Is Life the Most Incomprehensible Thing ?
“There is never a case when the root is in order and yet the branches are in order”
― Confucius
Most people think that this world (or physical universe) is anarchic and/or chaotic and thus meaningless and beyond any comprehension. They believe in a “Chaotic Universe Model” that tells that universe oscillates in time with chaotic dynamics without repeating itself. As a result of this perception or belief they also feel they don’t have any control even on their own lives and destiny keeps slipping out of their hands. Many old mythologies also propagate the view that, in the beginning there was chaos, imagined as infinite emptiness, as avoid. Chaos is pictured as the opposite to Cosmos, the lack of form and order, “the lack of everything.” In short, according to the proponents of “chaotic theory,” The universe is a chaotic place, full of uncertainty. It can be extremely difficult to predict exactly what is going to happen in the universe at any given time, be it the present or the far future.
And although, most of the physicist believe that universe around us is deterministic i.e. If one knows all the properties of a system (where “system” can mean anything from a single particle in a box to weather patterns on the Earth or even the evolution of the universe itself), as well as the laws of physics, then one can perfectly predict the future, even then, they suppose that universe or nature can be both deterministic and unpredictable. This view gave rise to a sort of “Scriven’s paradox of predictability” that arises from the combination of two ideas: first, that everything in a deterministic universe is, in principle, predictable; second, that it is possible to create a system that falsifies any prediction that is made of it. Or rather there can be a possibility of an external observer (or God), not part of the universe, to (have the power to) determine in principle, all future states of the universe and thus also change all or some of the future occurrences.
However, according to some philosopher, the problem of predictability arises not because nature or universe is unpredictable, but because of the limitations of our knowledge or our mind. Thus it has been suggested that these limitations can be removed by increasing our knowledge of the laws of nature by improving our techniques of observations and measurements. In other words, problem is not that nature or laws of physical universe are inconsistent and thus incomprehensible, but there is problem with our mind. We can also say that if we can’t comprehend a phenomenon in the universe, it doesn’t mean it is happening without any cause or is random/senseless. Thus proponents of unpredictability behave like a proverbial “poor craftsman” who performs a job poorly or unsuccessfully but lays the blame on his tools or external factors, rather than taking responsibility for their own failure.
Supporting the above views, Einstein also doesn’t seem to agree with the proponents of the idea of unpredictability, inconsistency and incomprehensibility and is believed to have said that “The most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible.”
The quote first appeared in “Physics and Reality”(1936), in Ideas and Opinions, trans. Sonja Bargmann (New York: Bonanza, 1954), p292.
Although Einstein is believed to have called or (rather labelled) himself an agnostic, or a “religious nonbeliever,” but he reportedly didn’t like to be called an “atheist.” Following is another statement attributed to him that seems to clarify his position about his belief or ideology about the origins of life or universe:
“I am not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist… I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists…” According to Marcelo Glelser ( Theoretical Physicist)), “Einstein also expressed his dissatisfaction with the randomness in quantum physics: his “God doesn’t play dice” quote can be understood in this context. The whole quote is being reproduced below:
“God does not play dice with the universe.”
The context of the quotes is believed to be that a major part of quantum theory, called the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle, says it’s impossible to know both the speed and position of a single particle at the same time. So in quantum mechanics nothing can be certain, and we can only describe things in terms of probabilities. However, Einstein, believed there must be some underlying laws of nature that could define particles and make it possible to calculate both their speed and position.
There are also many other scientists/cosmologists/philosophers, who don’t believe in theories or ideas like “Cosmic Anarchy” and see the problem from another angle.
Here are the words of the Martin Rees (a British cosmologist and astrophysicist) from the chapter four of his acclaimed book “On the Future — Prospects for Humanity”:
“At first sight one might think it presumptuous to claim — or even seek — to understand the remote cosmos when there’s so much that baffles us closer at hand. But that’s not necessarily a fair assessment. There is nothing paradoxical about the whole being simpler than its parts. Imagine an ordinary brick — its shape can be described in a few numbers. But if you shatter it, the fragments can’t be described so succinctly.”
Thus devil is always in the detail.
Similarly “Evolution of Life on Earth” is also deemed a “random” process by the proponents of the modern science who while claiming to have a secular ideology, also believe in the “survival of the fittest” theory. Moreover, they view the evolution process to be “unplanned,” “unguided,” and “lacking explanation.” But scholars who, like Einstein, believe in the order and harmony of the universe, argue that Evolution is not a random process. According to them, the genetic variation on which natural selection acts may occur randomly, but natural selection itself is not random at all. Most believe that From today’s vantage point, it seems obvious that Darwin’s theory of evolution — a simple, elegant theory that explains how one force, natural selection, came to shape the entire development of life on Earth — would play the role of the great unifier.
A multi-national team of biologists has concluded that developmental evolution is deterministic and orderly, rather than random, based on a study of different species of roundworms. During a study, the research team analyzed more than 40 characteristics of vulva development, including cell death, cell division patterns, and related aspects of gonad development and concluded that the number of cell divisions needed in vulva development declined over time — instead of randomly increasing and decreasing. In addition, the team noted that the number of rings used to form the vulva consistently declined during the evolutionary process. These results demonstrate that, even where we might expect evolution to be random, it is not. The leading author is Karin Kiontke, a post-doctoral fellow in New York University’s Department of Biology. The research team included NYU Biology Professor David Fitch as well as researchers from the University of Paris, the Israel Institute of Technology, and the Max-Planck Institute for Developmental Biology in Germany.
Thus the problem is with our mind. In other words the problem is inside and not the outside. That is why it is said that the most complex thing we know about in the universe is our own mind.
In his article, “Evolution and Belief in God,” writer Albrecht Moritz (Assistant Professor in Environmental Political Geography, University of Eastern Finland) quotes a statement from American National Academy of Sciences:
“Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed “theistic evolution”, is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines.”
To sum up, as they say, “the beauty is in the eye of beholder,” it is up to the observer (or their mental condition) how they see or perceive the world around them. And thus, as some philosophers are of the view, the chaos and order are both human concepts and not the accurate descriptions of the reality outside our minds.
Some scholars also argue that if everything in the universe was completely stable, with complete harmony, then there would have been no progress, no time, no entropy, and thus resultant nothingness. If there was no interplay of order vs. disorder or harmony vs. chaos then we would feel the futility of the existence.
I would like to end this blog with the following quote:
“Call it order, call it chaos, it’s all in the brain.”
― Abhijit Naskar, Mission Reality
Kindly support:
I am not eligible for “Medium Partner Program” and need the support and encouragement from the readers like you to keep writing the meaningful stuff. To do this you have to just click the link below to buy me a coffee.
Thanks.
References:
i) http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Nave-html/Faithpathh/Einstein.html
ii) Einstein, Albert (11 October, 2010). Calaprice, (Alice Ed). The Ultimate Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press. P. 325.
iii) https://www.space.com/chaos-theory-explainer-unpredictable-systems.html
v) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119123929.htm
vi) https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution
