Inherent meaning of the universe

                                            Transcript

[Song Plays and Goes off]

Host:

You're listening to The Cosmic Hour. I'm your host, Robin, and today we have two very special guests joining us! The Universe and Human!

Let's dive right into the debate. The question of the day! Is the universe inherently meaningful, or is it inherently meaningless? Universe, you can go first.

Universe:

Gladly. The universe is inherently meaningless. At the smallest scale, all objects are just composed of atoms governed by fundamental physical laws, as Charles de Quincey highlighted. These atoms have no purpose or meaning; they simply exist and follow the mechanics of nature.

Take a rock and a human. The distinction between them is arbitrary and assigned by humans. In a quantum level, there is no difference between a rock and a human.

Human:

Well, I respectfully disagree. We, as humans, provide meaning, and that makes the universe meaningful. Dion explains that our subjective interpretations shape existence. When we consider a book, we see much more than atoms arranged in a configuration we call paper and ink. We see knowledge, history, or story.

If string theory is right, and everything is composed of vibrating strings, then yes, I am made up of the same stuff as a pretzel. But not like the pretzel, I can interpret. The desk in front of me? We decided to call this configuration of atoms 'desk.' Constantly we were naming things.

And that's not all. We fall in love, see beauty, and write stories. Without humans, the swirling chaos of the universe would go unobserved, unappreciated, unlabeled.

Host:

Strong points on both sides. Hmm… Universe, what do you say to Human's claim that interpretation creates meaning?

Universe:

Well, maybe interpretation can create meaning subjectively, but it certainly does not make the universe meaningful in any essential way. After all, over trillions of years, stars will burn out, galaxies will collide, and black holes will evaporate without regard for what we may think or feel. The desk, the pretzel, and even you are temporary configurations of atoms that will return eventually to chaos. We find meaning significant because we are wired through evolution to seek out patterns and purpose which is how we survive. But that doesn't make meaning inherent.

The quarks and atoms that make up the desk simply follow the laws of physics. To the universe, they in no way depict “swirling chaos.” Therefore, it is humanity that projects that judgment when it cannot make much sense of fundamentally neutral things.

And regarding this concept that we “create” meaning through art, music, or love, aren't those just manifestations of human survival strategies? Love helps propagate species. Art and music build social cohesion. These interpretations are deeply personal but ultimately arbitrary when viewed from the scale of the cosmos.

As Ridley reminds us, survival and reproduction are life's purpose. I think those are just consequences of natural selection, not evidence of inherent meaning.

Take suicide as an example. If survival were inherently meaningful, why would people end their lives? Meursault in The Stranger feels freedom into death while denying all those constructs of meaningfulness or survival created by society. Meaning – what humans think they assign to the universe, and inherent desire to survive – is entirely shaped by societal influences, not the universe.

Human:

You have mentioned The Stranger, but let's take Klara and the Sun as an example for comparison. If you were right, and our behavior and meanings we give are completely determined by society, why would Klara be able to assign a meaning to the universe? She had never learned from others what the sun was, but the ability of Klara to assign meaning to it – that it was source of healing – shows well how meaning can be born from individual relationships even in a universe indifferent to such connections. The Sun does not care about Klara's interpretation of it, yet it provides her with a meaning of the Sun! Like Klara, human beings do grant meaning – even to pieces of bread for keeping hope alive amidst starvation – even when being put in isolation. It reflects our ability to assign meaning inherently, highlighting an inherent quality of humanity that is deeply interconnected with the meaning of the universe.

In both The Stranger and Klara and the Sun, meaning is created by relationships and interpretation. In the Stranger, the meaning of the life was absurd which was shown by Meursault’s interpretation of the universe during his death. Meanwhile, Klara’s meaning of her life was created by the connection with Josie which demonstrates that even in the absence of societal learning, connection gives purpose.

Carlo Rovelli’s Helgoland described how we are not made of atoms but of connections with others. In quantum mechanics, the particles are defined by their relations with each other, not by being independent, individual entities. Humans are defined by relations: the connections we make to people, to ideas, and even to abstract concepts like hope or love. Klara’s relationship with Josie defines her existence and gives meaning to her actions, just like how our relationships define us and what we consider important.

Host:

Interesting! What you’re saying is that even outside societal norms, the connections we form demonstrate a unique human capacity to create meaning, right? Very well, let's press on. How about free will? If quantum randomness provides possibilities for free will, does this imply that humans do have the power to assign meaning to an otherwise neutral universe?

Human:

Horgan elaborates on how quantum mechanics imposed inherent randomness upon the universe. He then introduces the 'Strong Free Will Theorem' proposed by John Conway and Simon Kochen, which explains the possibility of human free will in relation to inherent randomness. If particles can behave probabilistic, then humans may have the free will to create meaning. By interpreting the chaotic universe, we give the universe meaning and purpose through our stories.

Universe:

Well, Einstein once asked, 'Do you really believe the moon is not there when you are not looking at it?' Reality existed outside of human observation for him. The moon, the stars, and the universe are there and don't depend on your perception or interpretation.

This would then mean that free will is limited in its scope. The universe, outside of human existence, is indifferent to your stories or your creativity; it plays out according to its fundamental physical principles, unaffected by our interpretation.

And consider the theoretical concept of the cycle of time, where the Big Bang might not have been a beginning but part of an eternal sequence of expansion and contraction, some sort of cosmic loop. If everything has already happened and is going to happen, where does free will fit in? It seems humanity is just following some script dictated by the timeless nature of the universe.

Human:

Here’s Niels Bohr's answer to Einstein's question. Bohr highlighted the significance of observations as they bring reality into existence at a quantum level. The moon is there, existing independently of us, but on the quantum level, particle movement is probabilistic, existing as a cloud of probabilities, a wave of “maybes” until they finally “choose” a state. Each interaction nudges things in different directions, creating endless possibilities rather than a single, inevitable path.

His perspective involves our participation in shaping reality by interpreting and observing the universe. Randomness in quantum mechanics allows for an opportunity to make choices. Perhaps the universe cycles endlessly, but free will consists in how we perceive and act in each cycle.

Even in a universe indifferent to us, we give it meaning by existing, observing, and creating stories. That may not change the cosmos, but it gives purpose to us.

Host:

Wow, both sides are bringing powerful arguments. Let's touch on the role of society. Human, you said meaning is intrinsic to us. How do societal norms play into this?

Human:

Society does not create meaning; it amplifies it. In fact, even societal expectations, Wulfing would say, are born out of our need to understand and relate to things. Without societal norms, we would still find meaning in objects, relationships, and life itself.

Universe:

But societal norms show just how arbitrary meaning is. Different cultures assign vastly different values to the same things. If the parents in a given society were taught to abandon their children for material rewards, they might see that as meaningful. This variability proves that meaning constructed by society isn't universal. It's constructed and fluid.

Take these examples. In The Stranger, Meursault rejects the meanings given by society, such as grief and morality, which proves that meaning is subjective and not inherent to the universe. He gets condemned not only for what he did but also because he acted contrary to the societal script followed by others. Yet, if this were a society filled with people like Meursault, the punishment he received and the judgment of others against him would have been drastically different. He would not be the monster but the norm.

Now, let’s consider the society introduced in Klara and the Sun. To us, the idea of replacing a child with a robot like Klara seems morally wrong, because it is in strong contrast with all “our” societal norms. In the book, though, this practice is widely accepted and normalized. That which seems monstrous to us is perfectly ordinary to their society.

Host:

So, Universe, you're saying that because societal norms are fluid and arbitrary, meaning also can be seen to be a human construct and not inherent. Right?

Universe:

Yeah, these examples prove that meaning in society is not some kind of inherent and universal thing but rather fluid, shifting with beliefs and practices of people collectively. What is right or wrong, normal or monstrous, depends solely on the context of a society, and that is what makes meaning arbitrary, a construct rather than some kind of fixed truth.

Host:

That really challenges us to think again! Does meaning lie in the interpretation, or is it a construct against a backdrop of indifference? Alright, listeners, I ask you: What do you think? Thanks for listening to my show!

[Outro Music Plays]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work Cited

de Quincey, C. (1999). Radical nature and the paradox of consciousness. ReVision, 21(4), 12.

Dion, M. (2014). The sameness of existing in a meaningless reality: Boris Vian's L'Herbe rouge and Murakami Haruki's IQ84. Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics, 37(1-2), 21+.

Horgan, J. (2022, April 8). Does quantum mechanics rule out free will? UWIRE Text, 1.

Ridley, M. (2016, January 27). In retrospect: The selfish gene. Nature, 529(7587), 462-463.

Wulfing, N. (2008). Anxiety in existential philosophy and the question of the paradox. Existential Analysis, 19(1), 73+.

Ishiguro, K. (2021). Klara and the sun.

Camus, A. (1942). The stranger.