Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Preview on a half-formed universe

Why is there one thing, rather than another? We may ask, why is the world one thing, rather than another? By world we may mean the world most of us perceive ourselves as living in, the limited human spectrum of commerce, ambition and desire. Or we may mean the planet Earth or the whole universe. Some physicists at the far edge of theoretical cosmology claim that the fundamental question the physical universe poses to us is why there is something rather than nothing (presumably because the math with nothing is so much easier). I would call the latter question merely a subset of the former. We may set ourselves the question of ancient Greek philosophers, wondering whether the universe is secretly a plenum or a void. Really, there is no difference between these two possibilities. The fact is that the universe presents itself to us as neither: it seems to contain something, seems to be contained by nothing, and yet it does not seem to be full. All the questions return to the template, which is, why is there one thing, rather than another. In seeking to answer this question we may become so caught up in the supposed causality that led to a perceived state of things that we forget entirely just how acausal even asking such a question is. A causation based philosophy of things, such as the physical sciences strive for, eventually must either admit defeat in explaining the whole world, or else it must finally declare that there is no way that anything can be one thing or not another. Anything can only be what it is, because the effects that are perveived in the condition of a particular situation were predetermined by the causes that led to this condition; these causes in turn were once effects, caused by causes, and so on. At first glance, asking why there is one thing, rather than another, seems the very image of causal thinking. Seeing a condition, we ask "why," implying that there must be causes from which the situation arose. But the question also contains the acausal concept of the possibility of more than one possible condition. The significance of this question leads again to the mystery of the mind. We perceive, in the realization of our free wills, that it is possible for us to alter the seemingly inalienable laws of causation. Paradoxically, confronted with this unexpected power, we immediately seek to somehow use the laws of causation (as we understand them) as the agency of this will. This paradox contains the root from which the flowers of our suffering and the imprisonment of our wills grow.

klik if you demand tedious explanations of every little thing.

No comments: