Materialism-Matter does not exist

In this lesson, we shall enter into the materialist fortress and destroy its core basis. We shall forget all the disputes about the mind-body relations and place ourselves in the best situation for the materialist theory: A mineral world without any living creature and any consciousness.

In this context our offensive is based on a logical approach: Materialism claims that all the reality comes up from matter. So, if we only find in this mineral world a single reality which does not belong to matter, it will prove that Materialism is a falsehood.

We shall use an argument coming back to Aristotle (1) and forgotten by our modern thinkers. As you will see, this argument is the absolute killer of Materialism!

We shall begin our demonstration with an inquiry about the laws of nature: Do these laws just exist in our mind or do these laws exist by themselves in the external reality?

Considering our hypothesis of a mineral world deprived of any living creature and consciousness, the first question seems to be a non sense. If the laws are a product of our mind, it should mean that no laws existed before the apparition of the man. So, we would imagine that in the early earth, the mercury was changing sometimes in water and sometimes in carbon! In fact the arguments of the those who state that the laws are just a product of the human mind are more sophisticated and we have better to examine them in order to clear our further steps.

For example, Relativists claim that among the flow of sensations, we choose some of them and that we establish arbitrarily some connections and regularities. For example, the drawing 1 shows a lot of various shapes.

Among these shapes, we can choose a serial of circles, of squares, of large or small figures, of yellow figures and so on. If we choose the circles, we could say that there is regularity and we could establish the "circle law"!

Moreover, another individual could choose the squares and establishes the "square law". What is the truth? The square or the circle law? With Protagoras, relativists answer that the two laws are equally true. It means that truth is always relative to each observer according to the choices he has made.

In fact, when we choose a connection or a regularity, it is always with the purpose to get a result. Some connections do not bring any results: for example, to offer gifts to an idol to get health. Other connections provide with regular results: To take drugs in order to cure. It means that only the effective connections are real connections and not simple juxtapositions.

Most scholars admit effective connections in nature but they deny that they obey to an order or to a law. In short, they say that experiment provides with data concerning regularities and no more. This position appears false because a regularity of effective connections is never self sufficient. For example, Look at the drawing 2: The first serial shows a regularity because each circle gives Y.

-Your initial observation based on regularities ( each singular circle gives Y) is false because it appears that several circles also give Y.

In the first case, the regularity was self sufficient: Why did every single circle bring Y? The answer was simple: It is in the nature of a circle to bring Y. The necessity to bring Y is in the circle itself.

In the second case, you cannot just describe a regularity: Why does every odd number of circles bring Y? The answer is no more obvious because none circle and not any quantities of circles contain by itself the concept of odd number. To explain it, you have to discover a law. As this law is not a product of your mind, it must be engraved in the reality.

By the end, many materialist argue that the so called natural "laws" are just statistical statements about the likelihood of events: Some events such as the fact for water to boil under 100 degrees are not impossible but just statistically improbable. This assert can apply to some macroscopic events such as the movements of gaz but not to microscopic events: If accidentally, an atom of carbon changes its atomic number, it is no more a carbon. It's another product. Consequently the statistical probability for an atom of carbon to have the proper atomic number equals 1. It means that there is no more a statistic but a certainty.

In conclusion, we can say that the laws are not a product or an interpretation of our mind. We do not invent these laws. We discover them. Indeed, there is an underlying order in the nature which corresponds to necessary laws.

In the previous chapter, our unique goal was to establish that the laws of nature exist by themselves in the external world. Right now, we shall use our killer argument. Firstly, you have to recall our starting point: Materialism claims that all the reality comes up from matter. So, if we only find in the external world a single reality that does not belong to matter, it will prove that Materialism is a falsehood.

Thus, using an argument coming back to Aristotle, we shall demonstrate that some physical laws which exist in nature contain immaterial relations. Consequently, and according to its own premise, Materialism is wrong.

There are several and different categories of laws. We shall focus our analysis on some specific laws that assert a dependence between varying quantities measuring certain properties, as for example most of the chemical laws.

1-Let’s take the example of water. It is made up of two parts of hydrogen (H) and one part of oxygen (O). Water is not identical to H or to O, because when water disappears, O and H still exist. Moreover, water is not identical to any undefined mixture of H and O. So, what is the cause of water?

2-The cause of water is a ratio between the quantities of H and O into the mixture. Obviously, this ratio is a proportion. Aristotle calls it the formal substance or the "quiddity" of water.

3-So matter is made up of a material substance ( H and O) and of a formal substance ( The proportion ). Do you think that a proportion could be a piece of matter ! Obviously, a proportion as Aristotle said is immaterial.

4-Let’s explain that in more general terms: Since ancient times, we know that many phenomenon obey to constant ratios. It means that a phenomenon advents when a quantity A and a quantity B mix according to the same proportion. For example, the drawing shows different situations where some quantities of A and of B are in relations. The yellow squares indicate the combinations which give a new phenomenon C.

As you can see, according to situations O, P, R, and S, the relation does not bring any results. On the contrary, situations Q and T give a new phenomenon C. It means that C is the result of a constant ratio such as 2A/1B = 4A/2B.

The cause of C is neither in A alone nor in B. It is not in the contact of any undefined quantities of A or B. The cause would be in A and B if each of them had the virtue of being able to count themselves and then to meet in the exact required proportion! As it is obviously not the case, it means that the cause is not in the matter by itself. The cause is based on an immaterial proportion.

Aristotle designated by the word "formal substance" this immaterial proportion. In modern words, we have better to say that a proportion is just like an idea. Since we have agree that the laws existed by themselves and independently of of our mind, it becomes obvious that this idea cannot be in our mind. The idea is in the nature itself.

Some objections come back to the marxists and are easy to defeat. Modern materialists should certainly not endorse them. They present today more sophisticated arguments but in fact none of them sounds right.

1-Engels asserts that the laws of physics are in most cases the designation for the critical points at which a quantitative change causes a qualitative change in the state of the given body, and at which, consequently, quantity is transformed into quality. For example, the temperature of water has at first no effect on its liquid state; but as the temperature of liquid water rises, a moment arrives when this state of cohesion changes and the water is converted into steam.

This explanation does not take in account a proportion. It only focus on the increase or the decrease of one quantity ( in this example the heat translated in temperature) but it omits the second quantity (the volume of water because of course you need a proportion in this volume and the quantity of heat to getting the constant temperature).

According to this explanation, it could be understood that the effect just results of a juxtaposition of some determined quantities of matter. Let’s follow this argument! Look at the drawing 3.

You observe two juxtapositions in two different squares X and Y which produce the same effect. Why is this effect the same ? Materialists could say that the effect is the same because the amount of quantities A (Crossed circles) is equal in the two cases, as are the quantities of B (White circles). Now, look at the drawing 4:

There are again two juxtapositions. However, if we keep the preceding explanation, it is clear that the juxtaposed quantities are not equal. It is therefore impossible that we get in X the same effect that in Y! In fact, we know that the effect is the same due to the constant ratio between the quantities!

This example shows that the relation cannot be considered as the simple juxtaposition of measurable quantities of matter.

2-Marxist materialists frequently argue that the relation is material by itself. This statement is not clear. Nevertheless, imagine that the relation is a material entity distinct from the terms that it links. If A and B are in proportion and if this ratio is itself a material element, such as C , there would have to be two new ratios between C an A on one hand, and between C and B on the other hand. This leads to an infinite regression which illustrates the impossibility of assigning a material consistency to any ratio whatsoever.

Moreover, a ratio has none of the attributes of matter. For example, the ratio that explains the boiling point of water in the recipient of the pharaohs is the same that we observe today. The proportional combinations of A an B can be distinct in space or separated by intervals of time without changing their unique and constant ratio. Unlike material objects, ratio are ubiquitous and permanent. These properties are incompatible with the notion of materiality.

3-Materialists can argue that the relation is the result of the properties of the material terms which are linked. In fact, as we have seen in the previous lesson, it is just the contrary: The properties are the result of the relations.

4-Materialists also argue that the relation cannot be separated from matter and treated separately. For example, the ratio between O and H would be inherent to the molecule of water.

In fact, if this molecule had existed at the beginning of the world, there would be an inherent relation. However, science shows that electrons, quarks and atoms preceded molecules in the history of universe. These ratios which seem innate actually come from other ratios further and further back in time as we go back to the big bang. But at that moment, only photons existed, which in turn transformed themselves into the electrons and quarks that make up atoms and molecules. So, in the beginning, there was only one unique indefinite, homogeneous substance made up of identical photons. It is evident that they did not have some "inherent" ratios.

5-Finally the new materialists can say that the ratios are a product of chance. As we are not interested by the origins of ratios, this argument does not impact the fact that these ratios are immaterial. However, it is not acceptable because it drives to an infinite regression: Suppose that you have an infinite number of identical elements with all possible and unstable combinations. We must then suppose that some combinations appearing by chance in time do not disappear because they are compatible with earlier combinations. It is then explained that a logical necessity formed with constant ratios seems to replace mere chance as this series advance. It supposes that there is at the beginning one stable combination that could give the support to the next stage. But how could any stable combination emerge from the myriad of identical elements. New materialists answer that the earlier stable combination just comes from the main parameters of the Universe. Well, once again we are facing an infinite regression because the first parameters are by themselves some ratios between fundamental constants of nature.

We find ourselves in a quite uncomfortable position. Of course we have proved that the Materialism is a falsehood because it contains some immaterial relations. On the other hand, this fact does not eliminate matter because ratios link elements. Can we admit that the external reality is both made up by matter and immaterial relations that interact themselves? In fact, we shall demonstrate that matter cannot exist and thus does not exist.

We have clearly proved that the ratios are immaterial. Therefore, if a ratio is not a material reality, it is obviously a spiritual reality. Consequently, scientists are hence obliged to explain that a spiritual reality can be connected with a material reality. In other word, we return against the materialists the dualist problem that they were happy to oppose to Descartes!

Look at the next drawing 5. It describes the present state of belief. The freewill acts on a matter which is only known through our immaterial sensations. What is more, the supposed matter contains too immaterial relations.

Clearly this scheme is illogical and the belief in matter appears here as an useless hypothesis! The only solution is to agree that the atomic reality is by itself spiritual. It means that the thought moves the thought. There is none contradictions in this assertion!

Until recently, such an idea was not obvious. Today, it becomes acceptable thanks to progress in physics: Since all the properties which differentiate objects come up from constant ratios, the concept of material elements has no more signification. Deprived of their properties, elements look like geometrical points and for contemporary scientists, the ultimate particles are just the expressions of interactions between quantum fields that are themselves immaterial. Of course, these facts are not sufficient to asserting that matter does not exist. Nevertheless, we shall reach a new milestone by demonstrating that the external reality can only be a mathematical thing.

1-Let’s suppose one human facing an object. This compact object is a sensation (brown form X) in his mind and he ignores what is really the nature of the external reality A causing it.

2-Now, let’ suppose that the observer applies a numeric analysis to the sensation (brown form X). For example he tries to decompose the sensation into a multitude of elementary sensations. Once he has attained the limits of his sentient perceptions, he continues this decomposition by forming the representation of even smaller particles and then of units and numbers. It means that starting with a rough sensation, he creates a mathematical representation in his mind. This mathematical representation is the square B.

3-Our observer is an engineer. From this representation B, he imagines in his mind a new combination in order to get a new product. The triangle C is the mathematical representation of this new product.

4-Then, he manufactures this new product. In doing so, he is modifying the external reality A, but since he does not know it, he cannot expect a specific result. However, a new sensation appears: The triangle D ( brown triangle) corresponding to the sketch C!

5-Now, consider the entire drawing 2. If B was different from the external reality A, the sketch of the triangle, as a new combination of B, should only be some dream and you never could get a real triangle! It means that the success of the experiment is possible only if B is by itself the same thing as the external reality A.

6-Since B is a mathematical representation, It means that the true being of the external reality A is also a mathematical form!

In short, we may posit that the external reality is not made up of matter: It is by itself made up of mathematical numbers.

This astonishing conclusion is in accordance with the the intuition of some top scientists. The most famous is the nobelist physic Wiener Heisenberg. He said that the ultimate reality could be made up of numbers (2). What does it mean?

Just consider the numbers like some sets of units organized in space. As you can see each number is like a domino. Since we reason on these specific numbers, each distinct set of units requires a specific network of relations. According to this fact, any number is not only a quantity of units. It's also a network of relations between the units.

DRAWING 8

These network of relations brings a configuration of the units and give to each number a specific property. Plato used to represent these distinct properties by some figures such as point, line, triangle or square. Since each number offers a specific property, it is fruitless to add or to substract. It should just be like adding tomatoes and potatoes! It means that these numbers are very different of our ordinary numbers and we should have better to not use anymore the word "number". In order to avoid confusion, we shall call "form" these sets of units closely related to relations and properties. A form is a network of units with the different relations between its units and the properties that result of them.

The forms cannot enter in our calculations. However, we can conceive a synthetic relation:Two forms are combined and give a new form which brings new properties in accordance with the properties of the two previous forms. In the case of a complex form, you can imagine an analytical relation: The complex form is divided into several forms. The properties of the complex form are lost but the properties of the several simple forms can be nevertheless deduced from the previous.

Obviously, all these rules are exactly the same that those described by the chemical and physic school books. Therefore, there is no différence between these numbers and the atomic reality that science describes. These mathematic forms could really correspond to the ultimate reality of the mineral world. On the other hand, the complex form could also represent the ultimate reality of the living world. For example your own body is also an atomic turmoil just like the other objects. Of course, this living atomic turmoil is far more complex than the simple atoms of the mineral world. However, this complexity does not result of the stuff of the bits of "matter" but depends only on the complexity of their relations. According to our previous conclusions, we may posit that this complex atomic turmoil is in fact a very complex form implying billion of separate units linked by billion of relations. It includes many elementary forms such as the mineral forms (for example the calcium and the salt). What is more, this complex form is constantly in relation with some simple other forms (For example the oxygen you breathe). Finally, we shall see later that the mathematical form of your body is reflected as sensations in your own consciousness and hence, you get the feeling to posses a body, a leg, an arm that you can see (visual sensation) or touch (tactile sensation).

As a result, "your body" is whether a mathematical form, whether a sensation in your own consciousness. In short, since forms and sensations are mental products, you do not have a bit of matter in your body. The next drawing illustrates this explanation.

Our demonstrations show that the external reality (and consequently our own body) is by itself mathematic and could be made up of mathematical forms. Nevertheless, two dilemmas remains:

Firstly, a mathematical form is an idea. On the other hand, an idea only exists in a thought. Since these mathematical forms are independent of our human mind, it means that they must exist in an external spirit.

Secondly, as human being, we have not only a body. We enjoy also a mind and a self. The mathématical forms do not explain that fact. Consequently, we have to present our Idealist hypothesis in the next lesson.

2-The theory of numbers comes up from the greeks. The first attempt was the pythagorean analysis. Pythagoras said that all things were formed with numbers. Unfortunately, his doctrine was unclear about the real substance of these numbers: grains of matter or ideas in the thought? Indeed, if the units are material, the doctrine is in short the idea that bodies are made up of grains that can be counted. Objects are not numbers any more but groups of points and the doctrine looks like a prelude to that of Democritus. What is more, it was not possible with such numbers to explain the qualitative differentiation of bodies observed in nature. For example, let’ us suppose that a horse corresponds to the number 3 and a man to the number 6: According to this theory, each man would be equal to two horses! In fact, we have not any texts from Pythagoras and his doctrine is known to us through the books of his disciples Archytas and Philoaos and the writings of Aristotle. Go to: history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/pythagor.htm

Plato taught that the universal spirit was made up of eternal divine forms which were the causes of the sensible world. The problem of understanding how an individual object was a copy of its form worried Plato for his entire life.Go to: plato-dialogues.org . By the end, he was deeply inspired by Pythagoras and he thought that these divine forms could be some mathematical forms. Plato said that these numbers instead to be material were ideas in God consciousness. It was a dramatic progress compared to the earlier Pythagorean's: These numbers were by themselves ideas and so objects of a thought: Of course not our own thought but some universal thought (Go to: www.goddess-athena.org. Click on encyclopedia, then on "friends of wisdom" and finally on Proclus. You will find here the famous Proclus's commentary of the Timaeus of Plato)

Once again, the hurdle was to define ideal numbers qualitatively different one from another in order to launch a bridge toward the material properties of the particles of matter. Plato used to represent these distinct relations by some figures such as point, line, triangle or square. This representation was an useful milestone on the road. However, Plato never explained his theory in writing papers. We only know it through the testimony of Aristotle. As Aristotle was opposed to such a theory, he wrote a devastating criticism in the books M and N of his famous Metaphysic.

By this time, all the attempts to launch a bridge between numbers and matter had failed. However, this profound intuition traveled secretly through the centuries. Indeed, with the new physic, there is no more such a gap between "matter" and numbers. Among the modern philosophers, Bachelard is maybe the sole who saw the philosophical importance of this fact. In a book titled "the rational materialism" he wrote the following sentence " The material properties are the result of a composition. There are not such properties in the intimate substance of the elements". As a result, he forecasted the resurgence of a new and extended Pythagorean theory!