In Jerusalem, by Alan Moore, there is a group of children belonging to the Dead Dead Gang. They have all gained a dimension...which seems like something that happens when you die...and this added dimension gives them abilities that are analogous to our super-powers whenever we look in on the inhabitants of Flatland.
The children in the Dead Dead Gang can see Time for what it truly is; a direction in space. And they can traverse that direction as easily as we can walk in our world of only three space dimensions.
The children visit 1675 to see the great fire that destroys half of the city. The oldest gang member, John, is explaining to the youngest fella that this was the year in which the "Boroughs" district of the city becomes a slum. He reasons that the winds were blowing in such a way that the Boroughs were not destroyed, but the rest of the town was. After the fire, the people rebuilt the destroyed homes while the folks in the Boroughs just continued with their old...and now comparatively shabby...dwellings. This "new town" advantage continued and was reinforced down the centuries by the "better" people choosing to live in the better places.
And if only the wind had been blowing differently that day, then the Boroughs would be the good part of town and not the habitual and perennial slum neighborhood.
But the leader of the gang...her name is Phyllis...disagrees and says,
But that's not 'ow it 'appened, wiz it? Things only work out one way, and that's the way they 'ave to work out. If we'd grown up in posh 'ouses, then we wouldn't be us, would we? I'm 'appy bein' 'oo I am. I think this wiz 'oo I wiz meant to be, and I think that the Boroughs wiz meant to be 'ow it wiz, as well.
(Language also changes when you die. You keep your accent, but being above Time causes you to pick up some tense-less verb forms. I'm sure you can figure it out.)
Phyllis is a very wise character who speaks as a surrogate for the author and his views on Time. Everything has already happened...and you'll see this truth more clearly when you die, because you will gain a dimension.
You can look at a partially completed sudoku puzzle and figure out that one of the empty squares must be either a 3 or a 7. There are no other possibilities...and so, that square has a 50% chance of being a 3 and a 50% chance of being a 7. This is...of course...totally wrong.
No chance is involved. The square has a 100% "chance" of being what it is. You can do that same sudoku puzzle a hundred times and...if your reasoning is correct...then the square will always be what it is.
The only way that the square in question could be anything different is if we started out with a completely different initial sudoku puzzle.
Sudoku is fun because we are kinda slow as logicians. Computers think that sudoku is boring.
And this is what Phyllis is saying. Everything is as it is because everything else is as it is. There are no "would have beens" unless you change everything.
The only way to truly be anyone is to be who you are as a result of the entire context.
Reality is a pattern...a structure...and the idea of causation is suspect. A big skyscraper is coherent and the 12th floor is related to the 23rd floor...but it does not cause it. I am coherent and structured...but my patella does not cause my liver.
In the Jerusalem book, the journey continues. Death is only the beginning. Time is Space.
Philosophy comes first, then religion.
If you can't get straight on what you believe about the nature of Reality, or if you refuse to do that work, then your religious convictions...no matter how vehemently stated...are just arbitrary and lazy. In effect, your faith is merely convenient and no better than a bumper sticker I once saw on the highways of America:
The Bible says it. I believe it. And that settles it.
Over the years, my model for Reality has become Media...Reality is a type of immersive media. The laundry list for this philosophical neighborhood includes things like: "The Matrix", Eternalism, Simulation Theory, David Bohm, and lots of other stuff. Yah...okay...I am an amateur philosopher, but this is still what I believe.
My basic tenet is that existence is like a movie reel. It is thousands and thousands of still photographs with little gaps between them and when you play it, it conveys the illusion of motion and it tells a story.
The inspirational aspect of this belief is that it implies (for me) the real existence of a thing called consciousness. The movie can't watch itself. There has to be an audience. I call them Souls.
And so it is in that light that I then turn my attention to religion. I am not pretending to be exhaustively all-inclusive here. I just want to comment on three religions from the point of view of someone who believes that Reality is Media.
Christianity definitely does not see the world as media. Instead, life is a high-stakes moral tightrope. Modern Christianity is uncomfortable with this statement and tired of constantly being attacked on the basis of Hell and Satan and Damnation...but...I don't think that conciliatory words from liberal theologians really change this basic paradigm for Christianity. Like it or not, life is the grand game of free will, good vs evil, and final judgment...and...you might not come out on the side of the Angels. This is a real possibility.
So for Christians, the most critical question is, "What should I do?"
It is about me, my free will, my body, my soul, my actions, and my consequences. (sorry. do I over-simplify? I just can't accept the modern, softer versions. In the course of history, Christianity laid down a foundation of belief and in that core, existence is defined as a moral hazard. I don't think that Christianity can sidestep this, however much it may want to.)
But if Reality is truly Media, then Christians are like those kids in the grocery store who are "steering" the cart.
In Buddhism, Reality is just a bunch of silly happenings and mutual causes...dependent arising. It might be painful. It might be fun. However, it is ultimately pointless...dukkha. The question for Buddhists is, "How do I make it stop?"
And again...I over-simplify. Sorry, again.
Buddhists are tired of being accused of nihilism and they propose all sorts of complex contortions to avoid this charge...but at the end of the day...in my eyes...Buddhism is nihilistic. It is good to meditate, but I cannot accept the premise for why we should meditate. Escaping into stillness may relieve me from time to time...but it does not fulfill me.
If Reality is truly Media, then Buddhists just want to leave the theater and go home to bed and endless, dreamless sleep.
You may not consider Jungianism a religion, but I do. It is the religion that looks at Reality/Media and asks the question:
What does it mean?
The goal for the Soul is to experience many lives and many points of view and then, armed with that experience, to participate in changing the media to make it better. This is evolution and redemption in a single stroke.
I doubt that I am convincing anyone. Eternalism is believed by people you should respect...like Albert Einstein...but it is still difficult and weird and absolutely non-intuitive. I admit all that.
But if Einstein and quite a lot of other physicists are right, then Eternalism is true and we are left with the need to decide which question we really, really want to dedicate ourselves to:
- What should I do?
- How do I make it stop?
- What does it mean?
I choose to interpret Reality as an eternal quest for knowledge, experience, and improvement. I don't want to judge it. I don't want to escape it. I want to know what it means.
One final point...You might object to Eternalism because you feel that it denies free will. I have three tentative ideas on that issue:
- Reality/Media may very well be branched...like The Garden of Forking Paths by Borges. Free will may then be operative, but only at certain points in a reality-story...like hypertext fiction and also like Groundhog Day. The Soul chooses which "story" to "read" and by virtue of in-story decision points changes the progress of the story. In Groundhog Day, the soul does this repeatedly...practicing until he gets it right.
- Or free will may operate only in between the lives that the Soul chooses to live.
- And finally, I would say that the whole issue of free will really doesn't interest me much. If you had it and then God took it away, how would that feel? Conversely, if you didn't have it and then God suddenly gave it to you, how would that feel?
I don't think free will is as important as people say it is.
Souls might have it at certain points, but the characters in the media do not have it. The characters in the media don't even move...so how could they have free will? It would be like saying that Frodo has free will. That is all that I can say.
