Comprehending Existence

Comprehending Existence

Chapter 1[3919]

Infinite and unique

There is a flat surface in front of me, perhaps eight feet
long by two feet deep. It is of half-inch plywood and
painted with a matt black emulsion on its upper surface and
a white silk emulsion on the underside. A couple of feet
above this shelf is another, slightly smaller, but similarly
painted; this one of three-quarter inch chipboard. Above
that, about fifteen inches or so, is another of the same half
inch material as the lower one, and of about the same
length, but this one some six inches less in depth: it is
similarly painted both sides with emulsion.

The height of the lower surface is about two feet off the
floor and serves as my work station, its front edge
supported at irregular intervals by four rough sawn legs of
three by two inch timber, each one painted white but still
showing all the imperfections of the wood beneath, the
many shakes and knots, if anything, more exposed by it.

The back of the shelf is held up by a full-length batten
screwed to the wall. And it may be a small relief to know
that I am unable to reveal the exact number of screws used
for that purpose since that would require some effort of
bending on my part in order to find out. But you can be
sure that they are not evenly spaced nor all holding with
exactly the same firmness: more detail some may feel to be
unnecessarily included here; yet in proportion to the
infinite wealth of detail actually existing in that small area,
an amount pathetically and immeasurably small. Nor can I
be finished with it yet, since such detail is entirely relevant
to the subject under scrutiny.

However, since I am no novelist, I shall make no
attempt to describe any of the objects that languish beneath
the lower shelf nor even any of those resting on the two
shelves above, fascinating though some may be. I shall just
say that they contain more immeasurable detail and are
connected in one way or another with things at rest on the
first surface and with five more items I shall briefly describe
in the following paragraph.

I am sitting on a typists swivel chair roughly two feet
away and facing these surfaces, or shelves if you will, a
200 page refill pad of 'narrow ruling with margin' found in
Woolworths on my crossed knee and this writing being
undertaken with a Japanese retractable pencil of mustard
tinge, one of millions and a pencil capable of holding quite
a few reserve leads in its fuselage, yet, unfortunately, down
to one full length and a few broken bits in my own at the
last reckoning.

Before beginning this writing, I had been gazing at the
objects littering the lower surface opposite me, studying
their respective positions and individual natures: my half-
rimmed glasses of national health variety, one among many
pairs in my possession, lying there in their common repose
of a man who had just flung himself from a fifteenth story
window, spread-eagled with lenses perpendicular to the
ground and kept at that angle by one arm pointing rigidly
outwards and over the edge of a thin manuscript book
which had broken its fall.

At the opposite corner of this common music manuscript
book lies another pair of my glasses. These are bifocal in
nature and, being but rarely worn other than in moments of
acute desperation, are properly folded.

Finally, on the book between them are a couple of
computer disks, one almost, but not quite, astride the other:
the top one red, the bottom yellow.

This small assembly of objects takes up about one square
foot of my work surface and, as such, approximately one
square foot of the universe.

I am thinking about death. And my present study of
these few poorly described objects, in company with myself
at this particular juncture, is wholly connected with that
subject and causing the necessity for so much, yet hardly
adequate, detail.

However, to continue:

Could there possibly be two such arrangements as the
one just described, another that is completely identical in
every respect to the particular square foot of the universe
that is in front of me? Although I am sure that many would
insist that the answer is yes, for my part, even in face of
popular logic and reason, I should definitely have to say
that the answer must be no, not even with the aid of
infinity.
Of course, even I have heard it said: if infinity exists as
surely it must, then sooner or later everything must be
repeated. Or, was it that: we all have our double at some
other place in the universe? I cannot remember exactly but
I believe the idea to be fairly well represented in various
ways and toyed with by many a thinker, though, possibly
not by the best of these. Whatever the truth of that, it is a
most interesting notion to play with and one that should be
addressed and given proper consideration by those of us
who wish to delve into questions of life and death. For my
own part I do not think that another of me or you exists or
will ever do so anywhere other than in the place that we
are now at this very moment. The reason for this assertion
is quite simple and, I should say, pretty well incontestable
and shall be given in due course. Thus, it may be that some
will find themselves going on ahead of me, quite naturally,
whilst I continue to struggle along somewhere behind,
stubbornly hauling my square foot of the universe.

* * * * *

My half-rimmed glasses are of a very common kind, one
pair among thousands, possibly millions, a pair bent and
abused to compensate for the irregularities in the shape of
my head and the more regular maltreatment suffered
through a rough and natural resentment of their need. Even
in infinite time, if such a thing existed, could all the
elements and events that brought these glasses to their
present state ever be exactly repeated somewhere else?

'But of course. . !' you may reply.

Well, if some other square foot of the universe is to be
the same as mine, its objects would in themselves need to
be exactly identical to those in mine and therefore have
arisen through exactly the same course of events and
circumstances, patterns of use and abuse, order and chaos.
For this to have happened then so would all the things
surrounding and concerned with the two places have to
have followed identical paths of development. And so on

From this, it follows that in order for two things of
physical character and dimension to be represented exactly
the same in two separate places at any given moment then
all things surrounding them and everything in existence
should also have had to follow exactly duplicate courses of
events right down to the precise position of every shake
and knot in every piece of wood to the condition and
number of leads in every conceivable pencil; right down
from the last puddle on every sidewalk to the arrangement
of every last atom and breath of air: even with infinity in
mind how could such a thing be possible in one universe?
It would not be possible other than by the phenomena of
two exactly the same existing in one, a ghost that was
simply an invisible reflection of the other rather than
another of us existing elsewhere.

Thus, I say that no two things could ever be exactly the
same, existing in one, unless they had begun in an identical
state and even then, where such a thing likely or possible,
they would instantly cease to be identical unless acted upon
equally by all the things surrounding them, and so on, in
which case we are obviously thinking in terms of a parallel
universe existing somewhere outside of our own and of no
consequence since for obvious reasons we are only
concerned here with our own.

And it would be stretching credulity far beyond the most
excitable and theatrical limits to imagine that such
duplication could come into being by coincidence or any
other way even in an infinity. And a brief glance at the
heavens will surely reveal the impossibility of any
repetition of the universe within itself without some
considerable reshaping.

As for a parallel universe outside of our own, I would
regard that as quite conceivable but unnecessary and there-
fore unlikely. In any event, we need not concern ourselves
with it since whatever is the case here will also be the case
there. Of course, this does not eliminate universes or
existences which are not exactly the same as our own; but
that is another subject. Nor does it eliminate the need for
the simple explanation that was mentioned previously and
still due.

Just reading back through this writing so far and thinking
of all the aspects of myself that were needed to produce it
exactly as it is with all its multitude of short-comings
reflecting far too many of my own imperfections, I cannot
but wish that I were a proper writer and thus had been able
to provide the greater colour and impact that the subject
deserves. The page itself and all the complicated processes
that went into its making might also be explored in
microscopic and fascinating detail; or just the actual marks
that my pencil makes as I drag it across the page. Even with
my contribution left aside, could such a piece of paper ever
be exactly replicated by accident or through some
incredible coincidence? I think not.

But should you by now be eyeing the heavens only in
despair, let me hastily assure you that neither is any of this
that simple and indisputable answer that I have twice
mentioned before. The arguments so far put have been
offered only in an attempt to give perspective and depth
and some varying degrees of perplexity or apoplexy to my
readers, so that they may consider whether or not their
reactions and interactions with it are likely to be found
exactly identical elsewhere, their brainwaves duplicated
with some other through my over-labouring of this one
point. No, of course not. Not even with the aid of infinity
could my present writing initiate such a phenomena!

Then exactly what, I should like you to ask, has all this
to do with death?

That's a very good question..!

Is there somewhere in the universe, or has there ever
been or likely to be, somewhere in the universe, an exact
replica of you or me as we are at this very moment or have
been at some other moment in the past? Forgive me if I
labour the point but do again bear in mind that we and our
respective doubles would have to be doing exactly the same
at this very moment and arrived at doing it through exactly
the same sequence of events, order and chaos, during the
course of an identical day. Would such a thing be possible
even in an infinite and everlasting universe other than in an
exactly parallel universe? I think not. And is there a need
or place for such a parallel universe? It matters not but I
think not. And is there a need or a place for two things that
are exactly alike? I think not. And is there a place and a
need for one of everything? I think so, yes . . . eventually,
and in the long run, I shall explain my reason for saying so
but that must await its proper introduction.

So this is what my musings have to do with death, such
thoughts and others necessary study before any serious
approach to the subject in question.

Shall I cease to exist when my body finally breaks down
for good? It may be that this question has been asked many
times before and that much of what I have already said can
be found elsewhere better elucidated; this I don't know but
I am certain that such thoughts should precede any view
about the absence of ourselves from the scene and that our
absence can only be thus if we are not exactly represented
elsewhere. Obviously, any representation of ourselves that
leaves us absent is no serious contender.

However, returning to death and infinity, duplication
and our uniqueness, or otherwise, here lies an important
question: in an infinite universe should we assume that all
things already exist and that they must do so?

The immediate and most logical answer would seem to
be, yes, they surely must. But, just because the universe is
infinite in possibility, does that necessarily mean that every
possibility is already shaped in matter and needing to be
existing at the same time? I must confess a prejudice here
in that I hope, and believe, not. If it does then that would
lead me to conclude that nothing in the universe is unique,
nor anyone, since duplication would be necessary just to
keep things moving:

If all things existed at once then there could be no
change without duplication. If there were only a single
unique one of everything, and all things in an infinite
universe had to exist at once, then as fast as something
disappeared from one place it would in that same instant
have to reappear somewhere else; not an impossibility for
the most basic and perfect component of matter that had no
history or need of development or evolvement, but for
anything else, and especially complex entities such as
ourselves, it would be impossible; we could not be shuffled
in such a manner, each one of us being the culmination of a
line of circumstances and events woven from what we may
choose to call the past. It matters not how small the part,
remove even the smallest portion of our past tapestry and
we should also be removed, replaced by a different person
from the one that we are now. And, similarly, it matters not
how small the difference our presence in the universe
makes, in the absence of any individual one of us, it would
be a different universe.

Thus, in a universe where all things might be expected to
exist at once because it was infinite, our present self and all
our past selves would have to be existing at the same time.
Now, conceivable though this might be, that we are only
separated from them by a curtain of some kind, an idea,
incidentally, that I would not support for reasons to be
given later, such a phenomena would not be the same as all
our past selves existing now in the present universe this
side of the curtain where all those things that were part and
parcel of our past selves have ceased to exist.

Such a phenomena as a reoccurrence of ourselves would
require a cycle of finite change which even in a universe of
infinite possibility such as ours is impossible. Even a simple
pendulum swinging back and forth could never return to
exactly the same point that it started from nor could it be
exactly the same pendulum on its return should it somehow
manage such a thing. Only in a static universe might it be
conceivable, given that in such a universe a pendulum
could ever begin to swing in the first place, which, of
course, it could not.

In order for all things to exist at once, therefore, it
should be necessary to shuffle the past and present at the
same time. I hope you will agree that this obviously cannot
and does not occur. The most we can do is to disappear in
one place and reappear again in the same instant, and in
virtually the same place, through the natural process of
growth and ageing. But this is not quite the same thing,
although, it does enable our existence and maintain our
uniqueness.

If infinity exists and there is life after death then, unless
infinity can exist without all things being present, we might
feel encouraged to suppose that each of us has always
existed, always occupied a space somewhere in the universe
and couldn't have arrived only just lately to fill our place in
it.

But, if such a thing as infinity does exist, as surely it
must, then if we suppose that we had only just entered into
existence, would that not necessarily exclude infinity
without we accept that we are given a universe where by its
very nature no exact replication, duplication, or repetition
can be possible, where even in infinity it is conceivable that
new things can arise and cease to be, that this is our first
appearance and every one of us unique. As such we should
have to suppose that all things are not needed to exist
where infinity exists, that infinity can exist without all
things being present, that infinity has to exist before
anything can exist, yet is itself limited by reason and the
nature of our universe. And, perhaps most of all, be
thankful, for if infinity were to be given a totally free hand,
then everything would have to exist everywhere!

Does this dispose of the idea then that all things in an
infinite universe must be existing already and able to be
shuffled? Can we say that, in an infinite universe where all
things existed already, yet without duplication, that not
only would infinite change be impossible but that any sort
of change would be impossible, in fact, we should all be
stuck fast; this again, allowing that we could ever have
managed to get moving in the first place. . ! Can we say
that even in an infinite universe, that all things cannot exist
at once and therefore that there must be an infinite number
that do not?

Of course, you may feel that certain things have been
overlooked in this argument and not be totally convinced
by it, or even fractionally so. This is to be expected since
nothing can be conclusive, there are bound to be holes in
everything, especially if the writing is inadequate, which it
must always be: words can never encompass truth in total
without an ability to speak everything in a single breath;
which of course is not the nature of speech. So we have to
make allowances for that and try to gather sufficient part-
truths to enable some approximation of the real thing, even
perhaps approaching visual understanding that needs no use
of clumsy and inadequate sentences. Hopefully, however,
that will not be necessary with some small additional
argument:

In an expanding universe, there can be no repetition of
shape, quite obviously, and during any such expansion, or
cycle, all possible shapes could hardly even begin to be
exhausted since the universe and all its components can
only adopt a single shape at any given point and that shape
will not be exactly the same as any of the shapes previously
held or any of the shapes that are yet to come . . . in an
expanding universe.

It is also obvious that any shape held at any particular
moment can only be one shape amid virtually an infinite
number of other possible shapes. Thus, surely now we can
be certain that nothing would ever be repeated in a
universe such as ours, and that everything is unique and
every one of us totally so since any actual reoccurrence of
our selves would require a cycle of finite change where by
the very nature of things none is possible. Just like people,
the universe can only be in one place in its cycle at a time.
This makes it impossible for all things to be in existence at
once. Can I be young and old at the same time? Can I be
any one of the infinite number of past selves that I was, or
might have been, all at the same time, all existing yet in this
present universe, a different one to that which all these past
selves inhabited? All of our past selves belong to their own
past environments, to their own past universes and could
not be existing without them.

And so, to those who say, that in an infinite universe
nothing can be unique, that everything must be duplicated
over and over again, my simple answer is that you cannot
be selective about infinity. If infinity exists then it would
have to apply to all things. You cannot have something that
is infinite in a container that is not. Neither could you have
it the other way round, a container that was infinite without
infinite contents. If detail can be infinite then no two things
need ever be exactly alike or are ever likely to be so if we
allow proper consideration to other factors so far laboured
within this chapter. Infinity means infinity. It must
encompass everything or be other than infinity. It can have
no limitations, no beginning or end.

And if infinity does not exist or we find that the universe
may be infinite in possibility yet finite in fact, well, then
once again, in such a universe the ability to be unique is
not unavailable or excluded but rather assured and
inevitable.

Yet I have to admit that nothing is ever so cut and dried,
especially since it is impossible to tell the whole truth about
anything; which, of course, applies equally well to this last
statement: an excellent example of the fact by being so
inevitably less than one hundred per cent true in itself... if
it is true.

So what is the wonderful significance of all this? Well, if
we can conclude that duplication is not possible and that all
things are unique then this must be very significant to any
understanding of life and death. If all things do not exist at
once and new things are being created continuously, then,
even in infinity, I need not have existed before my birth; a
possible explanation for why I can remember nothing
before that time. This also leaves open the possibility that I
may continue to exist after the death of the visible part of
my physical being.

In order to approach any understanding of our existence
or any plausible answers to questions about life and death
or other existences other than the one that we presently
encounter, then it is necessary to know, or at least to be
fairly certain, that we have some real integrity and are
worthy of regarding ourselves as individual entities rather
than something like wallpaper; that is to say that each of us
is unique and irreplaceable and not to be found anywhere
else.

If I can say that I am unique then I can also say that
should I cease to exist then there would be a vacant place
in my absence. From that, I can conclude quite logically
that should such a vacant place ever exist then that place
could only ever be filled again by me and by none other. It
might also be reasonable to suppose that if any such vacant
space existed then there may be some need or compulsion
for me to come along and fill it; a comforting thought,
perhaps . . ?

Well . . . depends on the space!

---oooOooo---
Comprehending Existence -6-