I have gone completely and utterly insane
Recently I've read 'A Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawking, 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins and listened to the song 'The Nature of Reality' by Oasis. This is what I concluded on a truly insane lunch trip to Morrisons where I bought some Rowntree's Randoms and a Milky Bar before rushing back to the office to type this up!
(PS If what I've written here is complete and total rubbish and a serious misunderstanding of those two books and the scientific principles on which they are based then I'm sorry and will someone please tell me before I embarrass myself any further! =D )
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
This is not philosophy this is fact. Imagine being deaf and blind, do sounds and light still exist? Of course they do. Now, to believe that the only things that exist in the universe are what our limited senses can perceive and our brains can process is absurd and illogical. Nor does this realisation end here. Our interpretation of our senses is also immediately relevant to ourselves. We all accept that time passes predictably and in one direction but it only seems so because the evidence suggests so but as has already been established our evidence is incredibly narrow and thus we can not make assumptions based merely on sensory evidence alone. We all experience time the same because we are all of a similar mass and constitution and are travelling through space-time under the same conditions and making the same interpretations based on the same cognitive wiring. A squirrel for example, measurably experiences time differently from our selves because its experience is, although very similar to ours, unique to itself.
A squirrel is smaller in mass and experiences gravity much less intensely than ourselves and so, for the squirrel, time passes slower. This is a crude explanation because the slower passing of time for the squirrel is only relevant to our selves when in fact the comparison is irrelevant because time only exists in our ‘world’ as relative. This is true of all living creatures. No animal on this earth will have the same world view as us. A fly is perhaps a more useful example because it has vastly different sensory inputs to human beings (ie infra-red, gravity, time etc) and it also processes them completely differently to us because it has evolved to do so therefore the brain of a fly renders the world in its imagination as unfathomably contrary to ours. The fly doesn’t exist within an alternate reality it is merely that the fly’s ‘letter box’ on the world is in a different position to ours. The world we see exists to the fly but only outside of that to which it can comprehend.
Another example is that of matter. We see a table as a solid piece of matter that is physically impenetrable but this is isn’t the case. A table is in fact largely made up of space and is not solid at all. At the atomic level the space between the nucleus and protons is relatively enormous meaning that on an atomic level atoms largely consist of space. So why then does the table appear solid? The answer is because we have evolved to perceive the world at the immediate and relative level and the same is true for the universe which is so incomprehensibly large. Once we accept that reality can not be defined by sensory evidence or cognitive process then we can begin to understand the true nature of reality.
"Cogito, ergo sum. I think therefore I am" – Descartes
If we accept that we do exist simply by the logic that we are able to question that very fact then on what level do we exist, given what I have already suggested? Mark Twain once said:
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions of billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience for it.
This is an interesting point. What we know of life is based on senses and the brains ability to process those senses and by this we define death as the point at which we stop receiving or cognitively rendering those physical senses. Our physical bodies continue to exist longer after our death but the brain no longer has the ability to function so we do not count that body as alive. Therefore we clearly relate the end of life to the end of thought and can thus can define existence on the most basic and fundamental level as thought.
In terms of our accepted letter box view of the world, thought ends with death and so life ends with death. However, we have already accepted that this letterbox view based on sensory evidence is not a true reflection of reality. When our physical bodies cease to function, our physical interpretation of reality ceases to operate also. True, our ability to interpret this or indeed any of reality or in fact to acknowledge or even understand it ceases also but it is still a valid assumption. If we do exist then, where do we exist? Again our limited senses and processing power lets us down.
We put ourselves in a particular point in space-time because that is how we experience it based on our senses but when we consider (a) that we exist fundamentally in thought and (b) that time is NOT constant then we realise that in fact those thoughts exist outside of space-time. It is not a simple case of that we exist for an impossibly brief period in time and nothing of ourselves remains afterwards or existed before. Indeed before and after are relative human constructs which do not in fact exist at all. Our ability to produce thoughts is brief but those thoughts exist indefinitely. Again to understand this is to accept that our view of reality is that of a letter-box, determined entirely by the limited input and minimally evolved cognitive processing and rendering of those inputs.
