To give you a flair of this technique, let me illusrtate the celebrated classical theorem of Euclid.

Theorem : There are infinitely many prime numbers.
Proof : Assume the contrary that there are only finite number of prime numbers and let k denote the largest prime number. Thus, the prime numbers can be enumerated by 2,3,5,7,...,k. Consider the product P = 2x3x5x7x...xk. Now, P is clearly divisible by the prime numbers 2, 3, 5, etc. upto k. And P+1 is not divisible by any of these numbers and so P+1 is a prime number greater than k. This is a contradiction to our hypothesis that k is the largest prime number. Hence, there cannot be any largest prime number and so prime numbers are infinite.

This method of proof is called Reductio ad Absurdum and believe me it really works. The key idea is to assume a contradiction and we come up with another contradiction to deduce a truth. But, the other way doesn't work. If we assume the truth of a statement we can never arrive at a contradiction. We can come up with another truth but that doesn't prove anything.

Now, let's come to philosophy. There are several philosophies that are founded based on Vedas and Upanishads. Now, if we assume the authority of the Vedas/Upanishads and propound a philosophy based on our authority, then we cannot claim Vedas/Upanishads are consistent just because our philosophy is in sync with them. We have already assumed their truth. On the other hand, if we start with a philosophy and prove the validity/consistency of the Vedas/Upanishads then we can claim the true nature of these scriptures. Do any of the philosophies Advita, Visishtadvaita, Dvaita follow Reductio ad Absurdum ?

********************

Another illustration of Reductio ad Absurdum

Theorem : Zero is the smallest non-nagative number.
Proof : Suppose not. Let x be the smallest non-negative number other than zero. Then x/2 is a smaller number than x which is also non-negative. This is a contradiction to the hypothesis that x is the smallest non-negative number. Therefore, zero is the smallest non-negative number.

Greatest Mystery

I kinda very much like the conversation that took place between Yudishtra (the eldest pandava prince) and a Yaksha (wizard).

Yaksha : What is the most interesting mystery in this world ?
Yudhistra : Even though there are nine doors (or passages) in a human body through which God who is the form of Aatman can easily pass out any time, he chooses to wait till the appropriate time comes. This is an interesting mystery to me.
Yaksha : What is the greatest mystery in this world ?
Yudhistra : Although many people are dying everyday, most of us don't realize or think about our death. Isn't the hope that we'll be living, the greatest mystery of all things ?

Can we constantly think about death and still be happy ? I think affirmative.