Posting Post-Teen Angst

This afternoon found me sauce shopping down the street at Fairway Market. As I browsed the various mustards, hot sauces, soy sauces, and sugary syrups, I wondered how it came to be that I set out on a shopping trip aimed specifically at sauces. I began calculating the probability of running out of multiple sauces at the same time, and how that probability decreases exponentially as the sauce tally goes up. As I pondered what might happen if one were to run out of all sauces at the same time, I stumbled upon what I call “The Sauceularity”. I can only hy-prophesize that as the need for sauce converges on the infinite, one might, though it would surely destroy even the most heavily fortified of souls, at that very moment of absolute sauce depletion, hear the voice of god.

If one were to say, “It is wrong to kill,” there is an initial urge to agree with such a claim. When pursuing this claim further and searching for a universal ethic, however, it quickly becomes very difficult to agree upon any absolute ethical value. There are always exceptions, no matter how improbable or hypothetical, and so in order to maintain the universality of an ethical law it becomes increasingly complex the more it is considered and the more exceptions are discovered.

Aside from the complexity of ethical absolutism, I find the very concept of ethics to be flawed, or at the very least misunderstood. If I say, “It is wrong to kill”, is this a statement that is true or false, or is it merely an opinion? If I were to call it a statement, how can I verify its truth or falsity? The reality is that the phrase “It is wrong to kill” along with all other ethical “statements” are not statements at all, but merely opinions brought on by an emotional reaction. There is no objective basis on which an ethical statement can stand, no context outside of human emotion from which a moral belief can exist. Someone in possession of religion might argue that there is a higher meaning to moral values, that emotion and ethics exist on an eternal level, but a scientific perspective would place emotion more as a product of natural selection. Neither of these perspectives can ever be proven to be “True”, but I tend to follow the latter, even if its goal of objectivity is unatainable. If I see a predator and feel the emotion of fear, I am more likely to run away than if I lack that fear, and therefore I have a better chance of surviving and passing on the genetic traits associated with fear. (Some of our emotions seem pretty wacky and counterproductive in today’s world, but we’ve constructed the social environment in which we live in a fraction of the time it takes evolution to catch up.)

Now, I’m sure if I had readers that somebody would make haste to ask “so what, are you saying that rape is OK because there is no objective logic or absolute ethical law saying otherwise?” My answer is no.  While I believe the claim that “rape is wrong” to be based entirely on an emotional reaction, I am still bound by the emotions necessitated out of my role as a human. While I personally have managed to homogenize my emotions to a minor extent over the years, I don’t believe it possible to transcend them altogether (perhaps sociopaths are an exception to this claim). It is pointless to ask if I’d like to transcend emotion if such a thing were possible, as my opinion on the matter relies on emotion, so the very emotions in question would rob my response of any objectivity. If you ask me, “What is one plus one?” I can come up with an answer based solely on logic and devoid of emotion. A question asked about ethics, however, necessitates a subjective answer.

With this emotional lens fused to my being, I find the absurdity of ethics is best approached with a pragmatic view. Though ethics may be devoid of objectivity, there are ethical viewpoints based on sound logic. For example, Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which essentially states, “Act only on that maxim which you would will as universal law” is most attractive to me. Kant was a tad strict with his ethics, allowing no exceptions in order to keep them simple and devoid of ambiguity, but I find the categorical imperative ideal as a general moral compass. There are other ethical views, such as utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest number) or ethical egoism (do what is in your own best interest) which focus on the consequences of an ethical decision, but they can become quite ambiguous. I prefer Kant’s deontological ethics over consequentialist ethics, as the former takes into consideration intention and does not allow for hypocrisy.

Until I’m able to study ethics further I’ll have to accept them as another inescapable determinant of human behaviour in the absurdity of existence. I have to wonder though, if one were able to transcend emotion, how might the world appear free of the confines of human emotion? Would we be driven merely by the response to our senses and our basic human needs, or is there more to be discovered?

Here is a new old song, originally written in the data centre, and then the lyrics were reworked last summer or fall some time. Mr. Spencer Lillo plays the cello in this track.

in finite time (mp3)

I don’t know you that well, so I just write what I know
You say I know you well enough, well, enough to know
that all your dreams, that all your convictions
slowly dying since birth
Bouts of passion robbing your wisdom
for everything it’s worth

You and I converge and collide, in the same action divide
We part with thoughts of infinite pathways
in finite time

Now, time for some real writing…

Upon first learning about determinism, specifically scientific determinism, I became quite anxious and internally divided given the importance I had previously placed on free will. I weighed in the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, and ultimately it was determinism that emerged as the clear winner, at least from my point of view. The idea that I have no free will seemed despairing at first, but upon further investigation I realized that as contradictory as it may seem, free will and determinism can work in conjunction.

First, an outline of determinism is in order.  Broadly defined, determinism is the idea that the current universal state of affairs - all events, actions, and decisions - is determined by a previous state of affairs, in effect implying that free will is illusory. Determinism can then be further broken down into categories such as social determinism, economic determinism, environmental determinism, and so forth. The specific type of determinism that caught my attention, and which I believe to be reductionist and therefore to render all other forms of determinism irrelevant, is scientific determinism. Materialism, the view that everything is made up of matter and energy, which follow the universal laws of nature, creates the basis of and in fact necessarily implies scientific determinism.

I’ll state now that for many years I’ve retained an agnostic viewpoint of religion/higher powers for one simple reason: I believe that it would require a great level either of intelligence or of arrogance, neither of which I possess at sufficient levels,  to state that it can be proven that the existence of some type of higher power does not exist. Furthermore, I have my doubts that any kind of ultimate Truth can truly be known. That being said, my metaphysical viewpoint on what I believe to probably be the case is a nihilistic one, but more on that another time.

Now, back to the argument at hand. As a result of my underlying view of reality, that all is made up of matter following the universal laws of nature/physics, I find the argument for scientific determinism quite convincing. If I believe that I am a product of evolution, my species having started out countless generations ago as a single cell organism, and further back yet on the molecular level as different atoms travelling on their determined paths and then coming together to form molecules; if I am an extremely complex organism, whose systems can be broken down further and further until reduced to these same interactions on the molecular and atomic levels, then what room does that leave for free will? Some would make the argument that mind/body dualism, the view that there is a separate physical body and nonphysical mind, is able to account for free will, but I have yet to hear a convincing argument for dualism. For instance, how do the physical and non-physical interact? How might a dualist explain the correlation between damage to the brain and the resulting change in mental function, or the neuro-chemical effects of drugs on the non-physical mind? Alas, if one believes in universal scientific law, then one necessarily believes in determinism.

One exception or possible alternative to the ontological concept of scientific determinism is that suggested by quantum physics. If we were to reduce our argument of determinism at the atomic level yet further down into the sub-atomic level, quantum physicists would suggest that things start to act a little strange and not in accordance with the practical laws of science; substances can exist in multiple locations at once, as both particles or waves, and react in quite unpredictable ways. I find this idea certainly to work well against the concept of scientific determinism, but it also still works against the concept of free will, at least in most cases. Some physicists, such as Roger Penrose, argue that consciousness exists in a sort of quantum form at the fundamental level of the universe and that it is tapped into by our neurons and cannot be simulated artificially, a theory worth reading into but which I’m not convinced by, as at this point I maintain a more functionalist viewpoint on the philosophy of mind. But alas, I digress.

I believe a further distinction needs to be made between determinism and fatalism. Fatalism, generally speaking, is the concept that our destinies are pre-determined by a higher power, and that nothing can be done to change this. Determinism, on the other hand, doesn’t necessarily predict what will happen; it merely claims that the current state of affairs is the result of a previous state of affairs. I might argue that they are more similar than others would admit, with the exception of the involvement of a higher power in fatalism. Imagine though, if it was possible to take a universal snapshot of the current state of all things. Given an intellect of infinite capacity and using the universal laws of nature, would it not be possible to map out the indefinite history of all things?

If at all convinced by the argument for scientific determinism, it seems to eliminate the possibility for free will. But despair ye not! It turns out that free will and determinism can both fit into one’s worldview, with the help of pragmatism. For instance, if I’m standing on a train track and a train is coming at me, I will not simply say to myself, “I don’t need to get out of the way. All is determined, so if it so happens that the complex machine I call my body decides not to move, then so be it.” No, I see the train and I make what feels like a decision to get out of the way, even if that ‘decision’ is a mere illusion, covering the complex interaction between stimulus, processing, and response on the higher level, neural computation on the mid-level, and biophysical cause & effect on the low-level. I can believe that my actions and thoughts are entirely determined, but that does not mean I’m going to refrain from behaving as though I have free will. Some would say that this concept, this pragmatic cohesion between determinism & free will, is quite important in upholding the way in which we behave and are responsible for our actions, and in maintaining the very foundations of society. It puts the complex machine of my brain at ease to know that I can be a scientific determinist and an existentialist at the same time.

Next Time: The Ethical Myth

School be the oppresser of free time, but what a wonderful kind of oppression! I have much to write, but such little time in which to write it so long as classes are going on. For now, here is a song I recorded at work in the data centre a couple years ago on one of my last night shifts. I had a lot of free time back then. It was a tough job to leave, but this song outlines one of the primary reasons I had to do so. The song was recorded with a $5 keyboard and a laptop; get ready for some lo-fi.

dis integrate (mp3)

another night shift come and gone, just one more week and they will all be done
then no more days with no daylight, where the city sleeps while I’m up all night
thoughts race to my fingers from my mind, but they disintegrate en route I find
like sound waves stored in 1’s and 0’s, the new format’s no match to the original
or so it goes

I hear it’s nice, this downtown view, but to me it’s got a darkish hue
that my eyes can’t see but my conscious chews, and my paycheck paints my view askew
I ride my bike and I read my tags, and I carry my groceries in canvas bags
but I come to work and oil the system, so in effect I guess that means I’m with them
I’m a suspect, not a victim 

I used to be quite fond of the idea of an infinite universe, and that as a result we were infinitely insignificant to the point of our effective non-existence. I’ve done some further pondering these past few months, and I think I’m getting a better grasp of nothingness and the prospect of a finite universe. I know, most astronomers would argue for a finite universe, and it seems to contradict common-sense and experience to state that we do not exist; but still, I find the prospect of an infinite universe, and such a universe’s hypothetical effects on our existence, quite interesting.

My previous thoughts of non-existence are best explained with a simple mathematical analogy. Let’s say that any one person’s significance, both their importance and the physical space they take up, is measured to be 1 (abstract unit of significance). Suppose we start off with a tiny universe, whose size is 10. In such a universe, one person’s significance will be 1/10, or 0.1. A universe size of 100 will give our individual a significance of 1/100, or 0.01, while a universe size of 1,000,000 will give us a significance of 0.000001, and so on.  Given a universe of infinite size, our significance will be 1/infinity, or 0 (just as 1/∞ = 0 in terms of mathematics). That 0 is not rounded off, or at least not really; it’s important to understand infinity not as a very large (and therefore finite) number, but as the concept of transcending the finite. A good way to understand the infinite is by the “Monkey on the typewriter” theory, which states that a monkey typing random characters on a typewriter, if given enough time, will eventually transcribe all of William Shakespeare’s works. This theory can be extended to predict that the monkey will, given infinite time, type up everything ever written by any human, even if only typing one random character every trillion years. With a sound concept of infinity, and if the universe were indeed infinite, it would seem to follow that we don’t exist. I’m sure Descartes, or even common sense, would have a lot to argue against such a claim of non-existence, but it seemed to me a neat idea.

Upon further, more recent pondering, I’ve come to the conclusion that an infinite universe would result in quite the opposite of non-existence. In such a universe, what is to keep the incredibly unique and complex series of events that has led up to our existence from occurring at multiple times in multiple places? The series of cause and effect, whether by scientific determinism or quantum randomness, that has led up to our existence would inevitably occur to the same extent, resulting in identical entities, an infinite number of times, if given an infinite universe. Following our concept of the infinite, and the fact that we do indeed seem to exist, we can deduce that in an infinite universe, there would necessarily exist an infinite number of ourselves, existing at all stages of our existence, at all times. That is to say that at any given moment, there are an infinite number of ourselves living the same lives as us, as well as an infinite number of ourselves living our lives 2 seconds from now, or 4 years ago from now, and so on. This universal existence could be extended to all individuals, objects, and events, forming a sort of infinite pantheistic collective.

In our infinite universe, with all entities and objects infinitely existing at all times, and all events infinitely occurring at all times, I would have to ask what sort of events would contradict the concept of an infinite universe. The first event that comes to mind is one such that if it were to occur, the universe would cease to exist. Take for example some sort of “doomsday device”, or associated event, which is capable of destroying the universe. If such an event were possible, it would have already occurred an infinite number of times, and there would be no universe; therefore, I would have to conclude that either no such event is possible, or the universe is not infinite. Alternately, I suppose one could argue that an infinite universe could not be destroyed, simply given the fact that it is infinite. It is something to ponder, but as for myself I’m leaning more towards a finite universe with the potential of nothingness.