I’m of the firm belief that in the form we are presently assembled as 5-sensed humans, we are ill-equipped to decipher the cosmos in a forthright manner. Because of our innate egotism, we stubbornly assume everything we perceive with our 5 physical senses is exactly how the world is shaped through a mirror image as well. Our 5 senses set the limits of how this world is defined and bordered. It’s difficult for us to think beyond these map boundaries. It is difficult to imagine a reality that exists with us, but which…doesn’t. A reality existing simultaneously like an ether ghost in our world, skirting the edges of our inner vision. We are practical beings and such contemplation strikes us as supernatural or otherworldly. Our bodily senses are confining and limiting. We think we see, hear, touch, taste, smell, everything that can be…but how can we be confident of this? For instance, string theory has posited quantum-sized dimensions beyond our 3. Way beyond. Small, imperceptible folds and twists of subatomic reality invisible to our senses. Our senses evolved to cope with the reality of this planet’s surface, this universe’s fog. The sensory evolution was necessitated in order for us to manifest an existence we could reasonably witness. The Anthropic Principle raises the question of our existence as it fulfills the demands of the naturalistic inclinations of our world. The Principle asks: Do we shape cosmological existence around our perceptions? Or has cosmological reality molded our physical perceptions?
I believe our present biological configuration was only possible in this reality with which we are occupied. We never would have existed in any other universe because its demands would be so perversely contrary to our own that evolutionary impetus would be so radically unrecognizable and incomprehensible to our present state of being. As such, our perspective is limited by the unyielding demands of our universe. If the multiverse is reality, there is obviously no reason for us to evolve the extraneous senses that would allow us to decipher the events of neighboring Universe B. This does not negate its existence. The inhabitants of Universe B may entertain the same self-centered perspective as we do and not be prone to believing or thinking of Universe A (ours). Actually, most people simply do not think of alternate universes, of alternate sensory environments, and their possible effect on our physical developmental response.. It is not a matter of refuting, it is a matter of absolute disregard. For the majority of people, 5 senses is enough because that is all we need to survive and strive coherently in this reality. This afflicts those who seek to formulate a cosmological self-image. We tend to shape the cosmos in a similar pattern and extrapolation as we would expect in our daily life. But why should this be? Today I read this article in Discover Magazine about people born with extra “cones” in their eyes that allow them to perceive a plethora of colors that the normal person’s eyes cannot. This is a simple demonstration of a reality that lurks beyond ours, but which doesn’t because we don’t see it. We shape our reality around that we can entertain physically. We have physical expectations of our world. Anything beyond that suddenly assumes a spiritual or magical form. The extra cones are a scientific anomaly that are known to allow “extra sensory perception” of colors no one else can see. Due to its scientifically measurable origins, we do not look at it as “magical” but how many other sensory inputs are we missing because we aren’t biologically equipped to translate them?
Beyond this, how many simple concepts do we take for granted as reality? Up, down, me, you, beginning, end, the polarities that accompany our reality, unquestioned, undoubted, are numerous and they seep into the design of our studies and theories and beliefs and ultimately, we become so convinced that what we think is unique, but how can we call it that when what we think is formulated, bred, and shaped by our 5 senses? We are slaves to our limitations and deluded because they fool us with junk knowledge. Actually, it’s not junk. It’s real and it’s all we need for this existence. This is no consolation to the likes of me, however. The call of absolute knowledge does not allow rest in a world where reality is so diffused. I don’t care what we know; I care about what we don’t. I don’t care about what we experience; I care about what we don’t.
I thought of a very simple thought experiment.
I mentioned polarities earlier, of the sort we are bred into accepting as basic reality, but if examined, don’t necessarily exist merely because we think they do. For instance, Beginning and End. Beginning and End are two concepts that we simply accept on their face and which are beyond reproach. They just are. For us. On this carbon-based solar-system-inhabiting planet, “Beginning and End” is so elemental to the mechanics of our existence that we don’t question the import of such a concept. We live, we die. Everything that lives, dies. Beginning and End denotes the entirety of our awesome life. Species live, and die. Cities thrive, and they die. They are reduced to rubble, to dust. Continents move, they drown, they raise, they live, everything begins and ends. Even the planet Earth will live, and it will die. The sun will live, and it too will die. But the universe, the cosmos, are unimaginably vast on a galactic scale and even more vast on a quantum scale. There is so much more we don’t see than we do. Are the concepts of beginning and end such a given when you consider how limited our perspective is? I’m not insinuating Beginning and End are irrelevant or non-existent, but they warrant our skepticism. Only if you dare. When Beginning and End suit you well, as they do in this universe, why try to think outside that mold?
We must question the concept of Beginning and End because it begs to be doubted considering it is only defined within the finite span of our existence.
If we assume an infinite universe, do we say the universe is infinite or do we say that Beginning and End are not a universal concept and thus, do not exist? In either case, the universe has an infinite nature. What is the distinction between describing it as infinity or as asserting that the Beginning/End polarity is not a concept that is antecedent to our own limited perspective? Conversely, if we propose the universe is finite, does this then assume the existence of Beginning and End? Can a finite existence live in the absence of Beginning and End?