LifeNotes [Copyright 2007 Compact Library Publishers Inc.]
Where Are We Going?
Every human being has inside them a knowledge and understanding of love. If you are willing to take the journey through your heart, mind, and soul, your very being, you will find in yourself the reason for living. If you care at all about life and people and yourself, you will take the journey.
We begin our journey.
Who
Am I?
The
day you were born you began a learning process that will continue for the rest
of your life. You were, from the beginning, molded by your surroundings,
parents, relatives, playmates, by all the general attitudes, ideas, and beliefs
you came in contact with. As you grew older those early experiences affected
and altered, both consciously and subconsciously, what you felt and did about
all the day to day things that went on around you. Each new year of life added
to your past, changing the way you viewed every new day, influencing how you
reacted to everything from the simplest daily routines to complex events
touching you, your family, and the world you lived in.
As
you grew yet older you interacted with people from different backgrounds with
differing ideas about life. You found yourself actively defending, modifying,
or abandoning your early beliefs, adapting the various ideas you came in
contact with to fit your developing perception of life. Perhaps new ideas were
introduced to you by people with dynamic personalities who espoused one
philosophy or another. Faced with the challenge of those ideas, you may have
tenaciously defended your early beliefs, dismissing unfamiliar concepts with
alarming ease by resort to ingenious, if not solid, arguments. On the other
hand, you may have completely abandoned your past and adopted new beliefs
opposite to those you once cherished.
However,
like most people, you probably belong to that vast river of humanity which
seems to move along in a fairly discernible direction, concerned at any given
minute with living that moment in the easiest, most pleasant way possible. If
so, you were and are more or less able to blend ideas, feelings, philosophies,
desires, and realities to justify what you want to do. Along with the majority
of people, you were and are good at sending questions and ideas about the
meaning of life and death, as well as thoughts and feelings about what is good
and right, deep into the cloudy regions of your mind.
Whether
we realize it or not, most of us are voluntary prisoners of our minds,
unwilling to question who we are and what we believe, happy to simply roll
along through life. Most of us will live from birth to death in a world we have
fashioned from our past to suit our present. Many will find comfort through
unquestioned acceptance of their family's, or even a friend's, religious or
philosophical heritage. Yet few will ever stand free from their present beliefs
and daily lives to ask what is life about? Who am I? What should I do? What
will I do? If there is meaning to life, and a reason for living, those
questions must be answered.
If
there is a true meaning to life, nothing that you do, say, or think will change
that truth. What good is it to live your life believing what you are doing is
right if your beliefs are false and what you are doing is wrong? It is an
understanding of life that we seek, a search for something in life worth living
for.
If
you are to find the meaning of life you must be willing to recognize it if and
when you see it. To do so requires you to open your mind and accept whatever
you discover, even if it is totally opposite to your experiences, beliefs, and
wishes. If you are to understand life you cannot hide in the comfort of daily living,
clouding your mind to avoid discomfort. You must not reject what you discover
if it does not fit what your life has been, is, and what you want it to be.
Since
our discussion deals with the purpose of life, if what we are saying is true,
your willingness to understand is a willingness to grasp the very reason for
your living. If the answers you find are different from those you have molded
for yourself, you must decide whether to continue on the path you are on, or go
another way on a new path toward a new destination.
If You Are Who You Are, Then Who Are You?
Each of us is born, we live lives of
various lengths, and then we die. Each of us has, or perhaps develops, a
separate nature and existence, a being, which is unique to us and sets us apart
from every other person who lives or has ever lived. Indeed we share similar
characteristics, but no two of us are the same person. As humans, each of us is
distinct, each of us is an individual being.
What makes each of us unique is the fact
that we perpetually make choices between alternatives. Our choices seem to be
far more than mechanical selections based on some complex biological decision
making scheme. Rather, your choice seems to be based not only on what you
believe will happen if you make a certain choice, but also on what you
"want" to happen. You, as all of us do, possess the ability to engage
in what we will call “rational thought”, whereby each of us weighs many
variables in a process that includes concepts of good and evil, right and
wrong. “Rational thought”, as we define it, is reasoned thought that presents
us with choices between alternatives. You ultimately reach a point in your
rational thinking where that certain quality of being which is unique to you
takes over and you make your free choice among the alternatives.
Biologists have demonstrated that the line
between animal and human "thought" is not as clear as was once
commonly assumed. There are animals that appear to have self-awareness, solve
problems, communicate, exhibit emotions, etc. While there may be a very high
degree of intelligence in the animal world, animals seem to lack the ability to
make free choices by consciously "thinking" about alternatives and
consequences. It appears that only human beings possess the necessary
consciousness and symbolic languages that allow us to engage in significant
abstract thought.
For example, animals may or may not harm
other animals, yet they do not appear to be able to make reasoned choices to
harm or not to harm by considering whether it is right or wrong to do so. An
animal may make a “choice” to act kindly toward another animal based in part on
their "inherent personality" and “basic instincts”. Yet it appears
that an animal cannot make a rational, reasoned, choice to go against
"inherent personality" and "basic instincts". Human beings
can choose to do that which they would not otherwise do, to go against what
their instincts, personality, and emotions tell them to do. Scientists often
take this apparent distinction for granted. Rather than consider ourselves to
be nothing more than highly evolved animals, we should recognize our ability to
engage in "rational thought” and give more consideration to the fact that
we appear to have truly unique mental abilities.
Unlike any animal, your choices are made
after rational thought. Even though you have instinctive feelings for
self-preservation, procreation, self-satisfaction, etc., decisions may be
freely made for reasons and purposes totally opposite to those instincts. You
can think about what you are going to do, and can choose to do what you believe
is right and good even if it places you in grave danger. Similarly, you can
choose to do what you believe is wrong and evil even if you would instinctively
do otherwise. Your decision is your decision, a product of your singular
existence and being. Able to engage in rational thought, and to choose freely
among various courses of action based on those thoughts, you are in a very real
sense what you choose to be.
One of the oldest controversies in human
history deals with what the significance of rational thought really is. Perhaps
the most debated question is whether or not rational thought actually gives us
the ability to make “freewill” choices. Many scientists argue that every
rational choice you make is in fact predetermined by your biochemical makeup.
They admit that when you have a choice between two options you engage in both
conscious and subconscious thought processes before making what you consider to
be your decision. However they argue that no matter how convinced you are that
your choice between A and B is your own, your brain chemistry actually dictates
your selection. They suggest that your mind's decision-making processes cannot
go beyond the level of chemical neurological activity. Therefore, even though
your choices may in one sense still be said to be your own, they are in effect
predetermined. Despite the agonizing doubts, careful thought, and numerous
changes of mind that accompany daily decisions, most scientists believe the
final decision would be totally predictable if they could decode your brain.
This idea of "determinism" not
only shows up in science, but in some ancient philosophies and religions as
well. Taken to its logical extreme, many believe in super-determinism, where
all that is in the universe was in the past part of a closely related system in
which "matter and energy" were joined. Many scientists and
philosophers view everything from sub-atomic particles to human beings as part
of a universe whose destiny was forever set at creation by the forces between
its constituent parts, and whose future unfolds in a billiard ball like
progression of "predictable" actions. To this school of thought,
humans are prisoners of subatomic laws that determine the behavior of atoms
that determine the behavior of molecules that determine the behavior of nerve
cells that determine the behavior of human brains that determine the behavior
of human beings. Even though the chain is totally imperceptible to humankind,
and a feeling of control exists as an inherent part of human existence, they
insist that what seem to be "spontaneous" decisions and reactions are
actually destined to occur without any possibility of variance.
While most scientists are comfortable with
the idea of an ordered and well-behaved universe, many view the complexity and
reality of life as requiring events to be based on something less than absolute
certainty. On the sub-atomic level this idea has been recognized in the
so-called uncertainty principle. Those who accept the uncertainty principal
might be called probability determinists. They argue for a determinism as
certain as any, one that also sees humankind governed by forces beyond its
control. Yet the reality dictated by their brand of determinism can only be
described by stating how likely it is that a particular event, chosen from a
list of possible events, will occur. In other words, they can eliminate what
cannot happen, can give you a list of events that might happen, and can even
tell you how likely it is each individual item will take place, but they cannot
tell you which of the possible events will in fact occur. The exact future of
the universe may be uncertain, yet it is still fundamentally predetermined.
Modern theories dealing with chaotic
behavior tell us that because of the almost infinite number of possible
combinations created by the interaction between objects we cannot complete the
necessary calculations to determine what will in fact occur next. Furthermore,
some mathematical problems may have no solutions, and seem to be fundamentally
“non-computable”. It is simply not known whether or not non-deterministic
physical mechanisms exist in our universe. Virtually all of the currently
“favored” cosmologic theories dealing with chaos, complexity, and computability
agree that given enough information and processing power (even if the required
amounts approach infinity) the probabilistic behavior of even the most complex
system in our universe is "in theory" mathematically calculable. It
is fair to say that all of the currently favored cosmologic theories conclude
that our physical universe is, in some real sense, fully deterministic.
In a universe that had no living
organisms, determinism would not be as hard to accept as it is in our universe
inhabited by living creatures. One can visualize a universe devoid of life
where every rock, every speck of dust, every atom, every sub-atomic particle,
follows a pattern which was forever fixed at creation, and that expands into
the future with absolute precision. In an inanimate universe, it is not as
difficult to accept that rocks, specks of dust, etc., or even groups of these
objects, have no "ability" to alter the course that the laws of
physics dictate they follow.
It is much more difficult to accept that
our universe, populated as it is by living organisms, is a totally
deterministic one. If super-determinism is correct, we reach the intuitively
unlikely result that the absolute time for every blink of our eyes is
predetermined, every breath that we take is taken at precise moments and in
exact amounts! There is nothing we can do to alter any of our physical motions
- even the slightest twitch of our body occurs at the very moment it was
destined to occur by the forces acting in the first second of the universe.
Every change of our minds is inevitable, every thought we have ever had was
predetermined and occurred without any chance of alteration.
If we live in a fully deterministic world,
I was destined before birth to write precisely the words contained in this
paragraph on the day and at the time and on the computer I wrote them on, and
when the universe was formed you were destined to read precisely the words
contained in this paragraph on the day and at the time you are reading them. At
the beginning of the world, not only were you predestined to be precisely where
you are right now, but you were also destined to be wearing the clothes you are
wearing, have every hair on your head the exact length that each one is, have
every object in the room placed precisely where it is, etc. Every thought you
are having about what I am saying was predetermined to occur without the
slightest variation, even your instant reaction to this very sentence was set
at creation. This simply does not "seem" to be what actually happens,
we intuitively "feel" that we can make meaningful choices among
alternatives, perhaps so, perhaps not.
Even though current theories do not appear
to allow for freewill, some scientists and philosophers argue that no matter
how well ordered your chemical thought processes may be, you reach a point in
each sequence of mental activity where the unique being which you are makes a
decision. A decision that goes beyond the confines of conscious and
subconscious biochemical processes. A choice made after "considering"
the products of your biological thought processes along with abstract concepts
of good and bad, right and wrong, etc. They believe the basic, profound aspect
of human existence, which makes you who you are, transforms your choices among
alternatives into "free will" decisions that transcend physical
constraints.
It is very difficult for those of us who
have grown up in a scientific world to visualize, let alone accept, human
thought extending beyond the chemical confines of the human mind. Yet there has
been no scientific evidence (perhaps because no experiment has been devised
that could test the hypothesis) that would refute the jump from predetermined
biochemical thought to human thought controlled by individual beings. Because
no one has explained the illusive quality that might make each human being
unique and give them control over their decisions does not mean that it does
not exist, nor does it mean it does exist.
Some scientists and philosophers believe
that determinism might be compatible with the existence of a physical, as
opposed to a non-physical, consciousness that can be held to be morally
responsible for its actions. It would seem that those scientists and
philosophers do not adequately appreciate the fact that all the currently
favored physical theories are based on fully deterministic causal
relationships, be they probabilistic or otherwise, and therefore lack any
mechanism for human freedom or responsibility. They incorrectly conclude that
because complex physical systems exhibit almost infinite complexity, those
systems might support some kind of metaphysical freedom. On close examination
this is not justified, simply because in every accepted theory all observable
physical systems, from Planck scale to the scale of the universe, are governed
at every level by deterministic laws. The idea that a physical consciousness,
based on deterministic physical processes, might make meaningful choices, seems
both illogical and fundamentally wrong.
Other scientists and philosophers argue
that modern science has proven determinism to be "true". In fact,
science has only begun to address the nature of human thought. On a sub-atomic
level more questions have been raised than answers found, leading some to
suggest that quantum effects may allow for free-will. Research into the nature
of physical consciousness has demonstrated the incredible complexity, and
fundamental mystery, of the human mind. Paradoxes associated with thought
experiments suggest we have not yet begun to understand the basics of human
consciousness and the possibility of freewill. Even if the human mind can make
meaningful statements about its most fundamental nature (it is not at all clear
it can), nothing to date either proves or rules out the existence of human
freewill. For the moment we ask you to accept the possibility that freewill
exists beyond biological and physical constraints.
We note that no matter how predetermined your existence may be, it can be argued that "you" make freewill choices even if it is chemically determined what those choices will be, simply because "you" are the product of your biochemistry. While that argument, and variations of it, may be true by definition, it seems if we are to be held accountable for our actions we should have a freedom of choice that can be anticipated to be found only in that which is beyond human chemistry. We ask that you keep an open mind about the possible existence of individual control which makes your decisions truly your own.
Who Will You Be When You No Longer Are?
[Warning! There is a risk that as you read
the following notes, you may misunderstand the discussion and think that we are
suggesting that there is no "reason to live". That is not what we are
saying at all! In fact we are saying the opposite, we have abundant hope that
if you search for the reason to live you will find it. As you read these notes
you must not become discouraged or depressed. If you are or become discouraged,
if you disagree with anything that is said, or if you simply don't believe what
we are saying is "useful" to you, please finish reading all the
notes. Even if you agree with what is being said, and think you understand what
we are talking about, please read every section. If you are to find the true
reason for living it is necessary that you understand what is discussed in the
last notes. We are convinced that after you read these notes and complete your
journey through your heart, mind, and soul, you will find in yourself the
reason for living. Anyone who is, or becomes, seriously depressed should always
seek immediate medical help. If you find yourself distressed or depressed by
our conclusions please read the comment that is found near the end of these
Notes.]
If
in fact you do exercise meaningful freedom of choice, what good is it to be a
unique human being if at your death you cease to exist? If you do not continue
to exist in some form after death, what good are all the experiences,
decisions, triumphs, defeats, all the moments of your life? If you do not
survive the grave, if you return to the state of being that preceded your
birth, then I suggest to you that nothing in fact does matter. While over the
ages men and women have sought to perpetuate themselves through their children,
their place in history, their role in society, and through intricate
philosophical webs of existentialism and other essays on physical man's
importance, the fact of physical death remains. If each generation's death
means the end of those individuals, then we are all faced with an endless cycle
of creation and destruction, the meaning of which, if any, is beyond
comprehension.
If
there is anything in life we can count on occurring without fail, it is
physical death. The successful bank president, the champion athlete, the
housewife, the famous, the unknown, every human being, you, I, die. While all
acknowledge the certainty of their eventual demise, few think about death until
they are faced with it. The simple fact of death is not news to anyone, yet the
reality of its impending occurrence is ignored by virtually every living
person. The very nature of human life denies death and shrouds it in the cloak
of future events, events that are not yet real and need not be dealt with in
the present. Living is too important and time consuming to be concerned with
mortality. The fact that you are moving steadily toward your death is most
likely, and literally, to be the last thing on your mind.
Observing
the inevitable death of every creature that inhabits the earth, we may have a
recurrent feeling that death is the end. On the other hand, it is virtually
inconceivable to us that all we are, all we have been, all we will be, will be
rendered void in that moment of death. It goes against human nature to
visualize the effective destruction of our past, present, and future, which
accompanies death without existence beyond death. Yet if each human being does
cease to exist, then all human beings are, or in the case of generations yet
unborn will be, waiting their turn to cease existing. If each and every human
being ceases to be, then the feeling of continuity that pervades the human race
is false (please note, we will explain later why we do not believe that life is
in fact destroyed by physical death).
In
their arguments for humanism, existentialism, etc., philosophers have spent
lifetimes trying to construct a difference between the apparent continuity of
humankind, and the periodic death of individual humans. Most of us think of our
ancestors as a link to the past, and our children as a link to the future, yet
if we do not survive the grave each generation dies an isolated death that
mocks any assertion that humankind has a continuing existence apart from its
individual members. If each person's death results in their no longer existing,
then no manner of historical recording, social progression, or other
remembrance in the minds of those whose time to die is yet to come, can in any
way affect, preserve, or make any difference whatsoever to those who no longer
are. No one will survive to remember. If each of us ceases to be, then your
life has no meaning and your choices make no difference.
We
admit that this logic seems counter intuitive, and even wrong, but if we are
willing to dissociate ourselves from the incredible biologic urge for
self-preservation, both of the individual and the species, and are willing to
apply purely objective reasoning, the logical conclusion, while discomforting,
is perhaps inevitable (there is at least one possible logical loophole we will
discuss below that might give permanent meaning and value to a finite physical
life). This is a very difficult conclusion to accept, it goes against our
intuitive feelings about the continuity of human life, and against our
assumptions that individual physical lives have some kind of meaning and value.
Yet if we are little more than doomed animals, our intuitive feeling of meaning
and value would not be surprising. From the very beginning, to assure survival
of any species, evolution would certainly have instilled in living creatures
the feeling that there is a reason for them to exist, a reason for them to
crawl out of the ocean and build cities. If there is no life after death, and
our lives are in fact consumed by "nothing", it is no wonder that our
genetic heritage argues so strongly against that possibility.
Because
it is so difficult to accept, we will consider our conclusion in more detail.
It is logical to assume that if each person's consciousness is the product of
their physical bodies, then individual physical consciousness exists only
during that person’s physical life on earth. If each of our physical lives
proceeds from birth to death, then the consequence of each person's death
necessarily follows their death. Who can be affected by that death? Certainly
those who survive may be affected, but here is the "problem", the
death cannot be of any consequence to the purely physical human being who no
longer exists! The moment before the death of a human being perhaps it can be
said that their impending death affects that being, but the very moment after
the person dies, he or she is no longer around to be affected!
Let
us assume, for example, that a comet collides with the Earth at some time in
the future before humans have colonized space. Assume further that all life on
Earth is annihilated by the collision. It is very hard to accept, but if
consciousness is nothing more than a physical phenomena, if there is no
non-physical continuation of life after death, the most logical, I believe the
only logical, conclusion is that the complete annihilation of humankind is of
absolutely no consequence to humankind! While the words may sound bizarre and
counter intuitive, in fact they are not. The moment after the total destruction
of humankind it can be said with some certainty that the destruction of
humankind had no affect whatsoever on humankind, simply because humankind no
longer exists to be affected.
If
you accept that time has direction (we believe that even absent a “fundamental
time”, all events follow a causal, sequential, chain), then cause and effect,
action and consequence, occur in a fixed order, the former always
"preceding" the latter. Keeping that in mind, the idea that after the
total destruction of humankind there would be no one left to be affected should
not seem as bizarre. Assuming that one event will always precede another event
in order of occurrence, if the event that is called the death of a human being
is equivalent to the physical annihilation of that human being, the consequence
of that event necessarily follows the event. If there is a causal sequence to
events, then the annihilation cannot be of any consequence to a human being who
no longer exists. Again, the moment before the destruction of humankind perhaps
it could be said that the impending destruction affects humankind, but the very
moment after humankind is destroyed there is absolutely no humankind left to be
affected. Assume that the comet annihilates humankind at 12:00 noon, the
consequence of that destruction occurs at 12:00 noon PLUS a moment in time, and
at 12:00 noon plus the moment in time there is no humankind left to be
affected. Indeed, there is no humankind around that is conscious of the fact
that the comet struck the earth!
The
same logic applies to the history of individuals not visited by a catastrophic
event. If you believe that each human being is nothing more than an individual
physical entity, and therefore that there is no life after death, then at the
time of their death each human being experiences the identical individual
annihilation that all humankind would experience together if the earth and its
inhabitants were simultaneously "destroyed". If a human being dies at
The
logic goes even further. If you do not believe that human consciousness
continues to exist after physical death, then death not only annihilates each individual's
present and future, but also annihilates their past. Most people would agree
that for an object to have a present and a future the object must exist. Yet
many would make the distinction that while an object cannot have a present and
a future if it does not exist, it somehow can have a past. It is clear that the
present and future of an object are bound to the existence of the object, but
so to is the object's past. Much of the problem lies in the popular usage of
the words past, present, and future both to describe that which is part of an
object (a "past" that belongs to the object, like a person’s memories
that “belong” to the living individual from birth to death), and to describe
the existence of the object from a third party's view (a “past” which is a
chronological description of the object, like a photo album containing pictures
of an individual who has died).
It
is a misconception to equate the fact that there is a "history" of
all beings or objects that is set in the "past", with the statement
that a being or object that no longer exists has a "past". The first
idea simply states that the being or object existed over a finite period that
is apparent to those who currently exist. The extension of the concept of such
a history to the idea that somehow the object or being that no longer exists
still possesses a "past" confuses the distinction these two words can
convey. Once an object or being no longer exists it obviously has no present or
future, similarly the object has no past. While it may be difficult to accept,
a mountain that no longer exists has no past, present, or future for the simple
reason that there is no such mountain. There is a current history of a mountain
that once existed, but there is no mountain we can point to and describe the
"past" of. This is far more than semantics. A person who lived a
thousand years ago had a historic life that those who are alive can be
conscious of, but the person no longer has a past that is their past, which
they can be conscious of.
The
English language lacks the words that would make it easy to convey the
difference between a “history” set in the past that is the sum of all
lifetimes, and a “past” that is unique to and dependent on the existence of an
individual life. Perhaps humankind has avoided the initially discomforting
possibility of "finite pasts" by not distinguishing them from the
infinite. Perhaps the majority simply do not accept the possibility of the
perpetual annihilation of human beings.
There
are many arguments that purport to counter this logic, including assertions
that a person's life before physical death has “existential” meaning in and of
itself, yet all the alternative arguments are set in the time before death,
within the causal sequence of events that precede death. Every humanistic
theory is based on the biophysics of existence before physical death. We
believe that none of the arguments adequately address the period after death
(perhaps with the possible exception suggested by modern physics that is
discussed below), and therefore none answer the question of how a person who no
longer exists can have a past, present, or future?
If
death is the end of your existence, should you be frightened by the certainty
of your destruction? If indeed you cease to exist, you need not fear death, for
after your death you will feel neither pain, nor pleasure, nor peace, nor
torment. "You" will no longer exist, therefore "you" will
feel nothing. The resulting void is just that, a complete and total void. There
is nothing to fear, for there will be no one to experience anything negative.
There is nothing to look forward to, for there will be no one to experience
anything positive. The only way you can visualize what is usually called a
"nihilistic" death is to picture yourself after death as being in the
same state you were in before birth (of course you were not really in any state
at all). Trying to project yourself into the void that precedes life helps you
understand the void that may follow death. This ultimate void would in a single
moment consume your past, present, and future. No matter what philosophers may
tell us, such a fate, while it would offer no hope, would leave nothing to be
feared.
Admittedly,
our conclusions about physical death are totally opposite to our "common
sense" understanding of life. Virtually everyone is certain, for example,
that if they are eleven years old now, they have already experienced their
tenth year of life, and nothing can take from them the past experience of being
ten years old. It is this assumption, that our past somehow exists forever,
that is at the heart of all humanistic belief systems. Indeed, belief in some
kind of physical persistence of a human being's past is the only rational
argument for the universal humanistic conclusion that even if physical death is
the end, living a "good life" gives meaning and value to human
existence. However there is a deep, deep, problem with the humanist's view.
"Humanistic"
philosophers seem to accept that human consciousness is purely physical in
nature, and acknowledge the end of consciousness at physical death. Yet almost
all modern humanist philosophers tell us that a finite life can have meaning
and value. The problem lies in failure to accept the rational and logical
consequences for each human being if individual consciousness ceases to exist
on the physical death of the mind and body. All of the humanist philosophers
either ignore or misunderstand what the future holds for us after physical
death if we are nothing more than physical beings.
Philosophers
often speak of the void that would follow such a death as the abyss, the
unknown, the approaching void, etc. All of these suggest that we are on a
journey to a "place" which lies at the end of our physical lifetimes.
If on our death we cease to exist, this idea that we are traveling to our
ultimate destiny is false. What the philosophers are doing is giving substance
to nothing. We are not traveling to an abyss, the void, or the unknown, for
these words suggest that we are moving toward something. I recognize the
seeming absurdity of the language, yet if on our death we cease to exist, then
"nothing" totally consumes us.
This
is the heart of the problem, we cannot in any way whatsoever understand or
visualize "nothing". The moment we attempt to comprehend or visualize
"nothing", the comprehension or visualization interjects something
into "nothing", preventing us from reaching our goal. When we define
"nothing" we give it the quality of being definable, a quality that
can only be given to that which is more than "nothing". Nothing might
be thought of as the total absence of physical reality, yet even this assigns a
definition to the indefinable. The moment we think about "nothing" we
make it an object that can be thought about, we make it an object that can only
be more than "nothing". The only way we can answer the question
"what is nothing?" is to answer it by not asking it, for if we ask
the question we destroy the answer. Most people fail to recognize the fact that
"something" simply cannot comprehend "nothing". If we are
no more than physical beings, and if “nothing” follows our physical death, then
at the moment of our physical death, "nothing" totally consumes us.
What
does science have to say about all this? We need to recognize that the very
difficult conclusions we reach in this section are not necessarily supported by
conventional interpretations of general relativity and quantum mechanics. The
current understanding that human being’s have of the physical universe is
fundamentally incomplete. Early concepts of space and time as absolute
metaphysical entities would seem to be fully consistent with our analysis.
However, modern physics tells us that the universe is much more complex than it
was once thought to be. At the start of the third millennium, it is generally
accepted that we exist in some kind of four dimensional “space-time”. The
mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who helped formalize
the math of space-time, said "…henceforth, space by itself, and time by
itself, have vanished into the merest shadows and only a kind of blend of the
two exists in its own right."
Space-time
is essentially the history of the entire universe, containing every
"event" that ever happens. A "world-line" is the history of
an object / observer in "space-time". Each point on the world-line of
a human being is generally thought to be a real physical event that represents
a unique sequential moment in the life of that individual, from birth to death.
Conventional wisdom is that the world-line of a human being is the "human
being", so that human life is in some sense a permanent part of
space-time. If this is so, perhaps we have a permanent physical past that is
etched in the fabric of space-time.
To
see why we do not believe that science provides us with a physical past, we
need to look at three interpretations of cosmologic theories. The first
possible interpretation, the one that we strongly favor, brings into question
the very nature of space-time. At first glance, the concept of a permanent
physical space-time seems to imply that human beings have a physical past,
present, and future. Most people assume that the math of space-time describes a
permanent physical reality that surrounds us, a very real, very physical,
space-time in which we exist. This may not be the case.
The
limited number of physicists who understand the incredibly difficult math,
realize that the theory of general relativity tells us that the universe may be
completely described without using a "fundamental temporal variable",
without even defining what we call "time". The time we measure on a
stopwatch that we use to clock a foot race is derived from comparing the motion
of the runner from the starting line to the finish line with the motion of the
hand rotating around the face of the watch. The time on the stopwatch is not,
as Newton thought, a fundamental quantity in nature, rather it is a comparison
of the motion of the person running down the track relative to the motion of
the hands of the stopwatch. Therefore, we may be justified in concluding that
"time" is derived from relative motion, but that relative motion does
not necessarily require the passage of time. It may be true that “fundamental
time” simply does not exist.
This
is a shocking idea for human beings who are confronted with the ticking away of
years, days, hours, and seconds. Even so, if you think about it, a year is
nothing more than the relative motion of the earth going around the sun, a day
is the relative motion of the earth rotating around its axis, an hour is a
fraction of the motion we call a day measured by a quartz "moving" in
a watch, a second is very close to the relative motion of a beating heart, etc.
We don't expect to convince you in a few paragraphs that time is an illusion,
it took years of reading and thought for us to reach that conclusion, but we do
want you to recognize that there is a strong possibility that fundamental time
does not exist. If this is a correct interpretation of general relativity, it
can lead to the conclusion that there is no temporality of any kind associated
with our universe (please see Physics
Meets Philosophy at the Planck Scale for more details).
There
are extremely serious objections to this line of thought. In its most popular
forms, the other 20th century revolution in physics, quantum mechanics,
incorporates a fundamental temporal variable. Some scientists believe that
general relativity will be found to be incomplete, and that quantum mechanics
tells us that time does in fact exist. Other physicists agree that the universe
lacks a fundamental temporal variable by which the universe evolves, yet they
also believe that in some very real sense the universe exhibits fundamental
"temporality". None-the-less, there are a few respected physicists
who believe that we should accept what general relativity is telling us, that
there is no fundamental temporal variable in the universe, and find a way to
modify quantum mechanics to eliminate both "time" and
"temporality" from quantum theory. Given the success of general
relativity in predicting experimental results, we strongly believe that this is
the correct approach. We are convinced that if and when physicists discover a
broad model that incorporates both relativity and quantum theories, what is
usually called a theory of quantum gravity, it will not have any kind of
fundamental temporal variable associated with it, and we will find that the
universe is fundamentally "atemporal" in
nature.
If
the theory of general relativity is in fact part of the illusive theory of
quantum gravity, and if we do in fact live in an "atemporal"
universe, one extremely speculative result might be that physical events in our
lives either exist, or do not exist. The statement that a point on a world-line
exists in the universe may be false, true, false, with no sense that “false” is
“before” or “after” true! If so, then it may be quite literally true that your
tenth birthday does not exist, does exist, does not exist in the universe.
Perhaps you believe that your tenth birthday is a permanent part of your past
only because it is part of your current memories, not because it exists in some
kind of permanent physical space-time. We need to emphasize that this is a very
speculative idea, that at the beginning of the third millennium is considered
nothing more than science fiction by most, perhaps all, cosmologists.
If
we live in an essentially "atemporal"
universe, and there is no non-physical existence after death, we are convinced
that physical death consumes each human being's physical past, present, and
future. This is very difficult to understand and accept, yet the idea that
there is no fundamental temporality, and that this fact leads to the
annihilation of our physical past, intuitively appears to us to be the correct
interpretation of our physical universe. When you finish reading this you may
have questions about some of our conclusions, especially about the very complex
relativistic and quantum science behind this part of our notes. You may want to
look at the other notes and look at the comments accompanying our book
that we release from time to time, where we try to present a broader picture of
the foundation and logic that supports the conclusions.
The
reason that we end up relying on intuition, and cannot be more certain that our
conclusions are correct, is simply because no one knows what physics will look
like if and when relativity and quantum theories are united. Furthermore, there
is no way to tell how long it will take to find answers to the basic questions
raised by modern physics. Indeed, it is quite possible that we will never know
the answers to many of our most fundamental questions. We believe that the
universe is essentially atemporal, and that physical
death annihilates our physical (but not any non-physical) past, present, and
future, but we may be wrong!
OK,
let's say that you are unwilling to even think about "time" not
existing, would the existence of "time" restore a meaningful physical
past to your life? The second possibility we will look at is based on the fact
that most popular interpretations of modern physics suggest that the physical
existence of each human being somehow persists in space-time in the form of the
individual's "world-line”. Classical interpretations often say that an
object is the entire world-line of that object, or that a human being is his or
her entire world-line, but they do not really explain what is meant by this.
They do, however, almost universally conclude that each event in a human
being's life exists as an event in space-time, so that if we could observe the
point on a world-line that is the tenth birthday of someone who is now eleven
years old, we would see that person experiencing their tenth birthday. We would
not see a "copy", or a "repeat", of the particular day, we
would see the person's tenth birthday as it is occurring, period!
It
would seem that this characteristic of all popular space-time theories leaves
us without tools for building a rational model of a universe that contains a
"conscious" world-line that is the "me" reading this text.
Rather it tells us that there is, and always will be, a set of unique "me's" that somehow exist in space-time at every single
event on my world-line. We might want to say that I am the "sum" of
all the points, yet the assertion that a human being is his or her entire
world-line, from birth to death, does not appear to be consistent with the
general consensus that every event along a world-line has a singular existence
that cannot be preferred over any other event on that world-line.
The
theory of relativity tells us that all of the laws of physics are the same for
every inertial observer. If we live in a fully relational, relativistic
universe, we simply cannot prefer observations made in the inertial frame of
reference of one observer over observations made in the inertial frame of
reference of any other observer, no matter where they may be “located” in
space-time. An apparent consequence of this fact is that for one observer your
tenth birthday occurs before your eleventh birthday, while for another
(spatially separated) observer your eleventh birthday occurs before your tenth!
Relativity tells us that both observers are 100% correct in their observations.
The cosmos appears to be a very strange place!
Classic
interpretations imply that each individual exists as discrete human
consciousness in the billions of discrete events located at every point along
that individual's world-line. Some physicists describe this by saying that
there are many "now's"; others say there are billions of approximate
"isomorphs" of "me"; many claim there are billions of other
worlds in which various versions of "me" co-exist; etc. It seems
reasonable to conclude that modern physics tells us that if time exists,
literally billions of discrete, very real, versions of each of us occupy
space-time!
This
may seem like science fiction, yet surveys of theoretical physicists and
cosmologists confirm that most believe we must adopt some form of many-worlds,
multiple existence, theory (please see 100 Years of
the Quantum ). Remember, this is currently accepted as the most promising
approach to the problems of space-time, and not merely a speculative idea. If
there is a "me" that exists on my world-line for every event in my
physical life, or if there really are an infinite number of parallel universes
in which I exist, then there is no singular "me". Rather there are
billions of isolated "me's" either lying
along my world-line, or stuck somewhere in totally isolated universes.
If
the scientists are correct, it would seem to be impossible to find meaning and
value for a singular "me" in the collective existence of each of the
billions of instances of individual consciousness, no single one of which is
the real true "me" who can live a meaningful life. All of the popular
interpretations of relativistic and quantum theories seem to lead us to the
same conclusion, if you do not have a single permanent existence, your life has
no meaning and your choices make no difference to “you”, simply because there
is no single physical "you" that exists before or after physical
death (please remember, we believe that life has meaning and value).
There
is a third possibility, that the intuitive feeling human beings have that their
physical past exists as a singular entity is based on some real, yet unknown,
physical model of our universe. The intuitive feeling is very strong that our
physical life makes a positive or negative contribution to human existence, and
that our physical life is a permanent part of the physical universe. Perhaps
there is some single physical consciousness that incorporates all of the events
along our world-line, and that preserves our physical past, present, and
future. We cannot rule out this possibility, if for no other reason than the
fact that it is theoretically impossible to prove a negative. In other words,
we might be able to prove that physical consciousness after death exists in the
universe by observing it, but we can never prove that physical consciousness
after death does not exist because we have not observed it (we will discuss
this limitation in some detail a bit later).
The
third possibility seems to require the existence of a physical consciousness
that is not bound to events on a world-line. Some physicists suggest that
consciousness has unique physical properties so that human beings become
sequentially “aware” of events on world-lines that are essentially frozen in a
“block universe”. Yet, as we have already said, in every currently popular
physical theory the universe “evolves” as a sequential progression of
space-time “events”. It seems intuitively true that if human consciousness is a
physical phenomena, that can be explained either by current theory or by
physical laws that are not yet known to science, it is in some real sense
inextricably bound to each of these space-time events. It seems intuitively
difficult, or impossible, to accept that such a dynamic physical consciousness
could incorporate individual predetermined “block” events into a singular human
being without violating the basic tenets of relativity. While it is true that a
physical consciousness that is not bound to physical events might represent a
unique singular existence, it is also fair to say that there is no known reason
to believe that physical consciousness is not inexorably linked to individual
physical events, making the third possibility seem to be almost an
impossibility.
There
may be many “me’s” that are experiencing past events
in the “past”, and I may have a memory of past events in the present, yet the
intuitive conclusion is that my physical consciousness does not experience past
physical events “now”. It seems intuitively true that if consciousness of past
events can be lost when memories fade or are damaged, then physical
consciousness has not incorporated those past events into a permanent singular
“me”. Einstein only briefly addressed this matter when he said “An individual
who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I
wish it otherwise…. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the
inkling of the marvelous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted
endeavor to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that
manifests itself in nature.”
It
seems that if we are to believe that there may be some kind of singular
physical (rather than non-physical) consciousness that survives physical death,
then we must accept that there is some unique physical consciousness that is
"me", that somehow incorporates all of the conscious events of my
life, and that is not dependent on the continuing physical existence of my
biologic body. While current interpretations of popular theories do not totally
rule out the possibility of a perpetual individual physical consciousness,
there is no known method that is both rational and realistic (i.e.- a theory
that appears capable of modeling physical reality), to construct a physical (as
opposed to a non-physical) model that preserves the singular human physical
consciousness of an individual after the physical death of that person. Modern
theories suggest the possibility that multiple instances of a physical “me”
exist in space-time, but they do not offer even a clue as to how to unite all
of those instances into a single physical “me” whose consciousness spans
space-time. Indeed, current interpretations of quantum superposition seem to
deny the possibility of a “single” physical reality in which a unique “me”
might exist.
I
can visualize and accept a “non-physical consciousness” that survives physical
death, yet I am unable to have any confidence at all in the existence of a
singular “physical consciousness” that survives the physical death of a human
being. To do so, it would seem that I would have to discover a new physical
process that incorporates all the “events” in a human life, and that creates a
unique, singular physical consciousness that continues to exist in space-time
as that human being, or at least as something that we can call a singular past
that belongs to the human being. This seems to me to be an impossible task. I
may be wrong, yet I simply cannot find an accepted physical theory that
supports a unified "physical" consciousness that survives physical
death. Furthermore, I do not know of any credible objective physical evidence
that such a “physical” consciousness might exist. I can say that after many
years of thought I am thoroughly convinced that any attempt to construct a
model of permanent physical consciousness does far more damage to the centuries
of accumulated scientific knowledge, than does the acceptance of the
possibility that a permanent non-physical consciousness may exist.
We
have concluded that no current, or reasonably foreseeable, rational theory
provides us with a singular physical consciousness that continues to exist
after physical death, so that a single physical "me" continues to
exist after my death in my physical “past”. We have said that if we do not have
a singular physical or non-physical consciousness that continues to exist after
physical death, then those who believe in nihilism are probably correct, and
some type of "nihilistic" void awaits all of us. It may be a true
void, like the void that preceded our birth, or it may be a very strange void
where billions of "me" merely co-exist. Whatever physical form it
might take, it would seem to satisfy the definition of a
"meaningless" void.
A
moment's comment on those who believe they may be able to physically perpetuate
themselves through cryogenics, cloning, etc. If, we live in a constantly
expanding universe, our universe will eventually return to a state of uniformly
high entropy, so that the cosmos will become a hostile environment in which
physical life cannot be sustained. If, on the other hand, theories that predict
endless cycles of expansion and contraction of our universe are correct,
nothing physical can survive beyond the next collapse of the universe a few
billion years from today. While a physical end to all biologic creatures may
seem absurdly far away, your great, great, great (to the 100th. power), grand-clone
would find it frightfully real when the time came for their physical demise, a
distant time from now which like all imaginable time is but a second in
eternity. There is simply no cosmologic model that we know of that offers any
hope for a perpetual, physical, human existence.
Even
if in some unknown manner multiple clones could survive in an ever-expanding
universe, the idea that they are perpetual extensions of their donor seems less
than credible, perhaps so, perhaps not. Such a perpetual presence seems to be
more like an endless path of meaningless individual moments than a continuous
meaningful existence. Furthermore, if there is no life after death, it would
make no difference if an individual (cloned or otherwise) continued to exist,
or "died" in one hundred years or in one billion years, because
"death" would annihilate the individual's past, present, and future.
If
physical death annihilates all individual consciousness then there is no reason
whatsoever to embrace cryogenics, cloning, strong artificial intelligence, or
any other means of extending physical life. Since an individual's death would
carry with it no possible consequence to that individual, there is no logical
reason whatsoever for the living individual to avoid the "consequences"
of death. If an individual no longer exists after death, that individual has no
reason at all to feel anything positive, negative, or otherwise about death (or
for that matter anything at all about life). Again please note, we do not
believe that physical death annihilates individual consciousness, and we
strongly believe that life does have meaning and value.
What
should our response be to all of this? We strongly believe that there is
absolutely no reason not to live for the possibility that life has meaning and
value. We think we are right about the transitory nature of physical
consciousness, but we may be wrong. If our conclusions are wrong, perhaps we do
in fact have a physical consciousness that survives physical death. If we are
wrong, we may have a perpetual physical existence that gives meaning and value
to our physical lives, even if there is no non-physical life after death. We
will not pursue this possibility, yet you should recognize that it exists.
If
we are right, if our physical consciousness does not survive physical death,
our death may mark the end of our existence. Yet if our physical consciousness
dies, it is still quite possible that we will not face a "nihilistic"
death. Perhaps we have a non-physical consciousness that survives physical
death, and that gives meaning and value to our lives. We will consider this
possibility in more detail as we continue our search for a reason for living.
Beyond
the human desire for meaning in life, we would suggest that the logical consequence
of what philosophers call a nihilistic death, "requires" the search
for alternatives to nihilism. Those who believe that the nihilistic void is
approaching are, by the very nature of their humanity, required to search for
something to believe in other than the void. While it appears to be impossible
to scientifically prove that life has meaning and value, it is equally
impossible to prove that life has no meaning and value. No matter what the
person who believes that life is meaningless may believe to be true at any
particular time in their life, the possibility always exists that he or she may
eventually find true meaning and value in their life.
There
is no reason to be a "nihilist", no reason to believe that life ends
at death. If nihilism is correct, if life does end at death, it makes no
difference whatsoever if we believe it is correct, or not. If we believe
nihilism is correct, and it is correct, that does not alter the void that would
follow death. If we believe nihilism is not correct, and it is correct, that
does not alter the void that would follow death. If we do not believe anything
at all about nihilism, and it is correct, that does not alter the void that
would follow death. Yet if nihilism is not correct, belief and/or faith in that
which offers a reason for living may well be essential to our existence. If
because we believe nihilism is correct we accept the void, and we are wrong,
then we have doomed ourselves. If we recognize that the humanistic belief that
there is no life after death leads to the nihilistic conclusion that the
"void" will consume past, present, and future, then to escape the
quicksand of nihilistic time we must search for alternatives that provide a
reason for living.
It
is very important to recognize that nihilism can never lead to suicide, for
nihilism tells us that if we do in fact live in a nihilistic world, nothing
that happens in our lives, no matter how "badly" we may feel about it
at the time, has any "real" consequence at all. It tells us that what
we perceive to be the very worst events in our lives are no better, or worse,
than any other events. I am absolutely convinced that the philosophical
neutrality that nihilism demands, means that nihilism never suggests or
supports suicide as an option for any human being.
Furthermore,
since it is absolutely clear that we may not live in a nihilistic world, and
that nihilism may be wrong, there can never be any reason to terminate our
life, risk the negative consequences, and abandon the possible positive consequences
of living a meaningful life. We are a small part of the whole. Unless the
answer is revealed to us by the whole, we can never know during our physical
lives what really happens when our physical life ends. Life may have physical
or non-physical meaning and value that we do not, and perhaps cannot until our
physical death, recognize and understand.
There
is no reason at all to reject the possibility that each of us has some kind of
permanent physical or non-physical consciousness. There is absolutely no
logical reason whatsoever to reject the possibility that nihilism may be false!
There is no reason whatsoever not to search for an alternative to nihilism, to
explore the possibility of a permanent physical or non-physical consciousness,
to search for a reason for living. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever not
to live for the possibility, however remote you may believe it to be, that life
has meaning and value. [If you find yourself distressed or depressed by our conclusions
please read the comment that is found near the end of these Notes.]
Is
That All There Is?
If it is true that your existence ends
with physical death, does that mean that your life is meaningless? As we have
said, the answer is probably (but not “certainly”) yes. Therefore, is it true
that your life has no meaning? The answer is a qualified no. If we are somehow
more than our physical bodies, if we can exist beyond and apart from those
bodies, then perhaps each of us survives physical death and continues to exist,
in some manner and form, beyond the grave. If you are, or you become through
living, a unique individual who possesses the ability to engage in rational
thought and exercise freedom of choice transcending biological processes of
determinism, perhaps you have an existence beyond your physical mind and body,
perhaps not.
Since the dawn of recorded history people
have thought and written about existence beyond physical death. Some have
suggested that extra sensory perception, premonitions, unexplained knowledge of
past events, along with other similar and possibly real phenomena, are part of
the world beyond death, perhaps so, perhaps not. Perhaps the unique being which
each of us is, the present existence that makes your choices and your life
yours alone, exists now and after your death in a realm beyond the physical,
perhaps not. Perhaps that which you are survives like energy in a dimension
coexistent with the physical world but beyond the constraints of space, motion,
and time, perhaps not. Perhaps each of us continues to exist in a manner and
fashion infinitely beyond our ability to imagine, let alone comprehend, perhaps
not.
A great number of people have spent vast
amounts of time and effort studying all manner of phenomena outside everyday
experiences. Many, most, or even all "inexplicable" events may be
explained by future generations of scientists. The most amazing phenomena are
not the dramatic events often attributed to the "supernatural",
events which could as easily as not be emotional illusions or the consequence
of known or unknown physical laws. What are amazing to me are simple
occurrences that defy probability. We have all experienced, and therefore
witnessed, baffling events that leave one with a feeling that their explanation
may lie outside the realm of natural science. For example, most of us have
thought about someone we have not seen for years, only to bump into them a few
minutes later. Even more amazing are instances that may occur when we are
facing major events in our lives, when we are in some way confronted by someone
or something that leads us toward a “better” choice. When faced with such
occurrences, I have often found myself with an “intuitive” feeling that they
are in some non-physical sense “planned”, perhaps so, perhaps not.
I have paid a great deal of attention to
the kind of occurrences that are classified by scientists as "amazing
coincidences". While most can be accepted as coincidental, some appear to
be one in a million events that happen with such regularity that the odds
against them being merely coincidental are incredibly large. It is impossible
for me, in good conscience, to dismiss them as being nothing more than random
events. Many appear to be “objective” phenomena, well suited to empirical
study, that statistically support the conclusion that they are not the result
of chance.
I have little difficulty accepting that
there are events that are in fact controlled by forces beyond our present
knowledge. Indeed, I am convinced that there is a non-physical explanation for
many events. If they are true phenomena, and not products of the mind, their
very existence strongly suggests that there is a world which is quite real
lying somewhere beyond normal human perception. A brief glance at, a fleeting
contact with, what may be the world beyond the one in which we live gives a
shocking reality to what we academically speculate about, or even faithfully
believe in.
Though we may profess to believe in that
which we cannot see, we may also find ourselves surprised when our beliefs
appear to be true. Possible contact with a world beyond human perception gives
us a startling realization that we may be eternally subject to forces
absolutely beyond our control, and leaves us with a chilling or hopeful feeling
(depending on your view of your prospects if eternity exists) that death will
not be a simple, restful, eternal sleep. None-the-less, a belief that we may
have glimpsed the world beyond, no matter how convincing at the moment, is
diluted over time. The human mind's natural presumption is against out of the
ordinary observations that, by definition, provide infrequent reinforcement of
beliefs.
Of course, it may be true that
"supernatural" events, though perhaps of great significance to the
living, are nothing more than manifestations of physical and biological
processes beyond our present ability to explain, similar to early
civilization's attempts to explain through myths the phenomenon's of fire and
lightening. If so they have no significance at all to the question of our existence
after physical death. Yet it may be that they are images created by the
overlapping of the current world and a world you will find yourself in after
death.
There is no present answer to the
questions posed by what many perceive to be “metaphysical” events. Our
discussion deals with what the meaning and purpose of life is. As we continue
you will see that whether or not anyone has in fact witnessed supernatural
phenomena originating from a world beyond the grave, though a question which
peaks curiosity, is not an essential, or perhaps even an important, one. You
will see that we don't need to look for metaphysical events in our lives to
understand what life is all about. The significance of such events is beyond
the scope of these notes and is simply not necessary to our discussion.
We will see that even if no one ever has
had, or ever will have, any contact in this world with a world beyond the
grave, it would not mean that such a world does not exist. We will explore in
detail the possibility that we may continue to exist after death. At this point
we ask that you keep an open mind about life after death. For now, please
accept the possibility, however remote you may feel it is, that in some manner
and fashion we continue to exist after our physical death.
The Search For Truth
If a scientist, philosopher, or anyone
else tells you something is true, and in fact it is not true, it is not true.
To say something is true does not make it true. Even though you are told
something is true, if it is not true it is simply not true. On the other hand,
if something is true it is true, even if you are told or believe that it is
not.
If something is true or false, it is true
or false whether we believe it to be true or false, or have not thought about
its truth at all. If we believe a lamp is on a table, whether we have any
evidence it is or not, and it is in fact on the table, then what we believe to
be true is true. If we cannot determine whether or not the lamp is on the
table, that does not change the actual position of the lamp. Even though
without evidence we cannot prove a lamp is on a table, if it is on the table it
is there and our belief is true.
Just because we cannot prove something is
true does not in any way mean it is not true. Because we cannot prove, or
disprove, we continue to exist after the death of our bodies does not mean that
we do not continue to exist, or that we do. If we continue to exist after our
physical death, then we continue to exist, and if we do not, then we do not.
If there is no one in a forest to hear a
tree fall, does the sound of the tree falling really exist? If there is no one
to see a tree fall, does it really fall at all? "Does an event occur if
there are no observers?" is a valid question that perhaps can be answered
"yes" only if the observer not only sees the event, but also
continues to exist forever beyond the time of the event. In other words, if
only inanimate objects surround an event such as the turning on of a lamp,
perhaps it can be said no event has occurred since nothing has been seen,
heard, etc., to change. Similarly, if a living observer witnesses an event but
at some later date the observer ceases to exist, what value was the
observation? Of course the argument can be made that seen or not seen photons
stream from a light when it is turned on. Furthermore, it can be suggested that
once seen or heard an event has “actualized”. Much depends on how you define
"event", but underlying the question is a troublesome perception that
goes beyond semantics, a feeling that a world without permanent observers lacks
anything similar to what we call "reality".
Even though we disagree, some philosophers
have moved toward the view that "language" is the unique factor which
gives humans the ability to think thoughts, and that language is the only thing
that distinguishes us from animals. They suggest that using language, our
consciousness assigns the concepts of true and false to the things and events
that surround us. Some of them believe that "truth" has no meaning
outside the human mind, and, therefore, in a very real sense, that
"truth" does not exist as an independent reality.
I am not uncomfortable with the idea that
in an inanimate universe "truth" may not exist, and therefore there
must be an observer for "truth" to have meaning. However I am very
uncomfortable with the suggestion that where a permanent observer does exist,
"truth" is merely a creation of that observer's consciousness. If we
survive the grave, we may well have a perpetual consciousness that can observe
and remember the "truths" which surround us. Whether or not a lamp
has been observed to be on a table, if the lamp is physically sitting on a
table the very existence of permanent observers who could observe the lamp may
give independent meaning to the statement that it is "true" that the
lamp is on the table, perhaps so, perhaps not. If memories of human events die
with each person, then events themselves become little more than transient
observations made by the living. Yet if we survive the grave, it would seem
that we would have a continuing consciousness that recognizes a real and
fundamental difference between that which is "true" and that which is
"false". For now, please accept the possibility that some things are
either fundamentally "true", or not.
If we want to consider in greater detail
the possibility of our continued existence after the death of our bodies, we
need to be able to make statements we can believe to be true. In our quest to
find some meaning in life, we must develop some method of determining
"truths" which we can have a fair degree of confidence in. To do so
we first need to understand what it means to be able to "prove"
something, scientifically or otherwise.
Over the centuries the quest for truth has
been refined into the process of scientific analysis. A brief summary of what
has come to be known as the scientific method is helpful. Scientists observe
what they want to study and record properties they believe to be relevant to
their research. While some may have preconceived notions of what they will
find, others begin the process of experimentation and observation without any
idea what, if anything, they will discover. Even though they may believe they
will achieve a certain result, scientists who do not approach every experiment
with open minds are not scientists at all.
After gathering what they consider to be
enough information about an object or event, scientists sit back, study the
data, and try to combine and organize the information to discover a pattern
running through it. They look for a model that not only describes what they
currently observe, but that also perfectly matches past observations. The
resulting descriptions of the world around them are known as theories or
theorems. These in turn can be used to predict what will happen in the future
under the same or similar circumstances.
Efforts to formulate theorems that
describe observations would be in vain if the universe was made up of random
events, occurring without reason or order, for then no one could say what will
happen next. Of course, that appears not to be the case, as our universe seems
to behave in a more or less ordered manner. As we have studied the cosmos in
more and more detail, it seems to be true that (what one scientist called his
"gut feeling") all physical objects comprised of matter and energy
(which may or may not include all aspects of human "consciousness"),
from the tiniest atomic particle to the largest system, behave according to
some fixed set of laws. These laws can be thought of as if-then statements,
which describe what will happen if a certain event occurs. For example, one of
the well-known results of the law of gravity is that IF an apple comes loose
from the branch of a tree, THEN it will fall to earth.
For several reasons I regret using
simplistic examples to make a point. Because of their simplistic nature, they
tend to lessen the importance of the point being made. They narrow the reader’s
focus from the broad, general truth of a statement to a specific, small part of
the whole. Simple examples tend to be incredibly inadequate when used to
illustrate complex feelings, beliefs, ideas, etc. Some people feel they are
being talked down to, or think they already understand what is being said. They
risk missing the deep significance that often hides within the example. On the
other hand, simple examples can be used to bring a point quickly home, allowing
us to bypass a good bit of background discussion and to explore at once
concepts which are best understood when drawn rapidly and simultaneously into
the mind. The dangers of simplistic examples can only be overcome by the reader
who is aware of the shortcomings, and is willing to expand in their mind the
examples so that the "profound" will not be misunderstood to be
"simple".
Back to gravity and the falling apple. The
law itself basically states that objects exert a force on each other that
attracts them toward one another, the strength of the attraction being related
to their masses and the distance between them. The fundamental law of gravity
was described by Isaac Newton after he observed that objects that are dropped
fall toward earth. By repeating his experiment over and over again, by dropping
object after object,
Each successful test of
Enter the world of statistics.
Mathematicians have long recognized that the larger the sample that is taken
from a group of items, the better able they are to predict what individual
items are like in the group. The larger the sample the more confident they can
be that a "strange" or uncharacteristic item will not be found. This
is true due to the fundamental nature of the mathematics behind statistical
inference. It is true no matter what the items being sampled are, so long as
the sample is not biased.
For example, if you randomly sample 500
apples out of a box containing 100,000 thoroughly mixed apples, and find not a
single rotten one, a mathematician can tell you with a great degree of
confidence what the chances are that none of the 100,000 apples is rotten. If
you sample 1000 apples out of the 100,000, he or she can be more certain. After
inspecting 10,000 apples, he or she can be even more certain. If 5 rotten
apples are found in a sample of 500, or 45 in a sample of 1000 the
mathematician can tell you how many rotten apples you are likely to find among
the 100,000 apples. No matter what is in the box, whether it is 100,000 apples,
100,000 pencils, 100,000 transistors, 100,000 anything, so long as the items are
uniformly mixed, anyone can tell by drawing a random sample how many of the
items in the box are likely to have one or more traits in common (i.e. color,
size, shape, etc.). The bigger the sample, the more accurate the prediction and
the more confident the predictor. (please see StatSoft
Statistics – Electronic TextBook )
It should be emphasized that the
predictions are accurate not because of the nature of that which is being
sampled, but because the mathematical relationship between the number of
samples and the number of underlying items being sampled is fixed and
predictable. If you draw at random four pencils from a jar containing 100
pencils, three are white, one is red, there is a certain probability that the
jar contains 75% white pencils and 25% red pencils. If you draw four golf balls
from a jar containing 100 golf balls, three are white, one is red, the same
probability exists the jar contains 75% white golf balls and 25% red golf
balls.
If the apples in our apple barrel were not
uniformly mixed, and/or the sample was drawn in some organized pattern, we
might get only good apples, or at least a higher number of good apples than we
would otherwise. The sample would be unrepresentative of the contents of the
box and useless to the mathematician. It is very, very important to realize if
we take as our sample 99,999 out of 100,000 apples and find not even a single
rotten one, we can be incredibly sure we are right when we predict the one
apple left in the box is not rotten. None-the-less when we examine the one
remaining apple it may in fact be rotten!!!!!
A Law Is A Law Until It Is No Longer A Law
What we are building up to is the fact
that the law of gravity is called a "law" because, in billions and
billions of observations, not once has any documented event occurred where two
objects did not attract each other in precisely the way predicted (we now know
that gravity may not behave exactly as Newton thought, but like Newton predicted,
objects do attract one another in the sense that the theory of general
relativity tells us that the gravitational effect moves objects toward one
another). We can say with an absolutely incredible degree of statistical
certainty that the gravitational "force" between two objects will
always cause them to be attracted toward one another. At this point in time
there is probably less than one chance in l,000,000,000,000,000,000 x 10 raised
to the 1,000,000,000,000,000th power that gravity will not act essentially as
expected. Yet, despite the incredible certainty of gravity, we do not and
cannot know whether it is or is not possible for one contrary event to occur,
and thus for the law of gravity to be proven wrong!
I am not suggesting the law of gravity is
incorrect and that an event whereby it is proven wrong will ever occur. In fact
I would be surprised if any of the basic scientific laws of the universe are
fundamentally wrong. What I am saying is no matter how many times something has
been observed to be true, no matter how incredibly unlikely it is an unexpected
event will occur, we have no way of knowing if such an event is possible or
impossible! If the unexpected event is not possible, it will never occur, and
it will never be observed. If the event is possible, and if it does occur, then
it has happened, period.
We must remember it is not the
"law" which makes objects behave in a certain way, fundamental forces
far beyond human comprehension do that. Rather the law describes the behavior
and remains valid and true only until a single unexpected observation proves it
wrong. Actually the law remains only apparently valid and true, if it is later
proven wrong its former truth was an illusion. The law was in fact always
false. "Modifying" a theory to better fit the observations does not
help render the original theory true, rather it creates a new theory that is
itself either true or false. Since scientific theories are tested by
observation, they are true if and only if each and every event they describe
and predict, from the beginning of the universe to the end, in fact occurs
exactly as expected. Theories, no matter how solid they might seem, must be
discarded as false the very first time they fail to describe real events.
Science is based on observation,
formulation of theories, and more observation. To observe necessarily requires
the ability to perceive - to sense, feel, smell, touch, taste, see, hear. Early
humans used all their senses to explore the world around them. When human
senses proved inadequate, they devised better and better tools and instruments
to extend their range. Microscopes and telescopes to expand vision,
stethoscopes and amplifiers to increase hearing, plus thousands of other
sensitive devices to enhance the senses.
The catalog of devices used to expand our
human senses is enormous and growing by the minute, yet all the instruments of
humankind can do no more than extend the reach of humans into the universe of
which they and their instruments are a part. We know of three spatial
dimensions, height, width, depth, and a forth dimension, time (which may also
prove to be spatial in nature). Space (height, width, depth), and “time” all
exist together as space-time and cannot exist alone. Is there a fifth, a sixth,
a seventh, an eighth dimension? No one knows, for if they exist they appear to
be separate and beyond human ability to sense, measure, and thus scientifically
prove.
Does that mean those dimensions do not
exist, the answer is no. Mathematicians and physicists use formulas to describe
sub-atomic phenomena (e.g. - string theory) that can be interpreted as
happening in multidimensional space. If a fifth dimension exists, it exists. If
a fifth dimension does not exist, it does not exist. This is true regardless
whether we can, or never can, observe that dimension and, of course, is true
for any sixth dimension, seventh dimension, eighth dimension, etc. It is
important to realize that no matter how many dimensions are eventually
observed, one or more additional dimensions may or may not exist beyond human
ability to observe.
Many of you are saying to yourselves it is
one thing to say that a dimension beyond human ability to observe may exist,
but an entirely different thing to say that one probably does. You are right.
Most of you will go on to say it is highly improbable, maybe less than one
chance in a trillion, that even one more dimension exists beyond the observable
number of dimensions, however many that may eventually prove to be. If you think
that, you are wrong. To be able to statistically predict the likelihood of an
event happening we must first observe to see how often the event occurs during
a given period of time. If we cannot observe the event when it occurs, we
cannot determine how often it happens (or conversely, does not happen) and we
cannot predict the likelihood of the event.
One problem with recognizing the
limitations of statistical analysis is understanding the difference between not
observing an event where the event watched for can be observed, and not
observing an event where the event cannot be observed because it is beyond
human ability to sense. The first, not observing an event which could be seen,
leads to the statistically valid conclusion that the event is unlikely to
occur. The second, not observing an event which is beyond human ability to
perceive, cannot lead to any conclusion at all about the reality of that event.
Yet it appears to be human nature to assume that things which have never been
observed do not exist, or at best are highly unlikely to exist.
If something exists beyond human
perception it will never be observed during our physical lifetimes. If you
cannot measure something because it is beyond human perception you cannot prove
it exists, on the other hand you cannot prove that it does not exist! More
importantly, you cannot say that it is statistically likely or unlikely that it
exists. You simply cannot say anything objective at all about that which is
beyond human ability to observe.
It is very, very important to realize that
it is absolutely impossible to say that it is either likely or unlikely
something exists beyond human observation. We simply cannot determine in any
way the probability that something exists, or does not exist, beyond our observable
universe. To understand the significance of this often overlooked statement is
to understand that we have no idea what, if anything, lies beyond our cognitive
boundaries.
A moments thought should bring the
realization that this absolute limit of statistics and science renders all
"scientific proof", as well as subjective feelings, that nothing
exists beyond our perception into feeble "philosophic arguments".
Despite what science might claim to have "proven", and despite what
we might "feel", about what lies beyond our ability to observe, we
cannot say anything objective about that which is beyond human perception. We
may create mathematical models of what should lie somewhere just beyond
observation, yet without a means of testing these projections they can never be
more than idle speculation. We simply cannot say that it is likely, or not
likely, that a "world" or "worlds" exist beyond the
physical world in which we live. From an analytical standpoint anything, or
nothing, may exist beyond human cognition.
Human beings are limited to observing the
effects of fundamental forces on matter and energy, and must draw conclusions
based only on such observations. We can never "view" the forces
themselves, forces whose metaphysical existence and purpose transcend human
observation and comprehension. One of the consequences of being only a small
part of the universe in which we live is the absolute fact that, unless
revealed to us by the whole, we can never know if something or someone exists
beyond the limits of our senses. No one, not you nor I nor the smartest person
on earth can determine whether or not anything exists beyond that which we can
observe. It follows that we cannot know if someone or something beyond our
ability to perceive can and will alter the laws which govern our world.
The significance of the continued possibility that an unexpected event will occur to disprove even the best of theories, and the very fact such a possibility will