In the last two posts we established that there are certain things that can be known with absolute certainty. Our first evidence is movement itself, our second that which moves. We can’t say that that which moves is matter because that would already be some kind of interpretation which might not describe everything that is moveable.
The pairing up of particles with antiparticles (the process of annihilation) leads to photons. Photons are not exactly ‘nothing’, in fact, they are actually something very real.
From merely acknowledging that something can be known with absolute certainty we have found an anchor point into the ocean of the unknown. With the “Discovery” firmly anchored on the solid rock of verifiable facts we will continue our exploration into the unknown and dig further into what can be known about eternity.
The question we all like to have answers to are about what happens to us when we die. Are we eternal beings or do we experience a finite end with death?
We all believe that we know what life is although we might not be able to explain it. We also have learned to categorise life into lower and higher life forms and have learned about DNA and how all complex life-form have evolved from more primitive ones. Yet, do we really understand life?
As humans we have developed faculties that allow us to reflect upon life and think critical about it. Only humans ask questions about their origin and what happens after death. This makes us very peculiar in a world of animated beings. A cow that quietly grazes on the farmers field has no worries about it’s future, doesn’t wonder about it’s origins but eats and chews and chews again, day in and day out. It doesn’t get bored or feels a need to improve itself. It doesn’t think about redemption or passing on scientific knowledge about the grass it eats. It simply exists for no particular reason except that it has been born by parents equally blissfully ignoramuses as their parents were.
Animals do however have personalities that can be observed, especially in domesticated ones like dogs and cats but also in the wild. They can be temperamental or slow, be curious or have a ‘can’t be bothered’ attitude. They can be aggressive or gentle and can display some form of intelligence.
A cat I once had learned how to open a door without anybody trying to train her, she simply observed. The door handle to our living room was worn and didn’t have much spring left. The cat would reach the handle and pull it down until the door slightly opened, she could then pull the door towards herself and open it with her paws.
She was also an extremely jealous cat who when I had a girlfriend felt neglected and peed into our bed. Yet in spite of having an intelligent cat I never could manage to get a conversation going.
Animals like humans are aware of their environments and do process the information for their advantage yet they don’t display any behaviour that would indicate anything more than simply survival instincts. Is our ability to think and to rationalise merely a survival instinct in an environment where our physical weakness would have been a cause for extinction otherwise? Are we intelligent in the same way as my cat learned opening a door?
Most of our thinking is employed to find strategies for survival. In war we use it to outwit the enemy, in business to get the edge over our competition, in love to get the ‘object’ of our desire and so it goes on. Intelligence is mostly used to gain an advantage and rarelyfor it’s own sake. We go to school because we want a job, we go to training courses because we want to make more money, we watch certain programs on TV or read certain articles so we stay informed to keep up with our mates and colleagues.
Evolution is about adapting to changing environments. Those who adapt survive, those who don’t become extinct. This raises one important question. Is survival an innate drive we’re born with or is survival simply a random event. We know about how the white moth (often found on white birch trees) adapted to a change in environment when during the industrial age the birch trees were covered in soot which made the white moth stick out.
White moths gave birth to white moth with the occasional black moth but when trees were covered in soot the white ones stuck out and became prey while the black ones survived who eventually gave predominant birth to black moths. There is no innate drive to survive, white ones did not try to become black by rolling in soot. Humans on the other hand do have an innate drive to survive and have become very good at finding ways to protect themselves from becoming prey to stronger animals and against the forces of nature.
It is of course possible to explain this drive in the same way that black moths survived during the industrial revolution. Those who did have the drive survived, those who didn’t became easy prey like the white moth. In this case the drive to survive is not something that drove our evolution from the beginning but like the black colour of the moth simply the result of natural selection.
Natural selection therefore drove evolution forward yet built on principles that must have already been in place. Our universe is a vast playing-field with very specific rules that have to be obeyed for everything to hang together.
Because movement is an absolute fact and something always existed that can be moved we can assume that certain rules also existed forever and are not just random chance occurrences. Even if the game changes and different rules are applied for each new universe then this also must be governed by rules that make this possible.
What are those eternal rules? What is it that makes it possible for particles to combine into elements that become meaningful units like DNA and cellular organisms?
Can rules come spontaneously into existence and therefore explain an ultimate beginning? For this we would have to imagine a universe without rules where particles just go in and out of existence and there is cohesion only on a willy-nilly base. Sometimes particles stick together, other times they don’t for no reason whatsoever. Complete and utter chaos without anything ever being stable enough to become matter.
From movement and ‘something’ that can be moved we have now deducted that there must be attributes and rules that govern the relationship between these moveable ‘somethings’. Within our universe we can make further deductions that these ‘somethings ‘ are the building blocks from which everything we know has been made. These ‘somethings’ have attributes governed by rules that make this process of evolution possible. These rules could not have been created by a creator god but were always existent because without them there could be nothing to create anything.
So here we have Exhibit 3. Another undeniable fact that whatever it is that always existed it has attributes guided by rules. It’s a slow process but now we have three legs which gives us a relatively sturdy table on which we can now place more truths as we continue building on these fundamental and absolute principles.