"W
So starts a Guardian article written by Galen Strawson* where he reviews a book by Philip Goff titled Why? The Purpose of the Universe.
Usually, the word "Aseity" is only applied to God: The phrase "The Aseity of God" is intended to convey that in some way we don't understand God's existence is a self-explaining logical truism and therefore, the idea that God doesn't exist is a contradiction. For those who are uncomfortable with the kind of theism which posits an all-embracing totalizing sentience called "God" I suppose it is possible to attempt to apply the notion of Aseity to the secular cosmos; Viz: that the existence of the cosmos itself has some inherent logical necessity that we've yet to understand, if indeed "Aseity" can ever be humanly comprehended as it may involve infinities.
But as I have expressed many times before, whether the source of Aseity is sentient or not, that source isn't going to be found in conventional physics & science. This is because the laws of science as "explanations" merely describe. That is, they do not "explain" in a sense which addresses any inclination we may have toward believing that our perceived reality has its foundation in some kind of Aseity. Conventional science and physics work because the high organization and high registration in the patterns of our experiences makes it possible to describe those patterns in the succinct and compressed forms we call the "laws of physics/science". No matter how compressed these forms are - and they can never compress to nothing - they will always leave us with a hard kernel of incompressible contingent information which has no further "explanation" than "It just is". As I wrote in this blog post:
I favour the view that mathematics betrays the a-priori and primary place of mind; chiefly God’s mind. The alternative view is that gritty material elementals are the primary a-priori ontology and constitute the foundation of the cosmos and mathematics. But elementalism has no chance of satisfying the requirement of self-explanation as the following consideration suggests: what is the most elementary elemental we can imagine? It would be an entity that could be described with a single bit of information. But a single bit of information has no degree of freedom and no chance that it could contain computations complex enough to be construed as self-explanation. A single bit of information would simply have to be accepted as a brute fact. Aseity is therefore not to be found in an elemental ontology; elementals are just too simple.
Those who find the notion of God unacceptable nevertheless often betray an instinctual intellectual need for at least a non-sentient form of Aseity: We see hints of this instinct in the expression of puzzlement at the "unexplained" contingencies that science can only ever deliver (But see my quote from Bertrand Russell below). It seems that human intuition is confounded by brute-fact and yearns for deeper explanation, reason or cause (call it what you like) for the apparently arbitrary state of affairs the cosmos presents us with. Given the state of human knowledge then as the above quote from Strawson suggests, "nothingness" is actually the most reasonable state of affairs we can think of as it wouldn't demand any explanation at all. But in discussing these questions we really need to define just what we mean with words like "explanation", "reason" and "cause"; for as we have seen "scientific explanation" is in the final analysis mere description and in a deeply intuitive satisfying way is no explanation at all (But see Russell!)
Anyway, continuing with Strawson's article...
STRAWSON: Some people think that if we knew more, we’d see that there couldn’t have been nothing. That wouldn’t surprise me. Others go further: they think we’d see that there couldn’t have been anything other than just what there is: this very universe, containing just the kind of stuff and laws of nature it does contain. That wouldn’t surprise me either, nor – I suspect – Einstein: “What really interests me,” he said, “is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.” (Einstein’s God is a metaphorical device: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses.”)
MY COMMENT: Once again, we see the same intellectual hankering expressing itself here; namely, that the very existence of the cosmos is founded in some kind of logical necessity or has a profound "reason", "explanation" or "cause" - whatever those terms mean. Not only that, but some wonder if the very form and configuration of the cosmos (as described by its laws) is underwritten by logical necessities we have yet to comprehend.
STRAWSON: Most people who ponder these things take a different view. They think the universe could in fact have been different. They think it’s puzzling that it turned out the way it did, with creatures like us in it. They are tempted by the idea that the universe has some point, some goal or meaning. In Why?, Philip Goff, professor of philosophy at Durham, argues for “cosmic purpose, the idea that the universe is directed towards certain goals, such as the emergence of life” and the existence of value.
I’m not convinced, but I’m impressed. Why? is direct, clear, open, acute, honest, companionable. It manages to stay down to earth even in its most abstract passages. I’m tempted to say, by way of praise, that it’s Liverpudlian, like its author.
MY COMMENT: OK, so assuming the very existence of the cosmos is a necessity (even if we are unclear about the logic of that) the next question is why is the cosmos the way that it is? According to Strawson most people don't see logical necessity in the form of the cosmos even if its existence is a necessity; that is, it seems logically possible the cosmos could have had a different form altogether with different laws. So, according to Strawson, in response to this Philip Goff addresses the question of why the universe is as it is by proposing that the cosmos has goals and purpose, and these goals and purposes bring configuration & form. Goff is therefore implying that the cosmos is subject to teleological constraints. Or as I have put it many times in this blog using an algorithmic metaphor, the cosmos works like a declarative computation: that is, it is searching for declared goals: The cosmos has a declared computational purpose.
But Strawson is not convinced ...too right he's not convinced: Teleology fits rather too well with an a priori sentient creator! Talk of "cosmic purpose" makes most paid up atheists feel very uncomfortable indeed.
STRAWSON:The book has a double beat, like a heart: each chapter begins with a diastole, an admirably accessible section on its subject – consciousness, the point of life, the purpose of the universe (if any), the existence (or non-existence) of God – and closes with a systole, a more taxing “Digging Deeper” section.
Goff rules firmly against the traditional Christian God, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent – while backing the notorious “fine-tuning argument”, which goes roughly as follows: it’s so incredibly unlikely that a universe such as ours, containing life, consciousness and value, should have come into existence at all that we must suppose that some purpose has been at work, tuning things to come out as they have. It’s extremely hard to do this well, and Goff provides an intellectually aerobic primer on the logic of probability, and in particular the Bayes’ theorem, one of the core ideas of our day. His conclusion is as advertised in his title: nothing is certain, but the balance of evidence favours belief in cosmic purpose.
MY COMMENT: As I am unlikely to read Goff's book I can't challenge him on the specifics of his rejection of the Christain God; however, I assume that Goff has in his mind some sort of overarching sentience working out its will in the cosmos because only in the presence of sentience does the purpose, goal and meaning have any intelligibility. I personally have gone down the (Christian) theism route as the only way I can think of satisfying our need for Aseity, epistemic security, a sense of anthropic purpose and an account of human social & political failure in one swoop (Not to mention the need for human salvation). So for me the traditional Christain God is my way of trying to make sense of the human predicament and circumstances; if indeed the need to make ultimate sense of things has meaning beyond human strivings; after all it seems unlikely animals are plagued with the enduring curiosity which drives a lifetime of existential yearning for ultimate explanation and purpose. Animals appear to be satisfied to simply accept the earthly status quo, as long as it provides food and safety (Although there is evidence that at least some animals also prefer an interesting, varied & social environment. Although it is not clear that they are plagued by the existential angst over meaning and purpose)
I guess that Goff's Bayesian arguments are along the lines I've described in this document. However, I think I'd agree with the last sentence above: Viz: that according to Goff nothing is certain, but the balance of evidence favours belief in cosmic purpose.
STRAWSON: The question is genuinely difficult. I’m bothered by the fact that many of the arguments for fine-tuning depend on varying the fundamental physical constants (eg the charge on electrons) while holding the existing laws of nature fixed. I can’t see why engaging in this curious activity could ever be thought to explain anything, or support any interesting conclusion. And if – as Einstein and I suspect – nothing could possibly have been different, the fine-tuning arguments collapse, as Goff acknowledges. But his discussion is ingenious and illuminating.
MY COMMENT: I think Strawson has a point here; that is that fine tuning cannot be coherently separated from the other aspects of the laws of physics. Using the algorithmic metaphor: It is clear that both initial conditions and the information inherent in the laws of physics form one package of curiously contingent fine tuning. Moreover, there is no known logical obligation which tells us why the cosmos should sustain itself moment by moment and place by place. Ergo, the so-called fine tuning of the fundamental constants is not the only enigma but so is also the maintenance of the known form of the laws of physics everywhere and everywhen.
In his last sentence in the foregoing quote Strawson displays the same intuitive intellectual instinct which seeks some kind of Aseity "explaining" why the cosmos is as it is. Although I guess that in Strawson's case he would likely posit that that Aseity is to be found in a non-sentient object, rather than in the conventional notion of God.
STRAWSON: In the chapter on consciousness, Goff brings up the standard view that there’s a radical difficulty in explaining its existence. I think that those who believe this have gone wrong right at the start: they think – quite wrongly – that they know something about the nature of matter that makes it mysterious that consciousness exists. Wrong. There’s no good reason to think this, as Goff agrees. The solution is to suppose (along with a good number of winners of the Nobel prize for physics) that consciousness in some form is built into the nature of matter from the start. This view is known as panpsychism, and Goff ends his discussion with “a prediction: panpsychism will, over time, come to seem just obviously correct”.
MY COMMENT: I sort of agree with Strawson and Goff here: That is, that matter, if rightly configured has built into it the ability to generate conscious cognition. I stress rightly configured because I don't think our current AI simulations, no matter how good, are conscious; they are just simulations and don't use matter in a way which generates conscious thought. My long shot guesses at the way matter must be used to generate consciousness can be found in this paper. See also my footnote below on idealism*
.
STRAWSON: Why? is a rich book. It aims high and ends with some good political reflections. It’ll turn quite a few heads. It should get the discussion it deserves. I don’t for all that think the universe has a purpose. I think it just is.
It does, though, seem to have a taste for complication. The balance of evidence is a delicate thing, but it seems at present to favour the view that something is going on that isn’t fully accountable for by the laws of physics. It’s nothing to do with “Nobodaddy” (William Blake’s name for the nonexistent Christian God), or any sort of goal, but Wittgenstein seems to be on the right track when he tries to express his sense of absolute or ethical value and finds it crystallised in one particular experience: “I wonder at the existence of the world”.
MY COMMENT: So, Strawson thinks the cosmos "just is" and without purpose. Bertrand Russell said something similar in his debate with Father Copleston:
I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all [there is to it!]
Strawson's notion of a "just there" cosmos is consistent with what we understand about so-called "scientific explanation" which because in the final analysis is fundamentally just a form of description can only ever leave us at the contingent edge of a "just there" kernel of information. So it is no surprise that Strawson can only say “I wonder at the existence of the world”. Well, so do I but for me I have the urge to seek beyond the absurdity of a "just is" contingency to a deeper concept of explanation which satisfies the human yearning for purpose. Aseity based on a Christian concept of God and an account of human Sin are concepts I find no more absurd than a "just is" cosmos and the moral, social and political perplexities it leaves us with.
***
Strawson's reference to God as "Nobodadday" is a pointer to the attitude of many in the hyper-secularized atmosphere of elite intellectual culture; these communities look askance at theists and religionists and may even treat them with a mocking disrespect. Although hyper-secularized culture dominates academia and intellectual elite communities these groups are in many respects an anomaly in the sea of faith which is broad and full in the wider world. Billions of the world's population are religiously motivated and in notable cases those religionists of (authoritarian) faith dominate politics. If the hyper-secularized intellectual community think of those of faith as deplorables with absurd views it will only help polarize the religious populares against them and provide fertile ground for demagogues who will tell those religionists what they want to hear. The populares will turn to these demagogues for guidance rather than academia who they may perceive as part of a conspiracy to defraud them of their traditional values. In spite of their sneers, I personally support academia although I would criticize those like Strawson who hold a hyper-secular message of a "just is" cosmos, a paradigm which I find just as absurd as they might find my theism. Moreover, as we know from the French revolution and various attempts to establish Marxism, hyper-secularism is also a high road to authoritarian traditionalist values, the re-emergence of a paradoxical secularized religion and the return of ruling demagogues. The political world of left and right isn't a flat space but is curved into a sphere where the extremes of left and right meet at the same authoritarian place.
* Footnote on Idealism
I hold the view that conscious cognition exists because without it reality is an unintelligible notion: If reality doesn't deliver patterns of conscious experience and, at that, sufficiently organized experience for conscious cognition to be able to construct a rational ordered reality, then the meaning of reality is lost in the nebulous notion of "gritty matter" having an existence independent of sentient perception. So, reality is the conjunction of organized conscious experience, and this organization facilitates the construction of a rational world which conscious thought builds around organized experience. The Matrix teaches us that reality is the logic of experience.
But if conscious thought is itself to classify as real it too must deliver a rational account of itself. It follows then that reality has a self-affirming, self-referencing character: Viz: Conscious perception of the cosmos gives the cosmos intelligibility and coherence; but if reality exists only if conscious thought delivers a rational account of it, then for conscious thought to classify as real it too must have a rational account of itself. So, as conscious thought gives coherence and substance to the concept of a highly organized material cosmos then the cosmos in turn accords reality to conscious cognition by returning a rational account of conscious thought. (See the introduction of this book where I first mooted this self-referencing account of reality). However, there is one big problem with this form of idealism: Human beings come in and out of existence and therefore cannot be the primary reality. This is why it becomes necessary to posit a primary overarching sentience which gives meaning and reality to the cosmos.
* Guardian Footnote:
Galen Strawson is a philosopher and author of Freedom and Belief (Oxford). Why? The Purpose of the Universe by Philip Goff is published by Oxford (£14.99). To support the Guardian and Observer buy your copy at guardianbookshop.com. Delivery charges may apply. From Friday 8 December 2023 to Wednesday 10 January 2024, 20p from every Guardian Bookshop order will support the Guardian and Observer’s charity appeal 2023.
