How is Reality Constituted?

One of the major questions in philosophy and science is how does reality come to be. What generates or constitutes reality. In philosophy, this falls under the topic of ontology.  So what is ontology?  Put succinctly, it’s the study of being.  It’s a big topic in both philosophy, science, and religion.  That’s because it represents the basis of all things.  There has been much written about ontology over the ages particularly during the Axial Age circa 800 BCE to about 300 AD. This is the period where some of the great classical thinkers weighed in on this issue.  It was the time of Confucius, Lao-Tse in China, Siddhartha Gautama  (the Buddha) in India, Zoroaster in Persia, and in Greece the likes of Plato, Aristotle, Democritus, Anaxagoras, etc.

So what’s all the fuss about?  Well, if you want to think about some of the deeper questions in life, you need a starting point.  Ontology is just that. Everything flows from the basis of all things.

Many of the ideas that emerged from these early thinkers are still hanging around, albeit with modifications and explications.  The two forms I want to talk about could be labeled in the modern terms of materialism and idealism.

The idea of materialism probably first arose around the sixth century BCE in what is now known as India.  At that time there was a Carvakan school of thought. These philosophers were perhaps the first materialists because one of the things they postulated was that all there is, is matter and it has “svabhava” or self-nature. In other words, matter has an intrinsic nature that produces the world we see. Today this self-nature is thought of as properties such as mass, spin, charge, etc. Apparently, this line of thinking made its way to early Greek thought probably through the Persian trade routes because about a hundred years later materialist atomistic thought emerged most notably by Democritus. In atomism it is claimed that reality is constituted by atomos, small indestructible elements which have intrinsic properties and when combined in various ways produce the variety we see. This particular characterization of reality caught on in the West and eventually led to the predominant view in science.

However, this “svabhava” view was not without its detractors. There were those both in the East and West who rejected this view. In the East, the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna developed his sunyata concept or “emptiness” saying that nothing has an essential independent nature but only a conditional or relational existence. The term for this is often “dependent co-arising” in Buddhist thought.  In early Western Greek thought, the rejection of atomism was more subtle. Anaxagoras did not reject atomism, per se, but claimed that what animated atoms was not a self-nature but nous or mind. Anaxagoras is considered by some to be the first panpsychist. Plotinus also posited the primacy of mind, “For there is for this universe no other place than the soul or mind”.

A modern forceful attack on the svabhavan atomism came later with the Idealism school of thought in England. It maintained that what constituted reality was, in fact, mind or perception. George Berkeley was one of the most notable of idealistic proponents. He was considered by Schopenhauer as the father of Idealism. Berkeley’s view was that the mind and perception are primary in his famous statement, “To be is to be perceived or to perceive”. Although Berkeley and his “subjective idealism” fell under considerable criticism for being unable to account for common experience, he later became more of an absolute idealist by attributing our perceptions to God.

A parallel strain of criticism also came from forms of panpsychism that date back to early Greek thought, predominantly Heraclitus. Most notably among modern proponents is the philosophy of Alfred Whitehead. Whitehead was a contemporary of Einstein and even developed his own physical theories. Later in his life, he forged off into speculative metaphysics and founded process thought which today finds many adherents among philosophers, theologians, and scientists. Whitehead claimed that reality is constituted by occasions (events) of experience. Like the quote below from Stapp, Whitehead rejected the enduring substance view of reality in favor of an event model of becoming. There have been other critics of svabhavan materialism, but materialistic atomism has maintained its prominence among many thinkers. Its hegemony continues to this day among most scientists.

Quantum theory in the twentieth century, however, called into question its scientific validity. In quantum theory, a complete description of the properties of fundamental elements cannot be determined until a measurement is taken. This is not an epistemological restriction but an ontological one. This introduced the concept of the observer in how reality is constituted. In other words, it is the mind of the observer and what they are measuring that effects what is observed. This interpretation of quantum mechanics is called the Copenhagen interpretation. According to a recent survey, it is still very popular among physicists. This idea-like view of how reality is constituted has its supporters among some prominent physicists. Here’s a couple of citations that are representative of the criticism of a svabhavan worldview: Berkeley Physicist, Henry Stapp states:

An important characteristic of this quantum conceptualization is that the substantive matter-like aspects, have dropped out. The theory is about: (1) abrupt events, each of which is tied to an experiential increment in knowledge; and (2) potentialities for such events to occur. Events are not substances, which, by definition, endure. And the potentialities have an “idea-like” character because they are like an “imagined” idea of what the future events might be, and they change abruptly when a new event occurs. Thus neither the events nor the potentialities have the ontological character the substantive matter of classical physics. Yet the predictions of quantum mechanics encompass all of the known successes of classical mechanics.

In Measurements and time reversal in objective quantum theory, Purdue physicist F. J. Belinfante goes even further to include God in his interpretation:

If elementary systems do not “possess” quantitatively determinate properties, apparently God determines these properties as we measure them. We also observe the fact, unexplainable but experimentally well established, that God in His decisions about the outcomes of our experiments shows habits so regular that we can express them in the form of statistical laws of nature….this apparent determinism in macroscopic nature has hidden God and His personal influence on the universe from the eyes of many outstanding scientists.

It has been reported that Erwin Schrodinger, one of the founders of quantum physics, when asked about reality before observers were present, suggested that there is a cosmic observer.  The measurement issue in quantum mechanics still remains a highly problematic concept.

Now all this does not offer a definitive answer to what constitutes reality.  Theories abound.  Are quantum fields fundamental, is it information (Wheeler’s “it from bit”), or do we live in a simulation? The question remains.

So, if Mind is fundamental how would that constitute reality and how would that fit in with empirical evidence?  That raises the question of what do we reasonably know about how reality emerges?  We know that there are regularities in reality that are consistent enough that science can investigate and characterize them, to some degree.  I say “to some degree” because science today is essentially a statistical endeavor.  Quantum mechanics predicts probabilities, not actual events.  So, if enough events are measured they will create a statistical representation that is accurate. But that’s in the aggregate. Particular events and their effects are difficult to ascertain.

Let me give an example. In 1963 in Texas there was a statistical value of how many homicides would occur in Dallas, Texas.  That value represented complex factors but could be thought of as reasonably accurate of what would happen. However, on November 22 of that year, a homicide occurred that could have fallen well within the statistical range predicted.  John F. Kennedy was assassinated. This would have been unremarkable from a statistical perspective but may have had an enormous impact on subsequent events.  Lyndon Johnson became president and eventually escalated the war in Vietnam. This resulted in untold deaths on both sides and eventually ended in capitulation. If Kennedy had been president perhaps things might have been different.  Hard to know but that single event may have changed things dramatically.

The challenge of science and its investigative principals has a problem with complexity. When there are multiple degrees of freedom it becomes difficult to go from correlation to causation.  We see this as science moves from reductionist programs like in physics to things like social science, psychology, economics, etc.  When there are many factors in play, it becomes very difficult to ascertain why things happen the way they do. What has this all to do with Mind being fundamental? Well, that’s what minds do. They deal with enormous amounts of variables and try to determine the best course of action that pursues some goal.  Choose a single event, and that can have a ripple effect that is counterproductive. Go another way and there are also complexities to consider. So, if Mind is what constitutes reality then it may be very difficult for science to determine that.  What we may be left with are intuitions that suggest there is intentionality in play at the very fundamental levels of reality.  At the very least, maybe that it is a reasonable assertion.

One way to approach the difficult question of how reality is constituted is to see if there are problems that are better solved by a Mind oriented paradigm.

The Hard Problem.
Take the hard problem of consciousness (to be precise, phenomenal consciousness).  David Chalmers, probably the most prominent consciousness philosopher of our time, coined the phrase “the hard problem” because it seems that “what it’s like” (i.e. qualia) cannot be explained within a materialist framework.  For instance, here’s a summary of a famous thought experiment. There is a neuroscientist in a room who hypothetically knows everything to know physically about vision and color.  She knows about wavelengths of light and how vision works in the mind, but when she sees the color red, she then knows something more: “what it’s like” to see red.  Even with all her knowledge about the physical properties, the experience of seeing red is something new that all the physical attributes can’t describe or explain.

This problem led Chalmers to at least entertain the prospect that consciousness is somehow fundamental. Something “more” or something fundamentally basic to reality that is not encompassed by what has been called the material (or physical).   Enter panpsychism, “the doctrine or belief that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness.”  Pretty crazy, huh?  Well, it may seem strange to think that an atom has some type of consciousness, but the idea that consciousness is fundamental does offer a possible approach to the “hard problem.” My view is that if you follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion and roll in other ideas then everything is mind.  The term “material” is just an abstraction for something in mind.

Free Will.
Free is a big problem for materialists.  If reality is constituted just by elements that operate through their intrinsic properties to create everything, then basically all events occur either by chance (quantum indeterminacy) or necessity (natural law).  In this model, everything just happens based on prior events or by chance.  No freedom.   Now materialist philosophers have gone through some extreme semantic gymnastics to try to salvage free will, but basically what they have done is use a sleight-of-hand to redefine free will that no reasonable person would be satisfied with.

However, if reality is constituted by Mind, then things are very different.  What this means is that the regularities we see are really habits of the ultimate Mind.  I use the term habits because, with a Mind that is free, these regularities are not constituted by law but an ongoing intentionality. They support regularities so that life can exist but there is still can be an openness to novelty while not disrupting the life-giving order.  If our minds are an aspect of a universal mind that constitutes reality then we also have an element of freedom as an aspect of that mind.  Something like this type of idealism has been formulated both in the East and the West.  Among others, in the East, there is a school of thought called Vishishtadvaita Vedanta and in the West, there are forms of Absolute Idealism.   In my view, only if there is an intrinsic intentionality and freedom as the basis for reality can there be true freedom of the will.

So, the question of how reality is constituted remains underdetermined.  However, I think there is enough to assert that it’s not a slam dunk that reality emerges non-intentionally.  There are enough, both scientific and intuitive hints that reality is, in fact, the product of Mind (God’s Mind). Perhaps that can also be enough to embrace that life has ultimate meaning and emerges because of some grand purpose.

1 thought on “How is Reality Constituted?

  1. Pingback: The Often Ignored Necessary Element for Free Will | The Divine Life Communion

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s