Tumble Bugger's 'Variation on a Sitting Series'

The following is an excerpt from my first book, How Is There Anything At All?: A Variation on a Theme:

Sir Walrus: Sigh. I'm going to regret continuing on with this, I just know it? So then, what do you propose to use instead of words? It's not going to have anything to do with your irritable bowels, is it? Because I'm not going to want anything to do with your bowels. Can you possibly understand that?

Sir Penguin: Well, the way I see it, we can prattle on all day about qualia, as the philosophers call it, and comment about things like 'the redness of red', and wonder if you see red quite the same way that I see red - but it's quite unclear what any of that will accomplish.

Sir Walrus: No, you blithering idiot. I mean, Here! Here's your ball, you're up.

Sir Penguin: You see, I think we need to figure out how and why the universe came to possibly have the characteristics of existence and consciousness in the first place.

Sir Penguin: I think we really need to find out how and why there came to be anything at all before any of these other '-isms' will ever make much of any sense. For instance, I just read a book called The Astonishing Hypothesis by Francis Crick (one of the guys who discovered DNA)...

Sir Walrus: Really? Don't you find it difficult turning the pages - what with the flippers and all?

Sir Penguin: True enough. I'm forced, in all humiliation, to use my beak. But in any case, Crick's hypothesis was simply that consciousness arises from out of material processes and nothing more, and that therefore it should be amenable to the scientific method.

Sir Penguin: Yes. But it seems a rather superficial hypothesis, wouldn't you say? Not that Crick's hypothesis is in any way out of the ordinary (let alone extraordinary). Indeed, what else would consciousness stem from?! If the world is defined as material, then consciousness must therefore come from out of the material. You see, my point is that I want to know how and why there was even a possibility for existence and consciousness in the first place. Defining words (whether these definitions can be scientifically tested or not) misses the deeper issue, which apparently most modern thinkers ignore, or perhaps refuse to accept out of fear. How and why did the universe, even possibly, come to be how it is? Until that is answered, ALL WORDS might as well be likened to that of an idiot's howl drowned out by a hurricane of hot air.

Sir Walrus: Well, now you just seem bitter. And, you're probably wanting a bit too much anyway. But go on...

Sir Penguin: The typical arguments for how there came to be anything at all is that either there's a God that's somehow responsible, or it's all just a product of utter, meaningless Chance.

Sir Penguin: Well, regarding God, it seems perfectly obvious that this God requires some sort of explanation for its existence. If God is necessary, then what makes God necessary? Hence, until it's demonstrated what special qualities that this God possesses allowing it to be necessary, it's a rather meaningless exercise to claim that God is the ALL-responsible. So that seems to bring us to Chance.

Sir Penguin: Well, I think that the Chance hypothesis is about as meaningless as the God hypothesis.

Sir Penguin: You see, how and why did the universe - or more abstractly, the crazy-ass-stuff - get to have the characteristic that a Chance Event can even possibly be slipped into?

Sir Penguin: True enough. But if that's the sort of principle which the crazy-ass-stuff adheres to, such that 'For any crazy-ass-stuff, a Chance Event is always at least possible', then we have faired no better than with the God hypothesis.

Sir Penguin: We are still left with an inexplicable remainder. How and why did there come to be a 'Chance Event Principle' in the first place?

Sir Penguin: So anyway, my thought is that there must be some discernible process that the crazy-ass-stuff simply must follow.

(Sir Penguin throws the bowling ball. Strangely, this time the ball keeps rolling and rolling, utterly failing to fall into the gutter as intended, cusping the edge of the alley until, finally, one pin is knocked down.)

Sir Penguin: So anyway, what I've figured is that perhaps we really shouldn't be looking absolutely at either God or Chance, True or False (T or F), one way or the other, but not both. You see, even if we assume something to be True, and that's just the way things are, it still doesn't follow that we would know that fact with absolute certainty. Besides, there are any number of examples where an absolute T or F seems quite impractical and quite contrary to the way the world actually works.

Sir Penguin: Consider the statement 'this statement is a lie'. You see, that statement is referring to itself, saying something to the effect that "It is a true statement that this statement is false". So, it's sort of true and false all at once.

Sir Penguin: There are other examples too. In quantum mechanics, for instance, a quantum object is said to be in a super-posited state (this would be before being observed) in which the object is said to be both a particle and a wave at one and the same time.

Sir Penguin: Precisely my point. How is such a thing even possible? Furthermore, G�del's Incompleteness Theorem provides a mathematical proof suggesting that any formal system cannot be both consistent and complete at the same time.

Sir Penguin: That's because for any formal system to be complete, it would have to somehow reference itself which means it would have to 'escape itself' in order to make that judgement. That would be impossible - much like a finger trying to point at itself.

Sir Walrus: Hmm, in spite of myself, I find that your talk is beginning to stoke my curiousity - what's your point to all this?

Sir Penguin: Well, these are all curious examples to say the least, and my view is that there must be some basic explanation as to how and why the Law of non-Contradiction doesn't always seem to hold up. Now, it's worth noting here the importance of the Law of non-Contradiction as it's basically the center-piece for all rational enquiry. Hence, we're entering a point in our conversation where rationality might be likened to "breaking down".

Sir Penguin: Well, here goes. I think existence must have an explanation of some sort. I think that there must be a process, a procedure, that makes existence exist. There must be a default reason why there's existence and not non-existence.

Sir Penguin: Imagine a Giant Eraser, a Cosmic Eraser, an Eraser whose design it is to erase away the universe. Imagine that the Cosmic Eraser is designed to erase itself only after having already erased everything else. My question is this: What happens when the Cosmic Eraser erases itself?

Sir Walrus: Okay. Well, I guess there'd be nothing... Because if the Cosmic Eraser erased everything else so that only it remained, then when it erased itself there'd no longer be anything at all.

Sir Penguin: Well, we're dealing here with two very different abstract concepts: one being the possibility of a possibility and the other being not even that. I contend that if a Cosmic Eraser ever actually erased itself, what we would find underlying anythingness would be the Whirling Dilemma of the possibility of a possibility and/or not even that. When that Cosmic Eraser erases that last bit of itself, the Dilemma resurfaces such that it must be decided whether or not there's going to be the possibility of at least one thing, or not even that. Since there's no Logic, no God, no Instruction Manual, No Thing outside of this singular dilemma - it's therefore unsolvable. It just stupidly, mechanically, computationally whirls through it's dilemma: should there be at least the possibility of one thing, or not even that; should there be at least the possibility of one thing, and not even that; should there be at least the possibility of one thing, and/or not even that.

Sir Walrus: Damn, that's actually kind of interesting. And it's coming from such a freaking noodle. I don't know what to think now.

Sir Penguin: And here's the real kicker. The computation, that Whirling Dilemma, has to develop an awareness of its computating, of it's own dilemma. That's because it necessarily exists. You see, the computation necessarily has no answer and is therefore unsolvable. That's because there's no Great Manual, there's no Great Cheat Sheet to tell it the answer. Yet, the Dilemma has to exist due to its very unsolvability. Do you see the paradox? The thing has to loop back upon itself and "point" at itself through awareness to Validate its own existence, and that's all that existence is.

Sir Walrus: Damn it. It kind of makes sense in a way, but you're such a bloody idiot so how can I possibly trust you? What the hell am I supposed to think anyway?

�