The Arrow of Time, Order, and the Mind
Entropy and the time symmetry laws are integral parts of our universe and elucidate the so-called “arrow of time”. As the title suggests, the argument is that time is woven into the fabric of the cosmos and we, as matter in the cosmos, abide by its laws. These insights many would think are futile ponderings for the mere human, as we necessarily live within time and cannot escape it, insofar as we are physical beings, nor can we change the course of entropy. However, I would argue that maybe it is a part of the fabric of human nature and cognition, because just as the universe, our existence and the existence of the world we inhabit was such an enormous statistical aberration insofar that we are, as the book argues, incredibly ordered.
However, it makes me question what we see as ordered. What does order constitute and do we regard this configuration of the universe as ordered because we impose order on the disparate, potentially chaotic world around us in order to make sense of, or understand, it. We create axions, for example from which we can derive and make sense of seemingly unfathomable things. It seems to me that order is not an inherent feature but the synthesis of many features into a unified whole. The models we create and the theories we build are nothing but an imposition of human reason on something; a prerequisite for processing sensory information the world is continuously supplying. As a scientist, when I think of theories and models that make sense of experimental data, the goal is order and the purpose of that order is to predict the future. And even if it seems as though the future is becoming more disordered, in our eyes it is becoming clearer because of increasing levels of compensating energy.
Nevertheless, if this wasn’t a feature of our minds then why would we need the explanation of the big bang in the first place. Why would we need the ordered Big Bang Theory if not to resolve the quagmire we find ourselves in with respect to time and entropy and disorder. I therefore would put pressure on a non-anthropocentric conception of time, because rather than being a fabric of the cosmos it is in the fabric of our minds. In fact, I think that the fact that we have a quagmire or, at least recognize it, is because we are used to that order, at least in a meta sense. The only solution to the quagmire is therefore to devise a theory, namely that the big bang is the source of this order and that time travels in the direction of increasing entropy to resolve the quagmire. In a way then, “sense”, or understanding, is order.
The matters of entropy and the arrow of time are of great importance to us because they concern an integral part of who we are. As Kant says in his Critique of Pure Reason, time is a “form of intuition” – a mold for sensory information – and until we understand that the passage of time and the turning of events is just an anthropomorphic conception of a tendency towards disorder. At first glance, this view that time is a product of our minds may seem to conflict with the view that time is the direction of ever-increasing disorder, with entropy being in the fabric of the cosmos and not something we impose. In a much deeper sense, the two are saying the same thing – if order is a product of understanding and something we impose on the world, then so too must it be part of the universe that we care to investigate, since the universe, or our understanding of it, arose from our mind and its workings in the first place.
On Cosmology
We have an obsession with how things came to be, and I can’t pinpoint why. Random chance is often an unsatisfying answer which is why many are unsatisfied with Darwin’s reduction of our humanity to the selection of random mutations over time. In a sense, it is as if we look to the origins or, origin stories, of something to validate it or even decide how we feel about it. For example, a reductionist view of human nature as being the product of natural selection and “survival of the fittest [alleles]”, or as Dawkins says, “the selfish gene”, paints an impoverished view of human nature that then in turn influences how we treat each other and perhaps even how we structure society. So too with the Big Bang Theory as a random, statistically aberrant, event unleashing the totality of existence for 4 billion years and counting, makes us view our existence as just a statistical point rather than an ordained creature with a purpose beyond being a biological consequence. As such, it seems to me that a singular, physicalist cosmology of something strips away its meaning, as the origin is often random and nothing random is thought to have meaning. What is more, when speaking of origins, we assume that there is a beginning in the first place. Can the universe truly begin in the initial singularity of a big bang? Is that when time itself started? Assuming that time is a function of change and that the direction of time is that of increasing entropy, wouldn’t the “beginning” just be theoretical or ideal, rather than concrete? Since there would have had to be an even more ordered universe prior to that beginning if it were inside time in the first place.
Entropy plays a poignant role in our cosmology as it dictates the arrow of time, from our origins to now. That being said entropy can only increase if it is given room to increase (that is, if it starts low and tends towards increasing entropy). As we have established that entropy is an integral feature of the universe, there is a necessity to the low entropy, incredibly uniform, state of the newly born universe. In other words, itmust be so if we are to round out theories such as the Inflationary Theory, for example. This doesn’t answer whether or not our/the universe’s existence is necessary, but rather that the way in which we exist is necessary—both a necessary result of an original state and a consequence of a necessary original state. As laws rely on this sense of necessity, as our laws mustexist and we must obey them, it seems as though our origins are the way they are because otherwise our present state could not be the way it is, and since our present state is only perceived from one limited vantage point, can we speak of anything but the origins of one story of the universe to one present state, rather than of the universe itself?
Finally, I wonder: even if fulfill Einstein’s vision of a unified theory, would that be sufficient? Satisfactory? Not only are we limited to our subjective observations, but it seems as though we need other “understandings”, such as a philosophical one, emotional one or even intuitive one. All of these add to an architecture of understanding that can begin to satisfy this craving for an origin and closure in why there is something rather than nothing. I think as students we can never get the answer; we should just strive to advance. This can be done through advancing in the sciences, but also adding new perspectives from different people and systems of knowledge. Afterall, I would like to think that our cosmology is more than just a statistical principle.
On the Quantum
“An important question, and one that may have occurred to you, is whether the uncertainty principle is a statement about what we can know about reality or whether it is a statement about reality itself”
I found myself asking the question above throughout the readings that were assigned today, and my personal answer would be that upon reflecting on the quantum universe, we near not only an understanding of reality, but also an idea of the limits of understanding it. I will expound on both of these below.
As for the implications of quantum physics on our realities, we learn that reality is in essence probabilistic and uncertain. As Wolfgang Pauli says, “One should no more rack one’s brain about the problem of whether something one cannot know anything about exists all the same, than about the ancient question of how many angels are able to sit on the point of a needle”. That is, the world classical physics grapples with is and can only be the phenomenal world (the world as we perceive it), rather than noumenal (the world as it is). As we saw with the Agent Scully and Agent Mulder example, one cannot even truly analyze this concept because analyzing it contaminates the experiment itself i.e. the observer has an effect on the object of observation. It seems as though Bishop Berkeley was more accurate than we give him credit for: to beis to be perceived,since the very act of perceivingdictates the nature of being. Ontology is inextricably linked to perception, and this duo eternally shapes our epistemic framework. As such, according to quantum physics, it is not that reality is a mystery just waiting to be unfolded by us, but rather that the mystery we may have uncovered is that the exact nature of reality is and will always be inherently a mystery.
The implications the uncertain, probabilistic and entangled quantum world has on our daily lives and assumptions is also intriguing. The ramifications our activity has on the world around us is evidence for a long-range connection between us and the universe. From my understanding, each move we make, each breath we take, leaves a mark on the past and future in an inescapable loop that confines us in a very limited experience of the present. Other than time, our conception of space is also befuddled since no two objects are too far apart for their particles to interact with each other. This notion pushes back on not only the boundaries of the self/what constitutes the self, but also what draws the boundary lines between anything really if we accept this principle of entanglement, and hence, nonlocality.
Another pondering: if the basic building blocks of our universe are uncertain and probabilistic, how is it that we calculate and ascertain anything about the physical universe. Is certainty an emergent property just as consciousness is? If so, how can the sum of something be more than that of its individual parts? In the Fabric of the Cosmos, Greene discusses how we are all wave functions and the “tightness”, for lack of a better term, of our respective waves determines how our wave functions can interact, but how do individual particles that comprise us interfere in a way that their sums don’t. Again, how does a configuration of particles lead to properties that did not exist in its constituents.
Weaved into the fabric of the cosmos is this uncertainty, subjectivity and non-locality which to me begs the question: to what extent science can purport to be anything but an individualistic enterprise?
On Consciousness
I always thought it was weird when people spoke of a possible “Theory of Consciousness” because a theory explains a phenomenon, and an explanation of consciousness to me just seems to be futile as how can one explaina subjective experience. By definition, it is subjective. Though as many notable authors profess, we seem to ascribe subjective experiences to everything and build our rich social cognitive map of the world from an assumption that we are surrounded by conscious beings who feel, react and respond to our actions.
What’s so elusive about consciousness is that it seemingly point to the brain but cannot be point pointed to any neural mechanism or function. That is, although we may have a general idea of where it arises, lesion studies and just general common sense would beg to differ, since it seems as though subjective experience is something that transcends the firing of unconscious, senseless neurons. Are the sum totals of electrochemical stimuli that conduct everything from perception to cognition really sufficient for consciousness, or is there some non-physical realm that emerges out of constituent parts that is the seat of consciousness? As Chalmers says, “Experience may arise from the physical, but it is not explained by the physical”. The physical realm can only explain that which pertains top structure and function, and consciousness is devoid of both. Such is an endless puzzle we will necessarily never solve as it relies on our use of consciousness to address it, and hence how can we remove that variable from the equation.
Another consideration is that it is impossible to study. You cannot exactly breed model organisms with consciousness knocked out, nor can you selectively silence or activate consciousness. In humans, we can measure neuronal activity, integrate spiking patterns and draw correlations. But none of these explain consciousness, let alone describe the nature of it. The impending question is thus, if we want a theory that is not just armchair speculation, how do we begin to devise it?
If we were to apply non reductive methods, we would have to integrate them with our current paradigms and natural laws. The theory that results will not interfere with the physical world, but will depend on it. What Chalmers calls a psychophysical theory will have to comment on how these physical systems so precisely delineated give rise to experience. Moreover, since a nonreductive theory is not constrained by the articles of faith in science, namely homogeneity and parsimony, it can reach beyond and retain an element of speculation that is not present in other scientific theories. From the isomorphism between structures of consciousness and awareness that constitutes the principle of structural coherence, to the abstract patterns of causal interaction between components of experience and notion of embedded information states in an information space, we can begin to construct a theory that at least attempts to assess consciousness qualitatively.
Alas, it seems as though we have to accept that it exists, and assume that although we may never be able to study its phenomenal properties with objective methods, at least not with current methods, everyone is conscious and is therefore making conscious decisions they can be held accountable for. Without this premise underlying our society, the whole ethical and legal system would tumble. And so, I see alternative option but to accept until proven wrong. Till then, I will continue to be a neuroscience and philosophy major, because that is as close as I feel I can come to grips with this hard problem.
On Language
Anthropologist Brian Boyd portrays language as a useful invention that has propelled technological and cultural advancements. Narratives and storytelling have planted hope, and mimesis and communication of methodology have prompted strategic thinking. Furthermore, language can model and motivate personal values like courage, resilience, resourcefulness, circumspection and social values. The reading even goes so far as to say that language helps us better understand what it means to be human, and what humanity is. If this class is about meaning,language is the fluid and motor through which meaning is formed and conveyed. It is prior to everything we think and do in a way that could not have been forged.
Rather than being an invention, language is a reality that was acknowledged,and its nature discovered.In one sense, language organises the atemporal world into sequence and chronology and in turn, we then experience time as a sequence of change in the world. In another sense, language is how we exist both internally and externally. Language is as much a mental process through which we direct our own thoughts but also how we make them known to others.
This concept of communication and exchanging thoughts through language was also explored in the readings. The reading pointed out that it is curious that we spend so much time trying to make our thoughts and feelings known to the world when it would theoretically be advantageous to garner as much information and keep our own thoughts to ourselves. Thus communication and this sharing of ideas comes from an irrepressible urge humans have, further pointing to the fact that language is an instinct, not an invention, and is not freely willed or agentially exercised.
Mimesis is another consequence of language. On a neurological level, mirror neurons or the neural correlates of theory of mind form the basis for mimicking our surroundings and learning therefrom. Tying into the former notion of sharing thoughts and feelings, we also draw very heavily from our environments and allow others to learn from our victories, which makes a lot of evolutionary sense if one thinks of tools or making fires that could only have been passed on across and down generations through language.
All in all, language keeps our hopes alive and allows us to survive in a world that cannot be braved alone. Language introduces the dimension of sequence and chronology that forms our experience of temporality, rendering language an even more fundamental nature of the empirical universe than we think. Language is meaning and meaning is language is the main message I got from the fictional and non-fiction readings, and, as Steven Pinker says, it is an instinct.
On Religion
Religion lies at the intersection of origins and meaning, as it provides a unified account of why we exit and how that came to be. P Boyer says that most account of the origins of religion emphasize one of the following suggestions: human minds demand explanations, human hearts seek comfort, human society requires order or that human intellect is illusion prone. Genesis stories recur in sacred texts and the notion of an afterlife and divine confirmation or retribution ground lives with meaning. As a result, to many, religion is a crutch or solace and its promulgation has singlehandedly changed lives and civilizations. Even though each religion makes claims to universality, the idea that everyone should adopt said religion is not a universal idea. As a result, wars and feuds ensue, even between people from the same ethnicity. However, despite the violence often attributed to religion, it is undeniable that religion has been a great source of inspiration and flourishment, Islam’s influence on science and mathematics being but one example.
The fact that all religions touch on similar themes can either be a product of human nature or a product of religion itself. Religion is not merely a belief in a higher being, but a belief in how that higher being makes Himself known to humans. Thus, if one were to admit that religion is a product of human nature, the notion of some higher being, morality and an afterlife crop up in most if not all religions and that makes sense as we, as humans, have this predisposition to latch onto such themes. What does this tell us about the human yearning for a connection to the creator, and as E. Becker says in the Denial of Death, a common, universal fear of death? Religion, in this vein, is just a manifestation of existentialist dread ingrained in the human psyche
If one were to admit the latter, that this common thread passing through all religions is a product of religion itself, one would have to make much grander claims. I personally would maintain this stance, as I believe religion is a progressively unfolding truth that is meant to guide humanity. All religions come from the same God and bring about a different message suited for the different dispensation. As a member of the Baha’i, the latest of the world religions, I believe that religion is “the chief instrument for the establishment of order in the world, and of tranquility amongst its peoples[1]and that in effect, each prophet/manifestation of God, such as Jesus, Moses, Mohammed etc. are divine physicians that prescribe the remedies for mankind at their given times. As such, religion is not absolute, but relative, and continuously progressing and adapting. In this light, just as our genomes, religion too abides by one of the great principles we studied in class: evolution.
However, if one were to classify religion under these terms, one begs the question of what true religion is and how one can define whether a movement is a religion or not. Other than being transcendental and lifting mankind from a merely physical existence, Baha’is would define true religion as a cause of love and unity, and anything that doesn’t fit under that umbrella and is a cause of dislike, hatred and division is not true religion. What’s more, true religion has become so adulterated through time that the very foundations have been lost sight of. The variance of these imitations and counterfeits of true religion are what have produced enmity, strife and bloodshed. In a sense, just like a candle that can illuminate or burn down a house if in the hands of a child or blind person, religion can be misused and mis purposed too.
Compared to religion, science describes how we exist and how chaos leads to existence, but religion touches upon why we exist -- why is it that electrons collide in the way they do or that the laws of nature are fixed in the way they are. Thus, both science and religion offer different accounts of human nature that can be distilled down to the how and why, respectively. However, even if we are to maintain that religion provides the why and is hence a complementary system of knowledge to science, how is its truth revealed? Surely, one cannot experiment nor gather empirical data on religious truth as one can with scientific truths. As Armstrong rightfully states in A Short History of Myth, religious truth can only be revealed if it is put into practice – ritually or ethically and cannot be a merely intellectual hypothesis. As such, maybe religion, and hence faith, is even more powerful than reason as it propels us to act and adorn ourselves with deeds and not words. The enlightenment and postmodernist thought have disparaged religion on account of its overemphasis on faith rather than reason, but even today you hear countless stories about people risking or even sacrificing their lives, for faith, and not so much for reason. If reason is the steed of science, and faith the steed of religion, which has more gravitas? Which one more transformative?
Tying these more humanistic topics of religion and culture to our survey of natural sciences truly illuminates the power of consilience. It seems that only through combining and harmonizing knowledge from both can we near truth, since neither particles colliding nor souls
Transcending alone can tell the full story. If one were to take entropy, for example, and this ever-increasing tendency towards disorder, is religion playing the entropic twostep on a collective scale and minimizing disorder internally/societally? The interplay between entropy and religion is something I would like to explore further. All in all, I would say that religion is and has proven to be necessary for civilization to ground itself. Many could imagine a better world without it, but the fact of the matter is that religion has spread its influence into so many milieus of life that we can hardly make such a claim without brushing over all the more subtle influences religion has had on everything from morality to governance to international relations. The cardinal mistake critics make is that each religion makes a claim to absolute truth that is not brought to bear in a different temporal or spatial setting, but as a Bahai I have a very different understanding of religion. I understand religion to be a system of knowledge that lies prior to all empirical exercise and guides life in a way that affords meaning to an otherwise bleak existence and that fosters unity, whether between friends, citizens or nations if used properly and with adherence to the pure foundations.
[1] Baha’u’llah, Tablets of Baha’u’llah, p. 63.