Search This Blog

Thursday, May 7, 2015

One answer to the ultimate question

This is my own fantastic theory of the far future. Those not interested in barely imaginable science-fictionish theories of space, time, the universe, and everything, please feel free to click your back button.

I'll start with something obvious. We are not the fittest. Humans are weak, frail, pale, inbred, sad, retarded, diseased, maimed, comatose, dying, and dead. We start wars ... just because. We hit, we lash out, we verbally assault, insult, scream, cry, weep, throw tantrums, throw ourselves off cliffs, harm our children, our wives, our husbands, our friends, our parents, our employers, our country. We are insane weak sycophants crawling pathetically from bed to table to toilet to grave. We don't know where we came from or why we're here. We don't where we're going or where we started. In short if I had to describe humanity in one tiny little hopeless hapless pointless clueless word, that word is "Bang!" As in: "In with a bang, out with a bang." Here we are yes, but why are we here? I have a theory. You'll laugh. You'll disagree. You'll click the back button angrily. You'll pity my foolishness. As Bugs Bunny would say of me and my theory ... what a maroon what an ignoranamous!

Arthur C. Clark's three laws
  1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
  2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
  3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

How did we get here? Scientists say it was the Big Bang and Evolution. I've studied the science of these two theories in my own admittedly weak and humanish way and I have to admit that there's something inescapable about the logic of these two hypotheses. The Big Bang obviously happened. Evolution obviously happens. In spite of these two seemingingly incontrovertible facts, there's still something missing in both of these scientific theories. They need a starting point.

Have you ever played a hand of poker without a dealer? Have you ever eaten a meal without a cook? Have you ever read a book without a writer, sat in a wooden chair made without a lumberjack or a carpenter? Design is the word and the answer to that ultimate so-far unanswered unanswerable question is ... nothing. I've watched a few debates between Christian apologists and atheists.

Moderator: "Where did we come from?"
Christian: "God."
Atheist: "Big Bang and Evolution."
Moderator: "Where did the big bang come from. What about the first organism? Where did God come from?"
Christian: "God created the Big Bang. God created the first organisms. God always was and always will be."
Atheist: "It's not my job to tell you where the universe and life came from. I'm just here to tell you there's no such thing as God."
Moderator: exasperatedly ... "But where did life come from?"
Christian: "God."
Atheist: "It was a big soup of chemicals and lighting struck the soup and viola life. Or it could have been molecules adhering to the pattern on a crystal. This fortuitous crystal would have—through random chance—a pattern on it that if the right chemicals adhered to it in the proper order, life would spontaneously and through unimaginably fantastically impossible chance suddenly begin. This life would also be capable of reproduction and mutation."
Moderator: "What are the odds of that?
Christian: "Let me Google that question:
The odds in favor of the chance formation of a functional simple cell are acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 1040,000.[111] The scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle, a renowned mathematician from Cambridge known for many popular science works,[112] has used analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem. For a more graspable notion of the improbability, he has calculated the odds of the accidental formation of a simple living cell to be roughly comparable to the odds of rolling double-sixes 50,000 times in a row with unloaded dice.[113]
To put the argument bluntly, we just don't know. It's all a big mystery. Atheists would move Heaven and Earth rather than admit there was a Heaven or that God created Earth. Christians have a book. It's a book written by lots of different people. It lacks internal consistency and continuously contradicts itself. Other than that it explains everything...and nothing. Creationists claim design. Atheists claim chance. Neither explains or attempts to explain the first cause. Christians simply say that God always was. In it's own way, this argument is as risible as that of the Atheists who simply refuse to argue first cause at all, or speculate on statistically impossible convergences of time and space. None of this is true. There's a piece missing in this impossibly huge puzzle. In a moment you'll read my solution that seems to solve all the impossible puzzles that have been proposed by everyone involved. You'll scoff, you'll scorn. I'm laughing myself. But...if you can accept one simple possibility, it makes everything else possible.

Is time travel possible?

Yes, I know. You don't believe it's possible. You're okay with an omniscient omnipotent super-intelligence creating through sheer willpower, everything that is. You're okay with a fiery inferno into which bad people are cast down for all eternity. You're okay with a bunch of happy souls flapping their wings, living in blissful serenity with never a cross word, never a hint of jealousy nor discontent ... and this for all eternity. That's believable but not time travel? For you scientists, you can conceive the possibility that energy could travel backwards in time, you can conceive of antimatter, wormholes, and alternate universes, but not time travel?

So without any further ado or gilding of the lily, here's my theory of life, the universe, and everything: We did it. Or we will do it, if you prefer.

Why not? Why couldn't we go back in time and create the Big Bang? Create the first organism? I'm not saying we do it tomorrow. I'm not saying that the humans of today in our frail human bodies, our diseased, frail, weak, retarded, birth-defective cancer ridden messy bodies did it. But what if?

I believe...

I believe we're destined for greater things. I believe we'll eventually replace our crappy flesh bodies for something more lasting, smarter, stronger, defect free. Why can't we have a pure carbon body one-hundred times stronger than steel? Graphene, total recall, infinitely recursive multitasking, the ability to think one-thousand times faster or one-million times faster or even some scientific notation number, faster than we do now? You say that's impossible? I invite you to imagine what Jesus or Moses or Muhammad would have said about a space ship.

Imagine a sentience combined of all the trillions of life forms that might well exist at the end of the universe. Imagine a billion billion years of study, theory, experiment, and refinement all adding to the collective knowledge that sentient beings would possess so far in the future. Sir Arthur C. Clarke, a grandmaster science fiction writer, a scientist and an honest to God Knight! famously created three rules of thumb that are quoted within this blog post. I'll reiterate the one that's most significant and apropos: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." To that, please, allow me to add my own even more grandiose corollary: Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from an act of God.

You've doubtless heard of time paradoxes. It was probably something along the lines of: what if you go back in time and kill your grandfather before he meets your grandmother. How could you go back in time and prevent your grandparents from meeting if you never existed? Furthermore, what would prevent your grandparents from meeting if you never existed? Neither is possible yet both are true simply because of time travel. Therefore, a paradox is created which could conceivably destroy the entire universe ... or so it's been said. If a paradox in time/space could conceivably destroy the universe, isn't it also possible that a similar paradox could conceivably create a universe? Perhaps we live and breathe in just such a universe created by a paradox in time and space. My theory supplies first cause. It requires nothing but that which already is or probably will be. Given the possibility of time-travel and super-science in the far future, what prevents this theory from explaining everything?

UPDATE 05/08/2015 7:41 AM CST
It's been brought to my attention—"weak sauce," was the exact phrase, I believe—that in the above post I forgot to include a little bit of my complete theory. In all the atheist vs. apologist debates, a central theme of the atheist is that if there were a God he would have to be a cruel God, a dispassionate uncaring God. Otherwise, why would there be so much injustice and cruelty in the world? This assumes of course a biblically correct omnipotent, omniscient God.

Those waiting on the arrival of the coming technological singularity are expecting—within this very century—to experience a world where beings of godlike intelligence arise, transcend, and we must assume rule. As these beings use their vast intelligences to augment their own design, improve their own design, rebuild themselves to be faster, smarter, better, we expect each iteration of their rebuilt selves to be faster, smarter, better. There doesn't seem to be any upper limit to the potential IQ and power of something like this. Furthermore, biological creatures like mankind could conceivably augment their own intelligence and memory with cyber-enhancements, perhaps even eventually uploading their own consciousnesses into a computer or artificial body of one kind or another.

All over the universe we can suppose that intelligent beings like ourselves are making this sort of journey, this transcendence from clumsy meat to something far more elegant and powerful. Supposing all the intelligent beings of the universe, both organically intelligent and artificially intelligent, pool and combine their collectively godlike intelligence and creativity—yes like the Star Trek Borg—this universal collective of pure mind would perhaps have Godlike intelligence and Godlike power. Not by any means "omniscience," not "omnipotence," but still, far vaster powers than we can comprehend today.

This is all of course pure conjecture. Obviously there's not a shred of proof to be found anywhere. It's merely a silly thought experiment. So, to the atheist who says there can't be a kind God, a just God, I say what if? What if God is just powerful enough to create a universe and just knowing enough to ensure that in general things go according to plan? Sorry, he can't save your baby. Or perhaps he doesn't really know about your baby. He's just knowing enough to shepherd our silly species of hairless apes along—and perhaps we can assume other alien species on other worlds as well—until everyone figures out enough to begin to build the kernel of an artificial mind that perhaps might one day become a God powerful enough to create a universe and shepherd its infinite and varied worlds and species. This would be a far vaster circle of life than previously considered.

No comments:

Post a Comment