Arthapatti/postulation, Adhyasa, and Vulcan

 

Arthapatti variously translated as ‘postulation’, ‘presumption’, ‘supposition’ is treated almost perfunctorily in the classic texts usually focusing on the simplest canonical examples of fat Devadatta who doesn’t eat during the day and the living Chaitra who is not at home.  A restricted diet of examples leads to intellectual starvation in that the inquiry can be led into the path of cliched thinking. Take the very topic itself ‘pramana’ usually translated as ‘valid means of knowledge’.  I seem to notice the error that ensues in the conviction that if valid knowledge does not ensue then there was no pramana employed which is bizarre considering that confusion/illusion/delusion is such a topic in Vedanta.  Perception, a primary pramana, was used but knowledge did not happen.  Therefore I must demur from the statement of Swami Satprakashananda in his ‘Methods of Knowledge’:

It is worthy of note that arthapatti is applicable only when there is but one alternative explanation of the fact to be explained.  When there are more than one possible explanations the assumption of any one of them cannot explain the fact assuredly (with certainty).  So this cannot be a case of postulation (arthapatti) which is a means to valid knowledge.

This is an elision of the use of arthapatti in science which proceeds by hypothesis and experiment.  In advaitic/non-dual metaphysics the adhyasa theory is the result of a transcendental hypothesis or arthapatti which attempts to solve the aporia of perception viz. how does that out there extended object come to be in my mind as a state of unextended consciousness.  This is the subject of the preamble to the Brahma Sutra Bhasya by Sankara about which I have written extensively.  It is noteworthy that this aporia only exists for a Realist epistemology, for the subjective Idealist there is only the presentment to the mind and the object drops out as at most an inference.  As Sankara says in his commentary we perceive objects, we don’t perceive our perceptions.  There is a non-dual (non-numerical identity) between that out there and this in here.  In fact the division into ‘out there/external’ and ‘in here/internal’ is a dubious one.  That’s another topic.

Vulcan, the home planet of Mr.Spock the eminent logician was proven to be an illusion by Einstein.  My Google AI friend has a succinct account:

Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity played a pivotal role in debunking the existence of the hypothetical planet Vulcan. Prior to Einstein's theory, astronomers, including Urbain Le Verrier, proposed Vulcan to explain discrepancies in Mercury's orbit, which couldn't be fully explained by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Einstein's theory, however, provided a more accurate understanding of gravity as the curvature of spacetime, eliminating the need for a hypothetical planet to explain the observed orbital anomalies.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

   The Discrepancy:

   Mercury's orbit showed a slight wobble, or precession, that couldn't be fully accounted for by the gravitational pull of the known planets in the solar system.

The Proposed Solution:

Le Verrier proposed that a planet between Mercury and the Sun, dubbed Vulcan, was causing the wobble.

The Hunt for Vulcan:

Astronomers searched for Vulcan during solar eclipses, but it was never found.

Einstein's Revelation:

Einstein's theory of General Relativity, published in 1915, explained that the precession of Mercury's orbit was due to the way spacetime is warped around massive objects, like the Sun. This warping effect was more pronounced closer to the Sun, making it unnecessary to postulate the existence of a hypothetical planet to explain the observed orbital anomalies.

The End of Vulcan:

Einstein's theory effectively eliminated the need for Vulcan, demonstrating that the observed precession could be explained by the curvature of spacetime, and not by the gravitational pull of a hidden planet.

Here arthapatti correctly employed produced the planet Vulcan.  Some people even mistook sun spots to be the transit of Vulcan across the Sun.  

Arthatpatti// Language goes on holiday

Elisa Freschi was discussing the pramana (means of valid knowledge) arthapatti
arthapatti
It has been variously translated as ‘postulation’ and ‘presumption’. One commentor ‘Bama’ preferred ‘presumption’. Elisa offered a palette of terms including ‘cogent evidence’. This led me to thinking - maybe arthapatti is too simple for words.

My first bit of philosophical semaphore was:

We know how arthapatti works. It’s a bit like a switch where there is disjunction between the two values, on/off, true/false, yes/no. Plump Devadatta does not eat during the daylight hours therefore he must be eating at night. If one state is known i.e. alive and not at home then the other state is immediately know i.e. outside the home somewhere. Postulation does not apply. Postulation may be shown to be correct or it may be impossible to show whether or not it is. Think of Hig’s Boson and Kant’s Transcendental Postulate. We are attempting to reach towards a picture of how things must fundamentally be for things to appear as they do. Arthapatti is not tentative in any sense.

I can see where ‘assumption’ or ‘presumption’ may not be a perfect fit for what arthapatti does. There is no ‘before’ for arthapatti, there is no ‘after’ for arthapatti. Implication doesn’t fit. Knowing that plump Devadatta is fasting during the day is knowing that he eats at night. Implications have to be worked out so this is not one. Arthapatti has a bi-polar nature. It is basic and irreducible.

to which I added as an afterthought:

I wrote the following paragraph before I read your response. There is a general difficulty in the explanation of basic powers. Ostensive definition has the problem of knowing what it is you are pointing at. (I admit to being an unreconstricted Wittgensteinian)

If I might add. Even if the Sanskrit has the sense of apatti – artha then it too is explaining the simple in terms of the more complex and that cannot be a good explanation. Here as Wittgenstein wrote – ‘my spade turns’. If the complex has the simple embedded in it then circularity ensues. Simply by having a human mind you get ‘switches’ in the ‘kit’.

The ‘ostensive definition’ entry in the index to Philosophical Investigations is worth looking at. Here the well known ‘logos’ occurs (38)

For philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday.

Language has stopped doing what it normally does when it tries to express something that is too simple for language. Switch then may express the cybernetic aspect of arthapatti, or what in Advaita is called the inert nature of mind, its mechanical quality.

Connected with this cybernetic notion in my understanding of it is the counterpositive pratiyoga concept. Broadly speaking the illusory is founded on there being an actual reality. It works like figure and ground and it is again a mechanical thing. The counterpositiveness.......abiding in the illusory silver, is characterised by conventional reality(from Vedanta Paribhasa on Perception)

You haven’t heard the last of this.