On energy, entropy, death, and the afterlife:

Required Reading: How death increases entropy,

Before broaching a more subjective and less theoretical approach to the idea of death, I thought I'd tackle some potential links between physics and death.

On energy and entropy:

 
Entropy can be described as the total of all displaced, and therefore unusable energy (however it is ultimately a much more complex topic, relating heavily to thermodynamics). It is well known that all matter requires some form of energy to move, operate, or otherwise live. 

Einstein’s law of the conservation of energy requires that any energy that is used in a process can not be caused to disappear or degrade. While the consumption of food provides energy, and sleep stores it for later use, such energies are expended through physical and mental activities, however strenuous. However, expended energy cannot be retained, reused, absorbed or lost entirely. Theoreticians have posited that entropy remains as a formless reserve of used and evermore useless energy.

On entropy and death:

    The concept of entropy is applicable to death if one considers that all of the elements of life require the consumption of some kind of energy, whether it is kinetic energy for movement, or electrical impulses within the brain for thought or body awareness, etc.

In death, all of these energies seem to be dispersed. Indeed, it appears that no energies are animate or expendable in death beyond the decomposition process - a final outlet for any remaining energy in the body. Presumably, in death those once animate energies of the body are transposed into entropy. As entropy can not be accessed, its existence can not be verified, nor can its significance be made obvious, should it exist.

For a short and amusing explanation of the link between death an entropy, I encourage you to read  the brief article by Dr. Crystal Cooper that I linked at the top of this post.

On entropy and the afterlife:

At the risk of leaning too much toward Judaeo-Christian views, the process of energy converting to entropy in death can metaphorically mirror the passage of souls to heaven (in any number of limited or minimal interpretations thereof), or it could be that process in fact. Though unverifiable in its supernaturalism, it could be that a form of energy taken to be the soul - or merely the energies expended by the life process - could live on in a different way for a different means, through entropy.

My intent is not to posit any kind of definitive afterlife interpretation, nor even to posit an afterlife at all. Rather, my intent is to foster some hope for a reconciliation of science to common faiths, without casting aside logic. It is my experience that parallels often signify either extreme similarity, or perfect identification of events. This is to say that two things which have potential to parallel in such a way could easily be one and the same thing, though perhaps in less fantastical or logical ways.

On faith, belief, and offense:

There is no injury to the non-believer in the believer’s continued belief. 

The positive statement “I believe in x, which is opposed to your views” is inoffensive. However, the statement “the belief in x is a false belief” is offensive, because it denies the potential verity of an unverifiable thing. While faith-based beliefs are unverifiable by nature, believing is a form of subjective truth, and to deny it is to call the believer a liar.

The point being that faith-based belief in a thing and faith-based non-belief in a thing are equally unverifiable, and as such, all faith-based beliefs or non-beliefs can co-exist logically, because blind faith is illogical in the first place. It is just as likely that an idea or object that is not readily apparent exists as it is that it doesn't, so long as it remains apparently not.

There is no contradiction in the simultaneous existence or non-existence of that which can not be proved or disproved with certainty. God may or may not exist just as unicorns or aliens may or may not exist. These things all possess potential for existence but lack any apparent evidence to that existence. That said, it is still illogical to assert belief in any such thing, because it is illogical to believe in anything that is not apparently so. Furthermore, it is illogical to believe in logical contradictions; absolutely non-existent objects, such as a round square or a highly populated desert isle.

There are three ways that people respond to the unverifiable: 

1. Blind acceptance, due to misrepresentation of the subject as having evidence of being absolutely true or false

2. Doubt or rejection of the subject as false in the face of such a misrepresentation

3. A rejection of the subject as a non-issue; as that which can not provide evidence of itself has no effect on the perceivable world, because it either does not exist or works in such a way as to be imperceptible or undiscovered. 

Obviously, the third response is the one that logic prefers, because blind acceptance as true and based on a lack of evidence is illogical, while doubt or rejection as false based on a lack of evidence is also a form of blind acceptance. To suspend judgment, to refuse to take a stance is most logical because it allows for existence or non existence, and places no particular value on either.

On challenging faith:

On the subject of using what is readily apparent as evidence of existence or non-existence, it would follow naturally that these principles be applied to issues of faith; whether it be faith in the existence of a thing, or faith in the non-existence of a thing.

It is unreasonable to provide a fully-formed antithesis to a faith-based thesis. (It is, of course, never reasonable to provide an unformed or partially formed anything). This is because that antithesis is as much a faith-based claim as the thesis, in that any evidence to its truth is based on the apparently not; something for which no evidence can be found. Countering a conclusion that is based on the not at all apparent with a conclusion that is based on the apparently not provides no evidence to the truth of one’s own assertion, and as such cannot disprove the opposite.

Simply, to state “your faith-based claim is false” is no more or less verifiable than to state “my faith-based claim is true.” Those who make conclusions based on the apparently not are effectively making a claim based on their own blind faith that what cannot be seen does not exist.

Conversely, it is just so that those who make conclusions based on the apparently so have faith that what they perceive is what is real – but, importantly, the perceivable world is an integral part of interaction and existence in the world, real or not. That is, it is not blind faith, as it is in the other two cases.

The application of this discourse is that in discussion about religion, outspoken atheism is as much a blind faith-based belief as theism. So, for those who would prefer to avoid blind faith in anything (which, as I have said is the most logical approach to belief) a careful agnosticism – with an open mind to emerging evidence - is the only option.



I have lots more to say about what's wrong with atheism, like its name, for example. We'll see what I do next time.

On religion and the infinite thing:

Required reading: On God as Infinite, On the Identity of the Infinite, Omnipresence, Pantheism, Panentheism

Because we are assuming that God, space, and time are one and the same, the claim that the universe (of which space and time are facets) is the infinite thing does not exclude god from existence or infinity.

As I have already said, God, space, time, events and the universe are all the same thing. It is perfectly reasonable to call that infinite thing whatever one wants, but it is unreasonable to suggest that its components are different or separate if they are each described as infinite – a quality which precludes multiplicity.

The question is then “what is the significance of a god that is the same thing as the universe?” My answer is “no more significance than usual.” Certainly, it will affect the Judeo-Christian interpretation of God as being the benevolent man who lives on a cloud (which has already lost much of its credence), but it need not affect the truly spiritual aspect of any religion.

A conception of God as ubiquitous is found in many religions and approaches to spirituality, such as Taoism or Gaia theory (both forms of pantheism). However, the idea of an omnipresent god has faded from western religion, while it is far more common in the east. Ubiquity need not damage theistic religions – including Christianity, in any case.

Space and time are the building blocks of physics, and God is synonymous with them. As such, the implications for both prayer and science are numerous. The power of prayer to influence events is easier to imagine, considering the interconnectedness of people, their minds, their wills, events, and the forces behind them. Meanwhile scientific advancement and experimental pursuits could be considered holy events.

That said, it is my position that if God is one with the universe – the infinite thing – then prayer and worship are virtually redundant. The delivery system for matters of faith is instantaneous and ubiquitous. The mundane would be divine; holiness would reside within all things. God would no longer be beyond reach; no longer distanced from us.

However, it is up to each person to decide how to respond to this hypothesis. It would be as valid to venerate all things as it would to continue worship the same as always. Of course, for some, the question of whether worshipping rocks, supernovas, serial killers, and cheese - for each of these things is of God/the universe/the infinite thing – will seem a bit superfluous. So far as atheists are concerned, this issue would have no relevance.



Next Week: On Spinoza and the infinite thing, in which I explain how this "infinite thing" and its ubiquity relate to the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, for whom I have a philosophical boner.

On God as Infinite:

Required Reading: Ontology, Infinity, Existence of God

No two things can be infinite. Therefore whatever is infinite is that thing than which nothing greater can be thought. That is the gist of St. Anselm’s ontological argument; his proof of God. Basically Anselm’s argument is that the thing than which nothing greater can be thought is God. His proof of God is that a god that exists only in the mind is not as great as a god who exists in both the mind and reality. So any thing for which a greater thing can be thought cannot be God.

Most medieval versions of God describe it as being infinitely merciful, or knowing, or powerful. If God is infinite in one respect, then in accordance with Anselm’s argument, God must also be infinite in all other respects. A God which is infinitely merciful, but finitely powerful, is not that than which nothing greater can be thought. Likewise, a thing that is infinitely one thing, but finitely another can not be God if there is some being (which I can think of) who has infinite power, mercifulness, wickedness, penis size, volume, ductility, etc., and is not limited by finitude in any aspect.

Of course, Anselm’s proof has a flaw, which is that it only shows that if god exists, then god exists in both the mind and reality. I don’t intend to prove God’s existence, for reasons that ought to become clearer next week. The important thing is that provided that the “than which nothing greater can be thought” argument is sound - and I feel that it is - even if the proof that follows from it isn’t, the God must be infinite in every aspect. God must be an infinite thing.


Next Week: On the identity of the infinite, in which I fiddle with knobs and twiddle dials until my brain factory can reconcile three infinite things that we normally perceive as distinct.