Science Fiction & Philosophy discussion

Could the duality of particles and waves indicate a multiverse?

The Subtle Knife CHAT

I recently published an essay, "Five Reasons to Wonder," (2nd place 2019 Writers Digest Best Essay competition) in my scifi/fantasy anthology, Captain Arnold, which touches upon existence, matter, and how we might fit in. It could be of interest. It was extracted from several of the posts on my blog: http://www.arthurmdoweyko.com/blog

This is absolutely an interesting essay but personally I would challenge the premise that it is impossible to predict outcomes. If we use our own capabilities, it is certainly true that we are a very long way from being able to predict the position of a particle but this is a limitation of our technology and knowledge rather than an inherent characteristic of the phenomena. Everything is governed by physical laws and as such, theoretically subject to prediction. We use probability to overcome the limitations of our science.

PS Your titles and your blog posts appear to be *'right up my street' and I note we share the same birthday!

*My sci-fi book Chat also embraces most of these subjects.

Peter wrote: "This is absolutely an interesting essay but personally I would challenge the premise that it is impossible to predict outcomes. If we use our own capabilities, it is certainly true that we are a ve..."
Chaos theory basically tells us that an event can occur in an unpredictable manner regardless of your ability to measure and define motion, because the deciding series of causations is impossible to detect - fundamentally impossible - beyond measure - not susceptible to better technology, just impossible.

Peter wrote: "PS Your titles and your blog posts appear to be *'right up my street' and I note we share the same birthday!

*My sci-fi book Chat also embraces most of these subjects."
The same birthday! Glad we stumbled into each other.

"To take on a chaotic behavior, nonlinear systems should be sensitive to initial conditions." André Dauphiné, in Geographical Models with Mathematica, 2017

If point A = initial condition, point B = point of observation and, Point C = Outcome, then Chaos theory tells us that without knowing point A the causation that determines point B may be lost and therefore the outcome C can no longer be predicted. However, this simply moves the goal post of A to B, which then becomes the initial condition.

What Chaos theory is really telling us is that we cannot predict outcomes without knowing the conditions at the point of observation. That is like saying we can't predict how far a car can travel if we don't know how much fuel is in the tank.

The weakness of the theory is the underlying assumption that initial conditions cannot be known. It doesn't state that it's impossible to detect, measure or predict an outcome if you have access to all the data, only if you don't. I accept that given the limitations of current technology, we are currently unable to reverse engineer the model of a hurricane in Asia to the butterfly wings in South America, but it is not a fundamental impossibility. Many things that were considered impossible to predict have been revealed with the increasing power of computers and ability to gather more and more data. As quantum computers evolve, our ability to predict the weather and link multiple complex causations to predict outcomes will increase by several orders of magnitude.

The complexity of cause and effect does not render it impossible to predict, just increasingly difficult.

Point taken. I think you realize that every starting point is the end result of a chaotic process, so it would seem that the starting point is a moving target with embedded uncertainties that I'm not sure we can ever wrap our grubby little analytical measurements around.

Hey, what about matter? My position is that we will ever know what matter is. We can dissect it, label it and its parts, we can even wave our hands and say it's a form of energy. But wha it or energy actually is will forever be beyond us. If one accepts this thesis, then it may be that we are incapable of understanding what it is. Which now gets interesting. Why exactly is that?

It's an agnostic view of science and it could be true but I prefer to keep an open mind to the possibility that we might, one day, work it out. Why? Because our species has developed a sort of intellectual 'entitlement', we just assume we have a 'right' to know simply because we have the appetite to know.

However, our current limitations extend not only to not knowing the true essence of matter but also to not knowing if we have the capacity ever to know.

Fortunately for you and I, we have science fiction to fall back on!

Just because we don't know everything about our world today does not mean that we will not learn more tomorrow. Will we ever know everything? No. It was said that in 1840 one man could possess nearly the sum of all human knowledge (a bit of a stretch) but it was also said around 1880 that physics was nearly a dead field. Of course, then Lord Rutherford said, "All science is either Physics or stamp collecting." Less than 10 years later, the Michelson-Morely experiment showed that the speed of light was a constant. (All of our measurements say it is -- now -- but is it?) I named one of my interstellar spacecraft after Michelson. Anyway, my point is that we are always learning, and we should not think everything is known -- or that it cannot be. We have to try to find out for ourselves and that's what makes us human. I've seen some freaky quantum effects between high temperature superconductivity and the behavior of super-fluid Helium. Haldane was correct in saying that the universe was far stranger than we could imagine.

Agreed, at least I agree with 99%, I'm not sure about the comment that we will never know everything as a species. My jury is still out on that one and won't be back in several lifetimes, but as artificially intelligent quantum computers design and train more artifically intelligent quantum computers, the rate of increase of knowledge will increase exponentially.

Of course, I'm using a broad interpretation of 'knowing' to include access to knowledge not in our personal brains, and I'm using a narrow interpretation of 'everything' because there are many things we are unlikely to bother to know eg how many dust particles sit on a rock the other side of the universe. My 'everything' is limited to everything of consequence.

Peter wrote: "Agreed, at least I agree with 99%, I'm not sure about the comment that we will never know everything as a species. My jury is still out on that one and won't be back in several lifetimes, but as ar..."
You may be missing my point - the question of matter is one of existence. We cannot know what matter is. It's not a question of accumulating information, AI, or ourselves evolving to some higher (or lower) forms. Logically, matter's actual essence cannot be known now, or ever. If we knew what matter is, then we would have conquered the biggest questions - what is this place? why are we here? is there a consciousness behind all this? I think by now you get my drift - the nature of matter is intertwined with a fundamental truth which we will forever be blind to. The really cool thing is that we've got plenty of it to study, and no one seems concerned that we don't know what it is.

Not missing your point, just disagreeing with you. I do not agree that 'we cannot know what matter is' and I do not think you can say with the weight of scientific evidence, that 'it's not a question of accumulating information'. There is a big difference between saying we do not now know the essence of something and that it can never be known.

Logically, the above is a 'catch 22' oxymoron. If you don't know what the essence of something is, it makes no sense to declare that you can never know as that would require a knowledge of the phenomena. To declare something unknowable you need to know enough about it to draw that conclusion - of course, that doesn't work.

It cannot be logical to state in the same paragraph that we cannot know what matter is, then go on to describe the nature of matter. Either we don't know what we don't know or we do! If the latter is the case and matter is intertwined with a fundamental truth, then we already know something of matter - it's nature.

Further, there is no reason to conclude we will never conquer the biggest questions (why I used the word agnostic previously). There are already theories that must fall into the category of fiction or philosophy because they lack empirical evidence but as long as we can't disprove them and as long as there are remaining unanswered questions that could overturn perceived wisdom (as with quantum physics and the classical laws), we cannot logically claim they are invalid. Only when every element of the system, in as much as it has an ability to interfere with or influence other elements, is known, can we confidently assert that we understand the system.

As for matter, my opinion is that it is a manifestation of energy, hence the duality, and so the goal posts move to - what is energy? I have a theory about that too but it's for the third book in my series and I haven't properly started the second one yet!

Peter wrote: "Not missing your point, just disagreeing with you. I do not agree that 'we cannot know what matter is' and I do not think you can say with the weight of scientific evidence, that 'it's not a questi..."

OK, one more time. We humans understand the universe by means of its parts. At the most fundamental level, that includes matter. We can and have reduced atoms to parts, and those parts to smaller parts. This process will probably occur for quite a while as technology allows us to look deeper and deeper. Bottom line - we're great at taking things apart and giving them names. Matter/energy defies understanding because listing the parts does not qualify as knowing what the thing is. Just as a thought experiment - let's say matter/energy is God. Is there a way we can know this? No technology can prove this. So we're stuck. Let' say matter/energy is the Force. Once again, no way to demonstrate this. What I'm trying to say is that the one thing in this universe that man can never know is a fundamental truth ... it's beyond our ability to reason. Now why that is, is a curious question all its own. I suspect that since we evolved on a planet where a specific form of logic allowed us to survive, then perhaps we are limited in our thinking and simply cannot see the nature of a thing, but only have the ability to measure it, dissect it, and give it names.

"Just as a thought experiment - let's say matter/energy is God. Is there a way we can know this?" As a thought experiment, in that example, one way we might know this is by discovering the relationship between matter/energy and the causation between it/them and the creation of life and the universe. Another is that God reveals that relationship to us - assuming that in this thought experiment we accept the notion of God.

"Let' say matter/energy is the Force. Once again, no way to demonstrate this." We have successfully demonstrated other forces by cause and effect, and created classical physics and mathematics to describe them. We can even demonstrate the quantum entanglement of distantly separated paired particles without even understanding if there is a force as we understand it.

Again, I say that you can logically no more say we can never know a fundamental truth than that we can. To do so would require knowledge of the truth you claim it is impossible to know. And I'm certainly not talking only of mechanical reductionism, taking stuff apart to get to smaller and smaller constituent parts - I think we may possibly already be getting close to that. I'm referring to properties we are yet to understand but have witnessed their effect, as we did with the boson field.

Even our best scientists cannot fully describe the Big Bang, Stephen Hawking attempted to do so valiantly but his singularity is still 'something', every theory begins with something material or ethereal. However, the beginning, the time before the Big Bang must have comprised an essence that was non-existent yet capable of starting time and triggering the sequence of events that created the universe. How can this paradox be resolved? There may be numerous answers but one potential answer is the existence of something that simply cannot 'not exist' yet has no material manifestation. I don't wish to postulate at this time what that might be but the fact that we can neither see or measure it now does not exclude the possibility that one day we might understand it.

Yes, we evolved on a planet where a specific form of logic allowed us to survive, and our brains are wired like radio receivers to perceive a limited range of signals from the spectrum. So too our experience of time is linear and two dimensional. And I accept that we cannot yet know if our knowledge will embrace fundamental truths but to state categorically that it cannot is metaphysical agnosticism that seems to me to be based upon belief rather than science.

Peter wrote: ""Just as a thought experiment - let's say matter/energy is God. Is there a way we can know this?" As a thought experiment, in that example, one way we might know this is by discovering the relation..."

Not based on belief - can you name one thing we understand at a fundamental level? You know, like what it really is.

If my suggestions will all be boiled down to, 'they consist of matter and we don't know what matter is', then no. Otherwise the list is long and includes everything we manufacture, from car engines to space rockets.

But our difference of opinion here is not about the state of our current knowledge, it's about the assertion that we cannot know, like there's a universal decree made by God, a law of science or we have a mental limitation. None of these are known to exist and therefore there is no basis for the assertion.

Maybe if we flip this around. Tell me how we might discover what matter is. Generally discoveries are kind of predictable - for example, if we could build a better space ship we could explore the universe - just a matter of technology. If we could build something like a better microscope we might find out what's inside an electron. We might even figure out how the brain actually works and discover what consciousness/self-awareness is. What marvel of technology would reveal what matter is?

Remember the days before we had space ships?

And it wasn't that long ago there were no microscopes. Do you think people in those days said it would never be possible to see an amoeba or pre-CERN that we could never analyse particle collisions?

Just because we don't currently have the technology, we cannot conclude that we will never have it.

There are a lot of naysayers in the world. I have hope for human beings if the boot of 'society' is ever lifted from their necks. Look at what Elon Musk is doing. He is going to launch another Starship in as many months. He knew they would crash but everyone else is so risk averse they are afraid to try. NASA said it would take ten years and $32Billion to create reusable rocket boosters. He just landed one for the EIGHTH time a couple of weeks ago. He did it in 7 years for less than $3Billion.

I'm not sure that everyone else is so risk averse, maybe they just don't have his $billions to spend on it!

What do you mean by the 'boot of society'?

Peter wrote: "Remember the days before we had space ships?

And it wasn't that long ago there were no microscopes. Do you think people in those days said it would never be possible to see an amoeba or pre-CERN ..."

You simply repeated my points, but did not answer the question. What technological extrapolation or pure invention will allow us to understand the nature of matter? If you cannot answer this question, then what does this tell you? (Try not to retreat to the "we don't have the technology yet" distraction.)

Why not? It's a fact not a distraction!

I have answered the question - you know very well that technology improves and changes all the time. I'm not stating we have the technology now but that doesn't mean we can never have it. It doesn't mean we can either, it's illogical to assume either proposition.

As you flipped a previous question, so will I, what evidence do you have that we can never understand the nature of matter?

Peter wrote: "Why not? It's a fact not a distraction!

I have answered the question - you know very well that technology improves and changes all the time. I'm not stating we have the technology now but that doe..."

Simple - matter is fundamental to existence - that's why it defies understanding. It's basic philosophy. You cannot state that someday technology will find a way - last time - I'd like to know which technology would allow you to understand matter (or existence) -all, that is, all, did I say all? all science is based on understanding how parts work together, all the way from atom parts to universe parts, thus we can never answer a question that does not require an assembly of parts. I'm really surprised you don't get that.

Arthur wrote: "Point taken. I think you realize that every starting point is the end result of a chaotic process, so it would seem that the starting point is a moving target with embedded uncertainties that I'm n..."

Arthur wrote: "Point taken. I think you realize that every starting point is the end result of a chaotic process, so it would seem that the starting point is a moving target with embedded uncertainties that I'm n..."

My extremely limited concept of chaos or to be more technically correct -- a chaotic system -- appears to be disordered, but it is not. There is an underlying order that disregards initial conditions. Let's take the orbital of an electron in an atom. Though we cannot predict where the electron will be, we have a probability function for that electron. Theoretically, it can go anywhere that it wants to go, but the likelihood of it ending up 6 feet away from the nucleus is essentially zero. The orbitals have shapes, or rather their probability functions do. Such a system has a high degree of predictability -- i,e. the orbitals are well-defined. The energies of each electron in an atom are incredibly precise. They are quantized.
With all that being said, quantum mechanics was one of my favorite subjects in school. Precisely because it is just so weird. I can't believe in a Newtonian The Universe is a Great Clockwork point of view. I just can't believe in determinism. To make it philosophical -- I believe in Free Will. Quantum Mechanics may only tell us that Free Will is random chance, but I would never go that far. Perhaps our brains are living, working quantum computers where all possibilities exist simultaneously until we act. It makes one wonder. I was doing homework with a buddy one day. He asked, "How do we know there isn't only one electron?" That blew my mind and I always share it with others who might contemplate it. I truly tripped out a co-worker when I repeated this once. He could barely concentrate on anything else that whole day!

Michael wrote: "Arthur wrote: "Point taken. I think you realize that every starting point is the end result of a chaotic process, so it would seem that the starting point is a moving target with embedded uncertain..."
That would would be some probability function. The question of one electron reflects an inner feeling that everything may be entangled; all matter, everywhere. And point in fact, it's likely true, since we all exist in one huge closed system.

"Simple - matter is fundamental to existence - that's why it defies understanding."
There is zero logic in this statement. Oxygen is fundamental to existence but we have a pretty good understanding of that, so is carbon.

You appear to be introducing a metaphysical property to matter while simultaneously arguing that we cannot know what it is. This is akin to religion - believing in God without the need for evidence. I have no issue with those who do, and I think it's honest of them to admit they don't require evidence, but I cannot accept the corollary that their God cannot be known simply because they don't currently know.

"we can never answer a question that does not require an assembly of parts." Really? Can you not understand an emotion, a thought, a memory, a belief; could you not understand the question; how do you feel? Could you answer the question - how does a new born infant know it must find its mother's breast, it must breathe, or cry for attention, without reference to an assembly of parts?

Probability is an entirely different issue, Heisenberg described our inability to know two positions simultaneously, not that we could never understand one definitively if we ignored the other.

We do share common ground on one thing (although I would again suggest this is theory not knowledge) and that is the likelihood of us existing in one huge closed loop system. This is underpinned by our belief in classic physics that energy cannot be destroyed, only transformed, therefore our consciousness frames the universe as a closed loop. It seems most likely but it's only a theory and like all other theories it's open to scrutiny, testing and proof or disproof.

"I'd like to know which technology would allow you to understand matter (or existence) -all, that is, all, did I say all?" The technology is consciousness.

Michael wrote: "Arthur wrote: "Point taken. I think you realize that every starting point is the end result of a chaotic process, so it would seem that the starting point is a moving target with embedded uncertain..."

At secondary school, my science teacher first described the composition of atoms and I excitedly suggested that perhaps the universe was a huge atom as it seemed to look like what he was telling us. His reply was to belittle my suggestion but I've never entirely let go.

Could all this be just one electron? Maybe, I read about interpenetration lots of years ago in a book called The Tao of Physics by Frijof Capra. He presented a plausible theory but I've never been drawn to the idea of a single entity like an electron purely because electrons exist and behave the way they do partly due to the presence of other particles.

When you talk about determinism and free will, is it not the case that our exercise of free will has always been determined by genetic and socialising factors? Ie We may be free to choose but we will only ever choose what we are predisposed to by our personal programming.

To me, the duality of particles and waves could just as easily indicate a Cosmic Joke. One 'definition' of humour is the bringing together of two previously unrelated, or apparently irreconcilable, ideas (a good description of surrealism too; think of Dali's lobster-telephone). So, to paraphrase Haldane, perhaps the Universe is just far funnier than we can imagine.

Richard wrote: "To me, the duality of particles and waves could just as easily indicate a Cosmic Joke. One 'definition' of humour is the bringing together of two previously unrelated, or apparently irreconcilable,..."

Or what do you think about Energy & Matter? Matter & Anti-Matter, does it matter? You reminded me I need to put Haldane on my list of favorite quotes.

If you want to read a funny email thread regarding Matter and Energy, look at my latest blog contribution here on Goodreads.com. :)

Michael
michaelsbookcorner.com

Fight for the Future

Richard wrote: "To me, the duality of particles and waves could just as easily indicate a Cosmic Joke. One 'definition' of humour is the bringing together of two previously unrelated, or apparently irreconcilable,..."

Nice idea - and the comedian? :)

Peter wrote: "Michael wrote: "Arthur wrote: "Point taken. I think you realize that every starting point is the end result of a chaotic process, so it would seem that the starting point is a moving target with em..."

There you have it. You have identified the evil that is the prime focus of my books! The programmers and social engineers are hand-in-glove with the self-appointed elite who feel that they inevitably deserve tribute i.e. a cut of what you have built with your own two hands.

The public at large slip into alignment with this brainwashing and gaslighting through complacency, apathy, and moreover -- after generations/millennia -- the underlying and unstated fear of the gun in the room over which they no longer control. I call this a Stockholm Syndrome that is staggering in scope. We are taught to cower and kow-tow then ultimately defend by thought or deed those who are, in fact, our captors and abusers as any beaten child or spouse does because he/she knows nothing else.

We do this in the name of order and safety though in the end, that which we fear the most is simply institutionalized.

Michael
michaelsbookcorner.com

Perhaps that’s the bit that’s funnier than we can imagine—that there is no Cosmic Comedian.
    Surely the most fundamental question, though, is whether or not there is a basic “stuff” from which the universe is made. If you think yes, then you can go ahead and argue about what it might be—energy, information, mind (or something else; didn’t the first philosopher claim that it was water?) But I’m not sure I quite get all that: if the cosmos is absolutely everything there is, how can it be made from something more specific? Isn’t the cosmos just made of, well…cosmos?

I think the most basic question is what was the very first phenomenon, followed swiftly by how did it come into existence. Stephen Hawking (amongst others) postulated how the big bang could have arisen from nothing but the tautological argument remains uncomfortable.

The idea that space time began with the big bang leaves the equally awkward question, 'did time not exist before it'? What we commonly understand as time, seems to me to be eternal unless some metaphysical explanation is on hand!

The 'what happened next' is pretty well covered by physicists, at least as a description, if not an explanation, of events.

I think the idea is that time itself was created in the Big Bang, along with everything else, so (by definition) there can't be anything earlier.
    Unless, of course, the Bang was just a local phenomenon and the result looks like the whole thing to us because it's where we are, it's where we happen to live (just as, not so long ago, people thought that planet Earth was the whole thing) the Universe itself, meanwhile, being infinitely old and big.

Re. The Big Bang - Of all the forms it could adopt, matter chose atoms—highly organized bits—electrons orbiting nuclei containing a variety of teeny particles. Each has a number of properties that define how they will interact with other atoms. All this leads to the assembly of molecules into bigger and bigger piles, until we have the world we see today, filled with piles of molecules which interact with other piles. Some even contemplate themselves, and their destinies. The inanimate becomes not only animate, but self aware.
Pretty odd, isn't it?

To describe it as odd is the understatement of the year! What really gets me is that it even looks odd to us looking at it from the inside, as part of it all ourselves. I have a feeling, if we could see it from the outside, it would just look nuts.

Richard wrote: "I think the idea is that time itself was created in the Big Bang, along with everything else, so (by definition) there can't be anything earlier.
    Unless, of course, the Bang was just a local ph..."
Yes, I'm drawn more to that sequence of events, the 'big bang' being just another bang in a series of universe extinctions and 'creations' (not in a biblical sense). And the vast amount (68%) of dark energy is energy in another universe. That doesn't solve the riddle though, it simply pushes it back to some even more ancient time.

As for the big bang creating time, Hawkins was a genius but I think even he considered this to be unproven theory. Perhaps, because of our biology, our perception of time is fundamentally different to the actual phenomenon.

Theories are curious things. A hypothesis begs testing in order to be promoted to a theory (basically something one is pretty sure of, but remains riddled with untested gaps). Once a theory survives an arbitrary number of tests, it may or may not become a law. We presume a law is immutable fact, but even the law of gravity seems a bit shaky these days. I bring this up because we should not get fixated on what some call "settled science", which is an anathema to what science really is.

Arthur wrote: "Theories are curious things. A hypothesis begs testing in order to be promoted to a theory (basically something one is pretty sure of, but remains riddled with untested gaps). Once a theory survive..."

I agree - laws are merely theories that have passed our known tests but what we 'know' changes all the time.

Hello,

Great cozy group! Though this is not specifically about wave/particle duality, I read recently an idea that the fact the speed of light an upper limit, it proves that we live in a simulation. This has to do with the fact that all computer simulations have an upper limit independent of what is happening in the simulation/program - more commonly, this limit is the processor speed. Check this article out. Definitely thought provoking.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar....

Cheers!

That is a fascinating article Manuel, and this whole universe-as-simulation idea probably deserves a thread of its own here.

If the speed of light is the processing speed and space is mathematical-space, rather than the real thing, I wonder what blacks holes actually are, or the Big Bang itself? It even crossed my mind some while ago that the particle/wave duality is almost like a kind of binary, maybe the 'bits' our universe is written in. I meant it as a joke, but now I'm not so sure!

I was less convinced by the second half though. One subject which has changed out of all recognition in recent times is animal intelligence/consciousness - the number of species besides ourselves now thought to be self-aware keeps growing: the great apes, dolphins and porpoises, whales maybe, elephants certainly, all the corvids, at least some of the parrots, and who knows who else out there... But then, perhaps that's the point of the simulation—an experiment, an attempt at simulating consciousness.

One final thing: if true, I guess the simulation idea might at least solve another huge mystery too (which probably also deserves a thread of its own): the Fermi Paradox.

Manuel wrote: "Hello,

Great cozy group! Though this is not specifically about wave/particle duality, I read recently an idea that the fact the speed of light an upper limit, it proves that we live in a simulatio..."

Interesting idea but I don't believe the article proves we live in a simulation. My immediate reaction is that the hypothesis suggests a creator, someone or something that created the simulator - God.

A simulator is not something that would have evolved by itself with no purpose or utility. There has to be an inventor/creator. Once that is established it becomes more important than the experience of its subjects.

I do not rule it out - anymore than I rule anything out, but I don't the case is proven. The statement made that consciousness has no utility is also questionable, I think the utility would be argued to be self-evident in the dominance of the species that has developed it most, mankind. Our consciousness has enabled visualisation of threats, food sources, mates, shelter, all manner of evolutionary advantages. And the comparisons with computer programs also ignore the role of the conscious, intelligent programmer, without which no computer games would exist.

As ever I'm very open to being shot down on all of the above if you think I'm mistaken!

Peter wrote: "Manuel wrote: "Hello,

Great cozy group! Though this is not specifically about wave/particle duality, I read recently an idea that the fact the speed of light an upper limit, it proves that we live..."

I would not be the one to shoot down any of those thoughts. And I tend to agree with you, and Richard above, that the part about the function/utility of consciousness is a bit harder to swallow.

I think there is probably more than one way of thinking of our existence as a simulation, Roko's Basilisk for example (if I even dare utter the name lol). but in the end a certain degree of utilitarianism would say that it doesn't matter as long as we have the perception of free will and can live happy/content lives.

A more interesting thought experiment would perhaps be to ask: if we assume that we live in a simulation, how do our imperatives chance (morality, etc.)?

Cheers!

Any formulation of existence needs to include the reason why happiness is fleeting, known only for the moment it is achieved, and sadness is lasting, known throughout our lives.

A curious thing for matter to evolve to - from a microsecond of mush to subatomic particles to atoms themselves. Why atoms? These bits already incorporated everything needed to evolve to more complex systems. Matter could have instead just remained without form or purpose, but obviously did not. In addition, these atoms must have had some kind of awareness imbedded from the beginning - evidenced by their likes and dislikes for various other atoms - such a property appears to have evolved into more sophisticated preferences as molecules, which in turn, begot organisms and us. Scientists claim some organisms have achieved self-awareness - but what if it was a basic property of matter from the start? And if so, that observation alone may provide a explanation for everything.

Is happiness so fleeting? In my life I've experienced at least as much happiness as sadness. Homeostasis seems to be the medium between the two.

I agree that 'it is almost as if' matter has self-awareness because of the actions that universally occur. Similarly, I have often wondered what prompted the first 'voluntary' cell division, the precursor to everything we know and to us. Why did it happen and why did it keep on happening?

As for Manuel's thought experiment, I do think simulation deserves a thread of its own, so I'll start one with that last question!

Peter wrote: "Is happiness so fleeting? In my life I've experienced at least as much happiness as sadness. Homeostasis seems to be the medium between the two.

I agree that 'it is almost as if' matter has self-a..."

Sad to say, we can only pursue happiness. I am referring to that singular moment when a goal is achieved. The feeling lasts only for a moment. Hence the expression, "What have you done for me lately?" However, when something bad happens, like the death of a loved one, that feeling will never go away. Perhaps it's a product of evolution and somehow relates to survival - bad things need to be avoided, so we have a penchant for recalling them quite clearly.

I think it depends upon your personality, goal seeking isn't a major source of happiness for me. I'm happy to spend time with my family perhaps at dinner or with a glass of wine, I'm happy to enjoy an amusing anecdote or feel the love I have for my wife and hers for me. I'm happy on my boat when the wind fills the sail on a sunny day or I jump in the sea for a swim. I'm happy to contemplate the stars on a clear night outside on my own. There are countless examples and the feeling can last a long time.

When something bad happens, I use an NLP technique to deal with my frame of mind. Of course, some things require the cathartic process of mourning but mostly I pose the question to myself, 'is feeling sad going to improve what has happened in any way?' The answer is usually 'no', it serves no purpose except to bring you down. There's another technique I use to expunge the feeling if needed but I won't bore you with that.

I'm not suggesting I could easily cope with anything life throws at me but for those who live lives free of real tragedy, I don't think the scales are weighed more heavily on sadness. Even the deaths of loved ones (like with my parents) need not leave a sadness that never goes away. Our feelings can and often do mutate into something much more bearable and often to even becoming attached to loved memories and a celebration of their lives.

Peter wrote: "I think it depends upon your personality, goal seeking isn't a major source of happiness for me. I'm happy to spend time with my family perhaps at dinner or with a glass of wine, I'm happy to enjoy..."

Your description of happiness is more like satisfaction. And that's fine. Happiness in my view is a moment of sheer ecstasy. Come and gone in a moment. Like water pouring between your fingers.
We live in a sad world - designed that way. I'm not depressed, but when you see children with diseases and incurable maladies, there is no amount of Zen that will justify that. When you see people hate others there's no amount of philosophy or theology that overcomes that. If there is anything to religious beliefs, like the ones that suggest the existence of Heaven and Hell, I cannot think of a better definition for Hell than the one we are in. We get to know nothing about our Universe, about our purpose, our destiny, the why of it all, and instead are blessed with very short lives punctuated by the loss of friends and family, and even animals. And if we are lucky, we live long enough to be ignored and forgotten before we die.

Peter, you have done a great job dismissing the woes of the world using mental magic, and I do understand how comforting that is, for I too can enjoy the stars at night, the sunlight on my shoulders, and the warmth of friendship and family. The trouble is, that it's all so temporary. Which brings me to the philosophical point -or scientific point- why? Life, meaning the absurd demand by DNA to keep going, could have been unending. I get the need for mutations and renewal to change with the changes in environment, and even the "circle of life" to guarantee survival of the best mutations. Maybe, in another Universe, its equivalent of atoms work in a different way.

Sheer ecstasy is the opposite of sheer pain, and neither characterise the majority of our lives. There is a difference between satisfaction, which sits more comfortably with your previous definition of goal achievement, and happiness which is much closer to joy.

I do not dismiss the woes of the world or the misery of children with diseases or incurable maladies. Nor do I justify them with 'zen'. But the reality is that you do not change these by being sad. Nor is life absurd because of the demands of DNA. Humans need to desist from the obsession of being the pinnacle of creation - like children who cannot accept that 'everything does not revolve around them'. We are part of a fabulous existence and should be grateful to be alive to experience it, however humble or important our roles may be.

If you truly cannot think of a better definition of Hell than the one we are in, I feel for you. This is not Hell, quite the opposite, and we do not yet know whether if our existence is temporary. Perhaps it may be, in the exact form we know it, but wouldn't it be wonderful if the next form was even better than this and our transience is simply a path to that next state?