John G. Messerly's Blog, page 14

Cosmological Natural Selection: Crawford and Rifkin Part II

[image error]

What follows is a continuing and enlightening discussion between two distinguished interlocutors about cosmological natural selection.

Cosmological Natural Selection: A Critique Part 2 – by Chris Crawford

Thank you for your comments, Dr. Rifkin. I am in a weak position, not having read any of the source material, so my comments are unavoidably speculative. Still, I cannot imagine any possible evidence for what happens inside a black hole; the entire notion of an “event horizon” does render physically impossible any actual evidence. I realize that there have been a great many attempts to determine the internal state of a black hole from strictly mathematical calculations and a variety of assumptions. Particularly interesting have been the efforts to determine the information content of a black hole as well as its internal entropy. But these remain entirely speculative, as they cannot be based on any empirical evidence.

You argue against my claim that other universes are meaningless (because they cannot affect us) by pointing out that the future cannot affect us, either. In other words, these other universes are no less meaningless than our own future. But there’s a crucial distinction that your argument misses: our future is, to some extent, predictable, and, to an even greater extent, subject to anticipation. A man who jumps off a cliff has not died yet, but his future is clear enough as to be meaningful to him. We know that the sun will eventually exhaust its reserves of hydrogen and go through changes that will result in the destruction of earth; that is meaningful to us even though it is billions of years in the future. We can use our knowledge of the current state of the universe to make meaningful statements about some aspects of our future.

But we can never see beyond the event horizon of a black hole. We can never have any idea of anything in those universes. Indeed, we cannot even know that such universes exist. We have lots of fascinating speculations — and that’s all we have. No data — just speculation.

And by the way, the very notion that a black hole could somehow spawn a universe does grossly violate the conservation of mass/energy. We put a few stars’ worth of mass into a black hole and an entire universe of zillions of stars spews out of the other side? Why shouldn’t it spew forth an immensity of candy bars, thundering herds of unicorns, or a teenage boys’ fantasy of millions of large-breasted nubile nymphs?

You argue against my suggestion that other universes might produce other forms of life by noting that my suggestion “… is not consistent with what current biology or physics now supports.” That’s certainly true — but it misses my point. Yes, another universe with different values of the fundamental constants would not produce life just as we know it. Indeed, even a universe with exactly the same values of the fundamental physical constants would not produce the same life we have. See Steven J. Gould’s discussion of the highly contingent nature of life on earth, especially his observations that the evolution of Homo Sapiens was dependent upon a wide range of accidents unlikely to be replicated in an imaginary replay. In other words, the evolution of Homo Sapiens was a fluke. Consider, for example, the ramifications of a certain small asteroid arriving in the vicinity of the earth 65 million years ago one second later than in a previous history. We’d have a dinosaur in the White House.

Lastly, I want to emphasize that this entire discussion runs beyond the extremes of speculation. We are arguing over what kind of hats angels might wear, or whether ghosts can have pimples, or how long leprechauns grow their hair. There is absolutely nothing in the way of empirical information to work with.

Reply by Lawrence Rifkin MD (author of the original post) – Part 2

Evidence for scientific theories can support or disprove. Cosmological natural selection is amenable to falsification. So even if it forever continues to be the case that it would be “physically impossible” to scientifically obtain any kind of empirical evidence for what happens inside a black hole, a lack of positive confirmatory evidence does not by itself render a falsifiable theory purely speculative.

As for the conservation of mass/energy, the second law of thermodynamics only holds for an isolated system. It is not known if it holds for our universe as a whole. Or if what happens inside a black hole is an isolated system.

As for meaning, I suppose it comes down to definitions. I would say a world of branching or oscillating universes conducive to life, and the possibility that life could continue forever is meaningful – powerfully so.

Of course, if we ran the movie of life again on Earth, the specific outcomes would be different (although there is evidence for some convergent evolution trends). That is not the point. The point is if the physical parameters of the universe were slightly different, life (indeed, emergent complexity), itself would itself be unlikely, at least according to most physicists.

The explanation for why the laws of the universe allow for organized complexity and life is perhaps the biggest and most wondrous question of all. Cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is, in principle, capable of explaining the non-designed existence of organized complexity. It may not be true, but it is not purely fanciful.  As I wrote in my article, “If evidence proves any one of the cosmological alternatives—or an entirely new idea altogether—we will embrace reality, no matter where it leads.”  For many, supernatural explanations, the “well if we weren’t here we couldn’t ask,” the “we can never know,” and the “it just happened to happen” explanations don’t satisfy. I suspect Darwin might agree?

Cosmological Natural Selection: Crawford’s Critique and Rifkin’s Rejoinder

[image error]Messier 92 in the Hercules constellation.

I recently summarized “The Logic and Beauty of Cosmological Natural Selection,” Lawrence Rifkin’s essay which appeared in the June 10, 2014 issue of Scientific American. What follows is a critique of its main ideas by the video game designer Chris Crawford and a response by Dr. Rifkin. 

Cosmological Natural Selection: A Critique
by Chris Crawford

I had never heard of this hypothesis, so I spent some time thinking it over as I worked outside. Now, it is easily rejected on the grounds that it is not subject to empirical rejection. It is theoretically impossible to disprove it, which by common standards puts it beyond the ken of science. However, I also realized an even stronger basis for rejecting the hypothesis: it is meaningless. The newly-created universes cannot affect our own universe. Nothing that ever happens in those new universes can ever affect anything that happens in our universe. Therefore, these universes have zero significance to us. They mean nothing to us.

This seems such an obvious objection that I very much doubt that a physicist as smart as Mr. Smolin would have failed to address it.

But I have a further reservation about this hypothesis: it seems unnecessary to me. The fine-tuning problem has never bothered me. I could just as well inquire into the astoundingly complex series of events that ended up producing that Crown of Creation, Chris Crawford. Think about it: of all the billions and billions of possible human beings, how did the universe come to bestow Chris Crawford upon us? This is clearly a conundrum requiring recourse to either theism or some new theory applying black holes, quantum mechanics, and general relativity.

There’s even another argument arising from one of the most brilliant arguments I have ever experienced. This is Stuart Kaufmann’s explanation of how the immensely complex cycles of chemical reactions that drive life arose. Creationists argue that the probability of one of these cycles developing due to chance is infinitely tiny. Kaufmann’s response, brilliantly exposited in his book “At Home in the Universe”, is that, while the chances of that particular cycle arising randomly are one in zillions, there are zillions of different cycles that could produce life. Persons who did not endure the hell of Biochemistry 101 will have difficulty appreciating this truth. The chemical cycles that drive our biology are not perfect; they just happen to be the cycles life got started with. The same can be said of our universe. Yes, the physical constants that control our universe are astoundingly well-configured to produce life. But if they were different, you’d get a different universe. What’s so strange about that?

By the way, I will never forget the shock of realization that swept over me when I read Kaufmann’s argument. It was one of those rare moments in life when our minds encounter a totally new and unexpected idea, and idea that makes everything fit together neatly. I’ve had only a handful of such experiences, and I hold them in special reverence.

Reply by Lawrence Rifkin MD (author of the original post)

Cosmological natural selection (CNS) is not disprovable, in the same way, one cannot absolutely disprove the existence of God. But CNS is amenable to scientific evidence and support, as outlined by Smolin in his academic writings and at the end of his book on the subject. Lack of current strong evidence of all such theories is addressed in my article which makes the case for the compelling explanatory logic (and beauty) of the idea.

As for Mr. Crawford’s suggestion above that the idea of CNS is meaningless in the sense that other universes cannot affect our universe, well, in that sense the distant future of life on earth is also meaningless in that it cannot affect current life on Earth. To the extent that the distant future of life on Earth has meaning, the existence of life via “baby” universes after our current universe can no longer support life has even greater potential meaning.

As for the Kauffman explanation Mr. Crawford offers, that would be applicable to CNS if there were “zillions” of different configurations of the laws of nature that are conducive to complexity and the formation of life. That is not consistent with what current biology or physics now supports. That is why apparent fine-tuning needs explanation – it is one of the remaining areas that has not been substantially accounted for with a naturalistic explanation.

Cosmological Natural Selection

[image error]Messier 92 in the Hercules constellation.

I came across a wonderful piece in the June 10, 2014 issue of Scientific American, “The Logic and Beauty of Cosmological Natural Selection” by Lawrence Rifkin MD.  (He writes at lawrencerifkin.wordpress.com or you can follow him on Twitter@LSRifkin.)

Rifkin argues that “The hypothesis [of] cosmological natural selection, and its power, beauty, and logic provide what may be the best scientific explanation for the existence of complexity and life in the universe.” CNS has been most extensively formulated by the physicist Lee Smolin in his 1992 book The Life of the Cosmos[image error]. Here is a basic description:

Throughout the universe, stars that collapse into black holes squeeze down to an unimaginably extreme density. Under those extreme conditions, as a result of quantum phenomenon, the black hole explodes in a big bang and expands into its own new baby universe, separate from the original. The point where time ends inside a black hole is where time begins in the big bang of a new universe. Smolin proposes that the extreme conditions inside a collapsed black hole result in small random variations of the fundamental physical forces and parameters in the baby universe. So each of the new baby universes has slightly different physical forces and parameters from its parent. This introduces variation.

Given these “inherited characteristics, universes with star-friendly parameters will produce more stars and reproduce at a greater rate than those universes with star-unfriendly parameters. So the parameters we see today are the way they are because, after accumulating bit by bit through generations of universes, the inherited parameters are good at producing stars and reproducing.” Of course, the existence of stars is crucial because the molecular material contained in stars is a prerequisite of life.

One of the advantages of CNS is that it directly addresses the so-called “fine-tuning problem”—why the laws and parameters of nature are remarkably conducive to life. It answers that the laws of our universe “are the way they are because of non-random naturalistic cumulative inherited change through reproductive success over time.” CNS also explains the complexity and the apparent design of our universe without positing gods, analogous to how natural selection explains the complexity and apparent design of our biology.

Critics might argue that there is no evidence for CNS, but Rifkin points out that there is no direct evidence for other scientific alternatives that would explain the existence of our universe like quantum fluctuations, multiverses, cyclic universes, or brane cosmology. And CNS has the advantage of explaining the fine-tuning problem better than the alternatives, which is why Rifkin thinks CNS will eventually be vindicated.

Furthermore, CNS has profound implications for the question of life’s meaning. “In a world of branching universes conducive to life, ultimate cosmic doom may be avoided, keeping alive the possibility of eternity—not for us as individuals, or for Homo sapiens, but for the existence of life at large in the cosmos.” So the future of the cosmos is open, still to be determined—surely a more hopeful message that inevitable cosmic death. Yet this does not imply that we were meant to be here, that the universe cares about us, or that any teleology is at work—Rifkin definitely rejects any god of the gaps.

In the end, CNS, like any scientific idea, stands or falls on the evidence. “If evidence proves any one of the cosmological alternatives—or an entirely new idea altogether—we will embrace reality, no matter where it leads, and be struck with awe at our ability to discover the grandest of cosmological truths and our place in the universe.”

Commentary

I am unqualified to adjudicate between various cosmological theories but CNS is a robust theory that is consistent with perhaps the greatest idea of all time—the idea that everything, from the cell to the cosmos, evolves over time. Moreover, CNS provides a straightforward solution to the fine-tuning problem. I have no doubt that there is a naturalistic solution to this problem—assuming we can even be sure the cosmos is fine-tuned. (Some theorists suggest we don’t know enough to say for sure.) But if our universe is fine-tuned, then naturalistic solutions will explain it. Scientific solutions will close this gap in our knowledge like they have previously closed so many others. This is after all one of the main reasons why so few philosophers are non-naturalists.3 Science works.

Still, people will find their gods hiding in the gaps of quantum or cosmological theories, or in dark matter or energy. If you are determined to believe something it is hard to change your mind. But defenders of the gods fight a rearguard action—scientific knowledge is relentless—and these hidden gods are nothing like the traditional ones. Those gods are dead.

And as science closes the gaps in our knowledge the gods will recede further and further into the recesses of infinite space and time until they vanish altogether, slowly blown away, not by cosmic winds, but by ever-encroaching thought.

[image error]

Should Donald Trump be disqualified from ever running for president again?

By Laurence Houlgate

Here is a question that should be asked by every philosophy professor in their classroom this term: Should Donald J. Trump be permanently disqualified from holding any office, civil or military, including the office of President?

I ask this question because of a growing debate about whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be used to disqualify the former president from running for the office of President again. Here is the text of Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.  But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The facts about what happened at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6, 2021, are one thing. The concepts used in Section 3 are quite another.  The question about whether Donald J. Trump should  be disqualified from being President can’t be answered until there is clarity about the meaning of “office,” “oath,” “support,” “Constitution,” “insurrection,” “rebellion,’ “engaging in insurrection or rebellion,” “aid,” “comfort,” “giving aid and comfort,” “enemies,” and “disability.”

As I write this newsletter we are now on the verge of witnessing one of the most consequential events in the history of American law.  There is a high probability that an executive or judicial officer of one or more states will soon announce that their state will not allow Donald J. Trump’s name to be placed on the state’s November 2024 election ballot (Kovinsky and Riga). This will certainly trigger a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court and (perhaps) a decision on the meaning and application of Section 3. 

It is no accident that students who major in philosophy as undergraduates are not only among the largest groups admitted to law schools but they also rank among their best students. I believe this is largely because philosophy students are trained to think logically and critically.  Although philosophy is not informative about the world, it can definitely be informative about the meaning of legal and non-legal concepts used in Section 3.

How will the Supreme Court judges rule?  Will the conservative judges be faithful to the same theory of interpretation (‘originalism’) used in the Dobbs decision about abortion? (“A text in the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted only as it was understood at the time of its adoption.“)

The framers of the 14th Amendment left no instructions for the enforcement of Section 3, although, in 1870, Congress did use its power under Section 5 (“The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article“) to enforce Section 3 through the enactment of the First Ku Klux Clan Act (Zeitz). Notice, however, that Section 5 uses the word ‘shall’, not ‘must’. Where does this leave the Supreme Court if it chooses to interpret Section 3?

Compare Section 3 with the Qualifications Clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (“The President must be a natural-born citizen, at least thirty-five years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years.”). Again, there are no instructions for enforcement. Now assume it is discovered that Donald Trump was born in Ruanda-Urundi. Several states are convinced by this discovery and refuse to put his name on the ballot. Other states are convinced that the ‘discovery’ is a fraud.

Again, how should the Supreme Court settle this dispute? Is there any relevant difference between the Qualifications Clause and Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that should call for enforcement of the latter but not the former? What do you think that a Court dominated by originalist judges would say about this conundrum (if it decides to say anything at all)?

These are questions that philosophy students can and should debate in the classroom as the history of American law unfolds before their very eyes.

________________________

Here are six references that professors and students might want to consult:

Baude and Paulson. “The Sweep and Force of Section 3”  University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol 172 (forthcoming). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4532751&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=emEfoail

Kovinsky and Riga. “What Key Election Officials Have to Say About Efforts to Disqualify Trump from the Ballot” Talking Points Memo, September 3, 2023. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/what-key-election-officials-have-to-say-about-efforts-to-disqualify-trump-from-the-ballot (select, cut and paste).

Luttig and Tribe. “The Constitution Prohibits Trump from Ever Ruinning for President Again.” The Atlantic. August 19, 2023. (Available only to subscribers. See if your library can help).

NY Times. “Donald Trump Clung to ‘Birther’ Lie for Years, and Still Isn’t Apologetic.” Sept 16, 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/politics/donald-trump-obama-birther.html.

Turley. “The Disqualification of Donald Trump and Other Legal Urban Legends” The Hill.  https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4158573-the-disqualification-of-donald-trump-and-other-legal-urban-legends/

Zeitz. “Legal Scholars Say the 14th Amendment Bars Trump from Office: Here’s What History Says” Politico Magazine. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/08/25/14th-amendment-insurrection-00112777.

___________________________________________________________________

New Book by Laurence Houlgate, now available on Amazon.

[image error]

Understanding Philosophy, Third Edition is a companion to the eight books in the Philosophy Study Guides series (see below). It provides students with the grounding they need to read and better understand the classics of philosophy discussed in the series.

In Part I, the tools of the philosopher are described; for example, distinguishing between deductive and inductive arguments, recognizing valid argument forms, learning how logic and reasoning were used by the great philosophers, studying formal and informal fallacies, and other important distinctions between successes and pitfalls in reasoning.

Part II is about the important distinction, often ignored, between problems of philosophy and problems of science and the different methods used by each. (Hint: Have you ever seen a sign at your university that says “Philosophy Laboratory”? Or a memo that says “Philosophy field trip on Thursday. Sign up now.”?)

Part III provides students with a set of topics suitable for philosophy term papers, a seven-step approach to organizing and writing a paper, and solving a philosophical problem. Chapter 9 in Part III has a sample term paper on a problem that has recently gotten out of hand – and I mean this literally – by transforming a philosophical problem into a science problem. The problem is the age-old question about life after death, and the way it gets transformed is an excellent example of the wide difference between philosophical and scientific problems and methods.

Part IV shows how philosophical problems have been clarified and (sometimes) solved by the great philosophers using ‘reasoning’ (logic) in the analysis of key concepts. Examples of reasoning are taken from the works of Plato, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Rene Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Stuart Mill.

Part V is new. It focuses on four contemporary social issues: artificial intelligence, self-defense laws, offensive speech and behavior, and the current status of American democracy. Although most of these issues are not discussed in most classical works, I show that the methods of the great philosophers are nearly identical to the methods used by contemporary philosophers.
A word about ‘method’. I am using this term as “a way, technique, or process of or for doing something.” (MW). Applied to a philosophical problem, what I want to show beginning philosophy students are the techniques of clarifying and (hopefully) solving a philosophical problem.

I do not want to confuse the ways of doing philosophy with the philosophical debate about ways of knowing. There is an age-old debate between the schools of rationalism and empiricism. Without boring everyone with the details of this debate, I mention it here only because the debate presupposes the use of philosophical method, as described in Part I. Whether you are arguing for one school or the other you must rely on logic and reasoning.

Second, logic and reasoning are built into the definition of ‘philosophy’. Although this word also has several uses, Western philosophers would agree that philosophy is “critical reflection on the justification of basic human beliefs and analysis of basic concepts in terms of which such beliefs are expressed” (Edwards and Pap, xiv). This definition reaches at least as far back as the opening chapters of Plato’s Republic in which Socrates challenges his audience to define the concept of justice. This challenge marks the difference between philosophy and modern science.

And so, the philosopher’s parade that began 2,400 years ago continues to the present day. All you will need to join the parade is a desire to study our basic human beliefs and the concepts in which they have traditionally been expressed.

And since this is a parade of thought not legs, you won’t have to get out of your chair (or go on a field trip).

Finally, each study guide in the series can be purchased separately at Amazon.com

[image error]

Men fear thought as they fear nothing else

Men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth – more than ruin, more even than death. Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habits; thought is anarchic and lawless, indifferent to authority, careless of the well-tried wisdom of the ages. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. ~ Bertrand Russell (“Why Men Fight: A Method of Abolishing the International Duel,” pp. 178-179)

I have not dedicated a column to a discussion of a quote in a long time but I had forgotten about this old chestnut and thought it merited comment. Let me begin by saying that I doubt that people fear thought more than they fear, for example, torture, cancer, or the death of their children. But with those caveats out of the way, let’s proceed.

Russell thought that most people don’t like to think, as another of his quotes reveals: “Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so.” When he says that people “fear thought,” he is giving a reason why many people don’t like to think. Of course, persons reject thinking because of laziness or inability or other reasons too, but fear is a major inhibitor of thought. But why?

People reject thinking not just because it is hard, but because they worry it will undermine their long-held, comfortable beliefs. Having taught university philosophy for more than 30 years I have seen this first hand. Students often dread thinking about controversial topics like politics, ethics, and religion.

But probe even deeper. If you start thinking, you may reject not only god and country but love, friendship, freedom, and more. You may discover that what is called love is reducible to chemical attraction; that friendship is mutual reciprocity; that morality is what those in power decree; that messengers of the gods are often psychologically deranged; that freedom is an illusion; and that life is absurd. Thought breeds the fear that we will lose our equilibrium, that we will be forced to see the world anew. We fear thinking because what we and others think matters to us.

I used to tell my students to not believe that ideas and thoughts don’t matter—that they only exist in the ivory tower with no significance for the real world—as if beer and football are more important. No. Thoughts and ideas incite political revolutions; they inspire people to sacrifice their lives or kill others for just and unjust causes alike. They determine how one treats both friends and enemies, and whether family is more important than money.

Even the most abstract thinking affects the world. Non-Euclidean geometry or symbolic logic are about as abstract as thinking gets—yet you can’t understand Einsteinian gravity without the one, or run computers without the other. Thinking matters to us, to others, and to our world. That’s one reason why we fear it so much—it shakes our foundations.

But not just any thinking will do. If we truly love truth we will engage in careful and conscientious thinking informed by the best reason and evidence available—our dignity consists, in large part, of good thinking.

Exactly fifty years ago this month I entered a university where the following inscription was etched on its library’s wall. I have never forgotten it:

“This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

Gleiser: The Limits of Science and the Search for Meaning

There is a new book on the intersection between science and the meaning of life: The Island of Knowledge: The Limits of Science and the Search for Meaning by Marcelo Gleiser, the Appleton Professor of Natural Philosophy and Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Dartmouth College.

Gleiser’s main thesis is that our observations yield only an “island of knowledge.” Thus there are limits to science’s ability to answer fundamental philosophical questions. These limits to our knowledge arise both from the tools we use to explore reality and the nature of physical reality itself. What we can know is limited by the speed of light, the uncertainty principle, the incompleteness theorem, and our own intellectual limitations. Recognizing these limits does not entail abandoning science and embracing religion. We should continue our scientific investigation of the nature of the cosmos, Gleiser argues, for by coming to know the universe we come to know ourselves. 

Obviously, Gleiser is right—there are limits to scientific knowledge as the incompleteness theorem and uncertainty principle strongly suggest. As the island of our knowledge grows, so too does the ocean of uncertainty which surrounds it. Still, science gives us our best chance to understand the nature of the cosmos, and hence the most firm foundation upon which to understand the meaning of the cosmos.

Gleiser also argues that science and religion focus on the same question.

The urge to know our origins and our place in the cosmos is a defining part of our humanity. Creation myths of all ages ask questions not so different from those scientists ask today, when they ponder the quantum creation of the Universe “out of nothing,” or whether our Universe is but one among countless others, all of them exhalations of a timeless multiverse. The specifics of the questions and of the answers are, of course, entirely different, but not the motivation: to understand where we came from and what our cosmic role is, if any. To the authors of those myths, ultimate questions of origins were solely answerable through invocations of the sacred, as only the timeless could create that which exists within time. To those who do not believe that answers to such questions remain exclusively within the realm of the sacred, the challenge is to scrutinize the reach of our rational explanations of the world and examine how far they can go in making sense of reality and, by extension, of ultimate questions of origins.

Gleiser’s point here is uncontroversial—similar desires motivate creation myths and scientific cosmology. As for popularity, religious myths win hands down, but for those not attracted to religious answers, Gleiser’s suggestion is insightful. They must make epistemic judgments and reconcile themselves with whatever comfort limited knowledge provides. This may not be an easy way to live, but it is an authentic way. Surely that counts for something. Gleiser’s book makes for a thoughtful read on a timeless topic, especially when humans are in desperate need of new narratives to replace the old religious ones.

Auden’s poem “September 1, 1939”

 

In my last post, I reflected on Philip Larkin‘s poem “An Arundel Tomb,” especially it’s haunting last line, “What will survive of us is love.” It reminded me of another great 20th century English poet, W. H. Auden, who also wrote a poignant line about love and death, “We must love one another or die.”

Auden’s poem “September 1, 1939“—with its obvious reference to the beginning of World War II—begins like this:

I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.

And the poem originally had this penultimate stanza:

All I have is a voice
To undo the folded lie,
The romantic lie in the brain
Of the sensual man-in-the-street
And the lie of Authority
Whose buildings grope the sky:
There is no such thing as the State
And no one exists alone;
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police;
We must love one another or die.

Auden famously turned against this stanzas final line, omitting it when the poem was reprinted in Collected Poems[image error] (1945). He later wrote that he loathed the poem, resolving to exclude it from further collections, refusing to grant permission that it be reprinted, and calling the poem “trash which he is ashamed to have written.” He eventually allowed the poem to be included in a collection, but only after altering the line to read: “We must love one another and die.”

Clearly the original sentiment—we must love one another or die—suggests that love could save us from war, or even conquer death. The revised version—we must love one another and die—expresses an existential sentiment. We can love, but it makes no difference, for we all die. Life is ultimately tragedy.

I am not sure why Auden turned against the line so vehemently and publicly. Maybe he was embarrassed by its emotional earnestness or ashamed of such a public display of sentiment. Yet the line as originally written is at least partly true—unless we become more altruistic, we will destroy ourselves. But can we go further and say that love conquers death? Here we have no answers, we only have hope.

The hope that traces of our love will reverberate through time, in ripples and waves that will one day reach peaceful shores now unbeknownst to us.

Larkin’s “An Arundel Tomb”

Pictured above is the 14th-century tomb effigy in Chichester Cathedral that inspired Philip Larkin’s poem “An Arundel Tomb.” It is the tomb of Richard FitzAlan, 10th Earl of Arundel (1306-1376), and his wife, Eleanor of Lancaster, Countess of Arundel (1311- 1372) Notice how Richard’s glove has been removed so he can grasp the flesh of Eleanor’s hand. The poem ends with these evocative lines:

Time has transfigured them into
Untruth. The stone fidelity
They hardly meant has come to be
Their final blazon, and to prove
Our almost-instinct almost true:
What will survive of us is love.

Philip Larkin is generally considered one of the greatest English-language poets of the last century. However the last line above is uncharacteristic of Larkin’s typically downbeat poetry.

So what does the line “What will survive us is love” mean? Larkin may be implying that the lovers are joined in death as they were in life, at least until the ravages of time finally erase their stone figures. Maybe the joined hands were the sculptor’s idea and do not reflect a real love at all—perhaps that is the meaning of the line “transfigured them into untruth.” Larkin himself said the tomb deeply affected him, but he also scribbled at the bottom of one draft: “love isn’t stronger than death just because two statues hold hands for six hundred years.” Yet the poem doesn’t say that “love is stronger than death.” It says love survives us, and to survive something doesn’t make you stronger than it.

Still survival is a partial victory. But what might survive? Perhaps it is the enduring belief that love is remarkable, that its appearance in a world of anger and cruelty is so astonishing. Or perhaps it is that traces of our love reverberate through time, in ripples and waves that may one day reach peaceful shores now unbeknownst to us. Maybe love doesn’t disappear into nothingness after all, maybe love is stronger than death.

Do What You Love — Maybe Not

[image error]

Steve Jobs, in his 2005 commencement speech at Stanford, argued that we should do the work we love. Here is an excerpt expressing his main idea:

You’ve got to find what you love. And that is as true for your work as it is for your lovers. Your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don’t settle…

In the past few days, I have encountered four separate articles concerning the question of whether one should (only) do the work they love. Each piece had Jobs’ claims in mind.

In “A Life Beyond Do What You Love,” philosophy professor Gordon Marino argues that doing what we don’t want to do—doing our duty—is more noble and ethical than just doing what we love. He doesn’t take kindly to the physician who quit his practice to skateboard all day. In, “In the Name of Love,”  the historian Miya Tokumitsu says that the “do what you love” ethos is elitist and degrades work not done from personal passion. It neglects that work may develop our talents, be part of our duty, or be necessary for our survival. The socio-economic elite advances the ‘do what you love ‘view, forgetting their lives depend on others doing supposedly less meaningful work. In, “Never Settle is a Brag,”  the economist and futurist Robin Hanson critiques Jobs’ advice that we shouldn’t settle for unfulfilling work. If everyone followed Jobs’ counsel a lot of needed work would go undone. Note too that the advice works best for the talented, so by advising others to not settle for anything less than work they love, you signal your status. You are bragging. Finally, in “Is Do What You Love Elitist?” philosophical blogger Mark Linsenmayer recognizes the flaws in Jobs’ prescriptions but finds in them an obvious truth too—the good life requires that we not be wage slaves in a market economic system. Thus we should change the system so that work can be more satisfying.  

I agree with Marino that doing our duty, even if it doesn’t make us happy, is admirable. And I agree with Tokumitsu and Hanson that elitists, who often do the most interesting work, fail to value more mundane work. But I think that Linsenmayer makes the most important point. We need a new economic system—one where we can develop our talents and actualize our potential. Most of us are too good for the work we do, not because we are better than others, but because the work available in our current system is not good enough for any of us—it is often not satisfying. (I have written about this previously.) As Marx wrote almost two hundred years ago, most of us are alienated from the work we do, and thus ultimately alienated from nature, ourselves, and other people.

Still, we do not live in an ideal world. So what practical counsel do we give people, in our current time and place, regarding work? Unfortunately, my advice is dull and unremarkable, like so much of the available work. For now, the best recommendation is something like: do the least objectionable/most satisfying work available given your options. That we can’t say more reveals the gap between the real and the ideal, which is itself symptomatic of a flawed society. Perhaps then working to change the world so that people can engage in satisfying work is the most meaningful work of all.

An Evolutionary Manifesto – Stewart

[image error]

John Stewart is a member of the Evolution, Complexity and Cognition Research Group at The Free University of Brussels and the author of The Evolutionary Manifesto[image error].

Part 1 – INTENTIONAL EVOLUTION

Stewart begins by claiming that humans are adrift, they lack a cosmic vision to guide them and give their lives meaning. But there is good news.

The emergence of the new evolutionary worldview is beginning to lift us out of the abyss. The new worldview has a unique capacity to reveal who we are and what we should be doing with our lives. It relies solely on scientific knowledge and reason to identify our critical role in future evolution. The evolutionary worldview can unite us in a great common enterprise, and provide meaning and purpose for human existence.

Stewart argues that we will perish if we don’t intentionally direct evolution. However, if we learn to properly steer evolution we can make a better world. We can create a “sustainable global society [and we must] free our behavior from the dictates of our biological and cultural past.” This will allow us to adequately deal with urgent problems like global climate change and nuclear obliteration. If we fail we will perish.

In the past biology and culture proceeded by trial and error. Genetic mutations and environmental selection made the species, while stochastic processes governed scientific and technological advances as well as social and political arrangements. Neither biology nor culture was designed to be successful from an evolutionary perspective but, with the emergence of intelligence, we have the chance to design imaginative and innovative solutions for our problems. We can shift to intentional evolution by becoming “intentional evolutionaries,” individuals who

dedicate their lives to advancing the evolutionary process … they no longer see themselves as isolated, self-concerned individuals who live for a short time, then die irrelevantly in a meaningless universe … They see that they are contributing to the success of processes much larger than themselves that will outlast them and potentially live forever. The allegiance of conscious evolutionaries is not to what is, but to what can be.

Understanding how the past has shaped us and how the future is likely to unfold is the goal of intentional evolutionaries.

Stewart argues that “The trajectory of evolution is not produced by an external force, or by some impulse that is intrinsic to the universe, or by an ideal end-point that somehow attracts evolution towards it.” Thus there is no need to resort to mysticism; science will slowly identify the processes and forces responsible for evolution’s directionality.

Part 2 – ADVANCING EVOLUTION BY ORGANIZING A COOPERATIVE GLOBAL SOCIETY

There has been a trend of increasing cooperation in the cosmic past. The universe slowly diversified into galaxies, stars, planets, and lifeless matter, further organizing into molecules, cells, multi-cellular organisms, insects, fish, and mammals. Non-human animals cooperated in hives, troops, and packs; human animals cooperated in bands, tribes, communities, states, and nations. The trend is unmistakable—to survive and flourish we form larger cooperatives. The next step is a global cooperative.

The great potential of the evolutionary process is to eventually produce a unified cooperative organization of living processes that spans and manages the universe as a whole. The matter of the universe would be infused and organized by life. The universe itself would become a living organism pursuing its own goals and objectives, whatever they might be.

What can we learn from our evolutionary past about organized cooperatives?

First and foremost, these cooperatives are all structured so as to minimize destructive conflict between their members, and to facilitate cooperation. Typically, this includes the near eradication of activities such as the inappropriate monopolization of resources by some members, the production of waste products that injure other members, and the withholding from others of the resources they need to realize their potential to contribute to the organization.

This means that a global society needs to eradicate things like war, pollution global warming, starvation, disease, illiteracy, and governmental corruption. Naive? Cells and insects overcame millions of years of competition by creating cooperative arrangements using nothing more than trial and error. Human tribes and nations did so by forming collectives like the United States or the European Union. Still, there must be a means for dealing with cheaters, those who want the benefits of cooperation without the cost.

The role of governance is thus imperative in organizing cooperation. Traditionally governments have imposed constraints on individuals to deter cheating and thieving. These constraints ensure that the interests of the individual and the society align. “In order to be effective, these systems of constraint need to be more powerful than the members of the organization. If they are not, members will be able to escape their control, and act contrary to the interests of the organization …” Most importantly the social contract will be undermined if powerful minority groups advance their interests at the expense of the entire organization.

For these reasons, much of the history of evolution at all levels of organization has been about what humans describe as exploitation, the abuse of power and class struggle. But past evolution has dealt with these challenges by constraining the interests of the powerful so that they are aligned with the interests of the organization as a whole.

Finally, none of this requires a change of human nature.

Past evolution has repeatedly shown how to organize self-interested individuals into cooperatives through the institution of effective governance. A society with a high proportion of wise, compassionate and altruistic citizens would be much easier to govern, but evolution shows that the achievement of a cooperative and sustainable society does not depend upon it.

“The potential of a global society to produce immediate benefits to humanity will assist in driving its initial emergence. Cooperation on a global scale has the potential to increase economic performance, abolish war and famine, and achieve environmental sustainability.” However, a global society will be opposed vehemently by those whose interests it does not serve—arms manufacturers, fossil fuel corporations, the monied elite, and the like. They will try to buy the support of whoever will further their interests. 

To overcome naked self-interest we must adopt an evolutionary worldview if we are to achieve a global society

The emerging evolutionary worldview has a unique capacity to overwhelm this conflict of interests. An understanding of evolution … will deliver the … support of the increasing numbers of people who are discovering meaning and purpose in advancing the evolutionary process. In accordance with their talents and opportunities they will work … to move humanity towards a unified global society … They know that human civilization cannot continue for long unless we are organized globally … In the absence of global organization, human civilization is likely to be ended eventually by global warming or other environmental problems, nuclear war, conflicts fueled by competition for diminishing resources, or some combination of these.

Part 3 – ADVANCING EVOLUTION BY ENHANCING EVOLVABILITY

“Life has gotten better at evolving. Evolution has become smarter and more creative at finding solutions to adaptive challenges.” In the past organisms produced different offspring and natural selection determined which would survive. Eventually, organisms learned during their lifetimes. Yet what these organisms learned died with them. But then mechanisms like imitation and parental instruction overcame this problem, allowing what was learned to be passed on. With the development of language and writing, knowledge survived and accumulated. Mental models began to describe how the world worked, allowing us to see the consequences of our actions.

For the first time humans have a powerful, science-based story that explains where they have come from, and their place in the unfolding of the universe. As we have seen, our evolutionary models are revealing where evolution is headed, and what humans must do if we are to advance evolution on this planet. This is paving the way for the transition to intentional evolution.

Thus we need to ourselves from the dictates of our biological and cultural past. This can be done through great effort, by devising means of controlling our innate biological tendencies. “Our use of rationality is mainly limited to devising means to achieve ends that are beyond our conscious control. We use the enormous power of mental modeling to serve the desires and motivations established by our evolutionary past. Our reason is a slave to our passions.”

The dictates of our evolutionary past limit our ability to advance evolution forward, as we only tend to pursue goals consistent with desires and emotions.  This is problematic. “Until humanity frees itself from maladaptive motivations and behaviors, it will be just like a family that endlessly repeats the same arguments until someone learns to stand outside the situation and stop their habitual reactions.” And this cannot be achieved by an intellectual decision, as our desires dominate our behavior. In the remainder of this section, Stewart argues that as we become free of our biological and social past, we will evolve:

Once enough members of the global society are self-evolving, the society will become a self evolving being … Through the global organization, life on Earth will transcend it evolutionary past. It will be able to adapt in whatever ways are necessary for life on Earth to make a significant contribution to the successful evolution of life in the universe. No longer will the global organization waste the enormous creativity of consciousness on the pursuit of self-centered desires that were established by past evolution. As Earth life moves out into the solar system, the galaxy and the universe, it will be able to change its adaptive goals and behavior in whatever ways are demanded by the challenges it meets. It will be able to continually recreate itself, to change its nature at will, to repeatedly sacrifice what it is for what it can become, to continually die and be born again.

PART 4: THE UNIQUE CAPACITY OF THE EVOLUTIONARY WORLDVIEW TO PROVIDE DIRECTION AND PURPOSE FOR HUMANITY

Still “merely freeing ourselves from our evolutionary past will not complete the shift to intentional evolution.” Individuals must commit to advancing the evolutionary process in order to find meaning. And unlike mythological and religious worldviews, the evolutionary worldview will supply meaning without being disconcerting to reason. “In the evolutionary worldview humanity finally has a belief system that provides meaning and purpose without having to invent supernatural entities and processes …”

Stewart acknowledges a philosophical threat to his position—the naturalistic fallacy. We cannot derive ought from is, facts from values, or so it claims. Just because evolution has a trajectory doesn’t imply that the trajectory is good or that we should further it. Stewart responds:

the evolutionary worldview … derives its ‘oughts’ from other ‘oughts’ in combination with relevant facts, not solely from facts.” There is no logical fallacy involved in deriving ‘oughts’ from other ‘oughts’ … The use of relevant factual information in this derivation of new values is also perfectly legitimate … Intentional evolutionaries do not fall into the naturalistic fallacy—they embrace evolutionary goals because the goals are consistent with their most fundamental values.

Stewart says the most fundamental value “is to favor life over death and oblivion.” And unless we intentionally direct evolution we will perish. The implications are profound.

It would mean that everything humanity has experienced until now, the misery, wars, holocausts, triumphs of the spirit, transcendent art, inventions and scientific breakthroughs; all the personal dreams, aspirations, struggles, and strivings; and all the political movements, work, fame, fortunes, families and civilizations would be for nothing. Everything would be as if it never happened. Life on Earth would disappear without trace. The only way we can contribute to something that is not ephemeral is if humanity continues to be successful in evolutionary terms.

As we mature we should gradually see our lives in a larger context. Ultimately an evolutionary consciousness is the result, which can imagine being part of the universe or the multiverse. This provides hope that life is not meaningless for there is always a larger context that may make sense of the smaller context in which we live.

Strategically, it will therefore always make sense for life to continue to build its adaptive capacity, no matter how dark the hour, no matter how pointless existence seems to be within known contexts. Such a strategy will put it in the best position to take advantage of any new possibilities that emerge, including any that arise from larger, more meaningful contexts.

Stewart also believes the evolutionary worldview, in addition to being scientific, can satisfy our emotional needs. This involves an immersion in the profundity of this worldview that fully recognizes that we are part of a cosmic process whose success depends on us driving evolution forward. Such

realizations are exhilarating and energizing and capable of providing a deep sense of meaning and purpose. Increasingly you will cease to experience yourself primarily as an isolated and self-concerned individual. Instead, you will begin to see and experience yourself as a participant in the great evolutionary process on this planet … When you think of yourself, you will tend to see yourself as a-part-of-the-evolutionary process. You will experience yourself as the most recent representative of an unbroken evolutionary lineage that goes back billions of years. Your conscious participation in evolution will increasingly become the source of value and meaning in your life.

Stewart concludes with a stirring exhortation:

Wherever life emerges, living processes will progressively become organized into cooperatives of greater and greater scale; this will be accompanied by a long sequence of improvements in evolvability; eventually organisms will emerge that can build mental models of their environment and themselves; they will use this capacity to develop a comprehensive understanding of the evolutionary processes that have produced them and will determine their future; for the first time they will have a powerful, science-based story that explains where they have come from, and their place in the unfolding of the universe; they will see that evolution is headed somewhere—it is directional; they will begin to see themselves as having reached a particular stage in an on-going and directional evolutionary process; individuals will begin to emerge who see that evolution will progress further only if they commit to working consciously to advance the process; they will realize that this realization is itself an important step in the transition to conscious evolution; as part of this transition they will develop in themselves the capacity to free themselves from the dictates of their evolutionary past, becoming self-evolving beings, able to evolve in whatever directions are necessary to contribute positively to the future evolution of life in the universe; a unified and cooperative organization will emerge that comprises all the living processes that arose with them and all the technology, matter, energy and other resources available to them, eventually developing the capacity to adapt as a whole, transcending the particularities of its evolutionary past, becoming a self-evolving being in its own right, expanding in scale, linking up with other organizations of living processes that arose elsewhere, expanding in scale again and again, moving forever onwards and upwards, without end.

Of course, we may not make it; we may destroy ourselves. But one thing is certain, the answer is not in the stars but in ourselves.