If events are not determined ex ante, then at each moment of its career, every creaturely particle of being in the transformations it therein suffers conducts anew a stochastic quantum computation of a way through a solution space (that itself evolves from each moment to each next) to its own next optimal configuration – or to something adequately proximal thereto – mutatis mutandis. In each such computation it must take account of its entire past – of, that is to say, the entire past of its actual world; for, in no other way might any event take a place in a history of its world as congruent thereto, and as a meet participant thereof – so that, in no other way might a coherent world be cobbled together from one time slice to the next. But, what a particle of being has inherited from its past cannot suffice to a solution of its own problem of what to make of itself. To be sure, its mundane data are needed as the foreground and basis – the proscenium, as it were – of its process of becoming; but each particular event must make of those data something new, and more; or, at least, different. Else it were moot, thus nil; so that, if it should fail to be different, it should fail to be, at all. It should rather in that case be just another episode in some other already actual thing. It could not in that case make any contribution to history of its own; could not act upon some others in a way peculiar to itself; so, could not act, at all; so, could not be, at all.
What has no effect upon another is to all others as nothing. What has no effect upon any other then *just is* nothing.
So, the only way to procure reality is to generate novelty. This is why Whitehead put Creativity in his Category of the Ultimate (together with the Many and the One).
What is real cannot but have effect upon other things that are real.
Excursus: It appears here as though a bit of circularity has crept into our analysis. What is real is … what is real. But not so. We define what is real first in terms of what has effect upon such things as we ourselves. In this, we take ourselves (and other things like us) as axiomatic. One must after all take something or other as axiomatic. Might as well start with "I am." So doing, we take ourselves to be axiomatically real.
Even the Buddhists do that, despite the fact that they end up by repudiating it. Must start somewhere or other …
The quantum computation and specification of each novel event, by which it comes to be just itself, happens outside of the temporal flux of the cosmos; for, only as complete might it then enter into that flux as an accomplished fact thereof. It happens, i.e., instantaneously – as events are reckoned in our world. However long its duration subjectively, and no matter how intense or complex it be, it appears to all subsequents as an instant: a point, a datum: a singular fact, that finished occurring at time t.
Excursus: This is to say, by the way, that, as happening extratemporally, events happen eternally. But never mind that for the time being.
Because they transpire outside of the spatiotemporal order of the cosmos, and can then enter into it only as finished, then events contemporaneous in that history as they each solve the problem of how best to be can have no information about each other, no knowledge. I can't know what you are now deciding until after you've decided it, no? Each event then arrives at its own solution of the problem of what it should best be – what, i.e., it should best now do – in total ignorance of the same sorts of solutions of its contemporaries, each of which is trying to solve the same problem, each of which is still cooking, not yet fully baked – not yet, i.e., fully real, not yet fully actual, and so not yet the least bit apprehensible by any others, so as to affect them.
OK, then, here's the crux of the argument. How likely at time t is it that googol googols of particular eventuations, each ignorant of all the others, are going to arrive at solutions compossible enough that they can together constitute a coherent moment in the evolution of a world? The answer seems clear: the probability that this could happen is 1/googol2.
Excursus: I'm using googol here because the number of events in a given cosmos at any time must be finite. But, you get the picture: the likelihood that the cosmos should persist from one instant to the next is nil. Googol is certainly too small a quantity to invoke in this argument. Maybe googolgoogol might begin to approximate the height of the cliff that each iteration of the search of the solution space of each particle must in each of its instants surmount.
Cosmic coherence, then – the cosmos, the world we now live in, and take for granted – is a massive achievement, incomprehensibly vast to any of its parts.
Also sublimely beautiful; indeed, superlimely beautiful.
And, impossible to procure from the information already embedded in the past of each and every actual event, and of all of them put together.
In short, the cosmos has not in itself the information – the intellection – to put itself together again from one instant to the next. The cosmos is not smart enough to replicate itself.
There is then no way that the cosmos can remain a cosmos from any instant of its life to any next, except in virtue of an influx to its every procedure of eventuation – to the procedure whereby its constituents decide from each moment of their careers what they shall next make of themselves – of information about what they should next best do that comes from outside the world system as it has so far constituted itself.
In short: even granting its omniscience with respect to past events of its world, no particular act of eventuation can know what it ought best to make of itself so as to then influence and so partake a coherent world, in such a way that, with its contemporaries, it could then be composed with them into such a coherence.
QED. I leave to the reader the supply of the steps subsequent, that end inexorably in theism.
If readers are interested, I can explain how these steps also logically entail the Trinity; and, for each Fallen cosmos, an Incarnation, and an Atonement. Which is to say, Christianity.
No comments:
Post a Comment