The Russell Stannard Questions: Time & Space

There are many Big Questions in science, many of which go back to the ancients, even back into prehistory in all probability. One of the best modern set I’ve found recently were sidebars in a book by Emeritus Professor of Physics at the Open University, Russell Stannard. These are my answers, thoughts and commentary to those Big Questions. Many readers might have ‘fun’ trying to come to terms with these in their own way based on their own worldview.

The following questions (Q) are taken verbatim from those poised by Russell Stannard in his 2010 book The End of Discovery [are we approaching the boundaries of the knowable?]; Oxford University Press, Oxford. I consider these typical of the sorts of modern Big Questions that are part and parcel of the philosophy of modern science, especially physical science.

My answers are based mainly with the thought of our being in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe that has been constructed by one or more Supreme Programmers. However, some of the answers apply regardless of what the nature of our ultimate reality is.

Q. How are we to understand the true nature of space?

A. Space is a not-thing. You cannot see, hear, touch, taste or smell space. Space is a concept, actually a mathematical concept called volume. Volume is the third dimension, and dimensions are also a concept – a not-thing. Space is the container that holds within real things, like you and me. So the true nature of space is the exact same as the true nature of Wednesday.

Q. Is space infinitesimally divisible?

A. Since space is a not-thing, that is just a concept invented and used by the human mind (as well as within the minds of numerous non-human life forms) to measure the mathematical concept of volume and to assist with navigation, then space is infinitesimally divisible since it has no physical properties that are so fundamental that they can’t be divided one more time.

Q. How many dimensions are there? And why are some curled up, and others extended?

A. There are no dimensions at all. Dimensionality is a human invention, attributing magical meaning to right angles, which do have a practical value in navigating around the world and the universe. Dimensions are a useful construct, just like addition; subtraction; algebra; trigonometry and the calculus are useful constructs. Since dimensions are mathematical constructs, and therefore not-things (you cannot detect points, length, area or volume – even the so-called fourth dimension of time - with any of your five senses) then how many dimensions there are is a pretty meaningless question.

Q. What is time?

A. Time is a not-thing. Time is a concept that resides in the mind and cannot be detected with any of your senses. Time has no physical properties. Time is mathematics (a human invention), a way of measuring a particular thing. That thing is change, or rate-of-change. If there is no change, it is meaningless to talk about time. Time does not exist independently of change.

Q. Is time infinitesimally divisible?

A. Since time is a not-thing, that is just a concept invented and used by the human mind (as well as within the minds of numerous non-human life forms) to measure and deal with change, then time is infinitesimally divisible since it has no physical properties that are so fundamental that they can’t be divided one more time.

Q. Does the loss of simultaneity for events separated by a distance invalidate the notion that only the presence exists?

A. This is one of those ‘paradoxes’ of those Theories of Relativity whereby, since things are relative, to one observer A happens before B; to another observer A and B are simultaneous happenings; and to yet a third observer, B happens before A. Since all observers are correct according to their specific frame of reference, the concept of ‘now’ is flexible. There is no absolute ‘now’. Another example is that whatever you observe, you observe ‘now’ yet what you observe actually happened in the past. The sunlight you see ‘now’ is now eight minutes old. However, it’s quite conceivable that you could instigate a universal ‘now’ and freeze the universe by snapping your fingers “STOP NOW”. That “STOP NOW” message would propagate instantaneously throughout the entirety of the universe. You, being immune from that “STOP NOW” command, would be free to navigate and explore the cosmos and see the universe as it appeared at that one ‘now’ instant – ‘now’ being of course the present. Only the present, the universal snapping your fingers ‘now’ exists. The interesting thing is that ‘now’ is such a short interval that your definition of the length of ‘now’ is vastly longer than what ‘now’ exists in in reality.

Q. Does the perceived flow of time require there to be two types of time?

A. The two types of time in question are physical time (the tick-tock of a clock; the cycle of the lunar phases) and mental time (where an hour can seem like a minute; a minute can seemly last for an hour). So there is real time, and subjective time. But time in any guise is a not-thing; an illusion; a concept. Only change is real and the rate of change, real or perceived, is what we call time – physical or mental. One could, if one wanted make a variable rate of change into a constant. Normally we hold physical time as a constant – tick-tick-tick-tick – at a rate of one-second-per-second (or one-day-per-day, etc.). We can count the number of ticks between say two red cars passing by on the road in front of our house. But you could say the interval between any two red vehicles is a constant. It is one unit or one tick per interval of red car time. That means that everything you associate as being regular like one-second-per-second or a 24-hour-day would become irregular. One ‘day’ might equate to 100 red car interval ticks. The next ‘day’ it might be 200 red car interval ticks long (since there happen to be double the number of red cars passing by on ‘day’ two as compared to ‘day’ one). If you define a ‘day’ as say 100 red car interval ticks, then ‘day’ two above would really be ‘day’ two plus ‘day’ three. Well, you can see how that sort of reckoning would screw up your biological clock! You’d have a ‘day’ off work between 1000 and 1100 red car interval ticks; the next ‘day’ off work between 2000 and 2100 red car interval ticks, etc. In the case of the 1000-1100 interval, that might be a long and restful ‘day’ but the 2000-2100 interval could be extremely short! You could do the above time experiment, at least as a silent and private intellectual exercise. Otherwise people would carry you off to the funny farm! However, if time were really real, then time couldn’t be manipulated as per the red car interval example. But time isn’t real so you can twist it around your little finger. Thus, the flow if time is indeed perceived, but that doesn’t make it something of substance. So, one kind of time, two kinds of time – it’s irrelevant. 

Q. Does four-dimensional spacetime imply that the future is, in some sense, fixed?

A. If causality rules like I think it does, then yes.

Q. Does this in turn compromise our sense of free will?

A. Free will? What’s that? We think we have free will but that’s an illusion. No doubt a character in a video game believes she has free will, but we know better, don’t we!



My Personal Ongoing Worldview: Part Two

Everybody has his or her own particular worldview, philosophy, a set of truisms, a concept of reality, and overall, a degree of certainty on just how the world works. Equally true, that worldview evolves as you grow older. Santa Clause was probably part of your worldview when you were five years old, but unlikely at fifty-five. I’m no exception to the rule, so here are my latest ‘set-in-cement’ thoughts on how the world operates.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

HUMAN AFFAIRS

* There is no God or supernatural deity (or deities) of any kind. Religion can however serve useful purposes, not the least of which it keeps some percentage of the human population employed.

* As suggested earlier, in an infinite cosmos there is no need for a deity of any sort. Therefore it is rather improbable that there is no Heaven or Hell (or associated places) since these must represent actual physical geographies. That being the case, we would have probably discovered them by now.

* No deities, specifically no Christian God does mean that there ain’t no end times, no second coming, no apocalypse or Armageddon, no rapture, no end-of-days or end times. In fact, all religious texts, all those allegedly that are divinely inspired, are pure bovine fertilizer.

* There is no before-the-fact meaning or purpose to your existence other than what you yourself give it. There is nobody from ‘on high’ tapping you on the shoulder or whispering into your subconscious mind that the following (fill in the blank) is your destiny or ultimate fate. 

* There is no such thing as a separate-and-apart part of you termed a soul, spirit, or any other related concept associated with a soul.

* You have no free will. That follows on from my belief that causality (a predetermined clockwork universe) rules absolutely – yesterday, today, and tomorrow. However, free will, even if illusional, serves a useful social purpose forming the general foundation for humanity’s legal system – you are responsible for your actions.

* Death is not something to be afraid of. You experience dying, but not death since once dead, you have no existence and you need to have an existence, you have to be alive, in order to experience something, anything, even death. So you never experience death, only that which is up to but not including death.

* Death is final – there is no afterlife. Post-death is an identical state to pre-life or pre-conception. You get one go per universe between conception and death – make the best of it and enjoy. However, if there are an infinity of universes in space and/or in time, then you can expect to be reincarnated both as yourself and with variations on the theme of yourself (i.e. – you might marry someone else as an example). Perhaps, just perhaps, that’s the real meaning behind the phrases of life everlasting (or everlasting life) or eternal life (or life eternal).

* Given the wide range of highly improbable human characteristics – human uniqueness such as a bipedal gait and high IQ – and extremely rapid rise to a state of having culture and ‘civilization’, the odds are extremely high that human origins and evolution were all genetically engineered by outsiders – aliens for lack of a better word.

* It’s a sweeping generalization I know, but the philosophy of the average human is “it’s all about me. I and my needs come first.”

* If the human species was created, it was a very bad mistake on someone or something’s part. If the human species was an unplanned accident of evolution, Mother Nature screwed up big-time. If one is honest, one would be very hard pressed to name another terrestrial species that has caused more unwarranted death, destruction and overall suffering to all and sundry than Homo sapiens. To be honest, while I can’t speak for the rest of the cosmos, we are surely the scum of the earth and the cosmos should rejoice if we cause our own extinction. It would be well deserved.

* Behind every mountain of mythology lies a molehill of reality. So, as an example, there are mountains of mythological deities; there is a molehill that acquaints these deities as actual realities, the reality being flesh-and-blood extraterrestrials.

* Probability is a human concept with relevance to human worldviews but which has no relevance or application outside of the human experience, or perhaps that should be extended to any self-aware life forms. The real world that’s totally divorced from human affairs and the human species, deals with certainties, not probabilities. But what about quantum physics, surely that’s probability personified. But when you read all about quantum physics, sure you get probability this and probability that, but the references are all with respect to observers and measurements – in other words, with respect to human worldviews.

* Philosophy is like jazz – 95% of it is crap, but what’s good is very, very good. [At least jazz comes out vastly better percentage-wise than rap, hip-hop, heavy metal, ‘music’ which is 100% crap.]

* For obvious reasons, empty what’s full; fill what’s empty; scratch where it itches.

* Finally, you may have to grow old, but there’s no requirement to grow up!

Reality: Heads or Tails? Part Two

In science as well as in metaphysics there are often competing ideas about what’s real and what’s not real but might be real – an alternate reality not yet proven. Here are a baker’s dozen of examples of what we believe is a truism today, but could easily be shown to be mistaken tomorrow. In one case, the last, tomorrow is already here!

What was reality yesterday (a Flat Earth orbited by the Sun; Unicorns and Dragons, etc.) isn’t of necessity what is accepted reality today, and what’s reality today may not of necessity be reality tomorrow. Here are a few more possibilities for tomorrow-land.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

6) Black Holes (reality) vs. White Holes (alternate reality): Black Holes are known to exist, though once they were just a theoretical construct of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (and Einstein himself only thought of them as an abstract concept, not an actual thing). They were originally termed ‘dark stars’ though the later phrase Black Holes was proposed, and being catchy, took on with both the academic and general communities. Now Black Holes are objects with so much mass, and therefore so much gravity, that not even light (at 186,000 miles per second) can escape the clutches of such an object. You can’t see a Black Hole, hence the descriptive ‘black’. That’s the reality part. The alternative reality bit is the opposite of a Black Hole, obviously a White Hole. If a Black Hole sucks in stuff, a White Whole spews stuff out. The turning point is, can a Black Hole become so bloated with incoming stuff that it ultimately has to exit elsewhere?  One of the 64,000 $64,000 questions: Can you pour stuff down a Black Hole indefinitely, or does the Black Hole have a finite capacity and ultimately or eventually will have to spew stuff out the ‘other side’ (i.e. – producing a White Hole) as you keep pouring in more and more and more? I’d wager the conservation relationships and principles of physics and chemistry hold sway here. What goes in ultimately comes out. That doesn’t mean there’s not a temporary holding vessel. Or, in more human terms, you fill what’s empty; you empty what’s full, but in-between those two there’s storage in the stomach and the intestines; the lungs and the bladder.

7) You Exist Within Our Galaxy (reality) vs. The Universe Exists Within A Black Hole (alternate reality): Since you cannot escape from the jail cell within the prison we call the Universe; and since you could not escape from the inside of a Black Hole – another type of a jail cell within a prison – perhaps they are one and the same sort of prison. Perhaps not only do Black Holes exist inside the Universe but the Universe itself resides inside a Black Hole with perhaps no end of the inside-the-inside-the-inside in either direction. In a manner of speaking, that’s a Multiverse! Actually you can in theory escape this Universe by hopping down into a Black Hole, but if, and it’s a very big ‘but if’, you survive, you’ve just traded in one jail cell for another, or one maximum security prison for another.

8) Big Bang (reality) vs. Before the Big Bang (alternate reality): The standard cosmological model postulates based on observable evidence that our Universe began roughly 13.7 billion years ago as a Big Bang event that created all of matter, energy, time and space. The Universe was created out of nothing. There was no ‘before the Big Bang’ since the Big Bang started the universal clock ticking. Fortunately, for those who find such a scenario unsatisfactory, like me, there are alternative proposals that postulate, indeed require a ‘before the Big Bang’. But while the Big Bang rests on solid evidence, all ‘before the Big Bang’ proposals are highly theoretical and remain alternative realities. 

9) There’s Just One You (reality) vs. There’s Many of You (alternate reality): Even if you have an identical twin, that twin is not you. You are unique with a unique set of experiences and memories with individual brain chemistry and a hardwired neural network. Of all the people, who have ever lived, are living now, and who will exist in the future, you are unique – that’s a reality you and the world have to deal with; right? Maybe not; there are legit scenarios that allow for another you, even an infinite number of you. The most oft quoted possibility is if our Universe is infinite in extent and/or duration, another you just isn’t possible or probable, but mandatory. If our Universe is finite but part of an infinite set of universes – a Multiverse - another you just isn’t possible or probable, but mandatory. If the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, another you just isn’t a possibility or a probability, but mandatory. If one accepts the basic mantra of quantum mechanics which is anything that can happen, does happen then another you just isn’t possible or probable, but mandatory. If we exist in a simulated universe as virtual reality, and there are many copies of this piece of software in existence another you just isn’t possible or probable, but mandatory. At least the saving grace is that you’ll never have to meet yourself – oops, that might not be true either if time travel is ever realized!

10) Really Real Reality (reality) vs. Virtual Reality (alternate reality): You obviously believe that you are part and parcel of Really Real Reality (RRR). The world socks it to you; you do your best to sock it to the world! However, there are two forms of an alternate reality, or virtual reality, that you might be part and parcel of. Firstly, it comes as no surprise that you create versions of alternate/virtual reality all the time. If you stop and think about it, your dreams create virtual worlds and characters. As you dream up an alternate reality landscape, and animate it, perhaps you too and your landscape (what your worldview accepts as RRR) is a dream-world of someone or something else! Secondly, you’d be aware of computer simulations, software programs that also create virtual worlds and characters. You might be an active participant, if not creating same, then engaging with those programs, like playing video games. As you create and/or participate in an alternate reality animated landscape, perhaps you too and your landscape (what your worldview accepts as RRR) is an animated video game or simulated world of someone or something else! 

11) Free Will (reality) vs. No Free Will (alternate reality): You have free will. You absolutely know you have free will. But you can’t prove you have free will. Any action(s) you perform which you state exhibits your free will; well the ‘no free will’ counterargument is that you have no choice but to believe in your own free will. It’s an illusion which you have been pre-programmed to accept as given, just as a pocket calculator has no choice but to calculate that 2 + 3 = 5. But as long as you believe you have free will, well, there’s no harm done.

12) We Are the Proverbial It (reality) vs. ETI [ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence] Is Teeming Throughout the Cosmos (alternate reality): Despite all the decades of active SETI [Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence], including lots of computer crunch power at their command including SETI @ Home; despite over six decades of UFO investigation, both official and private; plus all manner of amateur insights into the possibility of ‘ancient astronauts’; and those thousands of books written on these subjects (plus essays/articles, blogs, TV shows, DVD documentaries, etc.) no ETI smoking gun – proof positive – has surfaced of their existence to the satisfaction of all and sundry. But tomorrow is another day.

13) Your World (reality) vs. Your Cyber-World (alternate reality): You of course exist in a four space-time dimensional reality. You were born into it; you live your life in it; you’ll die in it. However, recent advances in technology have given us the ways and means to disconnect from that reality for lengthy periods of time and voluntarily adopt a cyber-world reality for a large part of our time. Many people and you see them all the time on the bus, in the mall, at the dinner table, at a social gathering, walking the dog, first thing awake, last thing before sleep, ignoring to the best of their ability their real surroundings for their cyber-surroundings. Between their PCs and tablets and smart-phones and emails and Twitter and Facebook and texting, while totally immersed in their tiny little cyber-world, they are near totally oblivious to their immediate surroundings and the real world immediately in front of them, which is one reason you get ‘funny’ videos of people so engrossed in their cyber-world that they totally fail to observe their surroundings and fall down stairs or into ponds of water or walk in front of buses. Reality has a way of biting back!

There’s No Free Will

Just about every human on Planet Earth holds near and dear to their worldview that they have control over their own lives, or at the very least control over their own mind. Even if you live in a dictatorship or you are a slave or a prisoner you have free will of the mind. You can’t go to jail for what you’re thinking. But wishing or believing or faith doesn’t make it so and there are many scenarios that render your alleged free will to the state of an illusion, if not a delusion.

Here are a few reasons why your alleged ‘free will’ is in fact an illusion at best; a delusion at worst.

* We’re all simulated beings living in a virtual reality obeying the commands of the master computer software program. Characters in a video game do what they are programmed to do, no more and no less.

* God lied! All our strings are being pulled by outside evil (satanic, demonic, etc.) vs. good (angelic) forces. Humans are trapped in the middle of this tug-of-war, mere pawns for the larger forces at work. But as someone once told me, “I have free will because I take responsibility for my own actions”. Well actually that’s just those goody-goody-two-shoes angels pulling your strings. And if you argue in court say that “the devil made me do it”, well that’s probably spot on the case. The devil should be on trial, not you!

* Make of this what you will, but many people who report having involuntary visitations by otherworldly entities, be they described as aliens, shadow ‘people’, beings from other dimensions or parallel realities, etc. note that they were compelled against their will to carry out the wishes or instructions of these entities who have complete, total, absolute control over their human victims. If you have free will, it apparently can be overridden, but then that’s known from case studies in hypnoses. 

* Classical physics rules! Cause and effect rules! Causality rules, OK? All the laws, principles and relationships of classical physics were established and set in motion at the moment of creation (the Big Bang event) and all follows as clockwork (Newton’s point of view) from that in a totally deterministic way as far into the future as you care to calculate. The clockwork, causality rules universe of which you are a part, means no free will for you.

* Quantum physics rules too! Quantum physics apparently has no causality (Einstein disagreed) which immediately sets my teeth on edge, but that’s another matter. Quantum physics is expressed in probabilities, like either/or. Since your brain which houses your mind isn’t exempt from quantum physics (nothing is exempt anytime, anywhere, anyhow), all those billions of either/or quantum physics reactions collectively can give rise to all the apparent free will choices you apparently have at your command. It’s all one massive superposition of state after another after another as your mind lurches from one decision to the next. But whether it’s one either/or or the sum total of billions of either/or probabilities, the possibilities are still finite. You may not do the same thing twice in identical scenarios, but that’s not your free will, just the coming to the fore of one of those random probabilities that result from all those either/or possibilities inherent in quantum physics that hold sway over your mind, which, if truth be known, is comprised of the same matter and energy regimes that are the realm of physics, classical or quantum. 

* Your body cells, tissues, organs, organ systems on up the line are all on biochemical autopilot. No free will need apply. So why should your brain, housing your mind, be an exception to the rule? Your mind is not a something which exists independently of your body.

* Your ‘conscious’ decisions are by-products of what’s already happening within your subconscious. Our subconscious mind comes to a decision before we are consciously aware of it as has been demonstrated by actual experimentation.

* If you accept the probability of a Megaverse, a conglomerate of the Multiverse, with each individual universe having associated Parallel Universes and an infinite space (volume) and time (thus eliminating the awkward questions of ‘what’s beyond’ and ‘what was before’) then every possible timeline and history and scenario has happened – an infinite number of times. An infinite number of you have made every possible decision you can possibly make, compatible with the laws, relationships and principles of physics, an infinite number of times. How do you reconcile free will with that?

* Any competent neuroscientist worthy of their salt and status can stimulate parts of your brain using electromagnetic (EM) energy and get a physiological response, like your fingers twitching, ditto your arms and legs flapping like puppets on a string, your head turns and your posture changes - all grist for the neuroscientist’s mill. What you experience under the EM stimulation is the urge to do it (say tap your toe) and then you do it but you do not get the urge to, nor perform the action, voluntarily or willingly. Someone else, in this case the neuroscientist, is in control. That applies equally to your emotions as well as your movements. Stimulate this brainy bit and you cry; here and you laugh; somewhere else will hit your guilt complex, etc. What makes you, you, is just being reduced to the basics of electrical signals.

Conclusion: You are a part of life, the Universe and everything, or, to shorten things, a part of Mother Nature. Mother Nature operates on a select number of non-negotiable laws, principles and relationships, starting with the most basic of elementary particles and forces and working on up the line. No correspondence will be entered into or answered by Mother Nature. As such, you dance to Mother Nature’s tune. Do not attempt to change the tune and adjust reality. She controls the horizontal; She controls the vertical; She controls all that you see and do. Mother Nature is a bitch, but there’s not a damn thing you can do about it.  Myth busted!

But, and there’s nearly always a ‘but’, while ‘free will’ may well be, and probably is, an illusion (or delusion), it does have practical applications in the real world (like forcing one to be accountable for their actions) and thus is a concept unlikely to bite the dust anytime soon. It’s akin to the notion that God may not, and probably does not exist, He forms a useful function in society by keeping a lot of people here on Terra Firma employed!

P.S. If there is such a thing as free will, why is there such an obesity epidemic? You’d think one of the last things people would want to look like is blubber personified. But what do I know? Maybe roly-poly is the latest in body fashion statements!

Further Reading:

Harris, Sam; Free Will; Free Press, New York; 2012:

The Trilogy of Universes: Problem Solved

There are three possible universes we inhabit. The first is the Natural Universe where the laws, principles and relations of physics, chemistry and biology rule the roost. The second is the Supernatural Universe where one or more supernatural deities reside and miracles are commonplace and the laws, principles and relationships of science can be overridden or suspended. The third is the Simulated Universe where what we perceive as life, the universe and everything is just programmed software and we are virtual beings in a virtual reality. Now, which one of the three possibilities is the one we can actually call home?

A while back I examined the trilogy of possible universes we could inhabit and examined numerous fundamental or universal beliefs part and parcel of nearly all human societies or cultures with the goal of trying to figure out which universe best explained those universals.

The answer to this dilemma has puzzled me for decades. Both a Simulated and a Supernatural Universe better explained the human belief systems better than a Natural Universe. However, the ultimate solution finally yielded itself. At the time I opted for the Simulated Universe. Here I now go into a bit more detail as to why.

 The solution will come as a surprise to most; it certainly came as a shock to me. What decides the issue, IMHO, are ghosts, animate and inanimate! The Simulated Universe rules, and to show why this is so we need something impossible to account for in the Natural Universe, something which is totally illogical in the Supernatural Universe, but absolutely logical and predictable in the Simulated Universe. Ghosts fit the bill.

Now it is easy to say “ghosts don’t exist” or “I don’t believe in ghosts”, and in fact I haven’t ever seen one and to be honest I don’t ever expect to, but there’s massive amounts of eyewitness testimony to the contrary that needs to be taken into account. It’s the classic standoff between “it can’t be therefore it isn’t” and “I know what I saw”. When it comes to the debate between theory and observation, observation has trumped theory too many times not to be taken seriously. Theorists frequently have to “go back to the drawing board” to take into consideration another bona fide observation that contradicted their theoretical worldview.

What do we know about ghosts according to the “I know what I saw” crowd?

* They have been observed by all societies and all cultures since recorded history began, and no doubt prehistoric humans would have ghostly tales to tell too. The total number of observations now must number in the multi-millions. All of this testimony needs to be taken with more than just a grain of salt. The cultural acceptance of ghosts has been more than adequately demonstrated by the popularity of ghostly happenings related in literature, film, and other art forms.

* Ghosts have been captured on film and other manifestations of a non-visual nature have been recorded as well such as audio recordings, temperature readings, etc.

* Since ghosts can be seen, heard and interact with the environment, they must be products of matter and energy.

* Ghosts are not just animated beings, including animals, but have been observed as phantoms of inanimate objects, something the trilogy of universe options needs to deal with.

* The animated ghosts of Homo sapiens - that is ghosts of former living human beings - are observed dressed, that is clothed.

Okay, how does each one of the given trilogy of potential universes deal in turn with the above?

There is absolutely no way known to any sort of physics, chemistry and biology that’s part and parcel of the Natural Universe that can turn 100% deceased human remains (comprised of matter and energy) into an animated ghost of that person (also comprised of matter and energy). The key is accounting for the fact that the above mentioned deceased human remains, remains. The newly dead body hasn’t decreased by any significant amount of mass (or energy) to account for the newly created material ghost. It’s like generating something out of nothing. The Natural Universe has got to account for millions of observations of that which cannot exist by natural science as we understand it.

You’d think the Supernatural Universe would account for ghosts, after all the Supernatural Universe is the universe of the afterlife, and aren’t ghosts proof of life after death? Problem one is how to account for ghostly visions of purely inanimate objects – you can’t. Problem two is that if ghosts are images of a biological human life form, then that image should be starkers! That image should be appearing in their ghostly birthday suit! Why? It’s the biological entity that died, not the clothes they were wearing, so why the ghostly clothing? If the Supernatural Universe cannot deal or come to terms with ghostly manifestations of inanimate objects like ghost ships, then presumably animated objects like ghostly humans cannot be associated with inanimate accoutrements. That is to say, apart from no clothes, human ghosts shouldn’t still have their tooth fillings, hearing aids, peg legs, artificial hip joints or contact lenses.

To the rescue, the Simulated Universe conquers all.

Why would our Supreme Programmer write software subroutines for ghosts and phantom trains, etc.? Who knows? Why do we incorporate the fantasy elements we do into some of our video game creations? That aside, we might though expect the Supreme Programmer’s virtual reality software to generate ghosts that wear clothes!

But there is a second possibility relating ghosts to a Simulated Universe. Alterations or overwrites of existing software, once written, might not always produce 100% deletions and thus might provide unintended effects, ghostly effects of a previous software’s content.

The fly in the Simulated Universe ointment, the one thing that the Simulated Universe cannot give you, is free will. But there’s no way you can verify you have free will. Let’s just say that philosophers and metaphysics professors have been arguing that point: do you or don’t you have free will, for thousands of years. As the saying goes, “you have to believe you have free will; you have no choice in the matter.” It’s illogical to reject a Simulated Universe just because you firmly believe you have free will. That belief or conviction could easily be the result of the software programming. You wouldn’t be any the wiser. You are programmed to believe what you believe.

Summary

If, and only if, you accept the reality of those human belief systems that lend credibility to “I know what I saw” observations of ghosts and related phantom phenomena then the following are the pluses and minuses that are suggestive of what sort of universe we inhabit.

* Natural Universe: The natural universe, the universe where Mother Nature rules the roost, cannot easily account for universals such as an afterlife, a home for afterlife retirees, animated ghosts, inanimate phantoms and variations on that theme. These concepts cannot be accommodated in Mother Nature’s realm.  

* Simulated Universe: With the sole exception of free will, a Simulated Universe can account for, well, life the universe and everything, and especially animated ghosts with clothes and inanimate phantoms.

* Supernatural Universe: With the exception of animated ghosts who shouldn’t be wearing clothes, and inanimate phantoms, a Supernatural Universe can accommodate everything regarding life, the universe and everything universal. 

When crunch comes to crunch, it seems to be a tossup between a Supernatural Universe (with supernatural deities) and a Simulated Universe (with flesh-and-blood computer programmers). If you’re the end product, does it matter much if it’s a god or a programmer that’s responsible? It’s “In the beginning God created” vs. “In the beginning the Supreme Programmer created”.

Anyway, the choice apparently boils down to free will vs. ghosts. Both a Natural Universe ruled by classical (cause-and-effect) physics and a Simulated Universe can remove free will from any consideration. Ghosts on the other hand have been seen and recorded for thousands of years by millions of people – “I know what I saw”. Ghosts have a greater reality quotient than free will. Therefore, I have to give an extra tick to a Simulated Universe scenario which can give you a believable ghost, but not free will vs. a minus-tick to a Supernatural Universe which cannot give you a believable ghost but a free will that cannot be verified.

However, there’s a philosophical reason as well to choose the Supreme Programmer over the Supernatural Deity. It’s my personal bias that natural is preferable to supernatural, lock, stock and barrel. Ultimately, a Simulated Universe has to be positioned within some form of Natural Universe, a universe where mathematics, physics, chemistry, ‘flesh-and-blood’ biology and all things technological reside. That sort of Natural Universe however may be vastly different to what we think of as our really real Big Bang Natural Universe in the same way as our video game universes often bear only superficial resemblance to the reality inhabited by the human programmer who created that video game in the first place.

If however you reject the ghost-filled Simulated Universe scenario, then you slide on down the steep slope to the Supernatural Universe minus ghostly manifestations option. If you reject the Supernatural Universe, even though it gives you allegedly free will, then it’s down the slippery slope to the ghostly realm of the Simulated Universe. If you reject both in favour of the Natural Universe, then you have a lot of spooky enigmas that require some very deep thought and explanations.

For example, take those massive quasi-human appearing statues found on Easter Island, some of which are as tall as a four storey house and weigh as much as 30 to 40 tons. How did they get from where they were quarried to where they now reside, in a land without the wheel or beasts of burden? Well, according to the natives, the finished multi-ton stone statues apparently walked by themselves from their quarry to their final location! That’s the native’s story# and they are sticking to it, and no, I’m not making this up. These animated statues that ‘walk-by-themselves’ are just an impossibility in a Natural Universe; have no real relevance in a Supernatural Universe but are as easy to account for as “run program” in a Simulated Universe.

In fact anything and everything that violates the known natural order (of physics, chemistry and biology), from magic to miracles, can easily be accounted for as just another subroutine of the virtual reality software programming.

# Heyerdahl, Thor; Aku-Aku: The Secret of Easter Island; Rand McNally & Company, Chicago; 1958.

A Trilogy of Universes: Part Four

There is a trilogy of possible universes we inhabit – Supernatural, Natural and Simulated. There are also several universal beliefs that nearly all humans, all cultures, over all of history share. Belief in these universals usually extends to the present day. Can the later assist in determining which of the three possible universes we might live in, is the one we do live in?

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Final Scores and Summary

If, and only if, you accept the reality of those human belief systems, those universals, then the following are the pluses and minuses that are suggestive of what sort of universe we inhabit.

*Natural Universe: The natural universe, the universe where Mother Nature rules the roost, can easily account for any and all creations – from the universe through to galaxies, stars, planets, life, intelligent life, and human life. Deities can be attributed to highly advanced technologically inclined extraterrestrials – ‘ancient astronauts’. Free will can be achieved thanks to quantum physics. Unfortunately, universals such as an afterlife, a home for afterlife retirees, ghosts, and variations on a theme of reincarnation cannot be accommodated in Mother Nature’s realm. Score: 4 ½ out of 11. 

*Simulated Universe: With the sole exception of free will, a Simulated Universe can account for, well, life the universe and everything. Score: 10 out of 11.

*Supernatural Universe: With the exception of ghosts, a Supernatural Universe can accommodate everything regarding life, the universe and everything universal. Score: 10 out of 11.

It seems to be a tossup between a Supernatural Universe (with supernatural deities) and a Simulated Universe (with flesh-and-blood computer programmers). If you’re the end product, does it matter much if it’s a god or a programmer that’s responsible? It’s “In the beginning God created” vs. “In the beginning the Supreme Programmer created”. Anyway, the choice boils down to free will vs. ghosts. There’s no way you can verify you have free will. As the saying goes, “you have to believe you have free will; you have no choice in the matter.” Both a Natural Universe ruled by classical (cause-and-effect) physics and a Simulated Universe can remove free will from any consideration. Ghosts on the other hand have been seen and recorded for thousands of years by millions of people. Ghosts have a greater reality quotient than free will. Therefore, I have to give an extra tick to a Simulated Universe scenario which can give you a believable ghost, but not free will vs. a minus-tick to a Supernatural Universe which cannot give you a believable ghost but a free will that cannot be verified.

So, when crunch comes crunch, if you want to accommodate all of the universals that humans hold near and dear to them, then a Simulated Universe is the way to bet the family farm on being the true universe, at least as far as we are concerned. The sort of universe the simulators inhabit is beyond our comprehension, in much the same way that a character in one of our video games cannot grasp what our universe is like.

If however you reject the Simulated Universe scenario, then you slide on down the steep slope to the Supernatural Universe option. If you reject the Supernatural Universe, then it’s down the slippery slope to the Simulated Universe. If you reject both in favour of the Natural Universe, then you have a lot of enigmas that require some very deep thought and explanations.

So what’s the point of all this? I mean, regardless of which universe you (and the rest of us) actually reside in, there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. If you live in a Natural Universe, yet really desire a Supreme Being and an afterlife – tough! If you really exist in a Simulated Universe but are uncomfortable with the unknown pulling your strings – tough! Still, though powerless you might be, still it’s interesting to have a firm idea of what your universe actually is. It’s relatively easier to come to terms with the known, than the unknown, even if you’re not altogether pleased with that knowledge. 

#Of course if you throw into the mix all terrestrial life forms that have a reasonable advanced set of wetware (mammals and birds say) then the equation shifts drastically to the natural point of view. I’m sure my two cats don’t have a cat deity and their worldview is all things natural.

A Trilogy of Universes: Part Two

There is a trilogy of possible universes we inhabit – Supernatural, Natural and Simulated. There are also several universal beliefs that nearly all humans, all cultures, over all of history share. Belief in these universals usually extends to the present day. Can the later assist in determining which of the three possible universes we might live in, is the one we do live in?

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Deities

One such universal are deities (or aliens misinterpreted as deities).

*Natural Universe: Deities are almost by definition supernatural since they all have powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men (and women). However, it’s perfectly logical to have a natural universe containing extraterrestrials with advanced technology. Advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, the supernatural, if your level of sophistication is below that level of that advanced technology (what would a Neanderthal make of a jet aircraft flying overhead). To ancient human societies, ‘ancient astronauts’ would be deities, even more so if these extraterrestrials pawned themselves off as deities for various reasons. Because extraterrestrials violate nothing in the Natural Universe, yet the existence of extraterrestrials hasn’t been verified to date, just ½ point can be awarded.

*Simulated Universe: The deity in question here is the software programmer. Though not an actual deity, the end products created by the programmer, if given enough sophistication, might worship as a deity this unknown creator they envision as having to exist in order to account for them. One point awarded.

*Supernatural Universe: Here deities are really real deities, real deities strutting their real deity stuff for all and sundry to see and appreciate. So, it’s only natural that their existence should be acknowledged. One full point awarded.

Free Will

Probably the most universal of the universals is the concept of free will. Very few humans would deny that they are in control of their own fate, destiny, etc. They might be subjected to the laws of the land; to the laws, principles and relationships of physics, chemistry and biology; to the whims of others; but ultimately you yourself pick and choose – or do you. Let’s just say that philosophers and metaphysics professors have been arguing that point for thousands of years.

*Natural Universe: There are two possibilities here. Firstly, at the time of the creation of the universe, all the laws, relationships and principles of, ultimately physics, were set in motion. Everything from that point onwards was fixed. Determination ruled. Causality ruled – absolutely. From first principles, the future, to as many decimal places as you’d care to measure, was fixed – absolutely. As such, you were predetermined as long ago as the Big Bang – 13.7 billion years ago. Therefore, you have no free will. Classical Physics rules, OK? However, part of physics is known as quantum physics, the physics that rules the roost of the microscopic. Apparently, causality doesn’t rule the roost in all things quantum, only probability. Therefore, there’s wriggle room, not certainty, and you can exhibit free will. Score ½ point for an each way bet. .

*Simulated Universe: Unless software is way more sophisticated than I dreamed possible, you dance to someone else’s tune. There’s no free will if you’re a virtual being. There are actually two scenarios here, but one outcome. Either simulation parameters were set at the Alpha Point and the enter “run program” button pushed, or else there’s an active ‘player’ who manipulates events as they unfold, like someone would in a video game or in a pilot training simulator. Either way, it’s zero points being the order of the day if you’re into free will.

*Supernatural Universe: In the monotheistic religions, and for that matter in the polytheistic religions, free will tends to be the order of the day. You are free to believe or not believe; free to sin or not to sin; free to rule your own roost and pay whatever piper needs to be paid accordingly. Score one full point here. 

Afterlife

Another universal concept is an afterlife. Part of your existence in the here and now will survive your clinical death and decay.

*Natural Universe: There’s no evidence that any part of you that was part of you, when you were alive, remains a part of you after you die. You are 100% composed of matter and energy, and all of that matter and energy can be accounted for post death, because of the various laws of conservation (matter/energy can neither be created no destroyed but only changed in form). Unfortunately for you, those changes in form go from the highly complex to the less complex (that’s what decay is), the exact opposite of what is required to form life, even an afterlife. No one has ever witnessed a newly deceased body or the transition from a dying body to a dead body, with any associated phenomena that would suggest that part of that body’s life essence survived. If the living you is 120 pounds of matter and energy; and the dead you is 120 pounds of matter and energy, then there’s nothing left over that survives and goes to La-La-Land. No points can be awarded here.

*Simulated Universe: If your name is Joe Blow, and you’re just software, then there’s a command within that software that you come to that says something like “end subroutine program Joe Blow” – Joe Blow kicks the bucket. But, then there’s another command which says “start subroutine program Joe Blow afterlife” – Joe Blow gets resurrected into another simulated realm. Easy! One full point has to be awarded here for the logical possibility that the Supreme Programmer or Supreme Player likes to subject their simulated characters to perform in various scenarios, sort of like on earth scenario as it is in heaven scenario.

*Supernatural Universe: Any and all texts that have any relationship to verifying a Supernatural Universe, like the Bible, are full of references to everlasting life, life everlasting, eternal life, life eternal, immortality, in fact an afterlife. Somehow after you die a biological death you get resurrected into a supernatural realm, ‘alive’ and kicking and maybe screaming (just depending on location). One full point has to be awarded here.

One general question, what happens to all those artificial body bits in the afterlife – tooth fillings, artificial heart valves or pacemakers, metal hip or knee joints, etc. For that matter, if you’re a ghost, do you retain those artificial bits and pieces?

Afterlife Location

If the afterlife is universal, then an afterlife location is also universal, from Hades to Hel to Hell; the Spirit World, Valhalla, Heaven, etc.

*Natural Universe: If there can be no afterlife in a natural universe, then it makes no sense that a natural universe would contain geographies that house those blessed with a nonexistent afterlife. In any event, no such afterlife location has ever been discovered and pinpointed either up there or down here. No points awarded here either.

*Simulated Universe: If you have a simulated afterlife, then you need to have a simulated location(s) in which to put down your simulated afterlife roots. One full point given.

*Supernatural Universe: The Supernatural literature is full of locations where you get to spend your immortal life everlasting existence. There are no promises on whether or not you’ll be a happy afterlife camper however. Anyway, another full point has to follow-on.

Ghosts

There’s the paranormal phenomena of ghosts, spirits, phantoms, wraiths, spectres, call them what you will, but a rose by any other name… Whatever they’re called, they appear to verify the existence of life after death. Ghosts have been observed and in general an accepted phenomenon by all peoples, all societies, and all cultures since recorded history began and probably even before that that requires an explanation. However, there’s one fly in the ointment. There are observations of non-living ‘ghosts’, things like phantom trains (the Abe Lincoln funeral train), trucks (‘Phantom 309’) and cars, planes and of course ships (like the Flying Dutchman); also structures, even islands that no longer exist (though the latter two are probably best explained as in all probability mirages). They’ve got to be accommodated too.

*Natural Universe: There is no physical, chemical or biological mechanism that can transform a clinically dead flesh-and-blood body, the kind that made you, you, into a physical, chemical and biological ghost. Ghosts have to be made of matter and energy since they are seen, heard and interact with the environment. They have to be biological since they are animated and behave like a living thing. If ghosts are really real, then we do not exist in a natural universe. If ghosts, including phantom trains, do exist in the natural world then they are the sole product of the human mind and all associated evidence (photographs, etc.) are either fraudulent or have prosaic explanations. Because an all-in-the-mind explanation is possible, albeit unlikely IMHO, ½ point is awarded.

*Simulated Universe: In a Simulated Universe, everything has a ghost of a chance! Software can create ghosts, fully clothed ghosts, as well as phantom trains. Or, on the other hand, ghostly images could be just the result of previously deleted software, which was only 99.9% deleted. Residues remain. The ‘delete’ button isn’t 100% efficient. Whatever scenario you choose, its one full point awarded.

*Supernatural Universe: The problems here are several. What’s the rationale for creating phantom trains for example? - None that I can see. Now assuming something supernatural happens and a dead person becomes an animated person that’s not quite all there, a ghost, then you’d expect that ghost to be starkers – absolutely naked as a newborn baby. It’s the biological entity that dies, not their attire. For that matter, if you’re a ghost, do you retain those artificial bits and pieces, those artificial body bits like tooth fillings, artificial heart valves or pacemakers, metal hip or knee joints, etc. That’s part of your attire too. If you see a ghost with a peg leg, something’s fishy. Because of these issues, no points can be awarded. 

To be continued….

Ultimate Purpose, Meaning and Destiny: Part Two

If there is a common theme within religions and associated philosophies, it’s one of trying to position oneself in the broad context of life, the universe and everything as something special. You have somehow been tapped on the shoulder with a special and unique mission or destiny, or a special purpose or meaning that you have to carry during the time of your existence, something that places you uniquely above the rest of life, the universe and everything. Hogwash!

Author’s note: for the sake of brevity, I intend to use the acronym for self-awareness or consciousness as SAC; for the overlapping concepts of destiny, fate, function, meaning, purpose or reason as DFMPR. That should save a bit of space!

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

If something is created, and that something has a DFMPR for being created in the first place, that implies an act of intelligence, though that level of intelligence doesn’t have to be very high. Ants create an anthill out of dirt or sand for a purpose (shelter); some birds will gather up pretty baubles and lay them out to be admired by a prospective mate, an artistic work that has a purpose (sex and reproduction); some primates fashion sticks out of leafy twigs to probe for termites, again for a purpose (food).

Back to you: were you created for a DFMPR – are you a tool as it were, designed with an ultimate DFMPR in mind, and if so who or what created that DFMPR? There are two possibilities, not mutually exclusive.

* You are your own tool. You create your own DFMPR.

* You are someone else’s tool. Parents, teachers, other authority figures help give your life DFMPR, like do the dishes; mow the lawn; do your homework; voting is compulsory (this being written in the rather undemocratic country of Australia); pay your taxes; don’t drink and drive; don’t be late for work; spend, spend, spend; be fruitful and multiply; thou shall have no other gods before me, etc. Of course it doesn’t have to be an authority figure. Maybe a close friend suggests your DFMPR lies in being a musician. Decades later, you’re a rock & roll superstar!

Your mind is perfectly free to accept or reject the demands or your externally imposed DFMPR, like wash the dishes or practice, practice, practice your music, as long as you are willing to accept the consequences if you exert your free will in the negative. Ultimately, you, or your mind is in control and that’s where the buck stops.

In the case of the anthill, the artistic pattern of the baubles, the termite gathering stick, these are someone else’s tools (ants, birds, primates), obviously, since they didn’t create themselves. They are creations from within the mind of their ant, bird, primate creators, but via a hardwired form of intelligence – instinct.

What humans tend to create is more a soft-wired flexible sort of intelligence; true intelligence as it was – creating outside of the instinct box. You don’t fashion atomic bombs, or financial markets, or shoes, or a theory of evolution by hardwired instinct.

But the line between animal hardwired and human soft-wired ‘intelligence/instinct’ isn’t all that neat and tidy. Apart from housing/shelter, many an animal ‘society’ has by definition a social structure, a political system (leaders), a division of labour, and has ‘invented’ agriculture and harvesting and animal husbandry, even slavery, warfare and genocide. I’m thinking primarily, but not exclusively, of the ant or bee/wasp kingdoms.

However, there is a bottom line here. Things with DFMPR, by instinct or by pure intelligent design, stem ultimately from the brain, mind, or wetware, whatever you wish to call it. There is no nebulous other factor behind an anthill or wasps nest; creating a new dance step or meal recipe.

The human mind does differ I suspect in at least one highly significant way – humans, via their minds, envelop themselves in a wider worldview, both in time and in space, vis-à-vis the animals, and ponder the meaning of ‘why’.

Animals, my cats for example, have a sense of who (friend or foe; prey or predator); what (I know what that is, it’s my chair); where (I know where my food dish or litter box or the door is); even when (their biological clocks are damn accurate, but their sense of when doesn’t extend much past ‘right now’), but lack the intellectual ability to ponder why or how. Animals live day-to-day, even moment-to-moment, without a sense of mystery (they have no concept of whodunits), which isn’t to say they don’t have a concept of the unknown – they do have curiosity and like to explore (is there food just over that hill), but DFMPR are foreign ideas to them. Things just are and don’t need to be explained. There is no need to frame questions, far less seek answers.

Humans however have evolved the concepts of how or why. And the human mind can come to terms with concepts like DFMPR; good and evil; mystery and awe; yin and yang; a sense of yesterday and tomorrow; of death and immortality which are all foreign in the animal kingdoms.

Unfortunately, though how and why questions come easily to the human mind, answers do not and being an rather impatient sort of life form, well, what do we want, answers; when do we want them, now!

Any gaps in our minds ability to figure things out, the natural order of things (like life, the universe and everything), could be instantaneously filled in by one very simple invention – storytelling. If you have trouble explaining the natural via the natural, then invent explanatory stories of the supernatural, or mythology, or its synonym religion, since every mythology has both supernatural elements and deities. Easy! Every culture has done it. As author Karen Armstrong says “We created religions because we are meaning-seeking creatures”. A local pastor of a friend of mine wrote that “religion is for making a disparate and confusing world coherent”. Substitute the word ‘science’ for ‘religion’ and I’d agree. That’s what science tries to do – make sense of life, the universe and everything. Later on down the track, people decided the best way to explain the natural was to investigate, experiment and get their hands dirty, and slowly but surely,  supernatural or religious philosophies morphed into natural philosophy, or what we call today science, and science has indeed filled in many gaps where previously only deities feared to tread.

Not all mythology need be 100% tall tales invented from scratch out of whole cloth to explain life, the universe and everything. There could be, and probably are, natural events influencing the authors of these tall tales. One can easily substitute a natural, albeit extraterrestrial Captain Yahweh of the Starship Heaven for the supernatural Almighty for example. 

Religion may have once covered that role but since the Age of Enlightenment religion has become irrelevant in that role. We created science to ultimately explain that who, what, where, when, why and how. Science answers the question ‘what is my DFMPR in life’ by pointing out there isn’t any DFMPR (given to us by a nebulous other or religious deity), any more than what is the DFMPR of a rock’s existence. It just is. There is nothing ultimately different between you and a rock, just the arrangement of the fundamental bits and pieces that make up both you and the rock.

But science hasn’t yet come to terms with everything life, the universe and everything has thrown up. An obvious example is explaining that eternal question of what is my DFMPR in existing and being present and accounted for in the first place, apart from my asking “how high” when someone says “jump”! “How high” might be your DFMPR for being present and accounted for in the here and now. 

But then you too could jump all on your own accord because you have decided that your DFMPR in life is to jump, or at least one of your DFMPR (there’s probably no such thing as just a singular DFMPR to your life). Now that’s not all that frivolous since there are athletes whose profession is the high jump or the broad jump or race track hurdles, or who ride and jump horses over obstacles – the steeplechase I think that’s called.

So again we see that your DFMPR can be both influenced by others (say your drill sergeant) and by yourself – you volunteered to enlist in the army and serve your country thus giving you DFMPR to your otherwise miserable existence.

The Concept of the Nebulous Other:

Now a question arises, does any DFMPR stem also from a third party, from a sort of nebulous supernatural sort of other drill sergeant type? Only if you believe in the existence of such a deity or the various mythological texts that supposedly endorse such a being. However, I’ve already pointed out that these religious mythologies were the products of the human mind to give instant satisfaction to un-answered and unanswerable (at the time) questions. Therefore there is no competing nebulous supernatural other directing your life, even if you believe otherwise. Any nebulous supernatural other stems from your own mind.

There is one other last option. People who feel that they are being directed or otherwise have a sense of higher calling or DFMPR in their life might be virtual beings in a simulated universe. Software is the string; you (in fact all simulated life, the simulated universe and the simulated everything) is the puppet of some unknown nebulous, but not a supernatural nebulous other, is the puppeteer. In such a simulated universe you’d have a DFMPR, but no free will. In this case the puppeteer wouldn’t be just a mental creation.

Conclusion: All DFMPR; good and evil; mystery and awe; yin and yang; a sense of yesterday and tomorrow; of death and immortality stems 100% from within your own mind, albeit influenced at times by others – like your drill sergeant – natural others, not nebulous supernatural others. If you feel you have an ultimate DFMPR to your existence then that ultimately stems from or is consolidated from within your own mind (brain chemistry rules the roost) even if influenced by the input of others. I have various self-assigned DFMPR, but they all stem from within my own mind – an example of free will? When my mind eventually goes, so too will go the DFMPR. Once you’re brain dead any DFMPR you had can’t be continued or added too, though that doesn’t mean you can’t still serve a DFMPR, like being an inspiration after-the-fact. Still, the bottom line is that all DFMPR ultimately comes from within, probably after much internal mulling things over, and ever evolving as you get older (and wiser). Apart from the simulated universe scenario, your mind is your own. You have, apparently, free will to pick and choose your own DFMPR.

Ultimate Purpose, Meaning and Destiny: Part One

If there is a common theme within religions and associated philosophies, it’s one of trying to position oneself in the broad context of life, the universe and everything as something special. You have somehow been tapped on the shoulder with a special and unique mission or destiny, or a special purpose or meaning that you have to carry during the time of your existence, something that places you uniquely above the rest of life, the universe and everything. Hogwash!

Author’s note: for the sake of brevity, I intend to use the acronym for self-awareness or consciousness as SAC; for the overlapping concepts of destiny, fate, function, meaning, purpose or reason as DFMPR. That should save a bit of space!

A Few Ultimate Questions:

Is there a DFMPR to life, the universe and everything?

What is the DFMPR to life, the universe and everything?

What is my DFMPR within life, the universe and everything?

Does the universe have a SAC?

A SAC universe, well that’s the only way it could assign you a, or influence your, DFMPR. But, looking up at the night sky, do you really think the universe gives a damn about your alleged DFMPR in life? That would indeed imply that the universe has some sort of SAC. But, IMHO, the universe did not assign you a DFMP at birth and does not acknowledge any DFMPR to your existence. You can contemplate the universe; the universe can not contemplate you. Alas, that’s because the universe is not alive, it doesn’t have a mind; it does not have any SAC. To argue otherwise is to invite trouble.

Some readers might recall the controversy of James Lovelock’s Gaia theory which seemed to imply that Earth (Gaia) had a SAC and the planet could somehow intellectually manipulate the various geo-chemical cycles (feedback mechanisms) to optimise the environmental balance between extremes that could otherwise result without those mechanisms. Gaia’s DFMPR was to produce and ensure an optimum Earth; a Goldilocks Earth, an Earth that’s just right for life. Of course those feedback mechanisms were just the result of natural unconscious physical laws, and too many New Agers read too much into Lovelock’s ideas. Planet Earth exhibits no SAC and neither does the universe.

By extension, there is no nebulous supernatural other within the universe that serves as a substitute for a SAC universe. As a jumping off premise, there is no such thing as either a SAC universe, or a supernatural realm that contains any deity or family of deities within that universe.

Speaking of the universe, I should mention here the Anthropic Cosmological Principle which comes in two basic formats, weak and strong. The weak version basically states the bleeding obvious, and that is the universe is bio-friendly. If the universe wasn’t bio-friendly, we wouldn’t be here to make note of that fact. The strong version however implies a DFMPR to the universe. The universe has a DFMPR to be bio-friendly and to produce life forms, like us, that can appreciate the DFMPR of the universe. Of course for the universe to have a DFMPR, it either has to be SAC of have a supernatural creator that is, unless of course the universe and its DFMPR is a simulated universe. See below.  

I guess I should also mention astrology here if for no other reason than readers would expect to find it mentioned. OK, I’ve mentioned it, now it’s time to move forward. Astrology is a 100% human invention and has no cosmic or personal significance in any shape, manner or form. Of course you are perfectly free to adopt astrology as your answer to your DFMPR, but that suggests you are happy to negate any free will others might think you have.

Let’s start at the most elementary basics and work the way upwards, starting with the four forces and associated particles plus the elementary particles (electron and quarks).

There are four fundamental forces in the universe, with associated particles that form the entire bedrock for all of life, the universe and everything. They are gravity, the weak nuclear and strong nuclear forces, and electromagnetism. You know all about gravity; electromagnetism is also a pretty familiar concept from the light that you read by, to the compass that guides you from Point A to Point B. Now do you associate any intelligence or SAC with these four forces? - Probably not.

There are also a few fundamental particles that you have probably heard about, namely electrons and quarks. Quark combinations make up protons and neutrons, and they in turn, in association with electrons make up atoms. Are electrons and quarks SAC? Do they have intellect? Do they have free will? – Probably not.

Atoms combine to form molecules, and molecules can combine to form really complex molecules, and combinations of really complex molecules can form life within all those other non-life bits that comprise the rest of the universe and everything. But if the fundamental building blocks have no SAC, how can combinations of them have SAC? It’s like building a house of red bricks only to have the finished house appear blue!

Still, somewhere along the line, un-SAC bricks can form a SAC house – you, for example. Therefore, the eternal question – the bits and pieces what makes me up has no SAC, yet I have, a SAC that is. Therefore, I’m more than the sum of my parts and I am somehow special (relative to the universe) and no doubt endowed therefore with some special DFMPR, if I can only figure out what.

Conversely, one could take the point of view and argue that gravity has a DFMPR to its existence, ditto a quark and therefore they have a SAC in order to carry out their DFMPR (like keeping Earth in its orbit, or making those neutrons) and therefore a rock has SAC (being made up of bits and pieces of SAC bits and pieces) and therefore you aren’t unique in your SAC vis-à-vis the inanimate world. But you still have to figure it out – either way you have to figure it out what your special DFMPR is. However, I have a hard time thinking that most living things would accept that all non-living things have a SAC, so let’s scratch that option.

Okay, the universe isn’t SAC and has no DFMPR, it just is; you on the other hand are SAC and therefore assume you have a unique DFMPR, whatever. But is that by your choice and alterable (free will) or by the design of the universe and unalterable?

From the moment of the Big Bang, all the laws, principles and relationships of physics became hardwired into the fabric of the universe, fixed and forever unalterable. That implies total causality and that outcomes are fixed. Plug in the numbers into the equation, crunch the numbers, and out will come the answer, fixed and immovable. Everything that happens in the universe is predetermined even unto billions of years into the future, including you and your DFMPR. Your life may have DFMPR except you have no choice, no free will, in what that DFMPR is. Absolute cause-and-effect rules out free will. Let’s move on from there.

Let’s forge ahead instead with the standard model and see where that leads us. The standard model, scientific model, being that the universe has no SAC or DFMPR, causality is iffy (due to quantum physics); you have SAC so there’s a transition between no SAC and SAC as complexity increases. There is no nebulous other (something supernatural) pulling your strings; you have free will.

You exist. You have not always existed and you will not always exist.

You did not create yourself.  Is there a reason you exist apart from the sex act that created you and perhaps the wishes of your parents to have a child (you) – though that may be a good enough reason in itself.

A more interesting question though is, is there really a DFMPR to your existence, and by extension to all that came before you, leading up to you, since if you have a DFMPR your parents had at least one DFMPR – creating you – and so on back on down the line.

Working backwards, if there was a reason for you, therefore there was a reason for your parent’s existence, your parent’s parents, back to the rise of Homo sapiens, the primates, the mammals, life itself, stuff (planets, stars, and galaxies), the creation of matter/energy and the time and space to ultimately produce you. If you exist for a reason, then everything that went before had a reason to exist as well.

To be continued...