What is reality? How do we know what is real?
This is not really the profound dilemma it appears. These questions are ultimately semantic, which is another way of saying that the answer to them depends on how we define things. The acrobatics they demand of us are linguistic, not philosophical.
Imagine for a moment the primitive caveman who possesses no scientific understanding of gravity. For all we know, he prays to a goddess of gravitation, mother to all living beings. The mother loves her children and cannot bear to separate with any of them. She allows no child to truly leave her embrace but permits a degree of liberty to birds and insects. Is it reasonable to argue that the laws of gravity work randomly in this state? Since Newton has not yet propounded his theory, should this primitive caveman jump off a cliff, will his fall violate the laws of physics that Newton is yet to discover? Certainly not, and most of us will agree that there exist objective truths in this universe independent of human awareness of them.
We define these truths collectively as the objectively reality. When we ask what is real, we only need to remove ourselves from this universe to understand that some things exist even if we are not there to discover them. As the writer Philip Dick said, reality is that which doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it. But what if everything is a simulation, like in The Matrix trilogy? What if, like the billionaire Elon Musk has popularly speculated, we are a simulation being run by an advanced alien civilisation? Nothing would be real then, right? Even now the argumentation is semantic, and there are two ways to answer this question-
Speaking strictly within The Matrix, humans live in an illusory world designed by sentient machines. The actual humans are plugged to computers that simulate existence within their minds. However, accepting this chronology means imagining a time in history when humanity had not yet invented sentient machines. What world did humanity then inhabit? What world do the sentient machines now inhabit? Where are the human pods plugged in? Even if there exists a simulated reality, there obviously exists a broader reality within which this simulation happens. In The Matrix or in the scenario Elon Musk paints, the definition of objective reality does not change. It simply relocates to a baser level of existence.
Let us imagine away the outer world within which the simulation happens and assume that the simulation is all that exists. What if existence is an illusion, a dream, pure code, maya, or as Plato said- merely a moving image of eternity? But as any game designer will tell us, even simulated worlds need physics. To simulate something means to create a set of conditions. Even if everything is just a simulation, there exist objective conditions guiding the simulation that we can attempt to discover, understand and translate to our languages. The best understanding we can formulate for these objective conditions is also the best understanding we can formulate for reality.
The philosopher Nick Bostrom posits that sometime in the future humanity will gain the ability to run highly complex ancestor simulations. These simulations will feel completely real to the artificial intelligences inside it, which means that the simulated ancestors will have no way of knowing that they are a simulation. Further, powerful computing technology will enable the future humans to run infinite variations of ancestor simulations. And left long enough, these simulations could in turn run simulations of their own. In such a scenario, where there are infinite simulations and only one objective reality, the probability of you and I being in that objective reality is infinitely low. Thus we should conclude that we are more likely living in a simulated reality. Bostrom’s argument is based on a number of assumptions about the nature of consciousness and the future of computing, which we will visit in greater detail in later chapters. For now, it is important to see how both the god and the simulation arguments are similarly flawed by a descent into infinite regression. If god created us, who created god? If our descendants are simulating us, who’s simulating them?
This is why the philosophical stance that everything is just an illusion is little more than a fun mental exercise. There exists a reality we can identify and define, and for which our species has created a body of work. In the previous chapter, we saw how this body of work is broadly divided between science and religion. The evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould famously asserted that science and religion inform us of fundamentally different things and are thus mutually exclusive. He called them the non-overlapping magisteria, or NOMA.
While Gould’s distinction was drawn more from the view of morality, his concept of NOMA has become a way of suggesting that there are things science cannot know, but religion does. It is thus important to understand the actual difference between science and religion. Both science and religion are not means in themselves, they are the outputs of specific epistemological methods. Science is the output derived when using the scientific method as the epistemology. Religion is the output derived from applying faith, tradition or divination as the epistemology. In other words, we do not debate whether science and religion are true knowledge or not. We debate whether we use the correct method of acquiring true knowledge or not. More accurately, rule one is that there must be good and valid reasons for believing in things. This does not mean denying the fact that several scientific truths have come to their discoverers in moments of sheer epiphany- whether while dreaming, on psychedelics, or simply out for a walk. Instead, there is insistence on the oft-ignored epilogue that those epiphanies were confirmed true only after rigorous validation.
Take the case of classic religion. It is of course theoretically possible that one of the thousands of religions humanity has invented may just be right. But it is important to discern by what method that community arrived at the truth. Did they use faith, revelation, ancestral authority or divination? If yes, then hundreds of communities do so even now. How are we to qualify the true from the untrue? It does not matter if some of us feel some things to be true from the ‘bottom of our hearts.’ If we are to use ‘being-felt-from-the-bottom-of-the-heart’ as a method to acquire true knowledge, whose heart should lead our society? This is why science and religion are very congruently overlapping magisteria. They represent an either-or situation in the acquisition of knowledge. If we are to design success rate and reliability into our methods, we must turn them scientific. But what does the scientific method constitute of?
The scientific method is a series of steps to take when a question on the nature of reality occurs in our minds. Why does it rain? Why is the sky blue? Why is grain growing where I threw seeds last season? We use a wide variety of tools to answer these questions. In the modern world, the most common tools are authority and Google. We are conditioned to accept the answers given by our parents, teachers and leaders. More recently, a quick online search has enabled millions of us to engage our curiosity. But these are what we call secondary sources of knowledge. The authority figures and Google receive their answers from elsewhere. A child learns about the processes of evaporation, condensation and precipitation from her science textbook. The writers of the textbook in turn get it through their science education. We could keep going up this chain to reach an original source or group of sources whose application of the scientific method first provided the answers. Alternately, we could follow a different epistemological route to find answers from a book claimed to be the word of god. In both cases, the original sources are called primary sources of knowledge.
The scientific method is where we use observation, experience and reason to formulate hypotheses to resolve our queries. This is rule number two- our knowledge must be validated by the combination of observation, experience and reason. For example, I could observe the appearance of dark clouds prior to rain and hypothesise that rain comes from dark clouds. I must then test my hypothesis to see whether it fits consistently with all available information. If it rains even when the clouds are white, I might expand my hypothesis to say that rain comes from clouds in general. If it rains even when there are no clouds whatsoever, I am forced to reject my hypothesis and formulate one that fits with observable phenomena. In cases where observing natural conditions is not possible, I could design experiments to test my hypotheses and make a note of the exact conditions I created to achieve the results. In this manner I gather more and more explanations to questions that occur to me, and generate theories that explain my queries and are consistent with all available information and other valid theories. My theories could also be predictive, so that once I’ve understood what causes rain I can predict its arrival. If the prediction fails, I must rework my theory to explain this new information. If the prediction works, I can use that to add to humanity’s body of knowledge, or to exploit the superstitions of my village.
In the Western model of science, the hypotheses I formulate to explain things must also be falsifiable, or refutable. An idea first suggested by Karl Popper, this means that a scientifically valid hypothesis must carry within it the means of its own possible destruction. To be falsifiable, a concept must have a characteristic that we can use to prove it wrong. This is a way to answer the question- how do we know if we are wrong? For example, the theory of evolution is falsifiable. We know that the homo genus is around 2.8 million years old. If we find a single hominid fossil or bone that is dated to 10 or 20 million years ago, the entire theory collapses overnight. Similarly, if we run an experiment where the passage of time on two bodies travelling at enormously different speeds is precisely the same, we have disproved the theory of relativity.
An example of non-falsifiable hypotheses is the concept of a soul. People can and do design experiments to prove the existence of a soul, but we cannot conceive of any experiment that would disprove its existence. Natural selection and relativity possess this characteristic, the soul hypothesis does not. Astrology and the concept of god on the other hand are falsifiable concepts. We can test the predictions that astrology makes, and if we find the predictions are incorrect we can conclude that astrology is not a valid hypothesis. We can test the existence of god through prayer, assuming that the definition of god includes concern for human prayer. If it does not, then the god hypothesis ceases to be falsifiable. One way of understanding falsifiability is by asking this question to any claim- “under what circumstances would it be proven wrong?”
Put simply, falsifiability gives us a criterion to determine what is worthy of our time- it directly affirms the agenda to have good and valid reasons to believe in things. If something is not falsifiable, we could never know whether it is wrong. If we could never know whether something is wrong or not, why spend time speculating on it? This yardstick is the dividing line between what we know as science and we consider pseudoscience. This gives us rule number three- a speculation that is non-falsifiable is generally a waste of our time.
What lies behind the idea of falsifiability is a mistrust of inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning drives empiricism- the notion that since an experiment has resulted in a particular conclusion every time we’ve run it, it will do so in the future as well. Isaac Asimov used this concept in his short story, The Technician. He imagined a future inter-planetary world so automated that everything is run by computers. Every single thing. Humans no longer possess the ability to do even basic math, for the job is done for them by computers. But on one planet appears a technician who can do math on paper! People ask him to add and multiply random numbers, and instead of turning to the computer he scribbles some symbols on paper and gives them answers. When they check with the computer, the answers turn out to be right every single time. One bewildered man asks the technician- ‘But how do you know it will be right the next time as well?’ The people in this world have lost the ability to reason inductively.
Inductive reasoning is bottom-up. We notice specific instances to occur enough number of times to make a generalised statement. There is an element of uncertainty in inductive reasoning. That a given conclusion has occurred every single time so far is no real guarantee that it will happen so the next time as well. But we jump over this gap by reasoning that since the conclusion has happened every single time so far, it will indeed happen so the next time as well. This is why we give credence to empirical results, but inductive reasoning was criticised by Karl Popper on these grounds. He posited the idea of falsifiability to argue that a truly valid hypothesis was one that could theoretically be nullified or disproven. It wasn’t enough to him that you could run an experiment every time to the same result. He wanted there to be a way you could run the experiment to an adverse result, at least in theory.
There is in turn critique on Popper as well, so it is safe to say that the debate is far from settled. It helps to understand things better by remembering that inductive or bottom-up reasoning is not always opposed to deductive or top-down reasoning. Take this example of deductive reasoning-
All men are mortal.
Arvind is a man.
Therefore, Arvind is a mortal.
Deductive reasoning is simple, and we use it all the time to process the world around us. But look closer at the first statement- all men are mortal. How do we know this? We arrive at this statement through inductive reasoning. We know that all men who have lived so far have been mortals. Thus we reason that every next man will also be a mortal. This allows us to make a generalised statement that all men are mortal. In real life, we use this ladder of bottom-up and top-down both consciously and unconsciously.
The criterion of falsifiability explains why in the coming pages we give little deference to theological explanations. But readers should not get the idea that the scientific method and its application is a simple thing, or that it should be easy to determine what is science and what is not. As scientific inquiries get more complex, so do the experiments designed to test them. Experimental design is a contentious issue. I may run an experiment where I prove the existence of a soul by taking the exact steps prescribed by scientific methodology. But someone could contest my conclusions by arguing that my design did not rule out all other factors to the exclusion of the singular variable I was testing. Or someone somewhere else could present an experiment where a different set of results occurred under the same conditions. We can see how it gets complicated easy. Not all science follows the falsifiability rule either. For the past few decades physics’ imagination has been led by the String theory, a conjecture that has so far not been confirmed experimentally and that offers no falsifiable claims. As we examine the available literature, we will remember not to follow the labels of science or religion but the rules of verifiability and falsifiability. Without verifiability, we could never know if we are right. Without falsifiability, we could never know if we are wrong.
These conditions established, we are now ready to articulate the ten questions on the meaning of life, the universe and everything.
10 Questions
To know the ultimate meaning of life, the universe and everything, these are the ten questions we must be able to answer. Each question in turn leads to several sub-questions. Any answer must satisfactorily address these sub-queries also. As an example, the possible sub-queries of the first question are shown.
What is the nature of origin? How does life originate? How did the universe originate? What happened before the Big Bang? If god created us, who created god? If time is cyclical, why does the chain of time exist?
Why does something exist instead of nothing?
Is there a god?
Is there a meaning to life?
Is there such a thing as morality?
Is humanity headed anywhere purposeful?
Is the universe headed anywhere purposeful?
Are mind and consciousness completely understood?
How large or infinite is reality, really?
What does all of this mean for me?