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!

A Universe Without Life: Part Two

You know and I know that at this point in time, our Universe is inhabited. Even if nowhere else in the cosmos, Planet Earth is host to terrestrial life. However, the Universe didn’t start off with any life, especially human life. This puts the kibosh on a certain brand of quantum philosophy, the brand that encompasses the role of the observer and the role played by probability.

Continued from yesterday’s Part One blog…

In a universe without life, it’s probably pretty meaningless to talk about concepts like free will. Then there’s that whole sackful of concepts related to good-and-evil like morals, ethics, sin, badness, righteousness, etc. and as such there’s no need for the concepts of heaven or hell. As such, scratch salvation, redemption, forgiveness, or damnation.

There are no emotions, suffering, pain, sorrow, pleasure, consciousness, or psychology. There’s obviously no disease.

There’s another bagful of concepts like the afterlife, reincarnation or resurrection that can go by the boards. Speaking of the latter, there’s no such thing in a lifeless universe as miracles. There is no such concept required like survival of the fittest; there are no wars, no death, and certainly no taxes! There were no soft science concepts around like society, culture, education (no homework), politics and government (no politicians), no economics (no bills), no religion (no thou shalt nots), no philosophy (who needs angels and pins), history (all those names, dates and places) and no environmental issues that needed addressing. There was no beauty (and no ugly either). In short, that pre-life era – that was what is known as the really good old days!

There’s one other important contrast between a lifeless universe and the universe that, in this case specifically contains and singles out humans and human concepts, and that is probability.  

Probability or uncertainty (two sides; same coin) dominates our existence. What odds my next child will be a female? What odds the next time I fly the plane will crash? What odds I win the lottery this week? What’s the probability I will be promoted this year? What’s the probability that I am normal, being of average height, weight, age, etc.? Even in science as performed by humans, probability or uncertainty dominates. Every measurement has error bars. Every forecast has some degree of uncertainty. Even the Sun rising tomorrow is not absolutely guaranteed (though I wouldn’t lose any sleep over that unlikely event). Every theory can ultimately be found to be wrong or incomplete. And just where is that damn electron anyway?

The fundamental question is, is probability an intrinsic property of Mother Nature like mass and gravity, or is it a human invention; a human concept? IMHO, there are no error bars in Mother Nature’s reality. Mother Nature knows the temperature is this, not around this but within this range. Mother Nature notes it will rain tomorrow, not just a chance of showers. Mother Nature knows that the Sun will rise tomorrow even though it will go nova the day after that. Mother Nature knew that Einstein’s theory of gravity was more precise than Newton’s theory of gravity millennia before Newton or Einstein was conceived of in anyone philosophy. And Mother Nature knows exactly where that damn electron is because the electron is. 

Any observer, via instrumentation or via the five senses, usually has to interpret what that observation actually represents – it’s not always obvious. If it was, science would have concluded its work decades ago, or just be engaged in refining things from the tenth to the twelfth decimal place. Interpretation – the choice between two or more possibilities – well that’s weighing probabilities.

* We’ve all observed a cat rubbing its head along an object. What’s the probability the cat is putting its scent on the object or the probability does it have an itch to scratch?

* We might have observed a boat passing away from us and disappearing over the horizon. Is this because the Earth is probably round or did the boat probably sink?

* In quantum physics, observations suggest a wave-particle duality. But is it more probably a wave or is it more likely a particle? 

* Is that unusual light in the sky probably an alien spaceship or is it probably a weather balloon?

* Does viewing a sunrise suggest t you that the Sun probably goes around the Earth or that the Earth probably is rotating around its axis?

* You spot that tornado on the horizon – maybe it will miss you or maybe it won’t. What are the odds? It certainly can’t both hit you and miss you at the same time and place.

* Is Pluto probably a real planet or isn’t it (and does it even cosmically matter)?

* My friend has a cold. I have a cold. Did I probably catch his or did he probably catch mine or was there probably something contagious in the meal we shared several nights ago?

* That Sasquatch I saw. Was it probably too much to drink or was it probably real and if it was real was it probably a bear or was it probably an unknown primate?

* Did the apple fall to earth because it’s probably seeking its natural place or was it probably due to an external force called gravity?

* Is Schrodinger’s cat probably dead or probably alive? It can’t be both simultaneously despite what quantum physics suggest.

* Why is the night sky dark? Is it probably because the Sun’s not shining in the sky at night or probably because the Universe is expanding or probably because there’s only a finite number of stars and galaxies giving off light.

* Why did the chicken cross the road this morning? You may not know (though you can probably come up with a half-dozen possibilities) but the chicken probably does.

There’s little doubt in my mind that to all of these probably observations there is but one answer(s). In many cases we’ve sussed out the answer(s). We don’t have the answer(s) in all the cases. I say answer(s) because there can be more than one answer acting jointly, like there really was a Sasquatch and yes, you were also really, really drunk; yes the Earth is round, but yes, the boat sank as well. But its an either/or certainty of an explanation(s), not a bit of both ways by sometimes probably having your cake and sometimes probably eating it too, probability, as in sometimes the apple falls to earth because it is seeking its natural place and sometimes it falls to earth because of gravity; or that Pluto is a planet on odd days or in months containing an “R” and not a planet on even days or non-“R” months; or sometimes the night sky is dark because the Sun isn’t in the sky, but at other times the night sky is dark because the Universe is expanding and at yet even on other occasions its only dark because there’s only a finite number of stars and galaxies.

The bottom line is that the Universe isn’t governed by probability. Given identical sets of circumstances or conditions, the outcomes remain the same. Observers and observations are irrelevant. That’s made crystal clear during all those millennia the Universe was observer-free.   

A Universe Without Life: Part One

You know and I know that at this point in time, our Universe is inhabited. Even if nowhere else in the cosmos, Planet Earth is host to terrestrial life, from the humble bacteria through to plants, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. In terms of sheer numbers of species and total biomass, microbes and insects rule the roost, though humans alone pat themselves on the back. However, the Universe didn’t start off with any life, especially human life. This puts the kibosh on a certain brand of quantum metaphysics, the brand that encompasses the role of the observer and the role played by probability.

I think everyone would agree that before they were thought of in anyone’s philosophy, the Universe existed. You’d agree that the Universe existed before humans existed, unless you’re one of those fundamentalists who interpret the Book of Genesis literally, and even then there were a few days for the Universe to enjoy a pre-human existence. If you’re not one of those extreme right wing all-things-literal Christians, then you’d go along with the Universe existing before life, any kind of life, arose on Terra Firma (or anywhere else in the cosmos for that matter). You’d also have to go along with the notion that the Universe existed before the Earth (and therefore the Sun and solar system) existed, since the parent (the Universe) has to exist before the offspring (Earth, Sun and solar system). In fact, to bring this string to its logical conclusion, the Universe existed even before our home parent galaxy, the Milky Way existed.

The origin of our Universe via that Big Bang event was roughly 13.7 billion years ago. Our own galaxy didn’t come into its own until three plus billion years post Big Bang. Planet Earth (plus Sun and solar system) came about some 4.5 billion years ago; the first stirrings of what we’d call life happened on Earth within a half a billion years of Earth’s origin event. If you want to equate life in the Universe with life on Earth (terrestrial biology is the proverbial IT), then the Universe has been lifeless for the first 9.7 billion years of its existence.

Our Universe is bio-friendly otherwise we wouldn’t be here to discuss the issue. That’s often termed the Weak Anthropic Principle. A bio-friendly Universe is a Goldilocks Universe, albeit a dangerous Goldilocks Universe with lots of places that are too hot or too cold or otherwise not quite right and not quite bio-friendly. But, any port in a storm.

But before life was thought of in anyone’s (not that there was anyone) philosophy, we’re certain that:

* Chemistry still happened.

* Stars still shined and photons still did their photon thing.

* Gravity still grabbed; Black Holes still formed.

* Radioactivity decay still proceeded.

* Neutrinos still whizzed their merry way along the cosmic byways and pathways.

* Electrons still quantum hopped from orbit to orbit giving off and absorbing energy.

* Quarks still carried on their threesome relationships inside protons and neutrons.

Okay, there clearly was a time when the cosmos was lifeless and the above were cosmic truisms. There clearly might come such a time again if Planet Earth is the proverbial IT when it comes to the life part of “life, the Universe and everything”. Humans aren’t immortal; Planet Earth isn’t immortal, and as I said earlier, the Universe can be a dangerous place. Perhaps humans don’t even need assistance from the Universe at large to bring about their extinction and the extinction of all life on Earth. If life on Earth goes kaput, then:

* Hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, blizzards, floods and droughts will still happen on Terra Firma.

* Volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, avalanches, Ice Ages, tsunamis, meteor impacts, erosion, mountain building, and continental drift will still happen on Terra Firma.

* The tides will still ebb and flow; the Moon still waxes and wanes.

Now the $64,000 question is why is a lifeless Universe of any interest whatsoever? The answer is “observers”, or in the case of a lifeless Universe, “no observers”.

Many, especially the religious, think the Universe had a purpose, and that was to be fruitful and produce life, intelligence and consciousness, a way of the Universe being able to contemplate its own navel. That’s often termed the Strong Anthropic Principle. Most scientists give that the thumbs down on the grounds that the Universe just is. The Universe doesn’t have a consciousness, or a deity controlling it, and therefore the cosmos can’t have a purpose to its existence, nor a ways and means that it can consciously direct itself toward such a goal.

However, many quantum physicists suggest that the Universe cannot have achieved a reality until such time as observers (life) appeared to give the Universe reality. That’s often termed the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. The idea is that all possible realities exist in a state of superposition and only one becomes reality when someone actually observes and forces the numerous possibilities down to one certainty. All possible realities are grouped together and termed the probability wave-function or wave of probability. When crunch-comes-crunch and someone peeks, Mother Nature is forced to make a decision, the wave-function collapses and one and only one certainty results.

Until life appeared then, the Universe was in a superposition of all possible realities, a wave-function that was a composite of all possibilities. That first observer hence collapsed the wave-function of near infinite possibilities down to one reality. Or is that just so much bovine fertilizer?

Now between the time of the creation, that Big Bang event some 13.7 billion years ago, and the time of that first observer arising, the cosmos expanded and evolved. Stars formed, solar systems formed, galaxies formed, and so on. Now all that suggests that there was one reality, one chain of events, and a causality that was universal – the Universe was not in a composite of all possible states of reality even while no life existed. It’s silly to think that that ever first proto-cell billions of years ago determined the single structure or reality of the Universe we see around us today. For observers to have come into being, the Universe had to have already been in a state of being. Therefore, the Copenhagen Interpretation of all things quantum is utter nonsense.

So, does the Universe exist even if nobody is looking? Yes! Did the Universe exist even when there was nobody to look? Yes! Are observers relevant? No!

Having settled the observer question, let’s move on to the next phase.

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...

All Our Yesterdays; All Our Tomorrows

We are all familiar with the concepts of ‘yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’. We probably use the terms all the time in daily conversation and correspondence. But exactly where do we find ‘yesterday’ or ‘tomorrow’? What exactly is ‘yesterday’ or for that matter ‘tomorrow’? When exactly is ‘yesterday’ or ‘tomorrow’? We use the terms loosely, but pinning them down is elusive.

Actually, to start the ball rolling, the concepts of ‘yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’ are totally artificial since your today is already someone else’s tomorrow, or someone else’s yesterday, depending on the relative time zones you and that someone else inhabit. Rather, there is a universal ‘now’ (even if it’s noon in one place and midnight 180 global degrees opposite), and at that point defined as ‘now’ there’s what’s past ‘now’ (history) and what’s still ahead of ‘now’ (the future). However, since we are all familiar and comfortable with the terms ‘yesterday’ (history), ‘today’ (now) and ‘tomorrow’ (future), let’s stick with that though they are unnatural time units since they are artificial distinctions or inventions by humans. Other unnatural, artificial, meaningless, manmade time divisions include the second, minute, hour, week, month, decade, century, and related. But there are some natural time divisions: the ever varying day-night cycle and the broad yearly cycle of the seasons are reflected in the natural world, from annual tree rings to the awake-asleep patterns of wildlife. The Lunar cycle is another natural time unit that influences life on Earth but one that has no corresponding manmade equivalent.

Anyway, even though an artificial concept, where does ‘yesterday’ reside? Where are all our yesterdays? Where does ‘tomorrow’ reside? Where are all our tomorrows?

Let’s consider ‘yesterday’ first, but perhaps one needs to start off by distinguishing between a personal ‘yesterday’ and a generic or universal ‘yesterday’, a ‘yesterday’ that contained all things that happened ‘yesterday’ throughout the entire universe.

When it comes to ‘yesterday’, and the day before ‘yesterday’ and the day before that, etc. you could say ‘all our yesterdays’ resides in what someone tells us happened, or what’s recorded in a book or newspaper, or what’s on tape as in a radio show or TV news bulletin. Yet, if you hear that person, read that article, see that TV program that details all things ‘yesterday’, you are hearing, reading, seeing that ‘yesterday’, today, so you are experiencing ‘yesterday’ today. That’s not what we really mean by ‘yesterday’. 

What happened ‘yesterday’, even if you find out something about ‘yesterday’ today, ultimately resides in your mind and in your memory. That’s what makes ‘yesterday’ really real to you. But ‘yesterday’ is even more real if you directly experienced ‘yesterday’s’ happenings ‘yesterday’. Your ‘yesterday’ is your past; your past is contained in your memory.

But where does ‘yesterday’ reside after the oldest person alive who can remember or recall a ‘yesterday’ beyond the recall of any other living person, dies? Then records that detail all our ‘yesterdays’, say an historical museum exhibit, are only experienced afresh today. There’s no way you can deal with a ‘yesterday’ in ancient Egypt in the same way that an ancient Egyptian who lived through that ‘yesterday’ dealt with it.

A universal ‘yesterday’ suggests that not everything that belongs to ‘yesterday’ is known to other people or is written down or otherwise observed or recorded. In fact most of what happened ‘yesterday’ is in total oblivion to all and sundry. 

What if there was absolutely nothing to preserve for posterity an event that happened ‘yesterday’, say a raindrop impacting the middle of the ocean and there’s not even a fish around to see it splash. Or perhaps a meteor impacted the far side of the Moon or several hydrogen atoms fused to create a helium atom in the core of our Sun releasing a photon which has to ‘fight’ it’s way to the surface and escape, but that takes thousands of years, or if inside a faraway star in a faraway galaxy that photon wouldn’t be visible to us (or our descendents) on Planet Earth for maybe millions of years, if ever (since 99.999% of such photons will bypass Earth). Unless there is a cosmic consciousness, that photon will go unobserved and unrecorded, in which case, did the event happen? Does the photon exist? In fact, ‘yesterday’, 99.999% (add at least 100 more 9’s) of events that transpired in the greater Universe went unrecorded and unobserved. So the historical record of ‘yesterday’ is grossly incomplete, unless again you wish to argue that unobserved, even by the humblest of microbes, means it didn’t happen. It’s a variation on the old ‘if a tree falls in the forest and there’s nothing or no one there to observe it, did it make a sound’?

In any event, perhaps this photon event is an example of ‘yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’ merging – a ‘yesterday-tomorrow’ connection. A photon created ‘yesterday’ (sometime in the past) but not observed until ‘tomorrow’ (sometime in the future) is still just a single timeline event. In fact, ‘yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’ are always linked because what happened ‘yesterday’ has a direct causality bearing on what will happen ‘tomorrow’. So in one sense ‘yesterday’ resides in ‘tomorrow’, and ‘tomorrow’ will in turn reside in tomorrow’s ‘tomorrow’. On a human level, a dance between the sheets ‘yesterday’ can result in quite another event nine months worth of tomorrows later!

Where does ‘tomorrow’ (the future) reside? Well, as hinted at above, the future resides in what happened ‘yesterday’. That’s the generic or universal future. What of your personal future? Where does that reside? There’s only one place your personal future resides – inside your mind.

You can imagine the Sun rising ‘tomorrow’, but until it actually does happen that event is all in your mind, but of course when it does happen it’s no longer ‘tomorrow’ is it? ‘Tomorrow’ never actually comes around, just morphs into today. But sooner or later all your personal mental ‘tomorrows’ come to an end, at least that’s the accepted wisdom.

Your future ceases when you’re declared brain dead, or does it? Not entirely, for each and every elementary particle (electrons, etc.) that makes up what was you in your past still has a future – another case of the ‘yesterday and tomorrow’ connection – as those bits and pieces have had as many ‘yesterdays’ as there were ‘yesterdays’ and will have as many ‘tomorrows’ as the Universe allows for. Some of those bits and pieces were no doubt once part of a ‘yesterday’ pre-you life (or even non-life) form and will no doubt become a part of a post-you ‘tomorrow’s’ life form (or non-life form), so you were part of someone or something else’s immortality and you in turn will be immortal as bits of you will become incorporated into other pieces of matter and energy, ‘tomorrow’. 

In summary, your personal ‘yesterday’ is just a memory, housed and locked away in your mind. Your personal ‘tomorrows’ are just patterns of thought and probabilities, possibilities, even near certainties, but only near certainties as nothing is ever set absolutely in concrete (death and taxes excepted). What may, or may not have happened unobserved in your non-personally experienced ‘yesterday’ resides in your imagination. What may or may not happen unobserved outside of your personal world ‘tomorrow’ is also within your imagination. So where does your ‘yesterday’ and ‘tomorrow’ reside – in your mind and nowhere else.

UFOs: A Passing Fad?

UFOs have been with us as a modern phenomenon for over six decades now. Is that too long an interval to associate the UFO movement (if there is such a thing) as just a passing fad? I suggest that any reasonable person would conclude that UFOs could hardly be called a passing fad after all this time and is therefore unlikely to be a cultural, psychological or sociological phenomenon.

A fad is a temporary fashion – a flavour of the month. Fads come, and fads go. For example, the big band/swing era; white wall tires and tail fins; hula hoops and yo-yos; the Charleston and the Twist; disco music, pet rocks, slicked back hair (greasy kids stuff) and wearing baseball caps on backwards; westerns on TV and the silver screen have mostly ridden off into the sunset; goldfish swallowing; miniskirts, bellbottom trousers and hot pants; and lots more. A fad can be anything that you adopt as a cultural value-adding to your lifestyle that sets you apart from the community at large, yet keeps you reasonably associated as being a part of your contemporaries, but which you could drop from your lifestyle if you wished or if you were required to. It’s often the next ‘must have’ gadget that you just can’t live without (so you are told), but which will be superseded in a year or two by the next ‘must have’ gadget Mark II.

Non-fads are anything that are personal choices yet are also really essential to your day-to-day existence - so a thing like eating isn’t a fad. Sex isn’t a fad. Social interactions aren’t a fad. Even bicycles aren’t faddish because they have become an overall essential, tried and true ways and means of transport. Or, non-fads could be anything that an outside reality clobbers you over the head with, like the weather, death and taxes!

To repeat, fads are temporary phenomena, only briefly imprinting themselves on our collective psyche before the next big thing comes along. What’s the duration of a fad? There’s no fixed time frame – clothing fashions can change drastically from one year to the next; the influence of a blockbuster TV series or a motion picture, or say toys - maybe over several years. TV series don’t normally last more than one generation, usually far less. So, I’ll pick an average of one generation, on the grounds that the next generation don’t want to imitate or do like their parents did. They’d rather do their own thing in their own way. Kids born in the 1980’s aren’t likely to get to misty-eyed and nostalgic over Elvis and the Beatles and “I Love Lucy”.

Well, UFOs (and crop circles) are both way over a generation old now. UFOs in fact are over three generations old by now and going strong. That in itself suggests to me that UFOs are not a mere passing fad, but reflecting a reality that’s something more permanent or ongoing.

Fads and non-fads appear in all manner of genres. There are fads in sports, say in baseball where for a while the accent is on power and homeruns, yet a decade later it’s the hit-and-run, the sacrifice bunt or fly, walks, and base stealing. Yet a non-fad in baseball is throwing strikes and not making defensive errors.

What about science? Unlike say ‘cold fusion’, SETI (the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence) is not a scientific fad; it’s gone on way too long for that. The man-on-the-Moon (Apollo) program however proved to be just that – a temporary blip on the landscape. Science graduates often have to choose career paths based on that’s likely to be non-faddish, long-term science. For example, string theory has been a reasonable career path for physics students for many decades now, so string theory can no longer be considered a passing fad in physics.

One thing is pretty clear – participation in a fad is something voluntary. So, crop circles, if all are manufactured by humans, would have to be faddish, were it not for the long duration of the phenomena. If crop circles, at least in part, have nothing to do with human proclivities to hoax others, then there’s no fad. UFO hoaxes are faddish; immediately jumping to conclusions of alien spaceships when seeing just a light in the sky is voluntary. But, if bona fide alien UFOs are a reality, then seeing one isn’t voluntary and UFOs therefore aren’t a fad.

The bottom line seems to be, if it proves to be ongoing, without any prior cultural background infrastructure, it’s not a fad. If it’s likely to die out within a generation or so, and it can be explained as a natural progression of what culturally has come before, then it’s a fad.

So, are UFOs (and say crop circles) a passing fad? Are UFOs all in the mind, something we adopt as a temporary way of assisting us coping with current reality, perhaps a novelty to give us respite from the ordinary? Are UFOs a reflection of our existing culture, say as expressed via Hollywood themes? Or, are UFOs like the weather – ever present and hammering that point home to us? Does Hollywood reflect the actual presence of UFOs in their themes, or are films perpetuating them in a faddish sort of way? 

The origin of the UFO phenomena, if one is to believe the idea that UFOs are all in the mind, was due to the onset of the Cold War, and hundreds of Hollywood films in the fifties played up to the red menace threat, often in the guise of alien invasions (can you recall that catch phrase ‘look to the skies’?). So, if UFOs are a fad, shouldn’t they have died out after the end of the Cold War and the demise of the red menace - reds under the beds? Whatever the origin of UFOs actually was, it does seem to be an origin independent of any cultural influences and no reasonable attempt to culturally explain them, and maintain their presence for over six decades, appears adequate. 

Whatever bona fide unexplained UFOs are, they certainly aren’t a fad, rather an ever ongoing phenomenon that’s part and parcel of our environmental background, cause or causes unknown, but probably extraterrestrial IMHO.

UFOs: Since Their Motives Are Illogical, They Don’t Exist: Part Two

An alien by definition would have to have an alien mind, and alien psychology, and alien motives. We can’t hold them to our standards, our motives, our behavior patterns. Half the time I can’t figure out why my cats do what they do! So, can we pass judgment on whether or not UFOs, if defined as being alien ships (the ETH - extraterrestrial hypothesis), are acting in what we would call a logical way? UFO skeptics would argue that UFOs if extraterrestrial behave illogically and therefore aren’t extraterrestrial - maybe yes – maybe no.

There are various motivations why E.T. might be interested in our little patch of real estate – Planet Earth. Scientists interested in that issue, not to mention vastly more sci-fi authors and Hollywood producers, have given quite some considerable though to the question.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

We Are Property - The Alien Abduction Scenario: Since the UFOs agenda is apparently neither an invasion nor a take-me-to-your-leader scenario, and since we haven’t found any extraterrestrial R&R resorts on our planet (we have explored Mount Olympus – no extraterrestrials to be had), that leaves rather more a scenario of scientific study but embellished including the concept inherent in the ‘Zoo Hypothesis’. We are ‘animals’ – they are the zoo keepers.

A slightly stronger alternative scenario has us as being actually owned by E.T. – at least as far as E.T. is concerned. They bought the property rights to Planet Earth eons ago, so we are their ‘slaves’; we are their property; they are the masters and the owners. But perhaps that’s too ‘invasion’ like, even though plausible.

So another argument against the UFO ETH is the absolute absurdity of UFO-related alleged abductions by alien beings.

Okay, we have this subset of the UFO phenomena called alien abductions – extraterrestrials (often called the ‘Greys’) have their wicked ways with their human property. Skeptics suggest that the question ‘what can it all mean?’ is none other than so-called UFO abductees are a bit touched in the head.

Apart from that, the sixty-four cent question is ‘why’. Why would aliens abduct humans? Certainly not for chit-chat or wild parties! And why have so many humans been taken for so long? Well, how long have humans studied rats, and how many hundreds of thousands have had to run the maze? That’s my answer. We’re just lab rats to the aliens. We’re not to be conquered, but we’re not going to be given the cure for cancer, the road to universal peace, and certainly not the “Encyclopaedia Galactica”. There will be no trade – their tribbles for our opals say. 

What was it that the compiler of all things anomalous, the late Charles Fort said? “I think we’re property”. But is that such a strange idea really? We own land and by extension the plants and animals on it. Does a colony of wild turkeys comprehend that they are owned because they live on something called private property? They could be left in the main quite alone and undisturbed, except for the occasional one which might be harvested (abducted) around Christmas time!

The UFO abduction phenomena makes sense in that it mirrors what wildlife biologists often do in the field – capture, study, tag and release. The UFO abduction ‘Greys’ seem to be interested in humans mainly with respect to areas or aspects surrounding reproduction and genetics. These are the same sorts of areas required for our creator ‘gods’ (ancient astronauts by another name) to have ‘created’ humans in the first place, so maybe their grand plan is still unfolding!

There’s an obvious parallel with aliens abducting humans. If humans are anything to be judged by, we abduct animals for all sorts of reasons, from the illegal trade in wildlife, to animals for zoos and safari parks, for medical research and biological research. With respect to the latter, wildlife biologists will often abduct, tag and release animals. Sound familiar? If animals communicate among themselves, their verbal history must be chockfull of abduction tales with humans the abductors.  

We might ask what right extraterrestrials have to own Planet Earth and by extension us. Our colony of wild turkeys could ask the same about us (or our domestic livestock or companion animals for that matter). Maybe it boils down to the Golden Rule – they who have the gold (or are the top of the food chain or have the biggest gun or the most advanced technology) make the rules. It does appear that, given the abduction (and perhaps the livestock/animal mutilation phenomena), Planet Earth and its contents are indeed alien property. Of course, as hinted above, it might have been the case that Planet Earth, as prime real estate, was obtained by extraterrestrials a billion years ago, way before the evolution of multi-cellular plants and animals, and of course humans.

Okay, we’re the property of the UFO ‘Greys’ and they feel they have every moral, ethical and legal right to have their wicked way with us.

The ‘we are property’ (whether in a zoo or as lab rats) hypothesis explains the Fermi Paradox (“where is everybody?” – they’re here); it explains the observations that UFOs are no threat to national security; it explains the lack of any alien invasion; it explains the lack of any alien’s “take me to your leader” scenario; it explains the general UFO abduction phenomena; it probably accounts for the overall animal mutilation phenomena. It doesn’t explain crop circles - unless one would equate them with the sort of diversions, toys, monkey bars, bird swings and other associated furniture you can find in any pet store that we give to amuse our own owned animals. Or, alternatively, perhaps crop circles are akin to the sort of symbols (pictograms) behavioural scientists have used in experiments in communicating with apes and monkeys – lab rats, albeit higher IQ lab rats.

The upshot is that UFOs, if extraterrestrial, have motives that UFO ETH skeptics find a bit suspect, therefore UFOs aren’t extraterrestrial. However, going beyond the obvious diplomatic, trade relations, invasion, and R&R scenarios which apparently aren’t, one can still find parallels between what our alleged aliens do, and what humans do. That alone makes the UFO ETH a plausible one IMHO.  

UFOs: Since Their Motives Are Illogical, They Don’t Exist: Part One

An alien by definition would have to have an alien mind, and alien psychology, and alien motives. We can’t hold them to our standards, our motives, our behavior patterns. Half the time I can’t figure out why my cats do what they do! So, can we pass judgment on whether or not UFOs, if defined as being alien ships (the ETH - extraterrestrial hypothesis), are acting in what we would call a logical way? UFO skeptics would argue that UFOs if extraterrestrial behave illogically and therefore aren’t extraterrestrial - maybe yes – maybe no.

There are various motivations why E.T. might be interested in our little patch of real estate – Planet Earth. Scientists interested in that issue, not to mention vastly more sci-fi authors and Hollywood producers, have given quite some considerable though to the question.

Diplomatic - The “Take Me to Your Leader” Scenario: If the UFO extraterrestrial hypothesis (ETH) is correct then obviously the ‘land on the White House lawn with a take-me-to-your-leader’ scenario would be the obvious course of action for E.T. Translated, E.T. wants to not only establish diplomatic relations, but probably engage in interstellar trade as well. That hasn’t happened over six decades on; therefore the UFO ETH is ridiculous.

An obvious answer to that is we humans don’t come up to a flock of crows (rather intelligent birds by the way) or introduce ourselves to an octopus (invertebrate intelligences in their own right) with a wave and a handshake (wing-shake; tentacle-shake) along with a hi-ho “take me to your leader” or “let’s establish diplomatic and trade relations”.

By the way, why is the obvious landing site the White House lawn? Why not outside the walls of the Kremlin, or within the Forbidden City, or for that matter on Easter Island, the lawns outside of Australia’s Parliament House, or in nice sunny Bermuda?

Conquest – The ‘War of the Worlds’ Scenario: According to hundreds (probably thousands) of sci-fi writers and of course Hollywood (and Hollywood equivalents around the world), alien invasion is even a more viable and realistic scenario – as entertainment anyway. But that hasn’t happened either, but that’s no argument to suggest that because there’s been no alien invasion that UFOs can’t be alien technology. The U.S.A. hasn’t invaded Canada anytime lately and America has appropriate technology to do so if it wanted. Still, UFO skeptics who believe in the ‘Mars Wants Women’ scenario, say E.T. isn’t here because E.T. isn’t today our Imperial Leader Most High – our Global Head of State (Universal President, Master-of-the-World, Prime Minister Supreme for Life, or our Lord-on-High World Dictator; whatever).

The obvious answer to the lack of any invasion scenario is that E.T. could find whatever it wanted in terms of resources closer and far cheaper to home base. What can Earth offer that couldn’t be had closer to home at far less time and expense? - Certainly not water, or minerals or energy or real estate. If there is one end-of-the-world scenario that we don’t have to lose sleep over, it’s invasion and conquest by extraterrestrials. That’s unless one should suggest that E.T. will invade and conquer; rape and pillage just for the sake of invasion and conquest; rape and pillage. Maybe, but after six plus decades, E.T. is either rather unsure of itself or undecided about the merits of doing so. So, my guess is that if it hasn’t happened by now, it’s not likely to.

That leaves other motives – scientific, economic, etc. Let’s examine human equivalents. Humans have explored ever since we had the ability to explore. We’ve boldly gone, in person or via machine surrogates, to the depths of the ocean, to Antarctica, to the Moon, and to all of the planets (actual, or in the case of Pluto, on route). All this exploration for all practical purposes has been for the sake of just science, pure science, and nothing but the science.

Of course there’s usually an ulterior motive in the back of the mind – exploration leads to exploitation. We explore, we like what we see, we colonize, we exploit, we build resorts for R&R, we migrate to escape various forms of environmental/political pressures, we mine for resources, and we farm for food and do more besides. Today the Moon is for science; tomorrow we may exploit its resources. Why should the E.T.-Earth relationship be any different?  Well I’ve already noted that when it comes to resources and exploitation of those commodities, Earth has relatively little to offer when looked at from the point of view of cost effectiveness. I mean you don’t go clear across country to pick up a loaf of bread you can find at your local supermarket several blocks down the road. But, when it comes to holidays, humans don’t always take the cheapest option. When planning that round-the-world trip, cost effectiveness isn’t an issue, otherwise you could just surf the world via the Internet as virtual reality from the comfort of your living room.

Tourism – The R&R Scenario: Being a rather nice sort of planet, perhaps one or more of our cosmic visitors from the distant past decided to set up shop on Earth, either as a place for a brief R&R (maybe they thought Mount Olympus, Mount Meru or the high Andes might make a nice resort location) or a ‘permanent’ home-away-from-home. Perhaps Planet Earth was colonized by extraterrestrials long before humans were dreamt of in anyone’s philosophy.

Going with that flow, E.T. would have had no moral or ethical qualms about using Planet Earth as an R&R resort and/or base of operations way back then. There was no intelligent life and indigenous civilization already present – the Prime Directive (assuming such a concept is real as opposed to the fictional “Star Trek” concept) would not apply.

So our advanced extraterrestrials set up shop on Planet Earth as an R&R home-away-from-home, sort of taking dominion over this paradise / nature reserve / national park, perhaps with a view towards eventual long-term colonization.  Fast forward to today; once an R&R spot, always an R&R spot. And Mount Olympus certainly beats L.A. or Tokyo or Calcutta as a resort if your one of those extraterrestrial ‘gods’.

Science – The Curiosity Scenario: Visitations to Planet Earth whether they be 4.5 billion years ago; 450 million years ago, 45 million years ago, or 4.5 million years ago, probably were scientific expeditions – aliens exploring strange new worlds, seeking out new life forms and new civilizations. We’re cosmically interesting real estate because we have a biosphere, and presumably planets with biospheres are relative rare in cosmic real estate terms. So, alien biologists will be rubbing their tentacles in glee when they get to explore a new biosphere. So once they have explored our strange new world and our new (if still primitive) life forms, then what? I suggest that initial random visits (as calculated by professional astronomers and physicists within the ballpark of one per 10,000 to 100,000 years) will translate into ongoing and ever more frequent and routine examinations. Perhaps science eventually translates into more commercial areas. Science finds the resources; business exploits them. Perhaps we (Planet Earth) are exploitable, not in terms of commodities like minerals, but as biological commodities. Those won’t be closer to their home since terrestrial biology is presumably only found terrestrially. Terrestrial life might be purely interesting in the way an ant colony is to an entomologist; it might be practically interesting in that, as we have found, biological organisms contain all sorts of valuable pharmacological chemicals. Presumably if E.T. biochemistry is akin to ours, perhaps some drug obtained from one of our magic mushrooms might cure their cancer.

I’d like to think that their agenda, the alien’s motive for being here is science, at least in the first instance. As noted above, Planet Earth is really interesting real estate in the cosmos since we have a biosphere. And like our wildlife biologists and anthropologists, etc. go out of their way so as not to disturb the objects of their study in their natural environment, so too might any extraterrestrial intelligence associated with UFOs try to keep to a minimum disturbing the natives. The aliens are harmless by deliberate design. Of course even wildlife biologists have to occasionally capture, study (maybe dissect), tag and release their subject – perhaps a parallel with the abduction phenomena?

To be continued…

UFOs: The Lucky Generation? Part Two

There are some pro-UFO ETH (extraterrestrial hypothesis) believers who state that aliens have only recently arrived on Earth in response to modern human activities, like our nuclear weapons detonations. Sceptics counter that it’s unlikely in the extreme that 1) aliens could have gotten from there to here that quickly, and 2) the odds that we current humans would just happen by chance be the lucky generation, after four and a half billion years have passed Earth by in cosmic isolation, to now experience for the very first time on-site cosmic company are astronomically against. So, are we the lucky generation to be the first graced by E.T., or not?

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

The 1947 Scenario Gives Way To - The Once Upon A Time Scenario:

If bona-fide UFOs are extraterrestrial visitations, then it’s highly improbable that our generation would be the generation to be privy to said visitations. In all probability, such visitations should have and would have extended back into historical times, ancient times, and pre-historical times; in fact they could extend right back to when Planet Earth was just a lifeless ball of solidifying molten rock.  They – the extraterrestrials - could have taken an active role in shaping terrestrial evolution from nearly the year dot, all the while considering themselves stewards of Planet Earth.

If one accepts the idea that UFOs are extraterrestrial spaceships, and one accepts the idea that extraterrestrials have been around for quite some considerable time (‘ancient astronauts’ anyone), then one can and should extrapolate back in our planet’s history even further and postulate that they might have been around for most, if not all of our geological history. How so?

Once upon a time, nearly fourteen billion years ago, our Universe began – exact how and why is not relevant to the scenario that follows.

Shortly thereafter, in cosmic terms, now some ten billion years ago, natural physical processes like gravity produced our Milky Way Galaxy (and lots of others besides, but they don’t feature in this scenario).

Within our galaxy, in fairly short order, lots of super-massive first generation stars blew up as supernovae creating and spreading the heavy elements required for biology – oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, etc. - through interstellar space. Those heavy elements became incorporated in second generation stars, some of which in turn became supernovae, further enriching what became third generation stars, of which our Sun (Sol) is but one of many.

By the time our own third generation star, Sol, formed with accompanying solar system and it’s third rock from the star (Planet Earth), four and a half billion years ago, our Milky Way Galaxy was already five and a half billion years old, yielding more than enough time to have generated extraterrestrial life, extraterrestrial intelligence, and extraterrestrial intelligences with advanced technologies capable of subluminal interstellar space travel.  

My basic premise therefore is that at least one, probably many, extraterrestrial civilizations have boldly gone and voyaged out into interstellar space even before our own star, solar system, and home planet ever existed, and that trend continues.

The time it takes to explore all our galaxy’s nooks-and-crannies would be a tiny fraction of the age of our galaxy. Translated, Planet Earth would have been charted billions of years ago.

That being the case, it’s logical to assume that there is at least one advanced and adventurous interstellar venturing extraterrestrial civilization currently in our here and now; probably one or more from in we include our historical past and probably hundreds extending throughout our prehistory; even more throughout the lengthy eons of our geological history,  four and a half billion years worth - translated, no matter how you slice and dice it, we (i.e. – Planet Earth) have received multi-thousands of visitations over our four and a half billion years of existence.

Based on speculative calculations by scientists interested in extraterrestrial life, ballpark numbers suggest that Sol, our solar system and Planet Earth should have received or expected, on average, a random visitation by advanced boldly going extraterrestrials every one hundred thousand years (so suggests astronomer Carl Sagan) to an even greater once in every ten thousand years (according to physicist Edward Condon).

Even varying the random frequency visitations downwards by even one or two orders of magnitude still translates into a lot of visits by an E.T. over our four and a half billion years. This not only satisfies the Fermi Paradox (“where is everybody?”),  but all those critics that point out that our first alien visitation was unlikely in the extreme to be in 1947, the start of the modern UFO era.

It doesn’t take much imagination – and many have imagined it – that E.T. has been flitting around Earth’s neighborhood on a nearly ongoing basis since the year dot. The key point is once that initial chance discovery happened, and that could have been billions of years ago, we were noted and logged as biological real estate. We’re now a colored pin in the galactic map, say green for simple biosphere; yellow for complex life, orange for intelligence and red for here be a civilization. Within one hundred thousand years of that first contact discovery (even if it were just E.T. greeting our microbial ancestors), radio communications at light speed would have informed all potentially receptive (and future receptive) extraterrestrial civilizations that here was one of those rare abodes, a planet with a biosphere, and thus one worthy of ongoing (not random) investigations – to satisfy their alien scientific curiosity if nothing else.

Our own terrestrial parallels are obvious. Once we discovered Antarctica it quickly became common knowledge. We went back, again, and again, finally setting up quasi- permanent quarters despite the obvious costs to the taxpayer and hardships to those undertaking the journey, and all in the name of science. We’ll go back to the Moon too one day – maybe not anytime real soon, but sometime. Your great grandkids will see lunar settlements or outposts like we see in Antarctica today. E.T. and Earth may have had the same ongoing relationship as humans and Antarctica. We might find we have E.T. for company on the Moon like we’ve had E.T. as sticky-beaks hovering around Earth in their UFOs.

Now recall from our mythologies around the world from all races, all cultures, all geographical settlements the tales of the sky ‘gods’ and other deities or beings associated with various constellations and stellar addresses.  Those same ‘gods’ (or ‘ancient astronauts’), who often get around in aerial or fiery ‘chariots’, gave the gifts of culture and knowledge and rudimentary technologies to primitive (hunter-gatherer) mankind. They of course stick around to monitor their experiments on their subjects.

So why don’t we have a clearer picture of these ‘ancient astronauts’ instead of having to try to come to terms with vague mythologies which is anything but crystal clear on that subject. That’s because our oral traditions (language) has existed vastly longer than our written record. Thus, there’s a long oral tradition of the ancient astronaut ‘gods’ and their relationships with humans and with each other before it all started to be written down, since language proper first came to the fore less than one hundred thousand years ago (probably less – more like fifty thousand years ago with the development of full behavioural modernity) but writing can only be traced back to roughly 6000 BC. That’s a lot of in-between time for a lot of the details to have been embellished or lost and lost too in the retellings over some two thousand human generations! Still, mythologies provide a lot of evidence that the extraterrestrial and the terrestrial have interacted.

Now fast-forward to 1947 and through to the present early 21^st Century. The ‘gods’ or the ‘ancient astronauts’ have become the aliens or the grays or E.T., and they are going to keep close tabs on us, since they know that one day, even if thousands of years down the track, we’ll boldly go too like they have boldly gone. We have our intelligence gathering agencies keeping tabs on those we need to keep tabs on; E.T. has theirs as well, keeping tabs on us.

Thus, we note that random, hence ongoing, visitations by E.T. have had absolutely nothing to do with the existence of humans and human technology, like our nuclear weapons detonations as well as our radio and radar and TV signals that are expanding throughout (to date very nearby) interstellar space that could be in theory detected by aliens at home. They didn’t need to detect them at home; they were here all along and well before humans were thought of as a fun thing to create in their philosophy.