Nothing is Sacred

One of the biggest goals in each one of our lives is to figure out our purpose. Why do we exist? Not how ... because the answer to that is known, but why? Explanations involving God just result in the question being modified to: Why does God exist? Now, I recognize that I am making an assumption here (which, if proven false, would render this entire chain of thought invalid), justified by the lack of convincing evidence to the contrary, but this is what I fundamentally believe as of now: there is no greater purpose.

The universe, as a result of the fact that it is logically consistent, can exist. But so can any number of other logically consistent universes with different histories or different laws of physics altogether. And why should anything exist at all anyway? Well, the principles of justice that I have been conditioned to think according to (yes, I know that it sounds evil, but if you think about it objectively, the definition does apply) make me want to believe that all possibilities are (withholding the word: equally) feasible, and exist as a superimposition which happens to be most closely described by the term: Multiverse. But essentially, we exist, because we can.

Now, the advantage of existential nihilism is that it is liberating. There are no expectations that you feel you must fulfill, even if you don't want to. However, the psychology that leads you to this conclusion also makes you question everything, which can at times be depressing. There are occasions when I look at a baby looking up lovingly at his mother, and the first thing that comes to my mind isn't how much I love my own mother (sorry Mom), but how billions of years of evolution have culminated in beings that are capable of such emotions. If I see a young couple in love, it occurs to me that hormones must be flooding their bodies, hampering judgment. Or if I see someone who has worked really hard to achieve something, instead of admiring their endurance, I think of how little it matters in the grand scheme of things (assuming it exists at all). And yes, I give the same treatment to my own life too. Now that I think of it, the kind of stuff that makes me feel good invariably involves situations that make you feel how small you are ... a classic case of confirmation bias.

In fact, to understand how I have begun to view the world, consider the Game of Life (it is very highly recommended that you follow this link and attain a basic understanding). It is a system whose behavior is defined at a basic level using very simple rules, but results in extraordinarily complex patterns when viewed from a higher scale (ie, when the basic units are insignificant, but the patterns are prominent). Using logical induction, one can propose that reality, as we know it, is nothing more than a similar system, with more complex rules including probabilities (assuming the validity of quantum mechanics), being played out on a much larger arena. In principle, if we have an understanding of how the universe functions at its basic level (which is the ultimate aim of science), and given with sufficient computational power, we should be able to simulate reality itself. And free will, as we experience it, would be nothing more than a manifestation of the probabilities mentioned above (if at all).

And you know what? It sucks. Knowing that everything you do is pointless. That you are just a tiny blob of organic matter that happens to be self aware, stuck in a corner of an incomprehensibly large galaxy, that is insignificant compared to the size of the universe it is contained in. There are times when I wonder what it would be like if I weren't capable of such abstractions ... ignorance being bliss and all. And then I consider religion again ... it gives people hope. And through that, happiness. But I don't think I'm capable of that anymore ... I lose self-respect for even considering deceiving myself. Note that I concede, in all honesty, the possibility that there might be some ideas in worth consideration, but by the time we filter them out, words like "religion" and "spirituality" would have long since ceased to be applicable.

What I have, instead, is complete and utter faith in science. I believe that if there is anything that we don't understand, logical answers do exist, and that science will eventually lead to them. That the God of the Gaps argument deserves condemnation. That nothing is sacred. Of course, the argument is just as applicable to its maker, and Godel's Incompleteness Theorems formally prove that logic too cannot be consistent within itself (in simpler terms, one cannot describe in all entirety any system without making assumptions). And so ultimately, we have no choice but to make some assumptions somewhere ... the least we can do is to be honest with ourselves and ensure that they are consistent with each other.

Now, another issue is that evolution has resulted in me to wanting a greater "meaning" in my life. How? Because individuals that worked together and put the needs of the tribe/group above their own were more likely to survive as compared to purely selfish ones. By working towards a goal together, the process of whatever needs to be done is optimized (each individual does what he/she is best at), efficiency is increased and survival rates enhanced. In fact, all of morality can be shown to derived from these principles of cooperation that were favored by natural selection (and not from religion). And thus, the idea of a greater "meaning" is appealing to all of us.

But why are we discussing all this anyway? Because the overwhelming majority opinion regarding the purpose of life is essentially to be happy. Psychologist Martin Seligman articulated that humans seem happiest when their lives consist of the following elements: Pleasure, Engagement, Relationships, Meaning and Accomplishments. But as of now, none of the others are as intellectually attractive to me as the one I am focusing on here. I recognize that I will inevitably change as time passes, but given that I haven't yet had the experiences that will trigger these changes, I cannot possibly comprehend them yet. And therefore, there's no point in worrying about them right now.

So, where are we at? The desire for a "meaning" coupled with the lack of one. How do we fix it? Assign it ourselves. How? Find something that we value enough to dedicate our lives to. This is a point of divergence, as different individual value different things. What do I value? Well ... given the somewhat depressing perspective with which I view the world, aside from one particular goal, nothing seems worthy. Of course, on purely logical grounds, all goals are arbitrary; but this one is appealing to me not only because of evolution (as it involves acquisition of knowledge & power that, in an evolutionary context, can result in food & security which facilitate natural selection) but perhaps also as result of all the science fiction books I have read (thanks Dad). But what is it? The rest of this text is dedicated to its description, but I must warn you that there is a significant amount of speculation involved, and so you might want to take it with a pinch of salt.

There is an argument used by some people while debating the existence of God, that I find particularly interesting. The claim is that the logic we use is not capable of understanding the ways in which God works, and hence will prove insufficient in the long run. That we are operating on a "need-to-know" basis, and that any apparent inconsistencies we perceive are due to our imperfections. The problem with this proposal is that, much like God, there is no way to disprove it for sure. Of course, there's nothing in support of it either, but it does raise the question: if that is the case, can we fix it?

There is a field of Computer Science called "Soft Computing" which involves the calculation of inexact solutions to hard problems that take too long to solve conventionally, due to the extremely large number of potential solutions. Tolerant of imprecision, uncertainty, partial truths and approximations, soft computing effectively takes to, as a role model, the human brain. Now, the human brain is the most complex computational system that we know of, and understanding how it works is one of science's greatest challenges. With a 100 billion neurons in each brain, and a 100 trillion interconnections between them, it is extraordinarily difficult to figure out what is going on.

But progress is being made. Artificial neural networks, which are systems that use functional analogs of biological neurons to build complex networks (in software), are capable of not only of locating solutions to these hard problems but even "learning" new things and intelligently guessing stuff if they don't know, much like we do. They are already being used (although at a much smaller scale than the human brain) in applications like Facial Recognition and Facebook Friend Suggestions. And so while we might not be capable of understanding how our own brains work, there is a possibility that we might indirectly be able to "build" one that is as complex using sufficient resources.

In fact, given freedom from the biological restrictions that we are subject to, it could continue to evolve, surpassing our own intelligence. Applying induction once again, if we can create something smarter than us, it can create something smarter than itself. This could result in an explosion of intelligence, each generation designing the next one to be smarter than itself. A phenomenon called the Technological Singularity, it is difficult for us (given our limited intelligence) to predict what will happen after that, but I'd guess that it will never be enough. All matter and energy available would be converted into a computational substrate, until the upper limits imposed by the laws of physics or theoretical computation apply.

Of course, the above is based on the assumption that each successive generation continues to want the same things, which can be debated. The current Zeitgeist, however, is moving towards an ever-increasing valuation of intelligence and information (check out the Google Glass Project), and I think that we will eventually have no choice but to technologically augment ourselves just to keep up; subsequently sacrificing our individuality (for a greater good) and merging our consciousness with an ever-expanding Group Mind. The patterns of information that define who we are are fundamentally intertwined with the emotions that we feel. Along with the realization that emotions are the source of all desires, one could propose that the desires of the individuals democratically become the desires of the group mind, which could be a possible solution to the above stated problem.

Of all the ideas that I have considered, this one appeals the most to me. I don't care that we'll be leaving behind what makes us human. Not that I have much respect for the species anyway. But what we will be gaining is complete and utter control over our world ... the power to do absolutely anything we want. Perhaps even the ability to twist, modify, or even break the laws of physics. Assuming an infinite number of universes, the potential to keep merging with other similar intelligences and become infinite. Beyond this point my imagination fails, but you get the idea ... omniscience, omnipresence & omnipotence.

Nothing is sacred. The only goal that I feel is worthy enough to pursue, is to become God.

PS : Thanks to Tanya Bisht, for helping figure out some of the above ideas.