Albert Einstein was named the man of the century in the millennium edition of TIME magazine, 1999. Einstein re-defined the term gravity, proved one of the greatest scientists of all time to be dumbfounded, and still maintains a strong influence over the world of modern science to this day; though all these feats are present, it is also Einstein’s most famed formula from the theory of special relativity that says everything, including Einstein himself is nothing. E=mc² is the equation spoken of, and it is also the equation that changed the world, and marked the beginning of seemingly limitless progress of the 20th century. To break down the formula itself, it is seen that E represents energy, m represents mass, and c represents the speed of light. Though pure mass to energy conversion is nearly impossible and has never happened, this theory has practically proven itself with the creation of the atomic bomb, by demonstrating that atomic release of mass is not in the realm of mythology.
To string together the thesis of this paper’s argument, it is appropriate to logically set it up. All matter in the universe down to the most insignificant specks of dust in space in one form or another have mass. Since human beings’ perceptions and ideas are based on the information given to them by the physical world, then they also see the worth in everything around them. Einstein proposed that everything could be converted, or for lack of a better word simplified down into raw energy. Everything down to the hormones which cause the emotions on one’s face, can be counted ass mass and in turn energy. Although people are constantly immersed in a world of energy, there is nothing associated with it. Energy has no definition, no value, no taste, or color; there is also no intrinsic or emotional value associated with it. This sparks the terrifying thought Therefore, the question must be asked whether there is any point to nothingness, and what kind of questions would one ask if the universe is something made of nothing.
What kind of value can be associated to nothingness, and does mattermatter?
The philosophy of nothingness, nihilism, is often associated with suffering, pain, and chaotic action. If these principles were to be true, it would be found that nothing is likewise suffering. Since this suffering can not be attributed to the micro level of being attributed to all mass, as one cannot associate the nothingness of a rock to an emotion, it is necessary to look for a different approach. Existential nihilism is the study of the primary question of “why is there something rather than nothing?”, which is most appropriate to examine the question of value behind nothing, as perhaps the examination of both nothingness and being will diverge into a separation and thus revealing the truth through difference.
Freidrich Nietzsche once addressed the question of being in his passage named ‘Eternal Recurrence’. To summarize this text, Nietzsche proclaimed the following statement: “Everything becomes and recurs eternally—escape is impossible!” [Nietzsche, i]. Essentially, Nietzsche proclaimed that instead of the ever-evolving and progressive energy that one is accustomed to hearing in the modern way of thought, there is a cyclical nature of all things, events and occurrences. This particular view is one that explains nothingness is a very particular manner as it states that there is a nature to the nothingness around us, and it is a very predictable and overall eternal one. If one were to accept this claim, this would mean that nothingness is more than just a nothingness of time; it is evidence for the question of free will to be destroyed. Based on the interpretation of this claim, it is actually not as far-fetched as it seems at first glance as one could simply factor in technological progress that would alter the consequences of events, not the actions themselves. Nietzsche made a claim that ultimately lead back to Einstein in the same writing when he stated “I seek an eternity for everything: ought one to pour the most precious salves and wines into the sea?—My consolation is that everything that has been is eternal: the sea will cast it up again.” [Nietzsche, ii]. This quotation offers the same as the first, but brings up the point of eternity and perhaps what the philosopher means when everything will repeat itself; the conservation of physicality and (going back to Einstein) the energy behind it. The repetitive, and eternal nature of the universe has indeed been proven, from simple nuances such as spinning of the earth which results in a sunrise everyday. Perhaps what Nietzsche means by his definition of nihilism is not sorrow and grief, but rather the instance of the sorrow and grief that comes from not being able to escape from the repetitive nature of the universe and all that has essentially become innate in us. What is most striking about both these points, is that Nietzsche constantly speaks of the ubermensche, and the power to overcome that which the norm has become. Though this is contradictory, Nietzsche also believes that all progress comes from the superman of society, and that is the hope of man. By assuming that all these points are interconnected, it could be said that the only point of nothing is to lead all things in nature including humanity to its original place by progress and counter-progress in a cyclical nature, and that the sorrow comes from the knowledge that there is nothing that can escape nothingness. After all, origin and end place of all things is nothingness itself in death. “Existence really is an imperfect tense that never becomes a present.” [Nietzsche, iii].
Jean Paul Sartre is another philosopher that is highly regarded as an explorer of the question behind existence, his notable work ‘Being and Nothingness’ addressed the question of what is nothingness and is there such a thing in the first place. Throughout the book, Sartre uses many terms and delves into what they mean to one another, and to their individual theories in themselves; but, one of these terms stands out as the part of the pack that defines the pack itself: Affirmation. "Affirmation is always affirmation of something" [Sartre, i], by this one quote Sartre believes that being is existent, but there is much more that the topic of nothing can move to from this. Growing from the point that Sartre set up, George Smoot once lectured the world about the design of the universe, and how technology has helped us find that when there is something there is nothing, and vice versa. Smoot theorized that matter is everywhere, even when its gravitational pull is much weaker in the reaches of the universe rather than what we ourselves know it to be. Since the matter extends, and comes in different forms, it is all part of the same essential fabric, and that the cumulative energy that it produces plays a bigger role in the shape of the universe than what any human can fathom. The integration of seemingly simple ideas in order to create a multi-layer and complex universe is something that the nothingness of energy can create. This then begs the question of how the universe expands with all of these layers and where does it extend to? If the universe does expand, it accordingly does so in a manner when all of the layers of the universe are being dispersed in a series of processes that carry on the complexity of the complete product, and keep the simple fabrics moving. These fabrics of course, are the energies that construct the universe in the first place. But where does the universe extend to? The initial thought is that which was not there before, and thus extending the energy and infinity, that would be logical, except if the place the universe extended to was not the definition of nothing: that which does not exist. If we use the concept of affirmation, we see that by acknowledging that this nothing is there, it is not nothing, it is at least energy, meaning that the universe could be an energy which has already been there, which boggles the mind as the idea of expansion is exactly that: expansion. If the universe expands to a place where it has already been, perhaps it is a place where it has already been, thus returning to an argument of repetition of nature, in literally a universal form [Smoot]. Sartre also stated that everything that exists, exists within itself, therefore this may provide an explanation as to the universe expanding everywhere it has already been by proposing that the universe is everything, but it does not address how there can be no nothing.
For the final dissection of theory, it is only appropriate to address the theory of how the universe came to be everything it is, and everything it isn’t. For the sake of argumentation, this dissection will not include the various religion-based creation stories as the question at hand is derived from scientific findings. The big bang theory, which suggests that the universe was created by a mass explode-and-expand effect of a colliding electron and its anti-matter is one which is accepted by most scientists as the most reasonable and backed theories to date. This theory is one which raises the most important question related to this topic: if the universe was produced by matter and its counterpart, and matter is nothing, what is its counterpart? This question is one that holds the capacity that could change the way humanity looks at everything. In a recent study, scientists have discovered that the universe is for the most part made of dark matter, meaning that in the infinity we know, there is also a separate infinity which swallows our reality, yet all of this is allowed under the principles of Einstein’s general theory of relativity [Brown]. One theory that surprisingly fits into this scheme is that of Plato’s cave theory. Much like Plato stated that humans are only shown what others decide to show, in this instance the universe has until now only presented what lead to the belief of a + universe and a – universe, but since the integration of both can be proven, the + and – essentially create a synthesis of 0, or nothing. Since this nothing is essentially everything, it is safe to assume that the universe is growing in, and was created in balance. Although the big bang could never be explained completely, or the limits of the universe be reached, the change and evolution of its state is what the core what it exists as today.
The universe is nothing through being everything, and therefore it is undefined, and will be indefinable forever. Though this is true, all points stated in the arguments lead to the belief that the universe is alive. It’s life comes from its constant evolution and progress, whether its cyclical like Nietzsche theorized, or ever expanding such as scientists believe. If the universe is comprised of energy, and the universe is alive, then the answer for the value behind nothingness is the most valuable thing of all in the egoistical mind of the human: life. From the arguments and points presented, there is a trend of agreement with the activity within the universe. Perhaps it is unfair to assume that energy is nothing, because even if the mass that could be converted from energy is utterly useless in the universe, that uselessness could have a name such as Plato, or any other philosopher mentioned for that matter. Energy in any definition of the term is a demonstration of activity, even the energy that created a rock did so because of activity, and if humanity recognizes this, perhaps they will also see that everything else in the universe is connected through the same mesh of nothingness, and interdependency is essential. Energy is both everything and nothing, which is a beautiful thing because it gives both humility and worth to everything that one sees. Energy does indeed have worth, and it is life. Life that is not limited to humans, but a literal demonstration of a universal life through activity. Though this everything is a somewhat depressing nothing, this worth will always stay here, because just as Einstein said: “energy can not be created of destroyed”.
Energy never dies.
0 comments:
Post a Comment