‘The Universe’, Dude…

A philosophy nerd rants about God, the Universe, and particles…

Before we get started, I just want to say, thank you to everyone who read, liked, commented, shared, and reached out to me after my last post. I was really touched by everyone’s words of support and encouragement.

And now to today’s piece, which is wildly different from my last piece. Serious bonus points for anyone who makes it all the way to the end.

---

Photo by Greg Rakozy on Unsplash

“That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above, and that which is Above corresponds to that which is Below” – Translation from the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus.                   

I’m sure you’ve heard it before. It’s been said by scientists, philosophers, authors, and bus-drivers alike. Hell, I’ve even said it. Yes, this idea has been uttered so many times, in so many different ways that for many it’s become a ‘self-evident truth’. A truth that is used to explain atrocities, to dismiss deities, and to scoff at those who believe in some greater cosmic meaning. Here’s the idea: The Universe, God, Nature – call it what you want, but I’ll be using the secular term ‘Universe’ – doesn’t care. The Universe doesn’t care about you. It’s just this cold indifferent thing that doesn’t give a shit about any of us.

Now, as a free-thinking individual I certainly have an opinion on the matter. And for those of you who are eager to hear it, rest assured I’ll make it known by the end of this piece. But that’s not the reason I bring this up…

See, despite my personal opinions, I’m not here to pick sides (although, my bias will no doubt show itself). I’m not here to argue for the hippies who say, “the Universe is guiding us, man”. Nor am I here to argue for the realists who say, “the Universe doesn’t care about us”. No, what I’m here to do is to explore some of the arguments that surround this idea so that I can make the case that the most ridiculous thing about this whole discussion is that some people talk about it as if they actually know for sure. As if this idea really is self-evident. As if they’ve figured it all out and they’re doing the rest of us a favour by shining their light of truth on this unwanted ‘fact’. As if these brave souls know the inner workings of the Universe and they’re just trying to help the rest of us find a way to face reality as it really is. In other words, I’m going to make the case that it is just as ridiculous for the realists to say that “the Universe doesn’t care”, as it is for the hippies to say that “it does care”. Because the way I see it (and hang onto your hats because this is about to be a bombshell): we just don’t know.

A warning before we begin: things are about to get a wee-bit philosophical…

ANTHROPOMORPHISM

For some, the anthropomorphism argument probably seems too obvious to even mention, and yet far too often I hear this argument used to refute one side of this debate when really it refutes both sides. So, let’s go through this argument in all its obvious glory.

To say “the Universe cares” is to assign the human characteristic of caring to something that is not human, which is the type of faulty reasoning the logicians of the world see as a big no no. After all, there is no reason to assume the Universe cares about things just because us humans care about things. And so, any conclusions we make about the Universe that are based on this anthropomorphic assumption are questionable to say the least. Simple enough, right? Well, here’s where it gets interesting.

I often hear the realists use this anthropomorphism argument to refute those crazy hippies who say “the Universe does care” – which may be a valid critique. However, what amazes me, is how often the realists then turn around and suggest that their dismissal of the hippie’s view actually proves that “the Universe doesn’t care”. Which is a step too far. Because the way I see it, saying that “the Universe doesn’t care” also commits the sin of anthropomorphism – just in the other direction. It also assigns the human characteristic of not caring to the Universe. It also makes the mistake of assuming that just because us humans don’t care about certain things, the Universe doesn’t care about certain things. Besides, it’s not like caring and not caring aren’t two sides of the same human-centric coin. And so, if the realists are actually trying to be logical when they make this argument, then they can’t make that leap. Because the very same logic they used to dismiss the hippies claim, can also be used to dismiss their own. Alas, the anthropomorphism argument ends in a stalemate. As all it actually proves is that it’s just as ridiculous to say that “the Universe doesn’t care” as it is to say that “it does care” – because: we just don’t know. 

THE UNIVERSE “CAN’T CARE”

Let’s talk about the people who aren’t committing the sin of anthropomorphism per se, but who still make unknowable claims about the Universe.

Some people say something along the lines of: The things that comprise the Universe – the quarks, neutrons, sub-atomic particles, and empty space can’t care. These things have no capacity for such human-centric concerns.

And while on the surface this seems like a valid point, it actually raises a lot of questions. I mean, how do these people know that quarks, neutrons, sub-atomic particles, and empty space “can’t care”? Who told them? Did they ask the particles? What confirmation do they have beyond their own human-centric understanding of things? Isn’t it at least possible that these things can care, and we just aren’t capable of detecting it? Isn’t it possible that if we stop looking at things from an entirely physicalist perspective then maybe we’d be able to conceive of a way in which the Universe can care?

The theory of panpsychism offers a different perspective. It makes the case that ‘consciousness’ (whatever the ‘C’ word actually means) is present in everything. Consciousness is fundamental to matter: it is an integral part of those sub-atomic particles in the same way those sub-atomic particles are an integral part of us. And for those who’ve never heard of panpsychism before you might be thinking that the claim “consciousness is in everything” sounds a bit ‘woo woo’. And I hear your concerns, but before you dismiss this idea off hand, consider these four things…

1) The way consciousness plays out at the sub-atomic level could be vastly different to the way it plays out at the human level.

2) Some of the greatest minds in the world still have no idea what consciousness is at any level.

3) There are many credible philosophers (like legitimate professionals) who take panpsychism seriously.

4) This is one of the few theories that offers a plausible answer to The Hard Problem of Consciousness, which is a philosophical can-of-worms we can’t get into now (but boy oh boy will Google take you down a rabbit hole with that one).

And so, if we take this theory seriously then it seems to fly in the face of the idea that “the Universe can’t care”. Because if the very building blocks of the Universe do have some level of consciousness, and the capacity for caring is linked to consciousness in some way – which we tend to believe that it is, as people will say things like “inanimate objects can’t care because they’re not conscious” – then it seems it is at least possible, from within the guise of panpsychism, that the Universe can care.

Now, let’s go the other way… For the sake of argument let’s return to the physicalist view of the world because doing so will allow me to bring up two serious headscratchers that the physicalist view is yet to answer:

1) If we accept the physicalist view that the sub-atomic particles that make up our physical bodies are these uncaring things, then at what point along the continuum – from particle to human who cares about stuff – does the caring begin? When do the particles that make up what I am, begin caring about things? In other words, how are caring people made up of uncaring particles? (Okay, so that was actually three questions in one.)

2) Just like we can’t explain how the physical particles that comprise our bodies lead to non-physical mental experiences like caring – how do we know that the physical particles that comprise the Universe don’t also lead the Universe to experience some non-physical mental experience that could be described as caring?   

Now, I’ll admit I’m a stickler for epistemic humility, but nonetheless, it seems to me that unless these and many other questions can be answered, the physicalists who say “the Universe can’t care” are basing that opinion on a bunch of unsubstantiated assumptions which rest inside one particular view of things. And there’s no reason to assume that that particular view is the right – or the only – view that should be taken into consideration. But don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying the panpsychist view is right and the physicalist view is wrong. All I’m saying is that it is just as ridiculous to say that “the Universe can’t care” as it is to say that “it does” or “doesn’t care” – because: we just don’t know.

BAD THINGS HAPPEN

The next argument that is often used to support the idea that “the Universe doesn’t care” is that “bad things happen”. The implication being that if the Universe did care it wouldn’t let bad things happen. This is another one of those arguments where if you take it on face value it seems to hold some weight… but over here at The Curious Platypus taking arguments on face value is not our strong suit.

Let’s jump right into a tangent that the philosophy nerd in me can’t help but mention…

The argument that “bad things happen therefore the Universe doesn’t care” is just a secular re-branding of The Argument of Evil. Which is one of the arguments people have always used to dismiss the existence of God (that is, before God had that little run in with Nietzsche). The only difference between these two arguments is that the latter goes a little further. Here’s the argument:

If God cared, he/she/they/it wouldn’t let bad things happen. So, either God doesn’t care, or God does care, but God can’t stop the bad things from happening, in which case he/she/they/it isn’t much of a God.

This leads to the possibility that maybe God doesn’t stop the bad things from happening because that would encroach on our freewill. If we even have freewill… (?) which is another philosophical can-of-worms we can’t get into now. But the theory that amuses me the most is that, maybe God has just been suffering from burnout for the last few millennia and that’s why all this bad shit has been happening… But all jokes aside, my reason for taking us on this little tangent: the fact our civilisation is still having this God discussion just with different terms, makes me think that maybe Nietzsche was wrong. Maybe God isn’t dead. Maybe our secular age just gave God a hip new name that works better for an Instagram handle.

Okay, so let’s get back to dissecting the argument that “bad things happen therefore the Universe doesn’t care”. There are two issues I have with this argument:  

1) Saying that “bad things happen therefore the Universe doesn’t care” makes it sound like the bad things that happen are static independent events. It sounds like the bad things that happen are being viewed as these separate occurrences that are in no way connected to or have any influence on other events. As if the bad things that happen don’t often lead to good things. As if people don’t grow and become stronger versions of themselves by going through bad things. As if we could still have all the good things even if we got rid of all the bad things. As if the good things and the bad things aren’t inexorably linked. As if people are blind to the meaning of the Taoist’s overused and over-tattooed Ying-Yang symbol. See, my issue with the logic behind the claim “bad things happen therefore the Universe doesn’t care” is that it seems to be looking at things from a zoomed-in perspective and not acknowledging that when we zoom-out everything appears to be interconnected. That argument also suggests that we know for sure that life would actually be better if bad things didn’t happen – and while it might seem like that is the case, we don’t know that. Maybe good and bad actually need each other – like Ying and Yang, Batman and the Joker, or Bart Simpson and Sideshow Bob.

2) The argument that “bad things happen therefore the Universe doesn’t care” seems to ignore the other side of the coin: good things happen. Which is a pretty big thing to ignore because if the occurrence of bad things supposedly proves that “the Universe doesn’t care” then by that very same logic the occurrence of good things must prove that “the Universe does care”. So, either we pretend that nothing good ever happens, which seems pretty hard to do (especially considering The Curious Platypus puts writing out every other week), or we acknowledge that the argument that “bad things happen therefore the Universe doesn’t care” can also be flipped around to make the case that “good things happen therefore the Universe does care”. In other words, it seems that we’ve reached another stalemate. Which means I have no choice but to, once again, repeat my thesis. Because all this “bad things happen” argument actually proves is that (we rebranded God), and that it is just as ridiculous to say that “the Universe doesn’t care” as it is to say that “it does care” – because: we just don’t know.

THE PROBLEM WITH WORDS

Now you might have thought at some point while reading this piece: “Wtf does this guy actually mean when he says, the Universe?” and that’s a good question. One which I will answer in due time…

But first I want to use your question (thanks for asking it by the way) to raise another point that is often overlooked in this whole debate: we don’t even know what we mean when we say these words.

We don’t know what we mean when we say, “the Universe”. It doesn’t matter whether you think of the Universe as, all the uncaring particles that make up infinite space, or the guiding force of all things – you still don’t know what those things mean. After all, can you really wrap your head around infinity? Do you really know what a particle even is? Can you really conceive of how a non-physical force would guide you? Can you actually explain the words and concepts you use to talk about this mystical thing you call “the Universe”?

I can’t.

Even the scientists can’t agree on what makes up the fabric of reality. Some say, it’s tiny strings and others say, it’s tiny particles. Any good psychologist, psychiatrist, or neuroscientist will acknowledge that there is so much we still don’t know about the mind. Any philosopher will tell you we still have no definitive understanding about how the fabric of reality and the mind interact. And if you ask any linguists (not that I’ve asked) they’ll tell you (I think) that the way people understand the words they use is largely influenced by their culture, their upbringing, their education level, and a range of other factors I’m not going to get into now. The point is the way people understand a term like “the Universe” is going to vary wildly. It’s going to depend on the degree to which someone’s accepted the scientific materialist view of the world as the only explanation of things. It’s going to depend on whether someone’s ever had any sort of religious, spiritual, mystical, or hallucinogenic experience. And it’s definitely going to depend on whether someone’s understanding of that word provides them any sort of solace or greater meaning. In other words, it really seems as though saying “the Universe doesn’t care” is both true and not true depending on how an individual has come to understand those words.

Because let’s be real here: it’s not like there is a definitive answer out there. It’s not like we aren’t just squabbling about our human-made concepts. It’s not like all our opinions aren’t just shaped by our personal conception of reality. And when you look at it like that, it becomes clear that this debate isn’t actually about whether the Universe does or doesn’t care – it’s about which conception of reality people think is best. Hint: everyone thinks their conception is the best (especially me). In this way, we are arguing across each other. We are arguing about different things because we’re coming to this debate with different perspectives on the matter, with different understandings of what these words mean, and with a limited understanding of reality.

That’s why… it’s just as ridiculous to say that “the Universe doesn’t care” as it is to say that “it does care” – because (say it with me now): we just don’t know.

---

Okay, okay, okay… I’ll stop ramming home my point, and explain what I mean when I say, “the Universe”.

Well, as I just pointed out, it really depends on which lens I’m looking through when I talk about the Universe. And make no mistake, I believe people can hold two seemingly opposing views at the same time. Because on one level I think of the Universe as everything out there in the cosmos – all the stars, planets, black holes, (aliens?), supernovas, meteors, and all the tiny sub-atomic particles that comprise all that cool stuff. And on that level, I don’t think the rings of Saturn care too much about us. However, on another level, I think of the Universe as everything. Not just the infinite space of the cosmos, but also everything here on earth – all the plants, animals, rocks, people, and even ideas that populate this tiny blue dot.

I mean, it’s an obvious thing to say (but I’m gonna say it anyway): we’re not separate from the Universe – we’re part of it. And it is this point that raises a rather interesting question, the answer of which reveals my personal opinion on this whole thing…

See, if we’re all a part of the Universe, and we all care about what happens to us. Then, doesn’t that mean the Universe does care about us?

Because we’re it.

---