Who we are today – genotypically and phenotypically – is the solution to an optimization problem tackled by somewhat of a random walk that we call evolution. Are we truly an optimum? And if we are an optimum, are we the global optimum, or are we a local optimum, trapped forever in a relatively stable well? Are there some who still circle the rim of the well and others who have reached the bottom? And if we are trapped, will there ever be an individual genetic mutation that displaces the individual far enough away from our present optimum that their progeny can explore the rest of the function space?
Whether we are stuck in or still approaching a local or global optimum depends on our optimization function. Unlike most problems in computer science, this optimization problem is not clearly defined. In fact, the problem itself is tautological: the fact that we, the subjects of the problem, are conscious that there is a problem is the only reason that there is a problem. Of course, there is not truly a problem, just as there is not truly math or physics or music or art at play in the universe, for these all are human conceptions. What is truly reality – what we can never actually perceive because all we can do is perceive – is a real axis, and our perceptions lie on an imaginary axis orthogonal to the real. The labels for these two axes could not be more apt. Our perception of the universe is a function of this lower-dimensional space whose elements are its arguments. While our minds in the imaginary space can explore fantastical and supernatural ideas in this imaginary space, when projected back onto the real space, these ideas lose all meaning, because meaning only exists in the imaginary space.
But the optimization problem is also a human conception, stemming from our perception of what is bad and what is good. (Funnily, if our perception of bad and good were flipped, we would just need to invert the optimization function and the problem would be defined in the same way.) This optimization problem exists in our real-imaginary space, but if we were to project it entirely onto some purely real hyperplane that we call real space, it would lose all meaning. It exists in some imaginary extension of real space, but all its meaningful contours are orthogonal to real space, just like all other elements of our perception. Thus nothing in our imaginary space has any real meaning. Even matters that extend beyond the physical human race, such as our heinous destruction of the planet earth and its non-human lifeforms, do not truly matter in the real space. There is no purpose or ambition beheld by the universe, as it is just matter. Of course, our brains are part of the universe and they hold purpose and ambition, but there is no higher-order ambition intrinsic to the building blocks of the universe.
But supposing we take this optimization problem at face value, what is the unit of our measure of cost? Evolution would suggest it is the propensity to find food, or to mate. Certainly, the control which hunger and lust exert over our every thought and action would suggest that we are at the bottom of a well maximizing these feelings for the sake of maximizing our ability to pursue food and mates.
Comments
Post a Comment