Do I exist by chance?

This is a question all humans will ask at least once. Some people put it aside for the rest of their lives, and others make it the aim of their lives to find an answer to it.

 Why do I exist? Pretty good question.

 Many people have written articles on this before focusing on the idea that humanity will one day cease to exist, so why would a human life be worth living in the first place?
These arguments would be deemed correct by a number of philosophers, such as Rene and Plato. Undeniably, we will all die. Life is not guaranteed (take a stillborn child, for instance), but death is.
They insinuate, just as did Plato and Rene, that despite the natural curiosity of a human being, his actions are worthless, because a human's existence will cease at a point in time.
Nevertheless, this argument can be refuted. 
Aristotle believed that humans were ‘curious by nature’, as did Plato. However, when it comes to a human being infinitesimally small and insignificant because he is just a union of atoms floating through space and time in a much larger mass of atoms, Aristotle disagreed.
Carrying out a hypothesis test, he decided to calculate the probability of HIS existence. It goes as follows:
-My parents had to meet. At that precise point in time and space, they had to be looking at each other.
-My grandparents, great-grandparents, etc.
-That one exact atom had to meet with this exact atom out of thousands
The list continues.

In fact, the probability of a certain individual’s existence is so low, it tends to zero and is immeasurable. This leads to a clear conclusion; my existence must have been WILLED. After all, the chance of my existence just by luck is one over an infinity. And yet here I am.

 Following this line of argument, Aristotle was able to conclude the following:
-My person is irreplaceable
-There exists a ‘higher power’ than a human, able to create a person.
-My life has been wanted.

The last conclusion has enormous impact, because it implies the capability of a person’s development, and how they are able to contribute in a way that this strange ‘higher power’ has seen. In other words, this ‘higher power’ creature that created people has seen that a human life is worth living.
But why would it be worth living? Can we follow any other thought experiments to derive more characteristics of this ‘higher power’ creature? Well, we can leave those questions for another day…












Identity by Martin O'Neill

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In an infinite universe...would there be infinite 'me'?

Image
This question might seem ridiculous at first, but it follows a process of thought. The other day I was talking to a professor and he believed that if the universe is infinite, not only will there be another 'him', there will be infinite copies of him. The reasoning: "the probability of another 'me' existing in the universe is not zero, even if it is seemingly very low. So as the number of trials tend infinity, the probability of at least a single copy of 'me' existing again increases and increases. Eventually, we reach a number of trials/'spaces' that the probability of at least one other of me existing is so high...there will have to be another copy of me certainly. Put another way, matter can arrange itself in different ways (quantum states). But the number of different arrangements is not infinite. So after a certain amount of space, the combinations will start to repeat over again. I (as a person) and my entire life (as a sequence of events)
Read more

What is time?

Image
 Classical mechanics takes time as something fundamental in the universe, although this is obviously just for the sake of calculation. Classical mechanics would never query what time itself is, and possibly no branch of physics is able to answer this either. It's almost like asking 'what is mass?'. This is a question for philosophy more than anything else; it takes a scientist to handle a concept, but a philosopher to define it from its first principle. Einstein showed that our perception of time is relative, with his famous thought experiment of the lightning bolts and the train. However, the fact that there is a sequence of events to perceive in the first place (even though another person may perceive the same events in a different order) shows that there is something fundamental about time. Otherwise there would not be any 'sequence' to perceive in the first place. Perception is limited, because a human being only perceives the events that reach him in a specific
Read more