In Part 1, drawing on Deutsch’s ideas in The Fabric of Reality and The Beginning of Infinity primarily, I made the case for being (rationally) optimistic about the future. The case rests on humans unique ability to create knowledge to solve problems. Part 2 will discuss in depth ideas from the chapter “The Spark” from Deutsch’s book The Beginning of Infinity to specifically outline how humans have universal reach through knowledge (more on universality in a future post).
Deutch deconstructs reality. Let’s start with ancient accounts of reality: they were anthropocentric; that is they were (wrongly) centred on humans’ experience of the observable environment and other concoctions of the human mind. And in the pre-enlightenment era, the pre-dominant world view was geo-centrism; that is, humans were cosmically significant and were at the hub of the universe. But in time, it was proven that the anthropocentric theory was wrong with regards to physical reality because it failed to provide good explanations. Whether that was with regard to the idea of the earth being at the centre of the universe or humans being cosmically significant. We now know that humans are, like all other species and objects, simply made of matter. And we know that the patterns of stars and planets in our night sky have no significance for human affairs. And lastly we know that Earth is not at the centre of the universe – it does not even have a geometric centre (at least, as far as we know). In short, laws of nature are not grounded in human feelings or intentions, as was thought in the pre-enlightenment period.
So what are the laws of nature? And how are we exceptional?
Let’s start with the laws of nature; they can be expressed in different ways.
At its core, the laws of physics relate to impersonal entities such as elementary articles, forces and spacetime – a 4-Dimensional continuum (three dimensions of space and one of time). And these laws are independent of human beings. The laws of biology explain phenomenon by referring to chemical reactions, genes and evolution, and do not rely on the theory that supernatural entities designed or command the universe. Thus we have now worked out the simple fact that humans are made of the same ingredients as rocks and the stars, and obey the same laws, and we weren’t designed by anyone. We now know that even our own thoughts and intentions are aggregates of unseen, microscopic physical processes in our brain.
Alternatives theories have been offered through history. Let’s go through a few of them. The most prominent theory through human history is the anti-anthropocentric theory, also known as the principle of mediocrity. Stephen Hawking is chief amongst their ranks. Hawking once wrote that humans are “just a chemical scum on the surface of a typical planet that orbits around a typical start of the outskirts of a typical galaxy.”
I’ll rebut Hawking’s worldview shortly. But before I do, there are two further alternative theories: parochialism which describes humans’ mistaken belief that observed reality constitutes universal laws; and spaceship Earth which asserts that Earth has the ‘appearance of design’. Both of these do not stand up to scrutiny. Parochialism is wrong because most of reality cannot be directly observed through our senses. The Spaceship Earth theory is incorrect because whilst it may appear as if the Earth was designed to be nurturing and sustaining, the reality is that it only seems so because we have adapted to it through evolution – both biologically and civilisationally. This is also related to the fine tuning theory, which asserts that the the constants/laws of physics seem to be ‘just right’ to sustain life, and had they been even slightly different, life would not be possible; in short, there must have been some of designer responsible for creating the perfect conditions in this universe. As I have illustrated, the principle of mediocrity, spaceship earth and the related explanation of fine-tuning theories are wrong. They also share one incorrect premise, namely that our experience of life on Earth is representative of the universe; and the Earth is vast, fixed and permanent. These are simply, as I have illustrated above, not true.
Thus far, I have offered an explanation of why humans are not cosmically significant, why observed reality cannot be extrapolated for reality in the universe and why a supernatural entity could not have been responsible for creating an environment for us with just the ‘right conditions’.
I have now shown why the principle of mediocrity, the geo-centric theory, spaceship Earth theory, and the fine-turning explanation are wrong. I will now offer an explanation as to why humans are actually significant in the universe.
Alright, let me explain why Hawking’s world view is wrong.
No ordinary matter We are far from typical in terms of matter in the universe. For one thing, 80% of that matter is thought to be invisible ‘dark matter’ which can neither emit or absorb light. So in effect we - our humans - can only see ‘ordinary matter’, which only constitutes a fifth of the world. So why are we able to detect ordinary matter? It’s because one of the characteristics of the ‘ordinary matter’, the 20%, is that it glows continuously; it radiates heat, including us. We don’t see this with our eyes but we know through infra-red light detectors, that we too glow. Further, concentrations of matter as dense as ourselves, and our planet and star, though numerous, is not exactly typical either. They are uncommon and isolated phenomena. Why? The universe is mostly a vacuum. And ordinary matter is familiar to us only cause we are made of it, and because of our untypical location near large concentrations of it.
We are also an uncommon form of ordinary matter. The most common form is plasma (atoms dissociated into their electrically charged components), which typically emits bright, visible light because it is in stars, which are rather hot. By contrast, we only emit infra-red light because we contain liquids and complex chemicals which can exist only at a much lower range of temperatures.
The universe is pervaded with microwave radiation – the afterglow of the Big Bang. Its temperature is about 2.7 kelvin (which means 2.7 degrees above the coldest possible temperature, absolute zero (or about 270 degrees celsius colder than the freezing point of water). Anyway, at these temperatures, the glow of ordinary matter is effectively extinguished. The resulting ‘non-glowing ordinary matter’ on our planet is an exceedingly exotic substance in the universe at large. Earth (our planet and solar system) is untypical compared to the Universe in a physical sense. A typical place in the universe:
If you observed a typical cube in space, one that is the size of our solar system for example, the sky would be pitch black. The nearest star would be so far away, that if it were to explode as a supernova, and you were staring directly at it when its light reached you, you would not see even a glimmer. That is how BIG and DARK the universe is. And it is cold at 2.7kelvin (which is cold enough to freeze every known substance except helium). And it is empty. The density of atoms out there is below one per cubic metre. That is a million times sparser than atoms in the space between the stars, and those atoms are themselves sparser than in the best vacuum that human technology has yet achieved. And almost all the atoms in intergalactic space are hydrogen and helium, so there is no chemistry. No life could have evolved there, not any intelligence. In short, nothing happens or changes there.
Earth ain’t no paradise Earth in its natural form, is a fairly hostile place. It is not naturally habitable. The Earth’s ‘life support system for humans’ has been provided not for us but by us. It is only our capacity to generate knowledge that has converted the habitat to a comfortable one.
The Great Rift Valley, from which we emerged, lacked a ‘safe water supply, and medical equipment, and comfortable living quarters, and was infested with predators, parasites and disease organisms. It frequently injured, poisoned, drenched, starved and sickened’ its inhabitants. In this sense, we are unique in terms of creating knowledge and therefore for being designers and builders. Turning to the post-Enlightenment period: technological progress has depended on the creation of explanatory knowledge. People had dreamed for millenia of flying to the moon, but it was only with the advent of Newton’s theories about the behaviour of invisible entities such as forces and moment that they began to understand what was needed in order to get there. So humans are unique in their ability to explain the world, which enables us to control the world. So in a sense, for humans, unless the laws of nature forbids it, everything is achievable, provided we have the right knowledge. By contrast, for every other species on Earth, we can determine its reach simply by making a list of all the resources and environmental conditions on which its biological adaptations depend. In the unique case of humans, the difference between a hospitable environment and a death trap depends on what knowledge they have created. Humans, in this way, are able to convert anything into anything, provided the laws of nature allow it.
So what do humans need to create new knowledge indefinitely?
Access to matter and raw materials;
Energy; and
Evidence.
So there’s nothing stopping us from setting up self-sufficient colonies on the moon and elsewhere in the solar system – and eventually solar systems. Problems are inevitable. No particular problem is inevitable. All problems are soluble. All people in the universe, once they have understood enough to free themselves from parochial obstacles, face essentially the same opportunities. So, humans may colonise other solar systems and, by increasing their knowledge, are able to control ever more powerful physical processes. So the explanations of almost all physically possible phenomena are about how knowledge would be applied to bring these phenomena about.
Deutsch outlines a thought experiment. Humans who are located billions of years away on the other side from Quasars have the knowledge to predict what a quasar jet will do, and understand why.
In summary, people and knowledge are the most significant phenomena in nature – the only ones whose behaviours can be understood without understanding everything of fundamental importance. And from what we know, it appears that in the universe, most environments are not yet creating any knowledge. We know of none that is, except on or near the Earth. In any case, as I wrote in Part 1, the future of knowledge is unpredictable and unbounded. What is typical today, may be not be typical in the future. How the universe behaves, in the end, will come down to how humans create knowledge. And that knowledge, as I wrote earlier, is unbounded. We can move stars, illuminate the universe, and much more. If it doesn’t violate the laws of physics, such as the speed of light and so on, then it falls in the category of the possible. And in this universe, as far as we know, we are the only ones with that power. In sum, humans are special. If we choose to, we can be the spark that lights up the universe.