In my mission to answer the question of whether or not this existence is inherently meaningful , I have realized how physics and philosophy are really attempts to answer the same question, just using different means, tools, and terminology. I believe that physics and philosophy are two sides of the very same coin, one describing the material, and the other, the immaterial or the abstract, and that both are essential in order to thoroughly understand the nature of reality.
There are two sets of theories that are prominent in physics...classical physics, which can explain physical reality on a large scale and quantum physics which studies things on a very miniscule scale. In order to devise a theory that would be able to explain everything, both theories will naturally have to be incorporated and reconciled with the other.
But...
"When theorists try to turn Einsteins theory of general relativity into a quantum theory...[it results in an equation that] indicates that the universe should be frozen in time, never changing...If the continuum [of spacetime] is a thing in its own right (as substantivalism holds), general relativity must be indeterministic - that is, its descriptions of the world must contain an element of randomness. For the theory to be deterministic spacetime must be a mere fiction (as relationism holds)."
If this is applied philosophically, it implies that if the universe (and thus everything else) has an inherent meaning and purpose, then it must have also an inherent randomness. But for theories such as destiny and fate (which imply inherent meaning and not randomness) to be valid, and the reality of spacetime must be an illusion, and thus has no inherent meaning.
"But relationism has its own troubles. It is the ultimate source of the problem of frozen time: space may morph over time, but if its many shapes are all equivalent, it never truly changes. "
And here is the circular blackhole of a problem: it appears that in order for this existence to have any meaning, then everything must be random and unfixed. But if it is true that everything that is random and unfixed, is still a part of the same 'system'. This means that even the randomness occurs in a spacetime that is fixed and thus we are right back at the beginning..since randomness is what provides the grounds for meaning, yet originates from emptiness.
"Moreover, relationism clashes with the substantivalist underpinnings of quantum mechanics. If spacetime has no fixed meaning, how can you make observations at specfic places and moments, as quantum mechanics seems to require?
Thus it appears, that if we are seeking the answer to whether or not anything means anything at all, we can only talk ourselves in circles, always coming back to our original starting point of the question itself. Quite a conundrum. Both substantivalism and relationism end up in the same place...the inherent meaningless of everything.
The only answer that I can figure, is that the two must be reconciled and integrated.
Why do I search for meaning?
Because if things have a significance that is greater than myself, then through these experiences I transcend myself.
Why do I want to transcend my self?
Because there isn't much else to do that would be as hard or as fun to accomplish. And because there must be something beyond my self.
Why do I find it so difficult to accept that meaning is subjective and can only come from my self?
Because there is no self.
I'm looking for a meaning that is greater than myself and thus transcends the subjective. But, like Nietzsche says, "truths are only relative fictions", and thus our fleeting and meager existences are the only truth we can ever know, and might as well be the only truth, either way.
Therefore nothing matters. But even if it did, there would be no way of finding out that it did. We are left with the choice between the illusion and the empty meaninglessness.
But there is no self and therefore nothing to transcend, so here I am, yet again, at the starting point of meaninglessness.
The only meaningful conclusion that can come to is that if I want to have meaning in my life I have to give it some. It is not there before I attribute it and although it is non-existent before me and is meaningless without my interpretations
Is there an alternate explanation that I am missing or overlooking?
Quotes were taken from "A Hole At The Heart Of Physics" written by George Musser , Scienific American Special, Volume 16, Number 1, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Is Life, Life, because you say its Life? Or is it because its Life? Or do you own what is yours because you think so or because you know so? Or does everything own you?
Holy crap I lost myself.
M,
Yet another compelling set of Arguments, blurring the hypothetical lines that differentiate science from philosophy have always been issues that have fascinated me.
Coming to the existential argument of "meaning",
"Because if things have a significance that is greater than myself, then through these experiences I transcend myself."
In my opnion, the answer to your quest lies in your own words,
if at all there was "meaning"
if at all there was a path to find it,
how would you ever know till you 've reached the destiny ?
There are no, signs, no milestones in this journey(if at all there is a destiny)
Are we, the flies around the fire ?
Have the ones who fell in to it, never survived to tell the story ?
How would i know ? i am just another fly, just another traveller down the path with no signs, lured by the destiny, eager to touch the fire and become one with it.
Lets boil all our consitutent parts to a nice tasty slurry:
Everything is relative.
Meaning is relative to it's object, the object relative to the subject both of these are object to the observer. The observer is relative to the non-observer.
It's another study of the yin-yang. The problem with meaning is that it requires a story-line to make it happen. After the story-line is formed, then we have to mark it 'special' with our 'meaning-flag'.
The easy way is just let it go. The only thing that exists is now and the rest is just mental entertainment - at best. Most of the time that stiving grasping thing is painful. The cure is non-duality and equanimity.
The only thing available is now.
I like your new warning tag. I agree with it too!
:D
Damn. I owe Sphinx a headache, which I doubt I'll ever manage to accomplish, considering all those books upon books that nurture her philosophical consciousness.
So I’ll just use this comment to simplify the concept for myself, which to me, reinforces the idea of this grand-design being irrational. I don't think an expanding universe is rational... do any of you? Something clearly went wrong in that equation at some point, somewhere. Perhaps a direct product of randomness.
Anyway, as the article states: meaning is derived from randomness, and randomness is derived from emptiness. A strange similarity can be drawn between this and the idea of past, present, and future. The past (emptiness); the present (randomness); the future (the general hypothetical soapbox in which we idealise our so-called meaning, because identification of the meaning is largely mused for future aspirations). Some theorise that the past in itself is now nothing more than an empty vacuum, in the strict context of the current - the present, so… yeah.
The randomness is a constant that is experienced, and it's probably a three-step process on a very general level. You need the emptiness for the randomness; you need the randomness, which does carry over quite a bit of the emptiness that will eventually instil a certain yearning for meaning within any given consciousness; perhaps even offer it a bit of justification. This, of course, results in our own existence being the only empirical constant that we can observe; a canvas upon which we reflect. (Maybe this is how the grand design works: Nothing becomes something; and something attains resolve, and then the machine reboots.)
…this takes me back to my other comment; it is about identifying the relevance of one’s own humanity. In my case: The immense outrage and contempt, without which I’d lack any personal purpose or motivation. After all, who cares about point A and point B? It’s about having a reason, and a method to get from one point to the other.
…time for some aspirin. (And yes, I realise that I’ve eccentrically paraphrased most of what’s already been said.)
Although this is off-topic, I thought this
may be of interest. The whole site is very good. But I was reading this over and could help but think of your experience.
Post a Comment