Note: Jack first heard the twin sphere paradox recounted at an Oxford lecture in the mid 1990s, and has since forgotten the original source.

Imagine an alternate universe in which nothing exists except two fixed spheres, identical in size and composition. There are no distinguishing characteristics for either sphere; they are exactly the same.

Here is the question: How can you tell the spheres apart?

It’s a trick question of sorts, because there is no way to do it. Everything that is true of one sphere is true of the other. They are automatically equidistant from each other, and there are no other fixed points in this imaginary universe to make reference of.

“Ah,” but you might say, “I can picture one of them to my left and one of them to my right” or some such. But this would be a violation of the thought experiment. In order to view the spheres from some fixed point of reference, you would have to travel to the alternate universe to do so. Or, to take a picture of the two spheres, a camera would have to be transported to said universe, and so on. The terms of the thought experiment specifically state that nothing exists in said universe except the two spheres; to introduce a human being, a camera, or any other means of direct viewing would violate that stipulation.

The point of the thought experiment — at least as far as Jack recalls it — is that everything is relative, and the “vantage point” of personal reference matters a lot more than we think. Without the ability to establish a point of reference, i.e. some temporary discrete vantage point of some kind, there is no way to tell one sphere from another. For all intents and purposes they are the same, even though they are two.

Meaningful or Meaningless?

Now try imagining another alternate universe — one with an earth-like planet just like ours, possibly, and yet a universe in which no sentient life forms exist. Perhaps there are amoebas and primordial lichen and what have you, but nothing that thinks or feels or otherwise exhibits anything approaching consciousness or self-awareness.

The question this time is, does this alternate universe have “meaning?” Or is the whole place meaningless?

Jack would argue that one cannot say… that neither “meaningful” nor “meaningless” could apply to such a universe, because, as with the twin sphere paradox, there is no temporary or permanent fixed vantage point within said universe from which to apply the designation!

As with the spheres mentioned earlier, without some personal vantage point from which to assign relative value, “meaningful” and “meaningless” become empty terms.

This is because to declare something meaningful — to say that phenomenon X or experience Y or concept Z has “meaning,” in the sense of richness or significance or import — is to make a personal judgment.

Note, too, that to declare something meaningless, or void of meaning, is also to make a personal judgment. To say or imply or insinuate that XYZ means “nothing” or “has no meaning” is to declare XYZ void of import or significance… which is just as much an act of value assignation as the opposite!

And so, an alternate universe void of sentient life is neither “meaningful” nor “meaningless” because there is no one there to judge. Such a universe, were it to exist, would simply “be.”

Bringing things back around to existing reality, to declare of our existing reality that “the universe has meaning” is to make a personal value judgment too. To declare in relation to present reality that “life is meaningless” is to do just the same. Both are subjective statements… public pronouncements of personally assigned values.

The Primacy of Personal Experience

“Meaning,” or the lack thereof, is derived from the personal vantage point of the conscious being doing the judging. This is a natural extension of the fact that all meaning is derived from personal experience (or so Jack would assert).

What does it mean to say that “all meaning is derived from personal experience?”

Well, we already understand the practical implications as they exist in every day life. For instance: Let us say there is a song that comes on the radio that reminds you of an old flame every time you hear it. That particular song has a unique pattern of richness, import or significance, i.e. “meaning” assigned by you alone, in a manner that resonates uniquely with you alone. (Others may lay claim to the song, but their patterns of meaning will be different.)

Similarly, a patch of grass in a park might remind you of a beloved deceased family pet, or the smell of muffins baking might remind you of grandmother’s house, and so on. To the degree that these things stir up feelings in you, generate a positive or negative emotional response or complex cognitive response in you, they have meaning — personal meaning — in relation to your life and unique existence.

The examples chosen in the previous paragraph are deliberately down to earth, but the same judgment applies to more high minded things like worldviews and moral codes and abstract frames of reference. The degree to which one belief system among many resonates where countless others do not is a function of personally assigned value, i.e. self-created meaning.

Self-Created Meaning

The next step forward (in Jack’s view) is to recognize that all meaning is self-created.

There is no such thing as independent or transcendent meaning… whenever one ponders the “meaning” of something, it is always in relation to some vantage point of consciousness. “Meaning” is tethered to consciousness, and thus becomes a non sequitur when severed from some originating form of “self” — be it the personal self, the self of some other human being, a collective societal self, or what have you.

And so, given that meaning is 1) tethered to consciousness, and 2) grounded in personal vantage point, it is logical to recognize that all meaning is self-created. There is no other mechanism than consciousness (which in turn implies the existence of a self) to generate it!

Self-created by whom, you might ask? Answer: By whomever is doing the experiencing, the conceiving… whoever is participating in reality as a conscious being. Were, say, a dolphin or a chimpanzee self aware enough to assign emotional impact values of “import, richness and significance” to things, then one could say to whatever degree consciousness exists in such a creature, that creature has the ability to experience — and create — meaning.

The point is not to get on a rabbit trail as to whether animals have consciousness or whether life forms beyond humanity can truly experience meaning. Rather, it is to point out that “humanity” is not the critical thing. Self-awareness is the thing… consciousness as intertwined with the existence of thinking, feeling self is the thing. To the degree that a being (human or otherwise) is conscious, self-reflecting, and self-aware, he / she / it has the ability to generate and experience self-created meaning.

And that’s the only kind of meaning there is. Meaning can be transferred and explored and collectively shared by way of recorded knowledge, creative expression and robust communication mediums, but at the end of the line, meaning is always end-user experienced (and uniquely generated) by some “self” on a personal individualized level. Like words on a page of an unread book, the symbolic aspects of reality do not become impactful until some conscious being shows up with the capacity to “read” (i.e. personally experience) reality’s text.

No Fixed Answers

Let’s go a step further now. If one agrees that all meaning is self-created, i.e. derived from personal experience, then one can further deduce that burning questions such as “Is the universe meaningful?” or “Does life have meaning” are not questions with fixed immutable answers.

As mentioned, a universe devoid of sentient life is not automatically a “meaningless” universe. As with the twin spheres, there is no point of reference to declare in either direction (who is there to declare?).

We get tripped up when trying to imagine abstract overlays for such a place because we automatically assume a point of reference by default. We almost can’t help it — so much of reality is personal, we are like fish with no feel for what “water” is. Being fully immersed in the midst of an intensely personal existence, we tend to forget (or fail to recognize in the first place) just how subjective and solipsistic the individual consciousness experience truly is.

Similarly, there is no final answer as to whether THIS universe is “meaningful” or “meaningless” except to the degree that one ASSIGNS such a value in personal terms. Does life have meaning? For one individual, quite possibly. For another individual, possibly not.

Embracing Paradox

The point of opening with the twin sphere paradox was to facilitate a break with conventional thinking. Most of us are so used to perceiving and processing reality from a personal vantage point, we tend to automatically conflate the personal aspects of existence with the broader impersonal reality beyond. Pondering the twin sphere paradox can potentially help highlight the faultiness of such a conflation (or so Jack hopes).

A natural, accidental tendency to conflate the biased personal with the neutral universal — often in a parochial or arrogant way — further explains why people routinely go around saying “the world is ABC” or “reality is XYZ” as if they were speaking in concrete terms, when, in actuality, they are merely expressing subjective personal value judgments in the vast majority of cases.

The concept of self-created meaning is also a bit of a brain bender, in that we are not used to the idea of creating meaning ourselves and having no higher arbiter than our own consciousness to declare such assignations valid or invalid. Most of us are used to thinking of meaning as some intangible, transcendent thing — as if the inherent value in ideas, codes, concepts and things is something one is subjected to, rather than something one creates on one’s own (whether such act of creation is recognized or not, conscious or not, hijacked by outside interests or not). In philosphical discussions we tend to treat our perceptions of meaning as if meaning somehow managed to reside beyond the personal — and where would it live exactly? — even if we do not recognize the implications.

The idea of “meaningless” as active value judgment is even more tricky for some, because again, many if not most of us fail to recognize that assigning a negative value to something is still very much an act of subjective judgment.

In some ways, then, to shout “the universe is meaningless!” is no more metaphysically justified in the big scheme of things than to shout “vanilla ice cream tastes better than chocolate!” Such statements may be true for you, and also for those who agree with you, but that would be as far as it goes… and vice-versa for those who would declare the universe a hands-down meaningful place.

Again, as with the lack of reference point in relation to the twin spheres paradox, the absence of any higher arbiter of meaning means that self-created meaning becomes the ultimate authority. There is no transcendent meaning to override our personal experiences as to what is important, what bears a weighting of import or richness or significance and what doeis not.

We are, quite literally, then, left to create meaning for ourselves, whether we accept such awesome responsibility consciously or not, whether we embark on such a critical mission willingly or not. To choose someone else’s prepackaged value system, like a box of cereal off a grocery store shelf, is still to make a choice. Note, too, that “awesome” and “critical” are readily used here in personal subjective terms — and there is nothing wrong with adopting or otherwise synthesizing attractive aspects of someone else’s belief system if it feels right to do so. Selecting, compounding and synthesizing is how humanity advances (if one gives merit to such a concept).

And in so doing (generating our own canvas of self-created meaning), it is also worthy to note the experiences and ideas and concepts we choose to value as meaningless / null / void can matter just as much as the things we choose to attach great worth to. The canvas of fulfilled life is not just brush stroke alone, but also the open space between the strokes.

p.s. More food for thought (in airport lounge parable form, as adopted from a Jack Sparrow comment on another blog):

Three teachers sit by the side of the road.

The first teacher cries, over and over again, “All is meaningless — you MUST accept this!”

The second teacher cries, just as loudly, “All has a deeper hidden purpose — you MUST accept this!”

The townspeople, curious as to which teacher is right, inquire of the quiet third man, hoping he will break the tie.

But, instead of picking a winner, the quiet teacher merely smiles and responds: “These two are as noisome twin brothers — what they say is the same. There is no universal truth… how could there be, when even the sun and moon will one day go out.

Share this: Twitter

Facebook

Like this: Like Loading... Related