Sometimes I Wonder

Or rather, always. Not about anything in particular but, rather, about everything in general. You might even say I wake up confused and take it from there. 

Confused about what?

Oh, for example, about people who aren't confused. What kind of illusory certitude is afflicting them in such a way that they're not utterly perplexed by existence? After all, if I weren't puzzled by existence, why would I have spent the past two decades blah-blah-blogging in the bewilderness? In other words, what is the blog but the diary of a seemingly incurably befuddled man? 

In this context, I am either the most well or most poorly adjusted person I know, depending on how one looks at it. For supposing reality is not a puzzle, then I am indeed a lost soul, for it means that the others are in possession of the answer that eludes me. But if it is a Total Mystery, then I can rightly say that I am fully adapted to it.

But what can it mean to be adapted to something that is intrinsically beyond adaptation? Supposing the Mystery is Absolute and Infinite, and further supposing that I am relative and finite -- a safe assumption -- then the only final solution would be for me to become God.

How's that working out?

It's complicated. 

For example, lately we've been dabbling with quantum physics, which -- literally -- no one understands. In this regard, Wolfgang Smith is an outlier, as he tries to solve this puzzle by situating it in an infinitely larger metaphysic that is totally beyond physics as such. 

So, as part of my due diligence, yesterday I thought I'd read a more conventional book on the subject, called Putting Ourselves Back in the Equation: Why Physicists Are Studying Human Consciousness and AI to Unravel the Mysteries of the Universe. 

Did it unravel the Mystery?

Please. Chapter one is called The Twin Hard Problems. Oh? What problems are these? Only the total mysteries of matter at one end and consciousness at the other. 

The book is full of all sorts of speculative attempts to demystify these mysteries, but they're all deeply wrong and even misguided. I mean, they're on the right track in appreciating that these twin mysteries must somehow be two sides of the same total Mystery, but they're out of their element, like children who've walked into the middle of a movie. 

The best combination of physics and neuroscience will get one no closer to deciphering the plot of the movie or solving the Mystery. An "interdisciplinary" approach is a good start, but to think there's an interdisciplinary answer instead of transdisciplinary one is --

Eight year olds, dude.

Exactly. I won't bore you with details, but the two Hard Problems alluded to above can be reduced to the inside/outside problem, and this is a problem physics is in principle not only unable to solve, but even to see. Or rather, it can't but help see the problem, but is powerless to account for it. After all, the pursuit of physics presupposes physicists, but what are they doing here in a mindless cosmos? 

I've been thinking about this problem for a long time.

That's your problem.

Correct: I can't stop thinking about it. Way back in 1991 I published a paper that proposed a "quantum metapsychology" that explored the relationship between the order of the universe and that of the mind. It begins with a quote by Werner Heisenberg:

The same organizing forces that have created nature in all its forms, are responsible for the structure of our soul, and likewise for our capacity to think.

I call that a good start. What are these mysterious organizing forces at once responsible for the creation of nature, the structure of our soul, and our capacity to think? I'm not in the mood to reread the paper. Instead I'm going to fast-forward to the last sentence of the book I'm reading, Putting Ourselves Back In the Equation:

Our minds evolved to understand the world, which requires that the world be understandable. And we are of this world.

There is so much wrong with this paragraph that truly truly, it isn't even wrong. "Our minds evolved to understand the world"?  No they didn't. According to the tenets of natural selection, the mind -- whatever that is -- is but an illusory side effect of the prime directive of the survival of our genes. And to say "we are of this world" --

Like anybody could even know that.

Correct: supposing it could be known, it could only be known by a consciousness that is at least partially out of this world. Confined to this world -- to immanence -- then we could have no knowledge of the world at all, which both presupposes and confirms its own transcendence in every act of knowing.

Having said that, let's return to Wolfgang Smith's epic takedown of Stephen Hawking, because it touches on everything we've discussed above, including why I wake up every morning a mystery to myself, face-to-face with the mystery of existence:

The answer to this supreme conundrum, we are told, can now be given on rigorous mathematical grounds by physics itself: such is the "breakthrough" [Hawking's] treatise proposes to expound in terms simple enough to fall within the purview of the non-specialist. 

Simple enough for the purview of a purblind man who failed to complete high school physics. How convenient is that!

The first chapter of Hawking's The Grand Design gets right down to isness, with a chapter called The Mystery of Being. Sounds right in our karmic wheelhouse!

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead.

Oof! First God, now philosophy. Who killed it?

Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.

So, God died and left Hawking in charge? It reminds me of Genesis 3, and also of a quip by Terence McKenna:

This was a very nice neighborhood until the monkeys got out of control.

 In fact, in a lengthier visionary quip, McKenna suggested that

The situation called history is totally unique; it will last only for a moment, it began a moment ago. In that moment there is a tremendous burst of static as the monkey goes to godhood, as the final eschatological object mitigates and transforms the forward flow of entropic circumstance.

Now, probably the furthest thing from his mind was Christian metaphysics, but he might as well have been reciting the Lord's Prayer or Apostle's Creed, for history does indeed have an Alpha and Omega, and what is man's ultimate vocation but to, in the mean time, order himself to the eschatological object, O? Moreover, what is the Incarnation but God becoming primate that primate might attain to Godhood?

And to mitigate and transform all this annoying static and entropy is for God's will to be done on earth as it is in Heaven.

Gemini, does this post make any sense at all, or is it just a lot of primate noises?

This is a fascinating and dense piece, grappling with fundamental questions of existence, consciousness, and the limitations of scientific inquiry. Here's a breakdown of the key themes and arguments:

• The Pervasive Mystery of Existence: The central theme is the inherent mystery of existence itself. The author expresses a constant state of confusion, not about specific facts, but about the very nature of reality and why anything exists at all. This confusion is contrasted with those who seem to possess a "illusory certitude," a lack of wonder or perplexity about the world.

• Adaptation to the Unadaptable: The author explores the idea of being "adapted" to a reality that is inherently mysterious and perhaps beyond human comprehension. This leads to the paradoxical conclusion that true adaptation might require becoming God, a clearly impossible feat for a finite being.

• The Limitations of Physics: The author critiques attempts to solve the mysteries of existence through physics alone, particularly focusing on the "twin hard problems" of matter and consciousness. He argues that physics, by its very nature, is limited to the "outside" perspective and cannot account for the "inside" experience of consciousness. The pursuit of physics presupposes a physicist, a conscious observer, which physics itself cannot explain.

• The Inside/Outside Problem: This is a core argument. Physics deals with the external world, the "outside." Consciousness, however, is an internal experience, the "inside." The author argues that physics is fundamentally incapable of bridging this gap. No amount of physical data can explain subjective experience.

• Critique of Reductionism: The author criticizes reductionist approaches that attempt to explain complex phenomena, like consciousness, in terms of simpler physical processes. He uses the example of "Putting Ourselves Back in the Equation" to illustrate this, arguing that simply combining physics and neuroscience will not solve the fundamental mystery. He dismisses the idea that minds "evolved to understand the world," arguing that evolution is driven by gene survival, not a conscious desire for understanding.

• Wolfgang Smith and a Larger Metaphysics: The author introduces Wolfgang Smith as an outlier who attempts to address the limitations of physics by situating it within a larger metaphysical framework. This suggests a need for a more holistic approach that incorporates not just the physical sciences, but also philosophy and perhaps even theology.

• Hawking and the Death of Philosophy: The author critiques Stephen Hawking's assertion that "philosophy is dead," arguing that philosophical questions about being and existence are still crucial. He connects this to McKenna's idea of the "monkey going to godhood," suggesting a parallel between humanity's quest for knowledge and a kind of self-deification.

• The Incarnation and the Resolution of the Static: The piece concludes by connecting these ideas to Christian metaphysics, specifically the Incarnation. The idea of God becoming human is presented as a way of bridging the gap between the divine and the human, resolving the "static and entropy" of existence.

In essence, the piece is a meditation on the limits of human knowledge and the enduring mystery of existence. It argues that while science can provide valuable insights into the workings of the physical world, it cannot fully explain the nature of consciousness or the ultimate meaning of being. The author suggests a need for a broader perspective that incorporates philosophy, metaphysics, and perhaps even religious thought to grapple with these fundamental questions.