Is There a God?
We have previously discussed the issue of co-existence of 'determinism' and 'free will'. Here we'll take that to the next logical level and examine the coexistence of 'Explainability' and 'free will'.
We are going to define 'explainability' as a true occurrence of the the following statement:
"Everything that happens has an explanation, whether we know it or not." [1]
Here the underlying assumption may be construed as the existence of some kind of intellect that has the ability to understand or process that kind of knowledge. Here we are concerned only with the ability, and not the actual knowing. Since the entire effort to analyse and study the Ultimate Truth would be futile if this assumption were not true; we'll assume it's existence for the time being.
Now let's consider the hypothesis that an explanation does exist for everything that happens. If that is the case, then our own actions (and thoughts!) should also have an explanation. This logically implies that all our actions (and thoughts!) are constrained by some laws, i.e., we function according to some well-defined rules [2].
Let's examine this fact more deeply. What does this mean? Doesn't it imply that there has to be some area of the (whole!) truth that has the potential to escape our very understanding! ... (Because if we are functioning under some sort of set rules ourselves, then these rules will constrain us from being completely "free" in our thinking.) ... Besides if an ultimate truth does exists then there has be an entity (even theoretical!) that can comprehend it, otherwise it doesn't really have any meaning! The very concept of 'explanation' means that it should be able to make somebody understand something. If it can't make 'anybody' understand anything, then it simply means that it is not an explanation! A very simple fact emerges here, that is equally complex if examined in still more depth.
"In order for an explanation to exist, there must be an entity that 'can' understand (or process) it." [3]
From this statement, after a few more logical steps we can make the following deduction:
"If there is no God (or an ultimate intellect), nothing has any meaning, nothing makes sense, and there is no purpose to life!" [4]
Also, referring to [3], if explainability exists, then everything may be explained including the behavior, actions and thought processes of the entity that is trying to understand or analyse it. Because "everything" includes even the entity that is trying to understand it! Here we are faced with a logical impasse, because it directly implies that
"There can be no such thing as a true 'free will', if explainability exists!" [5]
However, if (some kind of) free will doesn't exist, then there's nothing that can understand the Ultimate Truth. So, following from [3], the Ultimate Truth just doesn't exist! Mind it, it's not just about knowing or not knowing, but about the very existence of this Ultimate explanation.
This is a paradox. How to resolve this? Honestly, I have no idea! The most likely reason for this paradox may be the use of an inadequate (i.e., constrained) logic to examine it*. Perhaps the procedure of analysis here is just not good enough! ... The logic in order here is some kind of 'Higher Logic', which we may not be familiar with. A logic that is free from the constrains of the various underlying assumptions of time and space ... But which constrains do we need to remove from our existing logical system before it becomes good enough to analyse it?
I do not know! Nor does anybody else that I've met.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*The other explanation would be that "We can never understand it".
Monday, July 18, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Past, Present and Future
"Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, but today - it's a gift, that's why it's called present"
As said by Oogway to Po
An interesting thought! We are in general so obsessed with past and future that we rarely take time and live the present. All our sense of self is derived from our knowledge of past and memories that we have acquired over the years. We identify and restrict ourselves based on these memories.
We have different kinds of epistemic access to past and future. We remember the past, but not the future. We also believe that by acting now, we can change the future but not the past. Why are things like this has always been a mystery for me. Science doesn't have any clue either, neither is religion really clear about it. But, what about present!
The principle of duality, if correct, predicts that there is only past and future. That may imply that there's no such thing as present. What we perceive as present is a fuzzy area where past and future meet. Contrary to a popular perception that present is a thin infinitesimal line dividing the past and future, it's rather like a band. The width of this band differs from person to person and depends upon how acute somebody's perception is.
But analysis besides, I think the present is the only thing that we really have. Past exists only in the memories, and future is unknown. We are creatures of our sense organs. And all our senses function only in the present. We are what we are now, not what we were or what we will be.
As said by Oogway to Po
An interesting thought! We are in general so obsessed with past and future that we rarely take time and live the present. All our sense of self is derived from our knowledge of past and memories that we have acquired over the years. We identify and restrict ourselves based on these memories.
We have different kinds of epistemic access to past and future. We remember the past, but not the future. We also believe that by acting now, we can change the future but not the past. Why are things like this has always been a mystery for me. Science doesn't have any clue either, neither is religion really clear about it. But, what about present!
The principle of duality, if correct, predicts that there is only past and future. That may imply that there's no such thing as present. What we perceive as present is a fuzzy area where past and future meet. Contrary to a popular perception that present is a thin infinitesimal line dividing the past and future, it's rather like a band. The width of this band differs from person to person and depends upon how acute somebody's perception is.
But analysis besides, I think the present is the only thing that we really have. Past exists only in the memories, and future is unknown. We are creatures of our sense organs. And all our senses function only in the present. We are what we are now, not what we were or what we will be.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Is Reality really Real!
I believe that there has to be an explanation for everything.
We all have wondered, at some time or the other, from where did this universe come? Endless debates exist on this topic, some even questioning the validity of the question itself! We all have our views. Here I'm going to write about mine. In my humble opinion, there has to be a reason and explanation for everything, even if there's a higher power involved. Maybe God concept represents a different kind of sentience. The rules and properties of that layer of world may be different from ours, still they have to make sense, even though in a way that might not be comprehensible by us!
One idea that's doing the rounds of my mind is that what if there is no such thing as a fixed universe in which we dwell. What if the world as we see it is a sum of everyone's individual 'sight'. The sum may be done in a very different manner, using very different rules (e.g., sum of vectors follows a completely different concept from sum of scalars).
What we perceive as physical substances may not be existing as 'absolute' entities, but are there as a consequence of our own perception combined with perception of others with the basic framework of the world!
So, what can it be?
Following this line of reasoning, we can conjecture maybe a few theories. One is explained below.
What if the fundamental building blocks are made of some stuff that is not physical at all (in the current sense of the word "physical"). What are thoughts made of? What if everything is nothing but a manifestation of this core stuff!
So let's assume for a moment that this stuff is the "source" of everything, including the physical world as well as the thought processes. What if the world as a whole is a set stage! All the choices and alternatives exist simultaneously without any considerations of space or time! The observable world that manifests may just be an overlap of the individual "choices" (even the choices are not independent, if we assume this reasoning).
Maybe the substance that thoughts are made of, is the closest thing akin to the substance of this core stuff. In other words, thoughts are almost raw forms of this core substance, rest all are manifestations. We assume that thoughts are only generated by living beings (as per our current definition). What if it's not true. May be there are other ways that this same effect can be achieved.
It may be that the whole world may be nothing but a spectrum of various possibilities, all existing simultaneously. Our 'perception' of it gives it a physical reality. This has been touted as a popular interpretation of quantum mechanics as well. What this means is that nothing has any physical existence until an observer perceives it in some way or the other. Also it does "not" imply that just by thinking we can change whatever we want. The stuff that we possess is only a small part of the whole stuff. Our perception is not ours alone, but a kaleidoscope of everything and everyone's perception around us. As we think and perceive it, we modify and create it!
We all have wondered, at some time or the other, from where did this universe come? Endless debates exist on this topic, some even questioning the validity of the question itself! We all have our views. Here I'm going to write about mine. In my humble opinion, there has to be a reason and explanation for everything, even if there's a higher power involved. Maybe God concept represents a different kind of sentience. The rules and properties of that layer of world may be different from ours, still they have to make sense, even though in a way that might not be comprehensible by us!
One idea that's doing the rounds of my mind is that what if there is no such thing as a fixed universe in which we dwell. What if the world as we see it is a sum of everyone's individual 'sight'. The sum may be done in a very different manner, using very different rules (e.g., sum of vectors follows a completely different concept from sum of scalars).
What we perceive as physical substances may not be existing as 'absolute' entities, but are there as a consequence of our own perception combined with perception of others with the basic framework of the world!
So, what can it be?
Following this line of reasoning, we can conjecture maybe a few theories. One is explained below.
What if the fundamental building blocks are made of some stuff that is not physical at all (in the current sense of the word "physical"). What are thoughts made of? What if everything is nothing but a manifestation of this core stuff!
So let's assume for a moment that this stuff is the "source" of everything, including the physical world as well as the thought processes. What if the world as a whole is a set stage! All the choices and alternatives exist simultaneously without any considerations of space or time! The observable world that manifests may just be an overlap of the individual "choices" (even the choices are not independent, if we assume this reasoning).
Maybe the substance that thoughts are made of, is the closest thing akin to the substance of this core stuff. In other words, thoughts are almost raw forms of this core substance, rest all are manifestations. We assume that thoughts are only generated by living beings (as per our current definition). What if it's not true. May be there are other ways that this same effect can be achieved.
It may be that the whole world may be nothing but a spectrum of various possibilities, all existing simultaneously. Our 'perception' of it gives it a physical reality. This has been touted as a popular interpretation of quantum mechanics as well. What this means is that nothing has any physical existence until an observer perceives it in some way or the other. Also it does "not" imply that just by thinking we can change whatever we want. The stuff that we possess is only a small part of the whole stuff. Our perception is not ours alone, but a kaleidoscope of everything and everyone's perception around us. As we think and perceive it, we modify and create it!
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Determinism and Free Will - II
Note: This is a continuation of my previous musings.
Thinking more about it... I feel that there might be one little flaw with my logic. And that flaw (if it's a flaw!) is associated with my earlier statement that we might (even theoretically) be able to determine anything exactly!
The reason we are not able to determine anything exactly could be in the fact that we are a part of this world... what we need is an external vantage point. Being ourselves a part of this world, it limits the level of understanding that we can achieve! We can only understand something if we are looking at a whole and objective view, instead of a partial and subjective view. Now this may only be possible if we are watching this world (an isolated system?) from outside!
So what choices do we have right now!
If we follow on the reasoning, then we have to assume either the world (we're not restricting our world to this universe... it may be at any level of existence) is either an isolated system, or it's not! Now if this existing system can't be classified as an isolated system at any level, then the logic for understanding it is bound to become extremely convoluted! However, on the other hand, if it is indeed an isolated system then what conclusions can we draw?
See! ... What I mean here is that, as an example, let's take out universe. It might be an isolated system, with no exchange at all with other univerese (if they exist!), or with a super-universe (again if it exists!). Now again imagine that there are no sentient beings (capable of free will) here. A super-observer looking from outside should be able to determine conclusively the various states of this system, assuming he/she/it has access to all the required laws governing the system and the needed parameters. This means the super-being will be able to determine exactly the various states of the universe!
The situation becomes tricky once free will is introduced. Now before we move on to that, let's consider the question how can free will be introduced in an isolated system? I believe that in absence of free will, everything will be deterministic. But introduction of free will introduce non-determinism in the system. But if a system is deterministic at some point then it can't become non-deterministic on it's own! So we have two options:
1. The free will was introduced at the creation (if there was a creation at all) in which case the system was never deterministic, or,
2. The free will was introduced at a later stage in which case, the system can't be classified as isolated!
So, we can conclude by the above logic here that any given system can't be isolated and non-deterministic at the same time. If our universe is isolated, or it's also bound to be deterministic, that is our fates have already been decided by some kind of well defined law at some level of existence! Anyone who knows the state of the universe at any point, will be able to exactly determine what we do at any point of space of time or any other related dimension.
This further implies that if our universe is isolated, then we don't have any free will, everything is predestined!
Thinking more about it... I feel that there might be one little flaw with my logic. And that flaw (if it's a flaw!) is associated with my earlier statement that we might (even theoretically) be able to determine anything exactly!
The reason we are not able to determine anything exactly could be in the fact that we are a part of this world... what we need is an external vantage point. Being ourselves a part of this world, it limits the level of understanding that we can achieve! We can only understand something if we are looking at a whole and objective view, instead of a partial and subjective view. Now this may only be possible if we are watching this world (an isolated system?) from outside!
So what choices do we have right now!
If we follow on the reasoning, then we have to assume either the world (we're not restricting our world to this universe... it may be at any level of existence) is either an isolated system, or it's not! Now if this existing system can't be classified as an isolated system at any level, then the logic for understanding it is bound to become extremely convoluted! However, on the other hand, if it is indeed an isolated system then what conclusions can we draw?
See! ... What I mean here is that, as an example, let's take out universe. It might be an isolated system, with no exchange at all with other univerese (if they exist!), or with a super-universe (again if it exists!). Now again imagine that there are no sentient beings (capable of free will) here. A super-observer looking from outside should be able to determine conclusively the various states of this system, assuming he/she/it has access to all the required laws governing the system and the needed parameters. This means the super-being will be able to determine exactly the various states of the universe!
The situation becomes tricky once free will is introduced. Now before we move on to that, let's consider the question how can free will be introduced in an isolated system? I believe that in absence of free will, everything will be deterministic. But introduction of free will introduce non-determinism in the system. But if a system is deterministic at some point then it can't become non-deterministic on it's own! So we have two options:
1. The free will was introduced at the creation (if there was a creation at all) in which case the system was never deterministic, or,
2. The free will was introduced at a later stage in which case, the system can't be classified as isolated!
So, we can conclude by the above logic here that any given system can't be isolated and non-deterministic at the same time. If our universe is isolated, or it's also bound to be deterministic, that is our fates have already been decided by some kind of well defined law at some level of existence! Anyone who knows the state of the universe at any point, will be able to exactly determine what we do at any point of space of time or any other related dimension.
This further implies that if our universe is isolated, then we don't have any free will, everything is predestined!
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Determinism and Free Will
Can any of us be absolutely sure that we have a free will? Maybe what we consider as free will is not as free as we think it to be. What if it's already destined what choices we are going to make, even as we believe we are doing so of our own volition.
Here are some reflections that I've had in the above context. If everything is predestined (i.e., it's a deterministic world), then that means that whatever anybody does, what has to happen is not going to change even in the slightest details.
Before we proceed further, I'd like to clear up a few things. The approach that I'm going to take here is that there are only two choices that we have:
1. Either the world is completely deterministic or
2. It's non-deterministic.
This is so because there's no such thing as partial determinism. Even a trace amount of non-determinism will make the whole system non-deterministic. So if we can prove the existence of even one such instance that is non-deterministic, we can conclude that the whole system is non-deterministic.
Another approach that many people (especially religious people) prefer, is that certain things (e.g., small details) may be non-deterministic but the other things (e.g., the events on the whole) are deterministic. It means that we may have freedom to choose within a boundary. It may change a few things, but the overall picture is not going to change.
More compelling reasons for the above classification can be understood by closely looking at the way we are going to define determinism. Related to Chaos Theory (which is also known in the scientific circles as Non-linear Dynamics) there is a famous concept called the butterfly effect. It propounds, in a nutshell, that even a seemingly small change can cause a major upheaval in the overall scheme of things. We see in our course of life that seemingly small decisions and events can cause a sea change in our lives. So if non-determinism is involved in a system even in very small ways, it has the capability to influence big events (the final state of the world). Hence as per our earlier arguments if we can show the existence of even one case of pure non-determinism, then we have to consider the entire world as non-deterministic.
But if something is deterministic, then there may exist a way of knowing it! So if we know it (or somehow find out), which is theoretically possible in a deterministic world (the reason it's called deterministic!), we may also be in a position to change it. Because if we have prior knowledge that something is going to happen (e.g., what we are going to eat at a give point of time) we may intentionally decide to change details, and may also succeed. And if we really do succeed in our endeavor then the world will no longer remain deterministic.
This is a paradox. Hence if the above logic is correct then our world can't be deterministic!
P.S: These are random thoughts... I'm not putting them down for an audience, but mostly as a documentation of my thoughts. However I'll welcome any insights into these musings.
Here are some reflections that I've had in the above context. If everything is predestined (i.e., it's a deterministic world), then that means that whatever anybody does, what has to happen is not going to change even in the slightest details.
Before we proceed further, I'd like to clear up a few things. The approach that I'm going to take here is that there are only two choices that we have:
1. Either the world is completely deterministic or
2. It's non-deterministic.
This is so because there's no such thing as partial determinism. Even a trace amount of non-determinism will make the whole system non-deterministic. So if we can prove the existence of even one such instance that is non-deterministic, we can conclude that the whole system is non-deterministic.
Another approach that many people (especially religious people) prefer, is that certain things (e.g., small details) may be non-deterministic but the other things (e.g., the events on the whole) are deterministic. It means that we may have freedom to choose within a boundary. It may change a few things, but the overall picture is not going to change.
More compelling reasons for the above classification can be understood by closely looking at the way we are going to define determinism. Related to Chaos Theory (which is also known in the scientific circles as Non-linear Dynamics) there is a famous concept called the butterfly effect. It propounds, in a nutshell, that even a seemingly small change can cause a major upheaval in the overall scheme of things. We see in our course of life that seemingly small decisions and events can cause a sea change in our lives. So if non-determinism is involved in a system even in very small ways, it has the capability to influence big events (the final state of the world). Hence as per our earlier arguments if we can show the existence of even one case of pure non-determinism, then we have to consider the entire world as non-deterministic.
But if something is deterministic, then there may exist a way of knowing it! So if we know it (or somehow find out), which is theoretically possible in a deterministic world (the reason it's called deterministic!), we may also be in a position to change it. Because if we have prior knowledge that something is going to happen (e.g., what we are going to eat at a give point of time) we may intentionally decide to change details, and may also succeed. And if we really do succeed in our endeavor then the world will no longer remain deterministic.
This is a paradox. Hence if the above logic is correct then our world can't be deterministic!
P.S: These are random thoughts... I'm not putting them down for an audience, but mostly as a documentation of my thoughts. However I'll welcome any insights into these musings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)