For a while I
considered myself an agnostic deist, which in retrospect feels like a copout or
a placeholder of indecision like a man standing between two lanes of polarized
traffic. One road travels north to a yes
and the other south to a no, on if god exists.
The idea that the universe has “no boundary or edge, it would have
neither beginning nor end: it would simply be,” resonates more with me than any
‘I don’t know.’
In a way I have
come to pity agnostics or the ‘spiritual, but not religious’ contingent more
than the theists. Certainty the lot of
agnostics is less obtrusive to the general harmony of global society than the
evangelicals. However being so close to
choosing, like I recall being at a time, is like climbing the preponderance of
Everest and turning away not because of the arduous cold and lack of oxygen,
but because one suddenly felt the need to retrieve a comfortable trinket from
home and chooses to descend and truncate the expedition.
I wish for
humanity to own our choice of love, peace and interconnectedness and the
absence thereof into our volition rather than segmented in any partition by the
notion of god. We are what are.
For a long period
of my life, I held to my trinket that something outside of existence must have
created existence, but what if there was never a point of creation? What if there is no start to the process,
because the terms that we have traditionally defined as impetus are imperfectly
flawed and myopically constructed on our limited perception of time rather than
what time is.
Just as we have
been on a perpetual expedition to better define the happenings and interplay of
the universe, space-time, quarks, energy and matter; we are doing the same with
what we labeled god. If there was no
moment or spark of creation than even as an antitheist, I am open to the
possibility that the very generally assumed definition of god may be
transferred away from what was once the interactive deity of what we now know
to be stars and contingent atmospheric interplay to where the non-interactive,
but absentee landlord creator never was such, but is rather everything
simultaneously.
Wherein the
traditional definitions of god are actually moot. God is not a point of confidence, observer, refuge
or thinker. For Einstein asked, “How
much choice did God have in constructing the universe?” I have debated, ‘how could a deity existing
outside of time ever make a choice?’ A
choice requires a before, a during and an after. This is a paradigm of a being traveling on
the pathways in a present reflecting on a past and devouring a future. This correlates with Hawking’s arrow of time
of thermodynamics and cosmology pointing in the same direction.
The anthropic
principle is basically that, “We see the universe the way it is because if it
were different we would not be here to observe it.” As a poet, the idea of the universe acting
like a breath makes sense to me. The big
bang and the big crunch are the paradigms all life mimics. We cannot exist to observe the inhale. It is in this relative silence that the
exhale will repeat.
Our notions that
this has not happened in uncountable iterations under the illusion of what time
appears to be to us seems far more native, rational and plausible then any
thought process of a god external to the process conducting internal
debate.
The paradox of the
omnipotent all-knowing creator and independent free-will of man coexisting is
one I cannot avow. If we have true choice,
then there can be no grand planner. For
if so, then we are but predestined ants trailing blueprint ink from our
footsteps and uttering a playwright’s script from the impetus.
If there is a god,
god to me is in the electromagnetic to the gravitational forces guiding atoms
to massless bodies converted and reconverted to and from energy in the grand
zero sum of energy in the universe in no way segregated from any function of
existence. For if there is one apparent
statement being conveyed it is that of interconnected balance. We see this in magnetism and attraction
perpetuating the smallest of the small to the largest of the large.
Even in Hawking’s
black holes, the radiation emitted and the laws breaking down is like a sneak
preview that the close of a star is like the recoil of the universe. So that at the end there is a remnant into a
balance that at once what we thought beyond the event horizon nothing could
escape, there is the continuance of a particle.
That is all we
once were and will be again, is a particle.
Just as every human, yes even him, begins as a single cell so in we
mimic the universe. In death we go
nowhere. Our mental faculties had a
chance to jump ship through speaking, writing, music, paintings, teaching, and
loving. Our biological material will
leap through sperm and egg to fresh vehicles will all its drive or at minimum
decay into the soil or disease confining ornamental comical caskets. Our energy is merely shifted in the zero sum.
In any alternative,
this planet will fold into the expiration of our star long before the universe
contracts. Even if we were to leap our
genes and or thoughts across solar systems or galaxies or dare say another
universe, this universe or that universe will inevitably close. Even in the limited platform of parallel
dimensions in string theory, only so much could ever fit in two dimensional
space. So in we must be at peace with
what we are, an exhale awaiting an inhalation to be breathed out again and in
again.
There is no
magical amusement park, only waiting for this place in a reconfigured format to
reach a stage for the anthropic principle to once again reach a point of
stability to ask mirrored inquiries. Maybe
that sounds like a bunch of crazy, but I think when we strip it all down to the
basics of what we are left with the why.
In the why I come to peace, love and interconnection. Which is mostly the point behind all the
other distractions anyway, however ironic, humorous, or false.
To me this is the
ultimate full-circle scientific theory.
One can make a hypothesis awaiting lifetimes to be validated by the work
of another. I would hope the crux is the
very anthropic principle that we have a mind capable of contemplating such is
all the response required to know this to be true. There in comes the scaled debate to choose
love or fear in each iteration to achieve such a harmonious progression.
No matter if one
assumes or does not assume a creator’s presence behind Oz’s curtain, the why of
truth exists in either iteration whether one was traveling convinced on either
roadway north or south. So I go traversing
south, feeling I really ‘ain’t goin’ nowhere.”
Despite rotating on a planet around a sun, spinning in a solar system,
in one of millions of galaxies in a rotating boundless expanding universe,
which could be one of countless other iterations.
None of that
really matters in the end, as my universe is the resounding chimes of volition
to choose where to steer my thoughts, what kindness to express, what harm to
flash asunder to another. I choose
whether to recognize the curtain of the atom, the cell, and the universe itself
to see what we each appear to be. I
pursue paying attention to this interconnection and act and choose accordingly,
not for reward or avoidance of punishment, not for the pellet of mutual
benefit, but for the resonance of what love is under a zero sum.
The whole elevates
to a greater perceived magnitude. What
one offers does not create a commensurate allotment of hatred somewhere else in
the system, but rather the antimatter of such a choice with a non-choice. Pain and misery can find density as mass
beyond the event horizon of volition to counterbalance the ubiquitous presence
of love as energy in equilibrium hidden in the darkness of un-chosen self-sabotage. This
is and has been a constant presence like that string of a dimension beyond our
perception whispering to us in the silences. All we must do is choose.
No comments:
Post a Comment