The divergence of science and spirituality arises from the point of transcendence from the empirical. While spirituality speaks of the Truth beyond – unchanging, imperishable and eternal, science deals with phenomena that are temporal, spatial and causative. Spirituality and religion have often been defined using anthropomorphism, particularly around ideas and realities in the human mind and spirit. But what if this conception can be taken beyond? What if the spiritual can be taken to a more fundamental level that applies to our universe even before human beings came to be? In this essay, I present such a novel conception and understanding of the spiritual and highlight the resonances of this conception with science.

The term spirit refers to the vital principle that animates man and animals. Derived from the Latin word spiritus, meaning soul or vigor, the term highlights the essence of a being or entity. Moving to a higher level of abstraction, the meta-description of a being or entity, particularly that which encapsulates the information within its form and functionality, can be called spiritual. In ancient times, the Vedic civilization brought forth the concept of Purusa (in the Samkhya tradition of philosophy) and Brahman (in Vedanta) – both denoting a universal principle [1-3].  In the former, reality and empiricism arose from an interaction of the Purusa with Prakrti – nature, while in the latter, Brahman manifested the universe with its interplay with Maya – a field of illusion [4,5]. All in all, the demarcation between, and duality of, the material, empirical nature and a transcendent, animating cosmic principle was highlighted in ancient Indian thought.  This was also seen in western civilisations, including as the Divine Natural Law in Orphic Cosmogony and personified concepts such as Ma’at in the Ancient Egyptian religion [6-8].

The key question is: is there such a universal principle or law that underlies and transcends the empirical and which can be ascertained using scientific concepts?

Since spirituality talks of that which is beyond the temporal, spatial or causative – the triad that usually characterize empirical phenomena and science, we must look at the frontiers of scientific research to see whether we can obtain an inkling of what may lie beyond. At the moment, the Standard Model of Physics provides a unified description of three fundamental forces of nature: electromagnetic, strong and weak forces, with the fundamental particles being the quarks, leptons, gauge bosons and the Higgs Boson [9]. Gravity, the fourth fundamental force of nature, is not part of this unified description [10]. There are many candidate theories of everything, which bring together the four forces – from String Theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, Causal Sets and using Non-commutative geometry to Superfluid Vacuum and the E8 proposal [11-16]. While some of these theories are mathematically elegant but lack empirical backing, others present the consistent description of certain specific regimes in Physics.

Just before the turn of the twentieth century, in 1894 to be precise, Albert Michelson purportedly said that Physics was all but discovered and only needed to be made more precise by certain decimal points [17]. In about a decade, Physics of the age was fundamentally and irrevocably altered, with Albert Einstein publishing four seminal papers on Special Relativity, Brownian Motion, Photoelectric Effect and Mass-Energy Equivalence, in what is regarded as Annus Mirabilis or the Year of Miracles – 1905 [18]. It also marked a major shift on two fronts: physics went from maintaining the concepts of determinism and local realism to a more probabilistic and non-local theory of quantum physics, and gravity was seen as a curvature in space-time and not an inverse-square law force as in the case of Newtonian gravity. When we speak of a Theory of Everything today that formulates a consistent theory of Quantum Gravity, we speak of these two strands being fundamentally reconciled. In the diversity of physical phenomena, we need to see what can be a universal law or principle that is applicable across the myriad forces of nature. Are the fundamental constants, such as Planck’s constant and Fine Structure constant, really constants? A recent study showed that the Fine Structure constant has variations, both in space and time [19]. Then, are the laws of physics themselves constant? More difficult as this is to answer, with respect to the previous question, the accepted theory of the evolution of the Universe entails the divergence of the forces of nature, all of which are hypothized to have arisen from a single unified field. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, among others, suggests that the universe may have undergone a phase transition, like the freezing of water when it falls below 0°C, thereby proposing variations in the form and applicability of physical laws over eons in the evolution of the Universe [20]. Going by the ancient Indic idea of constancy of the (universal) cosmic principle, these variable concepts and constructs in Physics may be taken as derivative elements of the Brahman principle.

What strangely has a certain consistency and truth across the Universe is that of the increase of entropy with time in any isolated system, as defined by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which provides a thermodynamic arrow of time [21]. Entropy can be conceived as a measure of microscopic disorder, and by the second law we can say that as a system advances through time, it becomes more disordered statistically. As per the second law of thermodynamics, for systems reacting at standard conditions for temperature and pressure, there is a tendency of the system to achieve a minimum of the Gibbs free energy. Irreversibility of the mode of instantiating this law and the increasing dissipation of energy due to this were associated as predictions based on the entropic conception of the second law. In general, dissipation of energy is seen to be the basis of pattern formation in nature [22]. Energy gradients are what make things happen. These gradients are seen to take place between particles and fields through correlations and dynamics, enacting adaptive behavior. At a certain level of description, this coordinated activity can be analyzed using concepts like coherence and mutual information, while at another level, these collective patterns of activity can be seen from the more abstract dual of entropy production and energy dissipation. Dutch physicist Erik Verlinde gave an entropic conception of gravity [23], which was later extended to other Abelian and non-Abelian gauge fields [24], thereby giving the idea that we could conceive of emergence of the fundamental forces of nature from entropy in a result that is still subject to extensive and conclusive experimental tests.

In the biological realm, recently such dissipation-driven adaptive organization was proposed to be the basis for life and evolution [25], as well as the basis for brain organization [26]. More fundamentally and specifically, the manner in which this happened not only depends on the energy dissipation but also more microstate-based changes in the system, which is reflected in variations of complexity in the system. Recently, statistical complexity of neural recording data from fruit flies was seen to be correlated with the conscious arousal of the flies [27]. From an evolutionary point of view, the phylogenetic evolution of the human genus is seen to be associated with the increase of the structural and functional brain complexity [28], and this is due to the necessity to handle internal as well as external information in the most efficient way. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the crucial point for proper brain information processing, for conscious awareness to emerge, is that there must be fluctuating activity among various possible configurations of the neural network [26], thereby highlighting that the brain needs metastability and not just strong stability [29]. In fact, strong stability of brain (states) are usually associated with diseases and coma or unconsciousness. This almost behooves the discussion of the probabilistic, quantum nature of the miniscule, which is not quite deterministic.

Bringing all these ideas together, it seems like nature is fundamentally constituted by a creative principle – a tendency to expand, to dissipate energy across states, in a bid to increase entropy, and adapt accordingly so as to facilitate energy-dissipation. This is not necessarily a spatial expansion but rather an expansion in the number of configurations. It is an adaptive entropic complexification that usually involves evolution of complexity in the state(s) of physical system(s), which happens with a probabilistic distribution across configurations, and is ‘collapsed’ to a certain point only when a certain system tends to correlate and develop spontaneous entanglement with its environment, as is beautiful portrayed in the concept of decoherence [30]. The entire process has an inherent reflexivity: an inherent tendency to feedback and evolve, whereby the state of the system drives its behavior and the actions and activities of the systems redefines the being of the system, in a self-referential loop where action is being and being is action. This reflexivity and tendency – to event self-interact, is also characteristic of the description of consciousness in ancient Indic texts. In that regard, some key ideas of Indic thought and civilization, particularly that of Brahman (which itself comes from the root bṛh– ‘to expand, grow and enlarge’) seem to be placed on fairly scientific and truly representative aspects of nature and the universe. In this particular respect, it reflects the truth as we see it, using empiricism and scientific constructs of contemporary time. For me, this rather ubiquitous essence, if you will, of the Universe is what constitutes the spiritual, the meta-description, the realm of the cosmic principle that we have heard of since times of yore.

Everything else follows.

This is what I see as ब्रह्मनत्व – the essence of Brahman, the universal cosmic principle.

References:

[1] Larson, Gerald James. Classical Sāṃkhya: An interpretation of its history and meaning. Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 2001.

[2] Deussen, Paul. Outline of the Vedanta System of Philosophy according to Shankara. Harvard University Press, 1906.

[3] Chaudhuri, Haridas. The concept of Brahman in Hindu philosophy. Philosophy East and West 4.1 (1954): 47-66.

[4] Baghel, Richa. Purusha and Prakruti of the Samkhyakarika Philosophy: Rationalising decisions of an individual in synchronization with the environment. International Journal of Hinduism & Philosophy: 55.

[5] Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli. The Vedanta philosophy and the doctrine of Maya. The International Journal of Ethics 24.4 (1914): 431-451.

[6] Edmonds III, Radcliffe G. Redefining ancient Orphism: a study in Greek religion. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

[7] Delpit, Lisa, and Paula White-Bradley. Educating or imprisoning the spirit: Lessons from ancient Egypt. Theory Into Practice 42.4 (2003): 283-288.

[8] Broadie, Alexander, and J. R. Macdonald. The Ancient Near Eastern and Greek Concept of Universal Order. Prudentia 9.1 (1977): 1-14.

[9] Cottingham, W. Noel, and Derek A. Greenwood. An introduction to the standard model of particle physics. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

[10] Hawking, Stephen. The theory of everything. Jaico Publishing House, 2006.

[11] Becker, Katrin, Melanie Becker, and John H. Schwarz. String theory and M-theory: A modern introduction. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

[12] Rovelli, Carlo. Loop quantum gravity. Living reviews in relativity 11.1 (2008): 5.

[13] Dowker, Fay. Causal sets and the deep structure of spacetime. A. Ashtekar (ed.) 100 (2005): 445-467.

[14] Chamseddine, Ali H., and Alain Connes. Universal formula for noncommutative geometry actions: Unification of gravity and the standard model. Physical review letters 77.24 (1996): 4868.

[15] Sinha, K. P., and E. C. G. Sudarshan. The superfluid as a Source of All Interactions. Foundations of Physics 8.11-12 (1978): 823-831.

[16] Baaklini, N. S. Supergrand unification in E8. Physics Letters B 91.3-4 (1980): 376-378.

[17] Lagemann, Robert. Michelson on measurement. American Journal of Physics 27.3 (1959): 182-184.

[18] Renn, Jürgen. Einstein’s Annalen Papers: The Complete Collection 1901-1922. 2005.

[19] Wilczynska, Michael R., et al. Four direct measurements of the fine-structure constant 13 billion years ago. Science Advances 6.17 (2020): eaay9672.

[20] Weinberg, Steven. The first three minutes. Bantam, New York (1979).

[21] Parrondo, Juan MR, Christian Van den Broeck, and Ryoichi Kawai. Entropy production and the arrow of time. New Journal of Physics 11.7 (2009): 073008.

[22] Prigogine, Ilya. Time, structure, and fluctuations. Science 201.4358 (1978): 777-785.

[23] Verlinde, E. On the origin of gravity and the laws of Newton. J. High Energ. Phys. 2011, 29 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP04(2011)029

[24] Dil, Emre, and Tugrul Yumak. On the entropic nature of unified interactions. Physica Scripta 94.8 (2019): 085002.

[25] England, Jeremy L. Statistical physics of self-replication. The Journal of chemical physics 139.12 (2013): 09B623_1.

[26] Perez Velazquez, Jose Luis, Diego Martin Mateos, and Ramon Guevara Erra. On a simple general principle of brain organization. Frontiers in neuroscience 13 (2019): 1106.

[27] Muñoz, Roberto N., et al. General anesthesia reduces complexity and temporal asymmetry of the informational structures derived from neural recordings in Drosophila. Physical Review Research 2.2 (2020): 023219.

[28] Bruner, Emiliano, et al. Functional craniology and brain evolution: from paleontology to biomedicine. Frontiers in neuroanatomy 8 (2014): 19.

[29] Fingelkurts, Alexander A., et al. Do we need a theory-based assessment of consciousness in the field of disorders of consciousness? Frontiers in human neuroscience 8 (2014): 402.

[30] Schlosshauer, Maximilian A. Decoherence: and the quantum-to-classical transition. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.

Hits: 40