Existence
Posted: Sat Nov 25, 2006 12:38 am
I was intrigued by Sam and Warren chewing the cud over the issue of ?self-existence? in another thread. Here?s my two penneth on both that issue and bigger, associated, issues.
An idea cannot exist independently of man or any other conscious entity. It cannot 'self exist'. An idea can only exist or have any meaning so long as man is here to both contemplate and validate it. The concept of God is no more than an idea - a comforting delusion that men cling to in order to avoid the existential angst of facing up to their own responsibility and the terrifying fact that in their darkest hour there is no higher authority for them to petition and beg for salivation. Concepts and ideas only have meaning so long as man is here to validate them. If (God forbid) a cosmic cataclysm were to befall the Earth next week and our species were to be snuffed out, then all our concepts, ideas, delusions of morality and grandeur would evaporate into the ether, along with the molecules and atoms that make up our physical bodies. The universe would not bat an eyelid.
This line of thought put me in mind of the ?Schr?dinger?s cat? paradox, where quantum mechanics suggests that a cat in a box can be both alive an dead at the same time ? it?s ?wave function? only collapses into an alive or dead state when someone opens the box to observe it. Some physicists and cosmologists have gone further to speculate that the universe itself only exists in any meaningful way simply because we are here to observe it. If there was no one here to see it and ponder it, how could it be said to exist ? and, furthermore, who could say it?
This is fascinating territory, a huge uncharted territory. A place where religion, philosophy, relativity and quantum mechanics collide. The issues are both enormous and profound ? Why are we (the universe) here? What came before? What will come after? What is the true nature of existence and indeed why does existence itself exist? The answers are, at this time, probably beyond our ken, beyond our intellects. I see humanity as analogous to a goldfish swimming round it?s bowl ? as far as the goldfish is concerned the bowl is the extent of the whole universe, it cannot comprehend of anything beyond that. Yet we know that the universe beyond the fish?s bowl is almost incomprehensively vast, and we are just beginning to realize that it may just be one of an infinity of alternative universes - alternative, multi-dimensional, realities. But as more is revealed to us the more it suggests that what we perceive may be little more than the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what lies beyond?
When I ponder these questions I?m beset by an intense vertiginous feeling ? like I?m teetering on the edge of infinity, terrified that I might have a eureka moment, terrified that the veil might be fleetingly drawn back and I would then have to bear the terrible weight of knowing.
Officer Dibble ? in philosophical mood
An idea cannot exist independently of man or any other conscious entity. It cannot 'self exist'. An idea can only exist or have any meaning so long as man is here to both contemplate and validate it. The concept of God is no more than an idea - a comforting delusion that men cling to in order to avoid the existential angst of facing up to their own responsibility and the terrifying fact that in their darkest hour there is no higher authority for them to petition and beg for salivation. Concepts and ideas only have meaning so long as man is here to validate them. If (God forbid) a cosmic cataclysm were to befall the Earth next week and our species were to be snuffed out, then all our concepts, ideas, delusions of morality and grandeur would evaporate into the ether, along with the molecules and atoms that make up our physical bodies. The universe would not bat an eyelid.
This line of thought put me in mind of the ?Schr?dinger?s cat? paradox, where quantum mechanics suggests that a cat in a box can be both alive an dead at the same time ? it?s ?wave function? only collapses into an alive or dead state when someone opens the box to observe it. Some physicists and cosmologists have gone further to speculate that the universe itself only exists in any meaningful way simply because we are here to observe it. If there was no one here to see it and ponder it, how could it be said to exist ? and, furthermore, who could say it?
This is fascinating territory, a huge uncharted territory. A place where religion, philosophy, relativity and quantum mechanics collide. The issues are both enormous and profound ? Why are we (the universe) here? What came before? What will come after? What is the true nature of existence and indeed why does existence itself exist? The answers are, at this time, probably beyond our ken, beyond our intellects. I see humanity as analogous to a goldfish swimming round it?s bowl ? as far as the goldfish is concerned the bowl is the extent of the whole universe, it cannot comprehend of anything beyond that. Yet we know that the universe beyond the fish?s bowl is almost incomprehensively vast, and we are just beginning to realize that it may just be one of an infinity of alternative universes - alternative, multi-dimensional, realities. But as more is revealed to us the more it suggests that what we perceive may be little more than the tip of the iceberg. Who knows what lies beyond?
When I ponder these questions I?m beset by an intense vertiginous feeling ? like I?m teetering on the edge of infinity, terrified that I might have a eureka moment, terrified that the veil might be fleetingly drawn back and I would then have to bear the terrible weight of knowing.
Officer Dibble ? in philosophical mood