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