NIHILISM, LIFE AFTER
DEATH, AND MODERN PHILOSOPHY
What Nihilism and
Nihilist philosophies – including Rationalism, Humanism, Agnosticism,
Existentialism, etc., Really Say About Your Future
Do you believe that life does end, or may end, at death? Everyone
who believes that death may be the end should read the following essay from
cover to cover. It represents a serious attempt to identify what may be a
critical flaw in the foundation of many modern philosophies. It will help those
who study Nihilism, Rationalism, Humanism, Agnosticism, and Existentialism,
recognize questions that are probably already on their minds. It will address
essential questions that you need to seek answers for. We will suggest that,
whether they realize and admit it or not, anyone who does not believe in an
"afterlife", be they Rationalists, Humanists, Agnostics, or
otherwise, is necessarily a Nihilist.
Who are
nihilists? What is nihilism? Encarta defines nihilism (from Latin nihil, "nothing") as a "designation applied to
various radical philosophies, usually by their opponents, the implication being
that adherents of these philosophies reject all positive values and believe in
nothing." (Encarta, Copyright (c) 1994 Microsoft Corporation) Webster's
Dictionary defines nihilism as - "(1) (a) a viewpoint that traditional
values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
(b) a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of
moral truths (2) a doctrine or belief that conditions in the social
organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake
independent of any constructive program or possibility..." ((c) 1997 by
Merriam-Webster, Incorporated).
We will be
discussing the idea that true Nihilists, those who accept Nihilism,
"believe in nothing". We will suggest that any use of the word
Nihilism that includes active destruction of anything is an unjustified
extension of the concepts underlying nihilism. We will suggest that there are
no logical grounds for what is often called "positive" nihilism,
which is sometimes associated with Humanism and Rationalism. In doing so we
will be questioning the very foundation of the works of modern philosophers who
argue that one may find or create "value" in a world without a life
after death, a Nihilistic, Rationalistic, Humanistic, world.
In response
to what appears to be a strong, intuitive, predisposition of readers to dismiss
the conclusions of this essay as simply wrong, it has grown from a few pages to
a lengthy, sometimes difficult to read, somewhat rambling, occasionally boring,
text. For those who want a shorter introduction to our thoughts on nihilism, please read the summary of this essay by clicking here.
Most readers will want to read the summary before proceeding with the detailed
analysis. Those who choose to continue with this version may also find the
summary interesting, as it includes some additional materials (the summary is
from a chapter in a book we publish, which we provide links to at the end of
this essay). Also, please note that if you have already read the summary you
will recognize that this full version includes most of the summary text. As you
read this essay please do not skip over that text as it is easier to understand
this version when it is carefully read from beginning to end.
Support for internet
publication of this essay is provided by:
After you
understand what we are saying, even if you don't agree with us (we may be
wrong), we believe you will discover profound questions that you will want to
seek answers for. When you have finished reading the entire text we hope that
you will recognize why every person who has doubts about the existence of a
life after death needs to review their beliefs. We also hope that you will find
that it was worth the effort required to understand how we reached our
conclusions about this difficult topic.
First, let
me state emphatically that I believe life has positive meaning. I am not a
nihilist, and I do not believe that the conclusions of nihilism are correct. I
am a theist who believes in a non-physical soul, and who does not in fact
believe that the logical consequences of the death of a purely physical being
are the actual consequences we face on our death. This essay is primarily
philosophic and scientific in nature, however near the end of the text you will
be invited to read other essays that explore my theist beliefs and my belief in
a life after death. We will also mention some alternative physical theories
that I do not accept, yet that I have not been able to completely rule out as possibilities.
So why would
I want to discuss something that I do not believe in? There are several
critical reasons. Nihilism is far from the isolated, oddball, radical
philosophy many consider it to be. I would suggest that nihilism is the logical
"conclusion" of most modern humanistic philosophies. More
importantly, I believe that nihilistic death is accepted, though not
recognized, as the universal destination of humankind by all who do not believe
in a life after death. I would suggest that if we embrace a modern secular philosophy, or no philosophy/religion at all, we must
embrace nihilism. We will assert that if you believe that your existence may
end at physical death, you are accepting the idea that "nothing" may
follow death, and you are by definition accepting the possibility that
"nihilism" is correct. Once we realize that the acceptance of
nihilism is a necessary consequence of our humanistic beliefs, or non-beliefs,
we will be able to decide for ourselves if what we currently believe to be
true, is what we really want to believe is true. Until we understand the nature
of "nothing", we may well have difficulty appreciating
"anything".
Most people
who believe that humans are physical beings whose
consciousness is a product of, and constrained by, the physical laws of
the universe, exhibit a conscious or subconscious determination to avoid the
logical conclusions that follow from such a belief. Most human beings find it
difficult to think about the possibility that their existence may end at death,
an event they feel somehow protected from by the fact that it lies in the
"future". Almost all humans refuse to visualize, let alone accept,
the logical consequences that may follow death without life after death. We
will suggest that if we cease to exist at our death the logical conclusion is
that the void that follows death "consumes" and
"annihilates" not just our future, but our entire lives, past,
present, and future. It is extremely difficult, perhaps impossible, for human
beings to comprehend a void that replaces all that is, a true
"nothing". The very nature of human existence cries out against a
conclusion that life itself may be "meaningless" (please keep in mind
that I believe life does have meaning). I would ask that those who believe that
when a physical being ceases to exist the entire being ceases to exist, break through the incredible barriers in the human
mind that protect us from "self-destructive" thoughts, and explore
with me the probable consequences of such a belief.
Warning! There is a risk that when someone
who is "depressed" considers the consequences of their own death, he
or she may misunderstand the possibilities, and may become dangerously
depressed. In fact the opposite should be true! Those who understand death
should conclude both that there is nothing at all to fear from a death in which
they would cease to exist, and that there is abundant hope in the alternatives
which may exist. We are not suggesting in this essay that there is no
"reason to live", in fact we are saying the
opposite. If you are distressed by what you read, you should carefully
reconsider what is being said, and understand that there is no reason
whatsoever to be disturbed by the general conclusions. Toward the end of the
essay we will suggest other readings that discuss reasons for living. We have
abundant hope that if you search for meaning and value in your life you will
find it. If you are still "depressed" by the possibility of a
nihilistic death, you are misunderstanding what is being said. Anyone who is, or
becomes, seriously depressed, should seek professional help immediately! [If
you find yourself distressed or depressed by our conclusions please read the
note at the end of this essay.]
Before we
continue, there are some basic assumptions we need to make. First we need to
assume that reality is real. Next we need to assume that our physical lives
exist, in some manner, from what we call physical birth to what we call
physical death. Then we need to assume that those who believe that human
consciousness is a product of the human brain would agree that each
individual's physical brain/mind will eventually die and cease to exist.
Furthermore we assume that they would agree that when an individual's physical
brain dies the "physical consciousness" of that individual ceases to
exist. We also assume that those who believe that human consciousness is a
product of the physical brain, those who believe that there is no such thing as
a non-physical consciousness, would agree that from the point in
"time" when physical death occurs "forward" an individual
ceases to exist. This is a logical conclusion from the proposition that
consciousness is a product of physical neurological activity. I really cannot
see an alternative rational conclusion for those who believe that humans are
constrained by their physical nature.
Please note
that for "time" we adopt the common temporal measure that is derived
in special relativity from physical state evolution, the "time" that
we see measured by the hands of our analog watches. When we discuss technical
issues in the second half of this essay, we will see that this "time"
is not present in general relativity, and that a temporal variable is probably
not a fundamental part of the universe. When we refer to "time" we
are using a popular convention for describing the causal order of sequential
events, however we believe that the underlying reality is much more complex. We
refer to clocks and the time they measure because they are familiar and
comfortable, that does not mean that we accept the general belief that what
they measure has an independent reality.
You should keep in mind that when we say that event A occurs at
Thus a
nihilist, humanist, rationalist, existentialist, etc., (adherents of what I
will collectively call "humanistic" philosophies), and anyone else
who does not believe in a "life" after death, should accept as a part
of their beliefs the conclusion that at physical death an individual ceases to
exist. It is essential to understand that even when modern humanistic
philosophies find "value" in life, they universally conclude that
human existence either ends at death, or that any continuation of life after
death is not relevant to human existence (i.e.- atoms
that constituted a physical human being may continue to exist as part of
another object, but the conscious being no longer exists). Some scientists
distinguish between the brain, which is a physical organ, and the mind, which
includes the abstract products of brain activity. For our purpose brain and mind
can be used interchangeably. Scientists who believe that all life ends at death
would agree that when the brain dies, the mind dies, and the individual ceases
to exist. You need to realize that human beings are essentially viewed by
nihilists, humanists, rationalists, existentialists, etc., as top dogs on the
evolutionary ladder. Therefore, many scientists believe that human existence
depends on consciousness which is a product of the brain or mind, and they
conclude that individual human existence ends at the moment of physical death.
Just as a dog dies and ceases to exist, a human dies and ceases to exist.
If you do
not continue to exist in some form after death, what good are all the
experiences, decisions, triumphs, defeats, all the moments of your life? Even
though I cannot objectively prove that it is true, if you do not survive the
grave, if you return to the state of being that preceded your birth, then I
would suggest to you that nothing in fact does matter. While over the ages men
and women have sought to perpetuate themselves through their children, their
place in history, their role in society, and through intricate philosophical
webs of existentialism and other essays on physical man's importance, the fact
of physical death remains. If each generation's death means the end of those
individuals, then we are all faced with an endless cycle of creation and
destruction, the meaning of which, if any, is beyond comprehension.
If there is
anything in life we can count on occurring without fail, it is physical death.
The successful bank president, the champion athlete, the housewife, the famous,
the unknown, every human being, you, I, die. While all acknowledge the
certainty of their eventual demise, few think about death until they are faced
with it. The simple fact of death is not news to anyone, yet the reality of its
impending occurrence is ignored by virtually every living person. The very
nature of human life denies death and shrouds it in the cloak of future events,
events that are not yet real and need not be dealt with in the present. Living
is too important and time consuming to be concerned with mortality. The fact
that you are moving steadily toward your death is most likely, and literally,
to be the last thing on your mind!
Observing
the inevitable death of every creature that inhabits the earth, we may have a
recurrent feeling that death is the end. On the other hand, it is virtually
inconceivable to us that all we are, all we have been, all we will be, will be
rendered void in that moment of death. It goes against human nature to
visualize the effective destruction of our past, present, and future that may
accompany death without existence beyond death. Yet if each human being does
cease to exist, then I would assert that all human beings are, or in the case
of generations yet unborn will be, waiting their turn to cease existing. If
each and every human being ceases to be, then the feeling of continuity that
pervades the human race is false.
Most of us
think of our ancestors as a link to the past, and our children as a link to the
future, yet if we do not survive the grave each generation dies an isolated
death, which mocks any assertion that humankind has a continuing existence
apart from its individual members. If each person's death results in their no
longer existing, then no manner of historical recording, social progression, or
other remembrance in the minds of those whose time to die is yet to come, can
in any way affect, preserve, or make any difference whatever to those who no
longer are. No one will survive to remember. If each of us ceases to be, then
your life has no meaning and your choices make no difference.
We will
consider what we just said in some detail, first by working toward a deeper
comprehension of the general ideas, and then by asking what science tells us
about all this? If each person's consciousness exists only during their
physical lives on earth, and if their physical lives proceed from birth to
death, then the consequences of that person's death necessarily follows their
death. Who can be affected by that death? Certainly those who survive may be
affected, but here is the "problem", the death cannot be of any
consequence to the human being who no longer exists! The moment before the
death of a human being perhaps it can be said that the impending death affects
that being, but the very moment after the person dies, he or she is no longer
around to be affected! Admittedly this conclusion is very hard to accept, and
many will dismiss it without thought, but it is a logical result of no longer
existing (we will discuss a bit later the very controversial and complex
science behind this conclusion).
Let us
assume, for example, that a comet collides with the Earth at some time in the
future before humans have colonized space. Assume further that all life on
Earth is annihilated by the collision. It is very hard to accept, but if there
is no continuation of life after death the most logical, I believe the only logical, conclusion is that the complete annihilation of
humankind is of absolutely no consequence to humankind! While the words may
sound bizarre and counter intuitive, in fact they are not. The moment after the
total destruction of humankind it can be said with certainty that the
destruction of humankind had no affect whatsoever on humankind, simply because
humankind no longer exists to be affected.
If you
accept that time has direction (or at least that events follow a causal,
sequential, chain), then cause and effect, action and consequence, apparently
occur in a fixed order, the former always "preceding" the latter.
Keeping that in mind, the idea that after total destruction of humankind there
would be no-one left to be affected should not seem as bizarre. Assuming local
time asymmetry (actually any causal evolution works the same), one action will
always precede another action. If the action that is called the death of a
being is equivalent to the physical annihilation of that being, the consequence
of that action / annihilation, necessarily follows in time the action /
annihilation. If there is a causal sequence to events, then the action cannot
be of any consequence to a being who no longer exists.
Again, the moment before the destruction of humankind perhaps it could be said
that the impending destruction affects humankind (perhaps not - see below), but
the very moment after humankind is destroyed there is absolutely no humankind
to be affected. Assume that the comet annihilates humankind at 12:00 noon, the
consequence of that destruction occurs at 12:00 noon PLUS a moment in time, and
at 12:00 noon plus the moment in time there is no humankind left to be
affected! Indeed, there is no humankind around that is conscious of the fact
that the comet struck the earth!
The same
logic applies to the history of individuals not visited by a catastrophic
event. If you believe that each human is an individual entity, which seems to
follow rather easily from the idea that humans are physical beings only, then
(if there is no life after death) at the time of their death each individual
experiences the identical individual annihilation that all humankind would
experience together if the earth and its inhabitants were simultaneously
"destroyed". If a human being dies at
Again,
"If an individual named Bill dies at
Let's set
the example in a larger time frame. Let us say Bill died at
The logic
goes even further. If you do not believe that human consciousness continues to
exist after physical death, then death not only annihilates each individual's
present and future, but also annihilates their past. Most people would agree that
for an object to have a present and a future the object must exist. Yet many
would make the distinction that while an object cannot have a present and a
future if it does not exist, it somehow can have a past. It is clear that the
present and future of an object are bound to the existence of the object, but
so to is the object's past. Much of the problem lies
in the popular usage of the words past, present, and future both to describe
that which is part of an object (a "past" that belongs to the object much
as a physical mind belongs to a living individual), and to describe the
existence of the object from a third party's view (a past which is a
chronological description of the object over the time it existed).
It is a
misconception to equate the fact that there is a "history" of all
beings or objects that is set in the "past", with the statement that
a being or object that no longer exists has a "past". The first idea
simply states that the being or object existed over a finite period that is
apparent to those who currently exist. The extension of the concept of such a
history to the idea that somehow the object or being that no longer exists
still possesses a "past" confuses the distinction these two words can
convey. Once an object or being no longer exists it obviously has no present or
future, similarly the object has no past. While it may be difficult to accept,
a mountain that no longer exists has no past, present, or future for the simple
reason that there is no such mountain. There is a current history of a mountain
that once existed, but there is no mountain we can point to and describe the
"past" of. This is far more than semantics. A person who lived a
thousand years ago had a historic life that those who are alive can be
conscious of, but the person no longer has a past which is their past and which
they can be conscious of.
There is a
"history" of every individual's life that is separate from that life,
and there is a "past" that is a part of an individual's life that
physically affects that particular life, that alters events on what the
cosmologist calls the individual's "world-line" (later in our
discussion we will explain why we believe that the general interpretation of
world-lines as preserving all the events in our lives is wrong). A newspaper
account that tells of an individual having their foot broken in a car accident
may be based on memories of a reporter who saw the accident, but it is not the
same as the physical injury that the individual actually suffered. For the
individual who broke his or her foot, the injury was more than a news report of
what happened to someone else, it was a physical event in their physical past.
The distinction is that when that individual no longer exists they do not
simply lose the recorded history of the injury, as would be the case if the
newspaper article was destroyed, but they also lose the event in a
"past" that is their past, a past that they can be aware of, a past
that altered their existence while they were alive. Indeed, the event was part
of his or her physical past while they were alive, yet from the moment he or
she died and ceased to exist, he or she no longer has a physical past. The
person who broke their foot no longer exists. The event is no longer part of
the past of the individual who no longer exists!
The English
language lacks the words that would make it easy to convey the difference
between a history set in the past that is the sum of all lifetimes, and a past
that is unique to and dependent on the existence of an individual life. Perhaps
humankind has avoided the initially discomforting possibility of "finite
pasts" by not distinguishing them from the infinite,
perhaps the majority simply do not accept the possibility of the perpetual
annihilation of human beings.
If we are physical
creatures only, when the physical no longer exists we no longer exist, period.
The resulting void is just that, a complete and total void. There is nothing to
fear, for there will be no one to experience anything negative. There is
nothing to look forward to, for there will be no one to experience anything
positive.
Admittedly,
what we have talked about is very difficult to understand. It is not intuitive.
It is not "comfortable". It is easy to dismiss by resort to seemingly
logical arguments. It is relatively easy to say that Bill had a past simply
because he lived in the past, simply because he altered the universe forever.
We have a strong urge to declare that Bill's past "lives" on because
his life benefited "forever" both the world he lived in and
humankind! But that easy conclusion really begs the question how Bill can have
a past that is his past if Bill no longer exists? If there is no life after
death, there appears to be an underlying truth to the idea that physical death
annihilates an individual's physical past. If so, it would seem to undermine
the foundation of all philosophies that do not believe in a life after death.
I would
imagine that most readers who do not believe in a life after death will indeed
find a way to dismiss the conclusions of this essay. Since these ideas go to
the very heart of humanistic philosophies, those who are not willing to accept
the conclusions on their face should take the time to try to build a logically
solid answer to the question how can Bill have a past that belongs to Bill if
Bill no longer exists? I do not believe it can be done.
Once again,
if Bill dies at
Even if
there is no life after death, it is still clear that the life Bill led
"forever" altered the universe in which he lived. Perhaps a beautiful
lake exists because Bill obtained funding for it. Perhaps lung cancer no longer
kills people because Bill found the cure. These are all things that are part of
the past of the universe, and while he was living, they were a part of Bill's
past. Before Bill died perhaps he had fond memories of his accomplishments.
Indeed we will assume that Bill could recall most of the events, both positive
and negative, that made up his life, that made up his
past. While he was alive his son Tom would spend hours listening to Bill tell
about his past. Yet after Bill's physical death, Tom could search and search
the physical universe and he would not find Bill. The beautiful lake or the
cure for cancer would still exist, they would still be a part of the history of
the universe, but they would no longer be part of the past that belonged to Bill, that Bill could think and talk about. Tom could not
find Bill and ask him to tell about his past. Bill would not exist. Bill would
no longer have a past that belonged to Bill.
After the
death of Bill, Bill cannot pick a point on the finite world-line of his life
and say that he, the individual who no longer exists, had a
"meaningful" life at that point in time. Of course, someone who is
alive can point to Bill's life and say it was "meaningful". Meaningful to whom? Certainly not to Bill,
the person who no longer exists. Meaningful to the
current generation, perhaps. But is that not the same as saying that a
past life will (at most) be meaningful to the current generation for a finite
period of time, and then will no longer be meaningful to them, for they too
will no longer exist? Does this not result in an endless procession of finite
lives, each of which ceases to exist and takes with it past, present, and
future? Is this not a discontinuity that renders each lifetime a discrete,
unique, entity that is bound to its own world-line?
As we have
said, many who do not believe in a life after death argue that the lives of
those who no longer exist had "meaning" and "value" because
they contributed to the evolutionary cycle, they improved the existence of
humankind, they protected the environment, they contributed to art and science
and literature, etc. Essentially they argue that the universe benefited from
the positive lives of those individuals who no longer exist. Let us return to
this idea and look at what it would require to be true. No matter how I
rephrase the concepts, it seems that to be true it necessarily requires that we
assign the quality of consciousness to something in the universe other than
living creatures. It seems to require an anthropomorphic view of the physical
universe itself.
If we say
that Bill's life benefited humankind, then we are assigning to the entire class
of individuals called humans the anthropomorphic quality of being
"benefited", a quality that requires the assignment of consciousness
to "humankind" as opposed to individual "humans". If we say
that Bill's life benefited the environment, then we are assigning to the
"environment" the anthropomorphic quality of being
"benefited". If we say that Bill's life contributed to science or art
or literature, then we are assigning to science and art and literature the
anthropomorphic quality of receiving a "contribution". It seems that
we are trying to impart on that which admittedly survives death, the
environment or science or humankind, a collective consciousness, a life after
death for inanimate objects and abstract concepts. In doing
so we vicariously assume a continuation of our own existence through the
objects and concepts that survive. I cannot see how one can say that
consciousness is the product of living minds and that individual
"consciousness" ends at death, and at the same time say that
individual accomplishments somehow survive in a universal consciousness that is
the product of inanimate physical objects and/or concepts?
It would
seem to be an impossible task to argue that the lives of those who no longer
exist were and are, in any truly meaningful way, of "benefit" to
inanimate objects like the environment, or to non-conscious elements such as
the evolutionary genetic pool, or to argue that they contributed to abstract
concepts such as art and science and "humankind" taken as a whole. It
seems less difficult to accept a non-physical life after death, which we are
somehow spatially separated from, than it is to construct an anthropomorphic
existence within the physical universe that somehow survives death.
"Meaning"
and "value" and all other similar concepts must have some living
entity associated with them to make any "sense". It is clear that a
lifetime of experiences can have "meaning" and "value" to
or for a human being. Perhaps a lifetime of experiences can have meaning to and
for other living creatures. However, a lifetime of events cannot have meaning
and value for inanimate objects. When a rock is carved into a work of art, the
final product can have meaning and value to the artist and to other living
beings, but the transformation cannot have meaning and value, in any realistic
sense of those words, to or for the rock. If we were to assert that humans do
not survive death but that a rock has a timeless self-awareness, we would be
attributing the characteristics of a soul to the rock, much as some religions
do to carved idols. Some people and mystical religions claim that a wide range
of inanimate objects possess a permanent "consciousness". While I
cannot prove they are wrong, I strongly believe that physical (as opposed to
non-physical) consciousness exists only in biologic creatures and only for so
long as they exist as living entities. It seems intuitively wrong to say that
human and other living consciousness ends at death, but that meaning and value
somehow survive in inanimate objects.
For the word
"benefit", or words conveying similar concepts, to
have any realistic meaning we must ask "who" receives the
benefit, not "what" receives the benefit. A living human being can
benefit from a vaccine developed by a scientist who has already died, however the benefit to that individual human ends on
the death of that human. "Humankind" cannot benefit from the vaccine
unless we assign the living trait of consciousness to "humankind" as
a whole. It is admittedly difficult to understand that "humankind" is
an abstract classification, and that it is not a physical entity that survives
death. We have an intuitive feeling that as an individual human being we are
part of a continuous existence known as "humankind", an existence
that somehow survives death. Perhaps this feeling is rooted in an instinctive
desire for preservation of the species. Regardless what causes us to feel that
"humankind" is itself a continuous existence, humankind is no more
than a collective description of all the discontinuous, finite lives of
individual humans. The fact that we are members of
"humankind" does not change the fact that if there is no life after
death, each of us lives an individual finite life, and on our death each of us
ceases to exist. "Humankind" cannot receive the benefit of anything,
only the human beings who make up "humankind" can do that, and if
there is no life after death, the benefit to each of those human beings ends on
the date of their death.
In their
arguments for humanism, existentialism, etc., philosophers have spent lifetimes
trying to construct a difference between the apparent continuity of humankind,
and the periodic death of individual humans. Many suggest that so long as
humankind continues to exist, humankind, and/or individual humans, by having
been a part of humankind, somehow inherit a form of immortality. I find these
efforts to be illogical attempts by humans to be more than doomed animals. If
each individual's consciousness ceases to exist when they die, and if each
individual eventually dies, then no individual consciousness will survive, and
the concept of a collective human "consciousness" known as
"humankind" is a fantasy.
I am convinced
that those who reject the possibility of a non-physical life after death, who
accept death as the end, and who find some humanistic reason to view life as
"worthwhile", are the ones who have created irrational myths and
illogical belief systems. Merriam-Webster's primary definition of fantasy is
"to conceive in the mind". If our consciousness is a product of our
mind, and if our mind ceases to exist on our death, we live a finite life that
is by definition a "fantasy".
The point is
that if we do not continue to exist after physical death, every individual in
each generation is simply waiting in line to cease existing. If there is no
life after death, the existence they live, your finite life and my finite life,
is the true fantasy. It appears at birth, lasts a fixed period of time, and
then disappears completely. A life may leave traces of its existence and a
history of the changes it made in an essentially inanimate universe, but the
life no longer exists. The lives that were Bill and Joan and Sally and Sam no
longer exist, they were no more than products of each person's mind. Unless we
survive the grave, as each mind ceases to exist, the life it lives that it
believes is more than mere existence, ceases to exist.
"Humanistic"
philosophers seem to acknowledge the physical nature of consciousness and the
end of consciousness at death. Yet almost all modern philosophers tell us that
finite life can have meaning and value. The problem lies in the failure to
accept the rational and logical consequences to each human being if individual
consciousness ceases to exist on the physical death of the mind and body.
Philosophers often speak of the void that would follow such a death as the
abyss, the unknown, the approaching void, etc. All of these suggest that we are
on a journey to a "place" which lies at the end of our physical
lifetimes. If on our death we cease to exist, this idea that we are traveling
to our ultimate destiny is false. What the philosophers are doing is giving
substance to nothing. We are not traveling to an abyss, the void, or the
unknown, for these words suggest that we are moving toward something. If on our
death we cease to exist then "nothing" totally consumes us. I
recognize the seeming absurdity of the language, yet it suggests the underlying
truth.
This is the
heart of the problem, we cannot in any way whatsoever understand or visualize
"nothing". The moment we attempt to comprehend or visualize
"nothing", the comprehension or visualization interjects something
into "nothing", preventing us from reaching our goal. When we define "nothing" we give it the quality of being
definable, a quality that can only be given to that which is more than
"nothing". Nothing might be thought of as the total absence of
physical reality, yet even this assigns a definition to the indefinable. The
moment we think about "nothing" we make it an object that can be
thought about, we make it an object that can only be more than
"nothing".
The only way
we can answer the question "what is nothing?" is to answer it by not
asking it, something we cannot do, for if we ask the question we destroy the
answer. The answer to the question "what is nothing?" is not what we
commonly call "nothing", it is an absolute "nothing" that
is destroyed by anything we think, say, or do about it. The only way to
visualize "nothing" is to be consumed by "nothing", however
this results in "nothing" being left to visualize
"nothing". Most fail to recognize the fact that "something"
simply cannot comprehend "nothing".
If I say
that there is "nothing" in a room, I am using a definition of
"nothing" that has "nothing" to do with what we are talking
about. Human language is a product of human limitations, there simply is no
true definition of "nothing". The impossible to comprehend
"nothing" that denotes no space, is incorporated by human beings into
the more common definition of a "nothing" that denotes empty space.
In other words, when we say that there is "nothing" in a
"room" we do not mean that the inside of the room does not exist, yet
human intuition gives us the feeling that the empty space defined by the walls
is what "nothing" is. The empty space defined by the walls is not
"nothing", it is "something" that
we can define and measure and talk about. Empty space has characteristics, it requires
time to traverse, it can be filled with something, etc. True
"nothing" cannot be quantified or measured or discussed, it does not
exist in the room or outside the room or anywhere else. True
"nothing" cannot be traversed, it cannot be filled. True "nothing"
does not exist "any where" or "any time". Perhaps with a
great deal of time and effort you can approach an understanding of what it
means not to be able to comprehend "nothing". Unless and until you
reach this understanding you will find it virtually impossible to understand
and accept that "nothing" might consume your past, present, and
future.
This
misunderstanding of true "nothing" has lead philosophers to picture
journeys toward nothing, rather than entire lifetimes ultimately consumed by
nothing. They construct ways of giving value and meaning to the journey (even
if meaning is just the playing out of the absurd), viewing death as the end
point of a somehow meaningful life. They assert that it is not the endpoint, or
even the life, that has value, it is the
"journey". Somehow struggle against oppression becomes noble, strength over weakness becomes desirable, even if the
quest must someday end. Since the void would simply be the destination of all
lifetimes, these writers fail to recognize that the "nothing" that
follows such a life consumes the entire life. If an individual ceases to exist
on their death, then the "nothing" that consumes their consciousness
at death consumes their entire lifetime, rendering both struggle and strength
over weakness meaningless. The "nothing" that consumes their
consciousness at death consumes their past, present, and future, period. This
is incredibly hard to grasp, yet no one has shown me a persuasive alternative
that allows me to avoid this conclusion and its consequences.
I am
particularly disturbed and dismayed by philosophers who seek to overcome an
ultimate void through exercise of the human intellect, by gaining power, by
hatred and violence, by destruction as a prelude to rebuilding, by the
liberation of inhibitions, by what is called positive or active nihilism, etc.
These attempts, no matter what you have been told, are illogical and
irrational. I would suggest that rather than philosophical arguments, they are
no more than linguistic mazes. They all rest on the false assumption that the
abyss, the void, is a point in the lifetime of an individual (the endpoint of
their world-line) that is distinct and isolated from the rest of their
lifetime. "Nothing" is not part of a life,
rather it is the ultimate fate of the entire life if there is no life after
death. The failure to recognize this fact has lead to false hopes based on the
impossible premise that even if an individual ceases to exist on their death,
the act of living can somehow give meaning to the individual's existence.
Theists seek
to find something beyond nothing. Philosophers who believe that consciousness
ends at death seek to create something out of nothing! It is far more logical
and rational to postulate an existence beyond human cognition, than it is to
accept philosophic alchemy that purports to overcome meaningless death by
creating or finding value in nothing. Except for the fact that our humanity
blinds us to the possibility of a meaningless physical existence, I cannot see
why generations of philosophers have accepted that it is rational and logical
to construct what purport to be periods of infinite meaning and value on what
they agree are finite world-lines. If we live in an ultimately inanimate
universe where consciousness ends at death, no one can, with intellectual
honesty, profess confidence that our finite lives have meaning and value.
What strikes
me as an even more significant consequence of the argument that humans are
physical beings that cannot exist beyond the limits of physical existence, is the question why should such a being
"care" whether or not it exists for a finite period of time? Since
the being believes it will inevitably cease to exist, and that once it ceases
to exist it will have no past, present, or future because it no longer will be
a conscious (or otherwise) being, what possible consequence can "now"
have to the being? The logical answer is none.
An amazing
conclusion from this logic is that if death brings with it a total void,
humankind not only has no reason to fear death, but also has no reason to avoid
death (please remember that I believe human beings exist beyond death and that
life does have meaning, also note that we will discuss other physical theories
on which one might reach other conclusions). The distinction between having no
reason to fear death, and no reason to avoid death, is profound and often
missed. If you do not believe that there is life after death, it is one thing
to realize that you should not fear death, it is entirely another thing to
realize that you have no reason to feel anything at all about death (or for
that matter anything at all about life). If a nihilistic death brings with it
the annihilation of an individual, that individual no longer exists, and the
logical conclusion is that death is neither positive,
negative, or otherwise to the individual.
One may say
that if those who believe there is no life after death are right, it makes no
difference whether a human being was a doctor or a thief. One may not continue
and say that since it makes no difference if you are a doctor or a thief, it is
somehow better for humankind if an individual was a doctor, for if death is the
end it truly makes no difference at all what happens in life. This ultimate
void, the same void that preceded our birth, would in a single moment consume
each individual's past, present, and future. No matter what philosophers may
tell us, such a fate, while it would offer no hope for a present or future,
would leave nothing to be feared.
If death
annihilates the individual consciousness, there is no reason whatsoever to
embrace cryogenics, cloning, strong artificial intelligence, or any other means
of extending physical life. Since an individual's death would carry with it no
possible consequence to that individual, there is no logical reason whatsoever
for the living individual to avoid the "consequences" of death
(again, please remember that I believe that we continue to exist after death,
and that we must live positive lives if we are to avoid very real negative
consequences in life and after death). It is pure and simple logic to deduce
that if an individual no longer exists after death (which I absolutely do not
believe is true), that individual has no logical reason to expend any effort to
avoid death. I admit that this logic seems counter intuitive, and even wrong,
but if one is willing to dissociate one's self from the incredible biologic
urge for self-preservation, both of the individual and the species, and is
willing to apply purely objective reasoning, the logical conclusion, while
discomforting, is perhaps inevitable (there is at least one logical loophole
that might give permanent meaning and value to a finite physical life, the idea
of relativistic time, which we will discuss below).
I am
frequently told by those who champion humanistic philosophies that they are not
"nihilists", that they believe in positive
values and reject the argument that life is meaningless. They are missing the
point. Humanism, rationalism, positive nihilism, etc., all assert that there is
value and meaning in life. Yet humanism, rationalism, positive nihilism, etc.,
also assert that there is no life after death and that consciousness ends at
death. This is a contradiction that cannot be reconciled. We have demonstrated
that it is rational and logical to conclude that if consciousness ends at
death, then death without life after death annihilates each individual's past,
present, and future. Therefore I would argue (we will discuss the scientific
complications below) that a humanist, rationalist, positive nihilist, any
person who asserts that life ends at death, must accept the nihilistic
conclusion that "nothing" will eventually consume their life,
annihilating their past, present, and future.
It does not
matter whether or not a humanist believes they are a "nihilist".
Those who argue for humanistic philosophies cannot rationally and logically
assert that there is value and meaning in a life they agree will eventually
disappear. I am not saying that humanistic philosophers do not assert that life
has positive value and meaning even without a life after death, what I am
saying is that their assertions are based on the false premise that the life of
an individual who ceases to exist at death can somehow have value and meaning
for the individual who no longer exists (or for future generations whose time
to cease existing has not yet arrived). It is not logical or rational to assert
that an individual's life has meaning and value to an individual, or any other
individuals, unless those individuals "exist". Humanistic
philosophies that deny the existence of life after death offer no escape from
the "nothing" that would consume all value and meaning.
At the
opposite end of the scale from humanists are "absurdists"
who believe that life is absurd, without meaning and value. They argue that on
our death we are consumed by nothing, and therefore life is without meaning and
value, yet they also assert that life itself is "absurd". If there is
no life after death, the nothing that consumes both humanists and absurdists not only prevents their lives from being
meaningful, but also prevents their lives from being absurd.
There are
very few true nihilists, perhaps there are none. Even nihilists, who say that
they accept the consequences we have discussed, usually find a way to interject
value into existence while still claiming to be nihilists. The very fact that
they explain to you that they are nihilists asserts that there is value in
telling you they are nihilists. It is impossible to practice pure nihilism, yet
that does not prove that nihilism is not "correct", nor does it prove
that it is. The search for meaning and direction are part of being human,
nihilists simply cannot fully escape that heritage.
An important
comment, nihilism cannot be used, as it often is, as an excuse to do what you
want to do. The suggestion that if nothing matters one would somehow be free to
do what they want to, free to be a concert pianist, an alcoholic, a doctor, a
thief, etc., is simply wrong. While nihilism does not
support positive accomplishments in life, neither does it make allowance for
the negative aspects of life. Nihilism is a void that has nothing to say
whatsoever about what should be done or what should not be done. It cannot be
used as an excuse to do anything, for it says that just as no argument can be
made against anything, no argument can be made for anything.
"Nothing" does not "enslave" us. "Nothing" does
not "liberate" us. "Nothing" does not prevent us from doing
anything. "Nothing" does not free us to do anything.
"Nothing" is "nothing", period.
Similarly,
nihilism can never lead to suicide, for nihilism tells us that nothing that
happens in our lives, no matter how "badly" we may feel about it at
the time, has any "real" consequence at all. It tells us that what we
perceive to be the very worst events in our lives are no better, or worse, than
any other events. There is no reason to commit suicide, for the person who
lives to his or her natural death is no worse off, or better off, than the
person who terminates their life.
Furthermore,
while it appears to be impossible to scientifically prove that life has value,
it is equally impossible to objectively prove that life has no value. No matter
what the nihilist may believe to be true at any particular time in their life,
the possibility always exists that he or she may eventually find value and
meaning in their life beyond nihilism. Since for the nihilist life experiences
are ultimately neither bad nor good, there can be no reason whatsoever to
terminate the opportunity to find value outside nihilism, there can be
absolutely no reason to commit suicide. Those who do not believe that there is
life after death have no reason to end their life, because the same "nothing"
awaits them no matter when they die. Those who do not believe that there is
life after death have every reason to live. It is absolutely clear that,
whether they believe they will or not, nihilists may eventually find something
beyond "nothing" that gives meaning to their life. It is also
absolutely clear, that those who do not believe that there is life after death, may simply be wrong.
Since our emotions often cloud our ability
to find logical answers, it is very important for those who are depressed to
take the necessary time to understand that belief in nihilistic philosophies
cannot in any way whatsoever lead to suicide. I am absolutely convinced that
nihilism totally rejects suicide as an option for any human being. If there is
no life after death, there is absolutely no reason to terminate our own
physical life at any time during our natural physical life. If there is no life
after death, each of us will experience the same ultimate fate whether we die
at age 20 or 30 or 40 or live until the date of our natural death. If nihilism
is correct there simply cannot be any logical preference for termination of
life on any date before the date of our natural death. Therefore, the
possibility that nihilism is not correct, no matter how small that possibility
may seem to be, renders it totally logical to continue our physical existence
to the date of our natural death. If nihilism is correct, living to the date of
our natural death will make absolutely no difference in our life, so we have
lost nothing by not committing suicide. If nihilism is not correct, we may lose
everything by committing suicide. Since nihilism may be wrong, there can be no
reason to terminate our life, risk the negative consequences, and abandon the
possible positive consequences of living out our natural life. There is
absolutely no logical reason to reject the possibility that nihilism may be
false. There is absolutely no justification or reason whatsoever to commit
suicide. [If you find yourself distressed or depressed by our conclusions
please read the note at the end of this essay.]
Beyond the
human desire for meaning in life, I would suggest that nihilism itself
"requires" the search for alternatives to nihilism. Those who believe
that the void is "approaching" are, by the very nature of their
humanity, required to search for something to believe in other than the void.
At first this statement seems rather odd, but on careful reflection you should
understand why all humans who understand that their philosophy leads them into
the void, must search for that which may lead
elsewhere. Perhaps this is the most important conclusion we can reach about
nihilism.
There is no
reason to believe that life ends at death, no reason to be a
"nihilist". If nihilism is correct, it makes no difference whatsoever
if we believe it is correct, or not. If we believe nihilism is correct, and it
is correct, that does not alter the void that would follow death. If we believe
nihilism is not correct, and it is correct, that does not alter the void that
would follow death. If we do not believe anything at all about nihilism, and it
is correct, that does not alter the void that would follow death.
Yet if
nihilism is not correct, belief and/or faith in that which offers a reason for
living may well be essential to our existence. If we recognize that the
humanistic belief that there is no life after death leads to the nihilistic
conclusion that the "void" will consume past, present, and future,
then to escape the quicksand of nihilistic time we must search for alternatives
that provide a reason for living. Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever not
to search for an alternative to nihilism, humanism, rationalism, agnosticism,
etc., to explore the possibility of life after death, to search for a reason
for living.
Does
anything we have said lead to the conclusion that we cease to exist on our
death? I am thoroughly convinced that there is nothing in science, logic, or
otherwise that leads to an objective conclusion that we cease to exist on our
death. I am convinced that there is reason to believe in a non-physical life
after death that gives meaning and purpose to our present lives. If a world
exists beyond the grave that is beyond human perception, science cannot prove
or disprove that it exists, period. More importantly, science cannot say that
it is likely or unlikely that it exists (see below for reference to other
essays and comments that address complex issues).
The bottom
line is that no matter what you feel, think, or believe, there may be a life
after death. I believe that nihilism is the principal, perhaps the only,
alternative to belief in a life after death. If you do not believe that there
is a life after death, and if the only logical alternative is nihilism, then
you are, whether you want to be or not, a nihilist. Yet I believe, and have
faith, that we do in fact survive the grave. I believe that nihilism offers no
hope for the present, no hope for the future, no hope for the past. I believe
that the possibility of continued existence is a "reality" which
gives us hope that we may find something in our
present life that makes life worth living. I have not heard a single argument
that would change my belief that existence of a life worth living now and after
death is the only thing which offers the possibility of turning the
"fantasy" of a finite lifetime into the reality of an infinite life.
Many people
who have read this essay will return to the comfortable argument that if Bill
found the cure for cancer while he was alive, his death does not erase that remarkable
accomplishment, and therefore it is absolutely true that "Bill's life had
meaning and value". It is human nature to believe that once an event has
occurred in your life it has happened, period, and in fact it has. It is also
human nature to believe that once that an event that had apparent meaning and
value to you has occurred in your life, it will always have meaning and value
to your life. If you accomplish a goal you have the incredibly strong feeling
that "they can't take that away from me". You are absolutely sure
that your past is indelibly etched in time. Yet we have shown that if there is
no conscious existence after death, your past may in fact die with you. Those
who refuse to accept the possibility that their past may be "annihilated"
by "nothing" need to look more closely at the current understanding
of space-time, and at what it tells us about "scientific" answers to
our questions.
The
following is more complex than I would like it to be. For those readers who may
still doubt the possibility that our conclusions are right, we include the
following rather technical overview of cosmologic issues. For our conclusions
to be true, it would seem that each of our physical lives would need to be
"finite" so that each of us has a singular experiential existence.
One of the strongest intuitive feelings that a human being possesses is the
feeling that when something has happened in his or her life, it has happened,
period. We intuitively believe that when a child has been born nothing can ever
change that absolute fact. We believe that the birth of the child is far more
than a memory, it is an event that will in some manner
always be a part of the universe. Many feel that even if there is no life after
death, they can fill the life they live on earth with meaning and value, and
that their lifetime full of "experiences" will somehow live on after
their death. At the same time we intuitively believe that we live only in the
present. We live each day in our lives, one day at a time. As I write this essay
I am not living the life I lived yesterday, I am not living the life I will
live tomorrow, I am living "today". We
intuitively believe that we do not exist in the future, we do not exist in the
past, we exist now!
If there is
no life after death, if we are little more than animals, an intuitive feeling
of continuity would not be surprising. From the very beginning, to assure
survival of any species, evolution would certainly have instilled in living
creatures the feeling that there is a reason for them to exist, a reason for
them to crawl out of the ocean and build cities. If there is no life after
death, and our lives are in fact consumed by "nothing", it is no
wonder that our genetic heritage argues so strongly against that possibility.
While each
of us has the strong intuitive belief that there is a singular "me",
that is either alive or dead, the modern physics behind the Shrodinger's
cat paradox illustrates that the answer is not that easy. The physics of
quantum superposition tells us that we may indeed be both dead and alive at the
same time! When humanists speak of a positive life having meaning and value
even if the individual eventually ceases to exist, they are necessarily saying
that the positive life, and perhaps the individual consciousness that lives the
life, somehow "persists" in space-time after the death of that
individual. Both quantum mechanics and special relativity support
interpretations that dramatically blur the line between physical life and
death. What does science tell us about all this? Does it allow for the
possibility of a meaningful physical life without a non-physical life after
death?
What is most
likely to happen to us at our physical death can be divided into seven
principal possibilities. We will consider five of
these possibilities in some detail. We will quickly eliminate the two most
radical ideas. It is possible that nothing is "real". We do not need
to deal with this possibility because if it is correct it seems most likely
that nothing matters at all. If there is no reality in life, if all is a
transient illusion, then it would be virtually impossible for there to be any
meaning and value in human existence. All that we experience in our lives
reinforces our confidence in what we intuitively believe to be true, that the
world we live in is "real". Even if we cannot objectively prove that
we "exist", I do not know of a single rational theory that offers a
significant reason to question our basic existence. While I strongly believe
that our existence is real, if I am wrong and everything is unreal, then there
are no rational questions that need to be asked, and there are no rational
answers to be found.
We can also
quickly eliminate the need to discuss the fact that since we are only a small
part of the whole, we cannot say with absolute certainty that anything is true,
or false, unless the knowledge of that truth or falsity has been revealed to us
by the whole. While many people believe that certain truths about basic
physical reality have already been revealed to us, I am not convinced that they
have been. Therefore, it seems to me that there is a possibility that the
intuitive feeling most of us have that our lives have meaning and value, may be
based on an objective physical reality we do not, perhaps cannot, know and
understand. It seems to me that it will always be possible that there is an
underlying truth that we intuitively recognize, but that we cannot objectively
know and understand. In other words, it is possible that we may never discover
or understand the laws that explain the physical nature of our universe.
Even though
this is a possibility, there is no "promising" theory or
"expanding" knowledge base that I know of which would lead us to
believe that a physical reality does in fact exist, that (1) is relevant to the
meaning and value of human existence if there is no life after death, and that
(2) is not included in one of the five possibilities below. While I may be
wrong, I intuitively believe that no "exotic" relevant physical, as
opposed to non-physical, reality exists beyond that which we are currently able
to perceive. There is no way that we can prove that anything exists, or does
not exist, beyond human perception (as extended by instruments, etc.). So we
will leave as an intuitively remote possibility that some relevant physical
dimension exists beyond human observation. We will also accept that this
ephemeral possibility is not a suitable foundation for speculation about a
physical (as opposed to a non-physical) existence after death, and we will proceed
to the five most likely possibilities.
First
possibility - there are billions of individual physical "me's" who have a permanent existence in space-time.
Perhaps the
most popular among physicists, this possibility asserts that human physical
existence is based on the physical awareness of the billions of individual
events that are experienced by human consciousness during a human lifetime.
Once a discrete event has occurred in the period that each person recognizes as
birth to death, it "persists" in what science calls
"space-time", along with all other events that have occurred in our
lifetime. Each of us may be thought of as the collective sum of all the
individual events that occur during our lives. Yet that does not change the
fact that we are the "sum" of billions of individual events, each of
which is unique in "space-time".
If this
possibility is true, there are many billions of physical "me's", one for each event in my life. The
"me" at any one event would not be preferred over the "me"
at any other event. No single "me" at any given event is the real
"me"! This interpretation of reality leaves us with a very strange
physical existence where, as one physicist said, "there is birth and
death, but nobody is born or dies; there is change and motion, but nothing
changes or moves; there are events, but nothing happens."
Second
possibility - there is one physical "me" who is my entire lifetime
and who has a permanent existence in space-time.
This
possibility concentrates on the idea that each of us may be considered to be
the collective sum of all the individual events that occur during our lives,
and concludes that each human being has a singular physical existence.
Third
possibility - there is one physical "me" who is found at the very end
of my lifetime and who has a permanent existence in space-time.
This
proposal says that it is possible the "last" version of me just
before physical death contains memories of my entire lifetime, and that it is
the real, singular, "me". Indeed, there would still be billions of me's existing in space-time, yet the final "me"
would be my singular physical existence in space-time.
Fourth
possibility - there is one physical "me" who is found in the present
only, and who has a transitory existence in space-time.
Some
physicists assert that human physical existence is based on the existence of
individual human consciousness that is fully "focused" in what each
person recognizes as his or her present. This idea supports the conclusion that
each of us has a physical existence, not in the past, not in the future, but in
the present only. This is probably the closest model to what we intuitively
feel is true, yet only a few physicists believe that it is mathematically
correct.
Fifth
possibility - there is one physical "me" who has a transitory
existence in space.
I believe
that this will prove to be the correct possibility. It is based on the fact
that general relativity denies the existence of a fundamental "time".
In fact, it appears that if and when we discover a theory of quantum gravity,
or some other theory that unites relativity and quantum mechanics, it may not
include anything like what we call "time". Even though it has not yet
been proven, I believe that there is no "past", no "future",
only an atemporal "now", a “now” that is
much more than a “present” moment in time. Many models that lack
"time" are being tested by the handful of mathematical physicists who
understand both general relativity and quantum mechanics, whether any can be
proven to be correct remains to be seen.
At the dawn
of the Third Millennium it would seem fair to expect that a scientist could
simply and quickly tell us which of the possibilities is the correct one, and
then tell us whether or not what I have said is true or false. In fact, the science
necessary to objectively answer our questions is in a terrible state of
disarray. Many of you are aware of the great theoretical and experimental
success of Einstein's theory of relativity, and of the equally great
theoretical and experimental success of quantum theory, especially the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Most of you are also aware that these two
fundamental theories do not seem to be compatible. However few people realize
that the differences in general relativity and quantum mechanics are so radical
that we cannot determine if relativity, or quantum theory, or both, or neither,
gives us a true picture of the universe. At a fundamental level, we simply do
not know what physical laws govern the universe!
This essay
is being revised at the beginning of the 21st century, as the third millennium
begins, a time when scientists lack objective theories to describe the most
fundamental physical nature of space, time, consciousness, infinity, quantum
effects, quantum gravity, etc. It is a time when we do not know if and when we
will have anything approaching a complete understanding of the basic elements
of physical reality. It is a time when all that we can do is to use the best
information we have to deduce the best answers that we can give to questions
about the essence of physical life before death, and the possibility of
physical or non-physical life after death. With this in mind, we continue with
an overview of what scientists believe they know, and what many of them concede
they don't know.
For many,
many, years scientists accepted Issac Newton's view
of the universe.
In 1905
Albert Einstein, in his special theory of relativity, declared that
"space" and "time" are part of a four dimensional (4d)
"continuum" called space-time, leading the mathematician H. Minkowski to say "Henceforth, space by itself, and
time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of
union of the two will preserve an independent reality." In 1916 Einstein
published his theory of General Relativity (GR), which would fundamentally
change the way we look at our universe. GR tells us several things. It
introduces the fact that gravitational force can be thought of as a field, like
the electromagnetic field that carries radio and television. Moreover, this
gravitational field is not set in space-time, it is
space-time itself, the very stage on which
An even more
shocking result of GR is the fact that the dynamics of the gravitational field,
of space-time itself, are fully relational. GR tells us that space-time does
not have an independent existence, that there is no background metric in
space-time, no fixed coordinates we can use to define motion. Instead,
space-time is the product of relative motion. If there were no objects in the
universe, there would be no space-time. An example may help, assume that we
have a universe with one object in it that we will call "A". GR
eliminates the fixed background, therefore A cannot move, simply because there
is nothing that A can move away from or move toward. Add a second object
"B", and a third object “C” to use for a “ruler”. Now using C as a
reference point, object B can be considered to be at rest so that A can move
relative to B, and it can then be said that A is moving away from B. Yet
Einstein tells us that it is equally correct to declare that A is at rest, so
that B can move relative to A, and it can therefore be said that the opposite
is true, B is moving away from A. The truly profound thing about all this is
that if one observer says that A is moving away from B, and another observer
says that B is moving away from A, both are absolutely correct, because there
is absolutely no way to distinguish whether A is at rest or B is at rest. In a
fully relational universe, like the one GR tells us we live in, we simply
cannot prefer the frame of reference of one observer over the frame of
reference of any other observer.
Let me touch
on some of the basics of the other 20th century scientific revolution, Quantum
Mechanics (QM). Quantum mechanics is a relatively new branch of science
developed to explain why subatomic particles do not behave according to the
Newtonian and GR laws that describe the behavior of "normal" size
objects. QM offers a description of reality that seems very different from that
given us by relativity. One of the greatest philosophical shocks of this
century came in the form of the Heisenberg (quantum) uncertainty principal.
Heisenberg noted that if you measure the speed of one of the particles that
make up an atom you must in some way affect its position (actually instead of
"speed" we should talk about "momentum ", which is speed
times mass, for our purposes we will consider speed and momentum as being the
same thing). For example, if you measure the speed of a subatomic particle by
"observing" it move over a given distance, the observation alters its
position in some unpredictable manner. Similarly, if you measure position you
must alter speed, thus at any given moment you can never measure both the exact
speed (momentum) and exact position of a subatomic particle. The more precise
you are in measuring speed, the less precise you will be about position, and
vice versa. The problem is actually much more than a problem of measurement, to
be more accurate, the wavefunction of a subatomic
particle (which describes the particle at the quantum level) that has not been
"observed" is precisely determined (without using probabilities) by a
formula known as the Schrodinger wave equation.
However, the very moment you attempt to measure the momentum or position of the
particle, the wavefunction collapses, introducing
probabilities into the equation, and the exact momentum and position of the
particle at that particular time cannot be determined.
Heisenberg's
theory can be interpreted as supporting the proposition that at the quantum
level the very concepts of momentum and position have no meaning. At the level
of measured observation, modern physics can tell you how many particles in a
group of particles have certain speeds and positions, and how many have other
speeds and positions, but physicists cannot tell you what the speed and
position of any one particle is. This failure is far more than just some
inability to measure momentum and position, it is due to the fact that it is
fundamentally uncertain what the speed and position of any single observed
particle is! A single particle when measured simply does not have position and
momentum in any normal sense of the words, but members of a group do, and the
probability of x number having x momentum and x,y,z position can be precisely computed.
Both GR and QM are generally accepted as
remarkably successful, experimentally verified, essentially correct, theories
that give valid solutions to the questions they address. Yet the theories are
very different, and may even be incompatible. GR gives us fully deterministic
answers without probabilities, QM gives us
probabilities without fully deterministic answers. Given present
interpretations, it is possible that the differences cannot be reconciled.
Quite simply, there is no known theory that explains the nature and existence
of what physicists believe to be the most fundamental features of the physical
universe.
We already
know from the principles of GR and QM that we live in a universe that exhibits
quantum properties, in essence we exist in a quantum
space-time. Many physicists are pursuing a theory of quantum gravity,
the quantity many believe will link GR and QM. Either combining GR and QM into
a single theory, or finding a replacement for one or both, is perhaps the most
sought after goal in physics and cosmology.
For our
purposes, the most important question may be - "if and when quantum
gravity is understood, what will the physical nature of
quantum space-time be like?" Almost all current models of the
universe assume that there is some sort of temporal variable associated with
space, the "time" part of space-time. John D. Norton, in "The
Hole Argument" (The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Copyright 1998 by
Stanford University and Edward N. Zalta) gives a
quick summary of the current consensus on space-time: "Virtually all
modern space-time theories are now built in the same way. The theory posits a
manifold of events and then assigns further structures to those events to represent
the content of space-time. ...... Consider our universe, which relativistic
cosmologies attempt to model. Events in the universe correspond to the
dimensionless points of familiar spatial geometry. Just as a geometric point is
a particular spot in a geometrical space, an event is a particular point in
a cosmological space at a particular time." The most widely accepted theories of the
Twentieth Century view the birth of an individual as an
unique event at an unique point in space-time, and the subsequent death of that
individual as an unique event at an unique point in space-time. The points in
between represent all the events that occur in a human lifetime. The line that
connects the points, and by doing so represents the lifetime mapped on
space-time, is called a world-line.
Now let us
go back and try to discover what science is telling us about each of the
possibilities:
First
possibility - there are billions of individual physical "me's" who have a permanent existence in space-time.
It is fair
to say that most scientists believe that what we call physical consciousness is
the essence of what makes a human being a human being. Based on the popular
understanding of Einstein's theory of relativity, most scientists accept that
human existence consists of the series of all the physical events that occur
over the space-time interval we call the birth to death of an individual. As we
have said, these events are usually described as occurring along a world-line
traced out in four (three space and one time) dimensional space-time.
Essentially, scientists view human physical existence as the product of every
sequential event in the life of a human being that occurs along that
individual's physical world-line.
Furthermore,
most scientists believe that, just as everything else is, physical
consciousness is the product of physical events. They believe that once a
physical event has occurred it has occurred, that once physical consciousness
has occurred it is forever etched in the fabric of space-time, just as all other events are permanently etched along the
individual's world-line. This is conventional wisdom at the turn of the
millennium, and is the basis for what we call the first possibility. If the
scientists are right, this possibility tells us that human consciousness
persists at each of the billions upon billions of points along an individual's
world-line that represent the physical events that create the physical
consciousness.
If true, the cosmos is a very strange place, where each individual continues to exist forever as the billions of discrete events that create discrete human consciousness