The Mystery of The Word
“Even though it always holds true, people prove unable to comprehend the Lógos, not even after they've been told about it.
“Failure to understand it is the root of all evil. (Heraclitus, 450 BC)“In it was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light in the darkness shined, and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:4-5)
Things get lost in translation. Lógos does not have an equivalent in modern languages and even Latin was already too modern – so it ended up as “the word” in Gospels. A placeholder, perhaps? But then they couldn’t think of anything, so it stayed.
In yet another context, namely Euclid explaining geometrical proportions, they translated lógos as “ratio” (hence “rational”). See what I mean?
I bet they tried to do Heraclitus as well but couldn’t get past “I told you so.”
Heraclitus
Honestly, I think Heraclitus was the most brilliant man who ever lived. And, unlike the rest of them lazy enlightened bums,* Heraclitus wrote an entire book! And the entire book didn’t survive, but a few fragments made it to us... and gosh, what gems they are! Take these for example:
“If all things were turned to smoke, the nostrils would distinguish them.”
… and related, if even more cryptic
“Souls smell [out] in Hades.”
That, my friend, is the Law of Conservation of Information – the one that Stephen Hawking wished he did NOT bet against. The Law says that information can never be destroyed... so be careful with your words ;) Or your thoughts. Or the rest of you, because you are information, your body being a physical record of you! And while your body won't last, every bit that was ever recorded on it will survive forever on some kind of medium – any kind you can imagine, and, eventually, on your black holes. Because, eventually, there will be nothing else left in the Universe, but the black holes.
Ironically, it was the black holes that appeared – to Stephen Hawking – as breaking the Law. From the outside, they look beautifully simply, described by just two numbers – their mass and momentum. And a charge maybe. OK, three numbers then. Throw a book in it, and it would be different numbers, but still, just the three of them – the book’s content seemed to disappear without a… Wait, what are you... Seriously? That was Heraclitus' last copy! Signed too…
I'm not being dramatic, you are! You could have simply burned the damn thing to the same effect – because though, technically, its content would still be recorded in smoke and the emitted heat radiation, reading it will be out of question – one photon goes left, the other goes right and good luck seeing them ever again.
What makes the black hole option ironic is that a black hole is never really black! Instead, it glows ever so faintly with – wait for it! – Hawking radiation!
* Socrates, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, plus whole Indus Valley Civilization had but a single word written down between them! Another notable exception to book writing was Baruch Spinoza … after he got himself hard-cancelled at the age of fourteen or something.
Hawking Radiation
It was, of course, so named because it was Stephen Hawking who “discovered” it. Discovered in quotes because no one ever actually seen a black hole – that would be one of the “hidden” parts of Reality that Hawking could only “see” with his mind.*
And to his mind, the radiation appeared, at first, as smooth and uncomplicated as the black hole itself, unsuitable to convey any message from the inside … An understandable mistake, granted, but betting The Ultimate Baseball Encyclopedia on it? The 8th edition? By an Englishman?
Now, you’d think that poor Heraclitus was facepalming hard in heaven but, in truth, he wasn’t – it was old news to him. That’s why he wrote “the damn thing” in the first place: He simply could not stand other humans anymore! After abdicating – he used to be king – he moved out of town, only coming back for groceries and to strike up an occasional conversation … as if to check if people started to lighten up maybe? They didn’t.
In comparison, Stephen Hawking was actually OK. His radiation solved the black hole information paradox, giving it the appearance of a smokeless fire. The “smokeless” bit is important because, eventually, the last black hole would go poof, leaving the Universe filled with static and no matter in it for the first time since the Big Bang.
This time, of course, the Universe is much older, bigger, and colder... or is it? With the matter gone, so is time. No clock means no measuring stick either: The Universe could be trillion upon trillion light-years across, or as small as a grain of sand and 10²⁷ Kelvins hot – after expanding, faster than the speed of light, for a millionth of a second … We are, with apologies to Roger Penrose, at the end of the next Big Bang inflation phase!
But worry not – none of it was lost on that white-hot grain of sand.
Our every memory, every thought, and every dream going up in smoke, engraved on a black hole or on a Big Bang – the Universe forgets nothing. It might have lost track of time, for a moment, but now it won't take any before it cools down enough for the first quarks and leptons to crystallize ... And then we rinse and repeat, and it just goes on.
“This Kosmos, the same for all, none of gods nor humans made, but it was always and is and shall be: An ever-living fire, kindled by measures and extinguished by measures.” -- Heraclitus, 450 BC
* And that's why Stephen Hawking never got his Nobel prize for that discovery (just like Albert Einstein didn't get his Nobel prize for the discovery of General Relativity) -- the prizes are awarded for physical experiments, never for theories... Which kinda highlights how confused we are about the meaning of "science" in general.
What It Actually Means
Well, you are looking at it ;) At its projection, anyway, because the Lógos refers to a three-dimensional map simulation of the Reality that we, humans, assemble* and run inside our heads. That is how we understand things: We leverage the power of imagination to visualize their models.
A "model" here means a virtual machine that emulates a particular aspect of the Reality, the thing that we are trying to understand.
The Reality as a whole too can be understood as an infinitely intricate clockwork, the laws of nature (the laws of creation) acting as shafts and pulleys, connecting causes to their effects.
* The word itself is a derivative from an even older verb légō, which means "to gather", "to assemble". In English, "I gather" still has the meaning of "I understand".
Self-Awareness
We become self-aware when we learn to model ourselves as part of a comprehensive simulation of the Reality.
The Laws of Creation
(causality)
Creation here refers to cause creating their effects. The process itself is governed by the laws of nature or, if you want, the laws of creation.
Take Newton’s Second Law of Motion for example. It connects the cause, an application of force, with its effect, a change in the object’s velocity. “F=ma” is, then, a mathematical description of how the velocity is changing given the force and the object’s mass.
Remarkably, the equation itself gives no indication as to which way the causality runs!* It may well be the reason why many struggle with inferring that part and with physics in general: Its mathematical equations only tell a part of the story. The rest of it – the causality part – we must visualize ourselves, by imagining how the laws of physics act in the real world.
* In fact, it is rather misleading by suggesting that it is the force that is a function of acceleration, and not the other way around. From that perspective, "a=F/m" would be the proper way to spell it.
The First Principles
(science-as-a-theory)
Science (or, rather the possibility of doing it), is neither a fact nor it's a religion. Rather, it is a scientific theory in its own right.
It is also the first principle (or principles) that any chain of reasoning ends at.
Let spell it out then, the First Principles or science-as-theory:
- We all share one – and only one – objective Reality. It is the Universal Truth (“true” simply means “real”); it is also one of the meanings of “God”. Everything (and everyone) belongs to it, yet it itself belongs to no one.
- In this Reality, nothing happens at random, but everything has its cause in the past and, at least in theory, can be traced back to it.
- We, humans, possess the capacity to understand Reality by doing just that – by tracing things back to their causes, by identifying repeating patterns and discovering the laws of nature – the laws of creation – behind them.
What Makes a Scientific Theory?
A scientific theory (SC) is an assumption and, as such, irrational. What separates scientific theories from other assumptions is that an SC is testable (at least in theory) and will forever remain so (that is, it cannot be proven once and for all).
Why Assume?
The reason it all starts with an assumption is because, save for one notable exception, we cannot know anything for sure -- the concept otherwise known as Cartesian doubt. Now, if we can't know shit, then we can't do shit about, well, anything!
For once, we can't predict the outcomes of our actions. Nor can we know what we actually want, what's good for us, what is "good", who is "us", etc., etc.
That's why without knowledge (of the truth) there can be no freedom either. That's why the truth sets you free.
And that's why we must make certain assumptions -- so we can build on them the very concepts of knowledge and truth.
Cartesian Doubt
... So called after René Descartes, a French philosopher and mathematician that gave the first formal introduction to the idea.*
His "I think, therefore I exist" refers to a notable exception to the rule -- your own mind, that is. As the object of perception, at least, it is the only thing that must exist. We still can’t know in what form it exists, but we know that something must be there to see what we see, hear what we hear, feel what we feel and yes, think what we think.
I mean... something is reading these words right now, right?.. RIGHT?!
Well, that something must be real – and so are its perceptions. As to whether the latter reflect the reality out there, or our dreams, or the dreams of Cthulhu – that we simply cannot tell (though the Cthulhu thing would sure explain a lot).
Otherwise... that’s it! That is as far as pure reason could possibly take us.
* Officially the first, because I'm sure that Socrates' famous "I know that I know nothing" refers to the same idea. Other sources mention it as well -- Kena-Upanishad, for example, echoes Socrates almost verbatim: “The man who claims that he knows, knows nothing; but he who claims nothing, knows.”
The Truth Sets You Free
... And so to start, we must develop the very concept of truth.
We need it, the concept of truth, so we could know what's not true -- because, as weird as it sounds, we can't be free unless it is possible for us to be wrong!
The Concept of Truth
Jesus: I came to bear witness to the Truth!
Pilate: What's "truth"?
This is not about knowing what is true, not yet. To start, we must figure out what is truth, as in what makes something true! And, by that measure, what makes something untrue, or false ... In other words, we must figure out what separates things that are true from everything that isn't.
Freedom As Recognition of Necessity
(why limitless possibilities rob us of freedom)
If this sounds like a paradox, it's because it's easy to confuse two distinct kinds of freedom. One is about doing things -- anything you want. The other is about actually getting something -- anything -- done.
To see the difference, imagine being blindfolded in an open field. You're not tied up and you can move in any direction you want -- except you won't be going anywhere! You won't because w/o peeking, w/o limiting your choices to the ones that keep you on desired path, you won't be able to walk a straight line. Walking in endless circles instead, you could be on a leash to the same effect!
(now imagine walking blindfolded through dense forest and you'll see why our lives could end up nasty, brutish, and, ultimately, senseless)
The true freedom, then -- the freedom to actually accomplish things -- is only possible when we can foresee the outcomes of our actions, when we can tell the right steps from the multitude of the wrong ones...
And that's why, if we can't be wrong, then we can't be free.
A Leap of Faith
Now, as soon as we start assuming, we stop being rational. And that is why we cannot just keep going like this, making one assumption after the other! We can't because it will take us right back to where we started:
Impossible is nothing ==> Nothing is possible!
So instead, we must make it a one-off affair, a leap of faith to beam ourselves from the trap of Cartesian doubt to a place where we can actually know things, where we can stay rational from that point on.
But where is that place? What are we taking on faith?
Assuming Science
(or, rather, the possibility of doing it)
It would be tempting for me to say, “We leap toward the light!” – following the logic of the proverbial drunkard who, having lost his keys somewhere in the park, was found, at some ungodly hour, searching for them under a lone streetlight… Not because, mind you, it would be the first place to look (that honor, sadly, went to a ditch 40 yards away). The reason he was looking under the light was far more basic: That was the only place where he could see.
And so are we, leaping toward the place where we could see. Except in our case, it is not a bright spot in the sea of darkness – it is, literally, the opposite: We trade the blinding lights of the infinite possibilities for the shadowland of the [objective] Reality. A place where some things are black and some white; where some shine brightly, while others cast long shadows; where some things are possible, and some aren’t. A place where we could be free because we could be wrong… objectively wrong!
This is, then, our concept of truth: "True" simply means "real". Or, rather, the Logos is the Truth. That's why you can only know the Truth if you succeeded in assembling the Logos, a comprehensive model of the Reality.
"Assuming science", then, means assuming that you can know the Truth, that you can build, in your imagination, your own copy of the Logos -- your own model of our shared Reality.
Chains of Reasoning
A chain of reasoning is a series of question/answer pairs explaining (deconstructing), step by step, a stat down to the first principle: "Why A?" -- "Because B"; "Why B?" -- "Because C"; "Why C?" -- "Because D", and so on until you reach the First Principle, an axiom we take on faith (otherwise the chain will never end).
For example, in the classic (or Euclidean, or flat-space) geometry, every chain of reasoning ends at five axioms:
Given two points, there is a straight line that joins them.
A straight line segment can be prolonged indefinitely.
A circle can be constructed when a point for its centre and a distance for its radius are given.
All right angles are equal.
Parallel lines never intersect.
When it comes to our knowledge of Reality, every chain of reasoning ends at the science-as-a-theory as its First Principle ... and it doesn't take long to get there either. Remember the "six degrees of separation" thing? Well, in my experience, it takes less that that in back-and-forths to deconstruct any argument down to the meaning of life and the nature of reality ;)
1. The One And Only Reality
(a.k.a. The First Commandment)
The first item is, basically, your First Commandment: “I AM YOUR GOD”. Not me, the objective Reality is your God (you thought it was me didn’t you ;) It means that no, you don’t get “your” own truth and reality that are different those of others. There is only One – One Reality, One Truth for us all.
And while we ourselves are a part of Reality, it itself belongs to no one: Its existence is independent of ours. It was there before we came around, and it will be thereafter. When a tree falls in the forest, it doesn’t matter whether anyone hears it – it makes a sound just the same. Likewise, whenever we act on Reality that we all share, it happens for everyone else as well, whether it affects them in any measurable way or not.
And not only are we looking at the same truth, the same facts, but we also perceive it in the same way. Like, sure, our individual perspectives are unique to begin with. But – and that's what the second and third points are about – that gap needs not to stay open. We can learn to be objective; we can learn to look at things through other person’s eyes and, thus, gain the common perspective of Reality.
2. The Reality's Determinism And Self-Consistency
The second item comes straight from the opening verses of John’s Gospel where it says, in reference to the Lógos, “All things were made through it. Apart from it, not a thing was made that was made.” (John 1:3)
It makes another critically important assumption about our Reality: Its integrity. Nothing in it happens at random, but every thing was brought into existence by of some cause in the past, according to the rigid rules of causality. That makes that the Reality internally consistent, logical, and, therefore, understandable as a machine (if a quite complex one).
But What About Quantum Effects?
Quantum Mechanics is real, which makes it possible, for example, for me to teleport (sorry, tunnel) into your living room, fully dressed and in time for afternoon tea. Don't hold your breath though -- a pleasant surprise as it may be, it might take a few lifetimes of the Universe for it to actually happen... and by "a few" I mean a trillion gazillion.
In other words, even though quantum effects play significant role on subatomic scale, on macro level it's safe to assume a deterministic Universe.
But What About Free Will?
This is where things get technical. The Universe being deterministic means that our future is predetermined, yes. However, we still don't know what the will be! Only in retrospect we can say that our choices were predetermined. As for the future, suppose you choose A -- then you will know that in our Universe A was the only possible choice. If you choose B, however, then you will know that B was the only possible choice.
See what I mean? Even though our choices are predetermined, the only way we can find out what they are is by making them. So choose wisely ;)
3. In God's Image
That's us, that's what we are (or, at lest, that's how everyone of us should turn out). The third and last item is an assumption not about Reality, but about us. It states that not only Reality is fundamentally understandable, but it is so by us, humans. Essentially, it claims that we – as in every one of us, every human individual – can understand/know everything!
As ambitious as it sounds, it is just as true owing to the hierarchical nature of knowledge itself. The three assumptions above, the science-as-theory is the first principle at the top of the hierarchy – that’s where every chain of reasoning ends.
And that's how every one of us can "understand everything": By putting together the whole picture in good enough resolution, by learning only a few top levels but deep enough to recognize what’s on that picture. That kind of general understanding of things everyone should be capable of before they are old enough for high school! And after that, if you want to take a closer look at any particular part of Reality, then please, knock yourself out, get your PhD or a few … sky is the limit!
The Second Commandment
And that's why that last assumption is also your Second Commandment (and my favorite): “DO NOT PUT OTHER GODS BEFORE ME!”
The Reality is the Truth, it is its only source. That’s why you should not stay content with others telling you what the truth is, including but not limited to: God Herself (I’ll explain), yours truly, Jesus,* the Holy Scripture, your favorite guru, your role models, your influencers, etc., etc.
Instead, why not remember whose image you were made into, personally, and, I don't know, start acting like it? Because yes, you can!
Beyond simply learning what is, you can figure out why it is so, and all the rest of the why’s – how things came to be like this; how they could have been otherwise (your options); and, eventually, how things ought to be (as your conscious choice). That is how, every one of us can understand creation – and ourselves – to become a human soul in God’s own image, a virtual copy of God-As-Reality, including a copy of God’s own soul.
Call the latter the “Laws of Nature” or the “Divine Spirt” – God’s soul is the eternal force driving every change and every creation, breathing life into the Universe, and making the world go round.
* “It is necessary to know how to distinguish the sacred treasure from the vessel which contains it; otherwise, one risks falling into idolatry.” (Lev Shestov).
Well. There goes Christianity.
Why Don't I Believe You?
(... about us, humans, being in God's Image)
The reason we don't look exactly God-like is that the part of our psyche, the one that would make us in God's image, is not, umm... fully functional.
We still have the brain's "hardware" for it, everyone of us does. It can make everyone a genius, like Jesus or Einstein. Problems is, we don't come preinstalled with its "software", the Logos. We don't, because we weren't actually intelligently designed. We are the product of evolution, and there is only so much information our DNA can encode!
So, instead of being born with the knowledge of being human, every individual must assemble their own copy of the Logos, piece by piece. Which they can't even start on until they master the basic skill -- the art of connecting the dots, of fitting low-end models into the higher-end ones (your copy of the Logos becomes complete when you have assembled the highest level, the one that lets you you see the whole picture).
None of it is given, and that's why we have evolved to spend extra 5-7 years in our childhood* -- so we can learn, under the guidance of the adults and older children, the art of assembling the models of things we are trying to understand.
* Compared with Chimpanzee, our closest animal relatives.
Being in God's Image is Optional
And not only assembling the Logos is not easy, it is also optional. And so is being in God's image -- optional.*
That's why most of us aren't, presently, and that's the reason for all evils and suffering. Which is to say that, ultimately, our suffering is of no one's fault. If you want to blame, blame evolution -- that's how we evolved, evil and ignorant by default, simply by doing nothing.
Or, rather, we have evolved in the way that makes it everyone's personal choice whether to develop their human potential and become in God's image... or not.
* Optional in the comfort of civilization, that is. For the most of our 300,000-year history as anatomically modern humans, being an idiot was not a survivable condition.
How We Understand
(the process of understanding)
To understand something means to build, in one's imagination, a mental simulation of it. We start by identifying observable patterns -- from those in the movement of celestial objects to those in our romantic relationships. Then we try to imagine a process that could be driving those patterns -- visualizing it as a machine of some kind.
The Lógos
(your model of the Reality)
The Reality’s internal consistency means that our mental simulation of it -- the Lógos -- must also be internally consistent: Like a well-designed machine, it must run, first and foremost. Then, it must run in the way that would re-create the patterns we observe in the real.
That give is the ultimate truth test -- if something fits perfectly with the rest of the puzzle, then, however improbable, it must be true.
The Mad Scientist Syndrome
It is the "however improbable" part that can make an ingenious idea appear crazy. Most people don't have the Logos completed enough to test ideas against. They must, therefore, judge things by their superficial appearances. That, in turn, often puts them at odds with those few who has the Logos completed and can see how an otherwise improbable idea fits perfectly in the larger model of the Reality.
A good example is such an idea would be the model of our Solar system. It is counterintuitive because our senses clearly suggest that earth is flat and sit motionless at the center of the Cosmos and everything celestial revolves around us. And that's only one reason why Galileo had such a hard time convincing people othervise.