Disclaimer: Very little of what I say here is concrete fact. Most of it is opinion based on observation and common sense. A lot of it may disturb many people. If you like it, cool, but don't distort my words to others; what I say here can easily be misinterpreted. If you have questions, ask me. If you don't like it, don't read it. If you don't like it AND you have a reason why, tell me about it. If you don't like it AND you have a reason why AND you think that you can convince me otherwise, then definitely tell me about it. If you don't like it and want to incoherently complain without intelligent justification, send your complaints here. If, having read this disclaimer, you feel that you are prepared to take a dive into the deep end of truth, proceed at your own risk...
Chaos theorists argue that the universe is unpredictable. They point out that even the smallest perturbation in a system can create exponential transformations that render the result completely unrecognizable from the source. From this (in addition to countless "examples" of chaos theory in action), they conclude that randomness reigns supreme. But anyone that knows anything about arguing knows that examples don't prove anything. I can provide just as many examples for why there is no such thing as randomness. In fact, I hope to convince you that predicting the future (or recalling the past) is as easy as knowing everything about the present.
Almost everyone believes that the future is dependent on the past. They argue this through a series of cause-effect examples. If I let go of a ball, it will fall to the ground. The ball fell because I let go it, therefore the ball's falling was a direct result of my letting go of it. I certainly agree that letting go of the ball has an effect on the ball falling, but I don't believe that the effect is direct. On the contrary, my letting go of the ball simply provided the means to create the situation in which the ball would fall. That is, my letting go of the ball created a situation conducive to the ball's falling. If the same situation had arrived from other means, the exact same result would occur. In reality, it does not matter at all than I let go of the ball. What matters most in this situation is the current state of the universe. The laws of physics (namely, of gravity) could have easily predicted the result based on the current situation, without knowledge of prior events.
Everything that will happen in the moment that occurs five seconds from now will depend on what happens between now and then only in the sense that present happenings will propel us toward the state that will directly result in the happenings of the future moment. As I continue, you will find that there is in fact only one possible set of events that could possibly occur between now and five seconds from now.
Let us take a very simple system as an example. Assume that the entire universe consists of only two particles, each physically identical and physically atomic (they are the smallest possible particles; they are not made up of smaller particles, such as protons or neutrons). I don't mean to say that the entire universe is made up of combinations of these two particles, but that these two identical particles (and their inherent energies) are the only things in existence in the universe. This is a very simple universe and is very simple to understand.
Let us set the state of the universe such that the two particles are 10 units of distance away from each other and absolutely stationary. The laws of physics can very easily and very applicably predict what will happen in the next five seconds. Newton's law of gravity tells us that each of the particles is attracted to the other by a force that is both linearly proportional to the product of the masses of the two particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two particles. We can easy predict the exact moment at which the two particles will come in contact with each other, and with more physics we can determine the exact trajectories of the particles after contact.
This simple universe is very deterministic. We know everything about it and can easily predict the state of this universe at any time we desire (five seconds from now or five millennia from now). In fact, without any knowledge of prior events, we can derive the state of the universe at any time in the past. Using more physics, and reminding ourselves that these two particles are the only particles in existence in the system (let us ignore the possibility of matter-energy conversion for now), one realizes that there is only way that the two particles could have come to the state of rest at which we initially set the universe. Specifically, the particles must have previously been in motion, moving away from each other toward their future resting points.
It is easy to see, then, that given all knowledge of the present state of this simple universe, we can mathematically derive all knowledge of the universe at any point in time.
By now, you've probably formed the rebuttal that our universe is not that simple. It is true that our universe in not simply made up of two lone particles surrounded by vast emptiness. It does not follow, however, that the same arguments do not apply.
The universe is made up of two things and only two things, plus a third "thing" if you count "void," or the lack of the other two things. Despite what many of you may believe (and you are, of course, entitled to your beliefs), everything breaks down in these two atomic substances. It is the combination of these two things that results in everything that exists. Quite simply, these two things are matter and energy. Some would argue that the two are the same, and I'm not versed enough in particle physics to argue either case, but I will admit that in the least, the two are interchangeable. It has already been shown that matter can be converted to energy (the atom bomb and other sources of "nuclear energy"), and the reverse must also be possible.
Everything in our universe, then, is defined by particular combinations of matter and energy. The air we breathe is made up of several compounds, one of which is carbon dioxide, which is itself made up of smaller things calls "atoms," can be broken down further into "protons," "neutrons," and "electrons." Protons and neutrons each can be still further broken down into quarks and gluons, while electrons are thought to be elementary. In total, scientists have discovered eight elementary particles: electrons, six types of quarks, and gluons. These themselves may not be elementary, but it is well-agreed-upon that there are a limited number of distinct elementary types of particles. In the end, everything is made up of the same building blocks, collectively called matter.
Our universe, then, is no more than a complexified version of the simple, contrived universe of our previous example. No longer do we have a single type of particle to worry about, but many. And no longer do we have two instances of particles, but a lot more. Despite the complexity, however, our universe is still made up of infinite void and finite "things." Since void has no direct effect on anything, it can be discounted (as it was in our simple universe), so the "things" in the universe can be described completely, since they are finite. How simple it would be to represent all of these things is not obvious.
Energy complicates things because it is more difficult to understand than matter. The fact of the matter is, though, that energy just as finite as the matter that "contains" it. For example, in our simple universe example, the only energy that existed at the initial state was some potential energy in each of the particles. As time passes, though, the potential energy is converted to kinetic energy, but the amount of energy remains the same and can thus be "tracked" in a way similar to tracking the particles.
What does all this boring stuff reveal? What concept could possibly be derived from this seemingly endless discussion of physics? Those of you who have taken a class in the philosophy of knowledge and reality may recognize the concept as "Predeterminism." It is a philosophy of thinking that claims that everything that occurs in the world was meant to occur from the "beginning." Most of these ideas derive from my thinking about the plausibility of such a concept, and I eventually came to the conclusion that Predeterminism makes more sense than any religion of philosophy that attempts to explain the "meaning of life" or the cause of events, and as I thought about it more and more, I realized that physics can explain everything.
It is a simple concept to understand when operating on a simple universe such as the one used in my preceding examples, but as the conceptual universe grows in size and complexity, it becomes more difficult for people to accept. In fact, it is almost impossible for people to accept that everything that all humans do can be described by physics, as long as the describer has enough knowledge about the universe, which is never the case among us humans. Since you probably are not convinced, let me provide my reasoning for coming to that conclusion, but before I jump right into explaining the concept with respect to humans, let me again start at a smaller, simpler example.
All of the many varieties of bacteria are very simple in nature when compared to "higher beings" such as human beings. They basically have two primal instincts: survival and reproduction. Just as chemical compounds seek a state of lowest energy, bacteria seek to reproduce and continue the bacterium legacy. It is the simplest of instincts: assure that your race continues after you are gone. Everything that bacteria do is at least indirectly aimed toward either survival or reproduction. If it seems like they're doing something "random," trust me when I tell you that it is not random. A lot of what appears to be random is actually just very slight differences in state. There are far too many variables--even in something as simple as a bacterium--for humans be able to completely predict outcomes. If we could know everything about the universe, though, we could easily predict the exact activities of every bacterium in the universe. Bacteria do not have free will. They live to reproduce.
Protozoa are another basic type of single-celled organisms, but are more complex than bacteria. Still, they are governed by the same rules of survival and reproduction and can be almost as easily predicted as bacteria. Worms are some of the simplest multicellular organisms, but even they know little more than the life of survival and reproductions. All of these simple organisms are highly (though not completely) predictable by non-omniscious human beings because of their simplicity.
Many people don't have a problem with grasping this concept, but as we move up the food chain, people begin to wonder about "feelings" and "emotions." Most people would argue to their deaths that their pet kittens are not similar in any way to bacteria or worms. They see unpredictability in a kitten's actions and attribute it to reactions based on feelings or emotions. Unfortunately, I can provide to you no comfort except to say that cats are much more complex that bacteria, and most things in life that are complex are considered more valuable, therefore your cat is more valuable than a bacterium. In the end, however, your cat is made up of the same particles as bacteria, using a very basic cell structure very similar to those found in worms. Kittens do have more complex types of cells, such as nerve cells, but these more complex cells are still basic and still obey the laws of physics, be they ever so complex. Nerve cells communicate with electrical pulses and respond to these pulses based on very controlled rules.
For example, in general, injuring a kitten may cause it to hiss in a primitive attempt to keep its attackers at bay. If humans ever fully understand nerve cells, their signals, their responses, and everything else that affects them, they could conceivably understand basic thought processes. Knowing that and the complete state of a kitten (including all the "contents" of its memory--which are stored in cells--, its environment, and much more), scientists could predict a kitten's actions in many different situations. A kitten's brain is, after all, governed by the same laws of physics as everything else. Still, people find it difficult to accept that their complex pets are so similar to bacteria, which themselves make horrible pets.
It gets even worse as we approach primates, especially humans. In fact, even if you have had the openness to accept everything that I have told you up until now, chances are that you will not accept the idea that even humans are governed by the same laws of physics as everything else, perhaps not because the idea is so far-fetched but because of the value that the human race has placed on free will. Nobody wants to be a slave to nature, and virtually everyone is too afraid to accept such a seemingly dismal and pessimistic view of life.
The most obvious rebuttal against the concept, when applied to humans, is that humans are "different" because we have the capability of free will. No other species builds skyscrapers of steel or invents the concept of "money," but why must that necessarily imply that we have free will? Is it so inconceivable that it is only evolution and chemical reactions that lead us to explore these new ideas.
That leads immediately to the idea of thought. Most people can't accept this idea because they believe in a consciousness that allows them to think things through. "I think, therefore I am," as Descartes put. Thought, however, is just evaluation of the current situation and "selection" of a response based on that evaluation. Self-evaluation, however, does not imply free will, nor does the ability to grasp the concept of free will. Thought does not imply free will. It is very likely that simpler organisms such as kittens have "thoughts," but that does not give them free will. They operate based on simple instincts, much like bacteria do. So do we humans, albeit on a much more complex scale. You might think that you are making conscious decisions, exercising free will, but when it all comes down to it, your body is reacting to input in and exact manner, based on physical signals send to your brain. Your brain is a very complex computer, making "decisions" in the same way that your PC makes decisions based on current data.
These ideas carry with them many implications. For starters, one could argue that we are not responsible for anything that we do. Those of you who are reading this from jail should not get too excited, because the truth of that statement depends on your definition of responsible. Humans are just as responsible for what they do as computers are responsible for printing "Hello" onto a terminal when they are instructed to do so. Of course, usually there is a human that creates the situation that results in the computer's choice to print "Hello," so the human is also responsible for what the computer does. But who is responsible for us?
Nature is responsible, but that does not mean that we should punish nature when a human kills another. The reality is that it has been built into human society to react to "evil deeds" by punishing the evil-doer. What humans define as "evil" has been developing throughout the evolution of humans and is relatively well-ingrained into present society (though there are variations between cultures). Therefore, humans have felt for a long time that it is necessary to punish those who do wrong in an effort to prevent future malice. The result (ideally) is a reduced frequency of these foul deeds. My argument, therefore, should not curb this strategy, for preventing murderers from murdering others is almost as basic an instinct as that found in bacteria: survival of the species.
Another can of worms that these ideas open in up is the concept of "rational thought." Many people believe that the difference between humans and other species is that of "rational thought," and many people base the rightness to kill non-humans on that disparity. When the concept of "rational thought" is eliminated, how do we justify killing other animals, who turn out to have more similarities with humans than previously believed?
The point of this exercise is not to argue for animal rights. I am an avid carnivore and enjoy the taste of well-cooked meat. I even understand the horrifying truth behind the "inhumane" killing of the animals that I eat, yet still I feast. But how could I do such a thing and still acknowledge the reduced dissimilarity between my dinner and me implied by my beliefs? Being human does not implicitly or explicitly give us the right to kill less complex animals.
I live with myself because I do not think about the similarities between humans and cows, in the same way that I don't think about not having free will when I "make a decision." I carry on my life just as I used to. I'm sure that there are even points in my life where I have almost consciously believed that I had free will, but if I ever sit down and think about it, I realize that I don't really have free will, but I also realize that it does not matter. No, this way of thinking does not help me sleep at night, for which most religious beliefs are designed. It is simply the explanation of the universe that makes most sense to me.
As a scientist, I have found it impossible to convince myself that there is a God. It simply does not make physical sense. This God would have to be an infinite source of energy and have the capability to wield that energy in ways that are physically impossible. Sometimes, I wish that I could believe in such a deity. It would make some concepts much easier to accept.
Take the most obvious example, the event for which religion was probably created: death. It's very easy to lie on your death bed and think to yourself, "It's all right. I'm going to heaven." Sure, you'll probably still be afraid, but probably not as afraid as you would be if you didn't know what was going to happen...or maybe you don't believe as much as you used to think that you did.
Atheists inherently have more difficulty accepting death for just that reason. Most of us have no idea what happens when we die. Some atheists believe in reincarnation as a way to ease the fear, but--again--my scientific mind prevents me from believing in such a concept, for the truth of the matter is, physics does not provide a means for the concept of a "soul." I, therefore, do not believe in the concept.
I am thus different from most atheists in that I know exactly what will happen when I die: nothing. That's right; nothing special will happen when I die. I will still exist, but I will have no thoughts. I have felt this feeling called "consciousness" for so long that I admit it is hard to imagine existence without it. I guess that it will be similar to sleep without dreams, but I don't really know what that feels like. I have no memory of anything that happens in those moments. So while I know what will happen when I die, I don't know what it will "feel" like. Obviously, I won't feel anything, but what does that feel like. It's hard to explain with words.
I don't deny that I might be a much happier person (especially on my death bed) if I believed in God or heaven. It would be quite a relief to know that I would be heading for a much better place after I die. But alas, my scientific mind refuses to accept the old adage, "Ignorance is bliss." My problem of uncertainty, however, is perhaps the single problem that is best solved by ignoring it.
In conclusion, everything is predetermined, but none of what I have said here should be any reason for you to fall into some depressed state. I am, in fact, a very happy person. Even as I write this, I can look outside my window and wish that I were playing Ultimate Frisbee. I have decided to ignore the truth and just enjoy what I have. I used to be depressed (for reasons unrelated to my beliefs), and trust me, life is a lot more fun when the glass is half-full. So I don't have free will... So what? That doesn't mean that I don't feel pleasure.
Still, I can't help but wish that I were wrong. :)
Copyright © 2004-2005 by John Costigan. All rights reserved.