blackeyesunrise

I wonder what choice is or what it really means. Supposing the Big Bang occurred, the inevitable reaction of particle upon particle proceeded to create our known Universe. The path and trajectory of each particle is predetermined by the explosion, thus the interaction to form matter and stars and planets must occur in specific, nonrandom, inevitable locations. Though difficult to predict due to sheer number, it is nevertheless predictable by studying the laws of physics of where an object in motion is intended to go. Or at the very least, the probability of it.

Having established that, our planet’s creation could not NOT have happened. The binding of atoms and molecules are precise and even a basic study of chemistry can show what happens when X element confronts Y element with Z energy. So can we really conclude otherwise that amino acids must have formed, certain attractions must have taken place, and the cycle of replication begat the first simplistic life forms? It is just a question of time before the Divine Spark is replicated in lab. So how about complex organisms? What of our ‘deliberate’ manipulation of environment?

We must question then if deliberate is possible. The brain is composed of neural impulses determined by minute fluxes of chemicals. If we are to believe that the location of individual particles cannot follow any other course than the ones that they have taken and will take, then we must also believe that given the perfect combination of available resources, the chemicals that react within us can only do so in the way that they have been occurring. Response creates an exact response. All of human history had to happen exactly as it did. Our individual actions are set despite what we perceive as control.

This idea has been twisting in my brain for quite some time. Initially I was curious with history, the reactions of generations on previous generations. How the nation at war produced a nation at peace which then produced revolutionaries, etc. These things have to be generalized and specialized simultaneously. Given the rationale, at a macro level, we can nearly predict the outlook of humanity. At a micro level, we can predict where each particle will exist, the exact number of beats a yet-to-be-born butterfly will flutter before becoming ingested by a-yet-to-exist species of bird.

Everything is inevitable.

I have also theorized the true purpose of everything. Everything exists to expend energy in every way possible, inefficiently, efficiently, to a state of inertness. On a cosmic scale, bubbles of energy explode and coalesce, not quite self-sustaining. Each cycle loses a spot of momentum, produces something inclined to stability. On a biological scale, all our energy here on Earth is derived from the Sun. Plants harness light and convert it to something more concrete. Animals in turn consume plants and thus convert it into something even less pure. Our fundamental purpose is to expend and we do so.

Tying back to the above, all the ways energy can and will be expended has been predetermined by those first particles flung hither and thither. Truly, we are all just atoms bumping into one another. In conclusion, keep living as you do, but keep in mind that regardless of what happens, it was bound to happen. Is this crazy?

* * *

For those of you uncomfortable with the idea that free will is a sham, allow me to assist you in rebutting the above argument. On usual scales and perceptions, the probability of a particle’s behavior is close to 100%. However, on a quantum scale, the predictability drops dramatically. An electron might exist in two places, a quantum of light can act as a wave or otherwise, and a particle’s spin might be one or the other or neither. An element of chaos is introduced into the natural system, one that can be further extrapolated to human systems and allow you some sort of consolation.

Let’s just say nobody knows how an impulse gets between the minute space in between neurons, how it can cross that chasm instantly or where the impulse exists in crossing. If this is where free will happens, that indeterminate moment that can change one man’s actions or the world’s, spells out hope and lets you sleep easier at night, well… take it if you need it.

Read a well-argued and beautifully crafted essay, Three Differences Between an Academic and an Intellectual. Warrants further study. The author makes three points (quoted and italicized verbatim):

1. An academic has and wants an audience disproportionately made up of teachers and students, while an intellectual has and wants teachers and students in his audience only in proportion to their place in the general educated public.

2. An academic is a specialist who has disciplined his curiosity to operate largely within a designated area, while an intellectual is a generalist who deliberately does otherwise.

3. An academic is concerned with substance and suspicious of style, while an intellectual is suspicious of any substance that purports to transcend or defy style.

He asserts that neither is more important than the other, that both follow completely valid quests for knowledge and both require a great deal of training and discipline. Equal minds, different planes.

I may have come away with a skewed interpretation (being neither academic nor intellectual) but it would seem that the core beliefs between the two are opposed — perhaps not diametrically — but in the sense that they at least operate independently of each other. Is this a valid interpretation?

If that is indeed what the author suggests, I would have to differ. My conclusion after reading the essay is that academics and intellectuals form a symbiotic relationship in which survival would not be possible otherwise. Without intellectuals, academics would not be able to disseminate their ideas into larger society and thus gain aspiring scholars into their fellowship. On the other hand, without academics, intellectuals would have nothing to study and generalize about and thus cease to exist.

While his analogy to hunter / farmer is framed with the best intent, I believe a supplier / distributor model would be more apt and further emphasize their dependence. Anyways, correct me if I am stupid.