Published in ILLUMINATION
Dec 13, 2023 (Medium.com)
“I do not believe in free will…” — Albert Einstein
Intro
“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”
— Arthur Conan Doyle
Recently I had the pleasure of Zooming with a public intellectual. (No name-dropping, promise.)
Roughly 15 minutes in, he glanced at his watch. A yawn followed. He blinked at the screen.
I sighed. Are you not entertained, dear Professor? I wondered as his mind wandered.
Perhaps he expected fireworks…
…Perhaps he expected a verbal Mike Tyson but instead was treated to Mister Rogers, my fellow Pisces.
Ahh, I’m a Leap Year guy — “agreeable” by nature. But being nice and agreeable tends to bore people.
Here’s the thing… my radical thoughts on pages spring from ideas, not from personality. I merely do a good job of following a good argument’s logic till the finish line, no matter what.
With the professor’s anticipated “clash of the intellects” seemingly nowhere in sight, he again glanced at his watch.
“Ahem, Mr. Turner…” he mumbled, “I hoped you’d challenge my agnosticism. So far, though, you’ve been tautologous, nay, hedging your bet.”
I flashed a smile. After all, he’d just cracked the door for me, later on, to end our chat with Maximus’ famed line:
“Are you not entertained?”
“Since we’re on the subject of ‘betting,’ ” I said, “any thoughts on Pascal’s famed wager, sir?”
His upper lip flickered, bordering on a smile. “Well, Pascal’s wager is childish at best, harmful at worst…”
*Quick recap of Pascal’s wager:
Blaise Pascal seemingly brought common sense to theology. How? He told the world to always bet on the favorite.
According to Pascal, because we’ll never gather enough evidence to either prove or disprove God’s existence, “smart money” calls for betting as follows:
→ Push all your chips to the table and bet that God exists!
Why?
If right, you have everything to gain (Heaven) and nothing to lose. On the flip side, if you don’t bet, you risk losing it all (Hell).
“Your thoughts on Pascal’s gamble?” he asked.
But to his surprise, my answer was simple:
“Pascal’s wager is wrong for one simple reason — God doesn’t play dice.”
I. Einstein’s God
One morning at his Berlin home, Einstein received an urgent telegram.
“Do you believe in God?” Rabbi Goldstein wrote, concerned history’s most famous scientist had been undermining religion.
Sure, Rabbi Goldstein expected an answer long and sour, but Einstein kept it short and sweet:
“I believe in Spinoza’s God . . .”
Bingo!
For those initiated into the mysteries, “Spinoza’s God” is merely a code-word for a mathematical theology.
Perhaps the mathematical physicist Lord Kelvin best summed up Einstein’s view when he called “mathematics the only true metaphysics.”
What Einstein loved most about Spinoza was this: of all the philosophers, he was the first to take the father of modern science seriously…
…According to Galileo, it’s impossible to understand the universe without knowing “the language in which it’s written: the language of Mathematics.”
Indeed, this is a uni-, not a multiverse. And because the prefix uni- means oneness, Spinoza based his entire philosophy on the insight mathematics is built on the “One.”
In Spinoza’s view:
→ Let the mathematician’s number theory define the number one as “neither prime nor composite” — i.e., in the number world whatever is one cannot be created or destroyed.
→ Let the priest, wearing a white clerical collar, preach why one “God cannot be created or destroyed.”
→ Let the physicist, wearing a white lab coat, experiment until proving why one “Energy cannot be created or destroyed.”
In each instance, Spinoza anticipated Bertrand Russell’s classic definition of mathematics — the art of repeating the same thing using different words.
So far as the qualities attributed to this one principle remains constant across all branches, Tesla put it best:
“What one man calls God, another calls the laws of physics.”
—Nikola Tesla
As you’re set to see, there’s a reason Einstein wrote this: “Everyone who’s seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe.”
What’s this all mean?
Well, let’s first clarify our starting point.
II. What Exactly Do We Mean by “God,” Anyhow?
“If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.”
— Voltaire
Socrates, the wisest philosopher of all, kept things simple. Wisdom, he said, begins by clear defining key terms.
If, say, a theologian’s main business is “God” and “faith,” well, God forbid she lacks clarity regarding what these key terms mean… right?
Indeed, the whole of the storied Socratic philosophy boils down to the “gadfly of Athens” roaming around barefooted pestering townsmen.
His famed questions ranged from “What is justice?” to “What is virtue?”
Thousands of years later, Socrates’ iconic method still reign supreme.
Glance at today’s philosophy departments, and you’ll notice the days of stargazing philosophers pondering “life’s mysteries” have long since vanished…
…Poof!
Today’s philosophy is dominated by the analytic tradition.
G.E. Moore, a founder of the analytic tradition, showed why a “genius” merely learns what people Knew yesterday, removes the letter “K,” and then repackages it as new today.
According to Moore’s student John Maynard Keynes, it was impossible to sit through a lunch — let alone a lecture — without enduring Moore paraphrase the immortal Socratic method:
“What exactly do you mean?”
“If it appeared under cross-examination that you did not mean exactly anything,” said Keynes, “you lay under a strong suspicion of meaning nothing whatever.”
In an age where influencers on social media talk a lot without saying a lot, I can’t help but think of Moore’s catchphrase.
“God” and “truth” are tossed around but rarely defined clearly. Frustrating stuff. No wonder today’s philosophers are obsessed with clear definitions.
(*Note: here lies the DNA of Google and Amazon’s keyword-ranking algorithms.)
As you’re set to see, mathematics — the very language of science — is nothing but an old game of using precise definitions as solid ground to generate structures.
III. The Language of the Universe
Bertrand Russell is one of history’s greatest polymaths.
Russell once recalled an incident that revealed the true nature of mathematics. Back in childhood, Russell’s elder brother (Frank) tried to teach him Euclidean geometry.
The instant the elder told him “these are the axioms,” Russell objected. After all, the pesky youth reasoned — the ground itself must first be demonstrated.
His brother patiently countered by reminding the youth that, unless he agreed with the assumptions (axioms), they’d never be able to “get on with it.”
If you truly understand this, you abruptly have insight into why Einstein was convinced “God doesn’t play dice.”
“Mathematics consists of proving the most obvious thing in the least obvious way.”
— George Pólya
When Einstein was asked to define axioms, he called them “implicit definitions.” By implicit, he meant the definition hides within the concept.
(*Note: axioms are the very heart of mathematical proof systems.)
Take for example a triangle…
…If, say, a 5-year-old has no prior knowledge of a triangle but were to unpack the concept — by defining it —guess what? She’ll eventually realize whenever you use the sign “triangle,” you’ve also indirectly signified three sides.
Why?
Simply put, contained within the very idea of a triangle are the attributes of three sides and three vertices. Because such implicit definitions are the heart of mathematics, this makes axioms the basis of science too.
Notice what’s being suggested here…
…Mathematics is nothing but the formal game of outwardly demonstrating what already lies hidden inwardly. This explains why once a proof is finished, the proud mathematician stamps QED at the end.
(*Note: QED = Latin phrase for “that which was to be demonstrated.”)
This process of “taking out” or revealing what lies hidden is logic, in a nutshell. This explains why logicians and mathematicians are both disqualified from Nobel Prize considerations.
Chesterton was right: “You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.”
In short, whoever has a firm handle on the philosophy of mathematics understands there’s no “science” without assuming the existence of what ancient philosophers called Archē (Greek: ‘first principle,’ ‘absolute origin,’ etc.)
IV. The Most Dangerous Word in Mathematics
“Obvious,” warned E.T. Bell, “is the most dangerous word in mathematics.”
It’s obvious the word becoming means “coming to be”… right? Or as Aristotle once put it, “Everything which comes to be, comes to be out of.”
Wait… Coming to be ‘out of what’?
Being!
Wait… Before proceeding, let me stress this important point:
BEing → BEcoming (coming to BEing)
Aha! Because the only thing knowable is what already exists, the words being and existence must be interchangeable.
Epistemology, then, never extends beyond accounting for how actual reality, which is hidden, is made known via development.
In every such case, the predetermined goal already sleeps in the egg. Yes! Such predestination always steers development. Always… in all instances. To grasp this insight is to come to grips with Aristotle’s entelechy and teleology….
…Given that Aristotle fathered biology, unsurprisingly today’s genetics tells us the zygote is pregnant with all our genetic instructions. Aristotle preferred to say “the entelechy of an acorn is to become an oak tree.”
Excellent!
From childhood to adulthood, such development merely unpacks the height, eye color, etc., which lay asleep in the zygote from the outset.
If you truly grasp the above, you grasp why every religious tradition can’t help but hint at destiny:
- “This Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God…” — Holy Bible
- “[Allah] Who created all things and fashioned them in good proportion; [Allah] Who determined and guided them…” — Noble Quran
- So far as the “law of karma” is deeply rooted in Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism — what’s already understood needs no explanation.
As for those staunch materialists who believe strictly in observable matter, ahem, just know this: the logical method (scientific method) can never do anything but account for how the coming out takes effect.
BEing (birth) → BEcoming (life) → BEing (death)
The starting point is always assumed, or we couldn’t “get on with it,” as Russell’s brother pointed out. But if becoming always springs from being, isn’t it clear this suggests — the finish line sleeps in the starting blocks?
Like the scientist, the mathematician turns a deaf ear to the starting blocks and finish line. The entire process of development (becoming) marks what mathematicians call a structure. Hence mathematics is also known as the abstract “science of structures.”
The scientist starts investigating at the very moment the newborn Universe banged in a big way into being, or coming to be, yet suspends judgment on the source of becoming…
….Socrates’ star pupil, Plato, however, scoffed at what he called this childish game of continually “taking out the actual” via demonstration. He dismissed the logical approach as “always becoming without ever being.”
Of course, isn’t it obvious we shouldn’t expect anything more from mathematics — máthēma (Greek: ‘what one gets to know’)?
Bingo!
V. The Truth with a Capital “T”
A teenager lies about getting good grades. Weeks later when his father holds up the report card, the lad’s eyes well up with tears.
“Father…” he says, “will I be punished?”
His father sighs, pulling his son in for a hug. He then whispers: “Son, in this life, the only lies you’ll be punished for are those that you tell yourself.”
I’ve lived enough life to know my role on the world’s stage…
…Born on Leap (Year) Day at 3:03, I’ve been fated to play the part of a truth-teller. “Amor fati…” whispers Nietzsche from the grave. “Love your fate — which is in fact your life.”
And so, when a public intellectual “randomly” reaches out to me, I know why.
You see, in this life, only three types of people dare to tell the Truth with a capital “T”: children, fools and drunks.
Perhaps this explains why Schopenhauer called every child in a way a genius and every genius is in a way a child. After all, what more is a genius than a grown-up who never quite grows up?
As for when my latest visitor asked me to expound on Pascal’s wager, he knowingly set the stage. His heart hungered for the Truth with a capital “T.” And by “truth” in this sense, dear reader, I mean…
…“What is Truth?” asked Pontius Pilate, and then like an absentee father he exited stage left before his seed could bear fruit.
Perhaps like most, Pilate preferred the darkness of ignorance. Ignorance, after all, allows us to ignore reality, if only briefly. As Socrates warned, life’s only good is knowledge and her only evil is ignorance.
Perhaps Pilate wasn’t so much afraid of the dark as he was what the darkness hides.
At times people don’t care to hear the truth, said Nietzsche, because they fear the sound of reality will drown out their illusions. And so, to answer Pilate’s question, the Truth with a capital “T” is simple.
If by the word “God,” we use this sign to signify the ultimate reason from which all such reasoning flows — what Spinoza defined as “that whose essence involves existence” — well, because everything on the world’s stage has a reason for being here, or else there can be no science (law of causality), the following conclusion is inescapable:
→ The only reason for a creation is for a Creator to create a creature in which “It” can recreate Itself.
Bingo!
“All this is Brahman. That [Brahman] is one, without a second,” reads the Upanishads.
Yoga (‘union with the One’) not only serves as Hinduism’s one goal but as any philosopher of religion will confess — such oneness comprises the one great truth of religion.
That is to say (in chronological order):
“The real yogi, with all passions subdued, is ONE with Brahman” — Lord Krishna
“Here, O Israel, the Lord is God, the Lord is ONE” — Moses
“Heaven means to be ONE with God” — Confucius
“If you open yourself, you are ONE with the Tao, and can embody it completely” — Lao Tzu
“The end of life is to be like [ONE with] God” — Socrates
“My Father and I are ONE” — Jesus Christ
“The ONEness of Allah” — Prophet Muhammad
To believe in science is to believe in mathematics — the very language of science. And because the number 1 is to mathematics what light is to Sun, what here is to Now, it’s no wonder history’s greatest scientist…
…the very genius responsible for discovering gravity and calculus concluded as follows:
“He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in [one] God; but he who really thinks has to believe in [one] God.”
— Sir Isaac Newton
In short, if by the word “God” we mean the same thing as the mathematician means by “1” and the scientist means by “energy,” isn’t it apparent for the One to transform into the Many, the former must first endure an identity crisis?
VI. “God’s Ouroboros”
An artist is locked inside a room.
Aside from a brush, paint and blank canvas (tabula rasa), the room is empty. Walls, white. Windows, nada.
And, oh, our artist has been afflicted with a bad case of amnesia!
With no recollection, what’s he, pardon, she to do?
In the Western tradition, our artist spends a lifetime reflecting and recollecting what she once knew… *hint, hint.
This process attributed to Plato and Aristotle, called mimesis, reveals why in the West before we “know something,” we must first recognize it.
(*Note: the prefix re- means to “do again.”)
In the Far East, the world’s first religion prefers a more poetic account of our “artist.”
In Hinduism, this world of ours comprises Brahman’s divine play. (Brahman = ultimate reality or “God.”)
According to the ancient Vedas, Brahman used divine magic to briefly “forget Itself,” which, of course, is impossible. After all, Brahman can’t be created or destroyed but can only appear to change from one form to another… sound familiar?
Appearances are deceptive indeed!
Of course, if Brahman is all-powerful and all-knowing, not to mention exists outside time, well, how on earth could the byproducts of this “divine magic” exert freedom of will?
They can’t…
…Well, not in the truest sense.
Of course, so long as mortals remain asleep, they dream of free will while under the intoxicating spell of Maya. Naive audiences are convinced Houdini pulls a big rabbit out of a small hat.
Plato called such blissful ignorance, reaped from sleeping with eyes wide open, the byproduct of being a prisoner still stuck in the Cave.
It’s not until we awaken to reality — that is, turn on the light in the darkness — do we become enlightened. This explains why in addition to the title “Buddha,” Siddhartha is also called the “Awakened One.”
If the One is all there was, is or will ever be, this results in an Ouroborous.
Bingo!
Again, if the creator’s nature alone exists, the creature’s sole purpose must be, well, to represent that which is forever present…
…To reproduce that which is the only produce.
Aha! No wonder Jesus of Nazareth dubbed the One “my Father.” After all, just as a boy is said to be “the spitting image of his father,” so far as his child merely reproduces his father’s genes, Jesus strove to reproduce the invisible One in the visible many.
“When you see me [flesh],” Jesus said, “you see my father [spirit].”
Dear reader, as we near another Leap Year, the energy pulls me down the metaphysical rabbit hole…
VII. Metaphysical Rabbit Hole
Dear Reader,
“You take the blue pill, the story ends.” I’ll abruptly end this piece and you’ll “wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.”
Ah, but if “you take the red pill, you stay in wonderland,” and I get to show you how deep the metaphysical rabbit hole goes.
Abracadabra!
“Sir, ever seen ‘Alice in Wonderland’?” Pandora asked.
The Teacher thought better of dismissing his precocious pupil. “Of course! The guy you know as Lewis Carroll, before adopting that pen name, was the logician Charles Dodgson.”
“Well, sir,” Pandora said, “remember when the White Queen asked Alice, ‘Can you do addition?’ and then the Queen added, ‘What’s one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one?’ ”
“Point well taken,” the Teacher said. “Never heard n + 1 expressed so blatantly.”
— excerpt from my Pure Mathematics Code
A great Japanese mathematician named Oka Kiyoshi, whose death-day happens to be my birthday, called the number one “dangerous.” And remember, obvious is the most dangerous word in mathematics.
If “God” is 1 — oh-oh…
God can’t escape Its own Ourborous any more than can the number 1 escape its own oneness. Why?
God = 1
(Now you know why 1 x 1 = 1.)
We can’t possibly get the numbers 2 (1,1) or 3 (1,1,1) or any such natural number(s) without the indivisible One having to, well, “magically” fall away from its own nature…
…Poof!
As for the noted “fall” away from, if Satan was initially an angel — pardon, an “arch” one to be exact — said to have lived with God in Heaven, isn’t the following takeaway clear?
The only possible “sin” that could’ve arisen was separation from this original state.
What more is separation than to fall away from?
→ Aha! No wonder Saint Paul warned Romans “the wages of sin is death.” After all, the death of the original, immaterial nature was the price charged for the material world.
→ Aha! No wonder before there was a before, the original Fall of the fallen angel planted the metaphysical seed to become the physical Fall of Man.
→ Aha! The original sin is thereby made flesh.
Because the fallen angel symbolizes the fall from the original nature, it’s apparent the word “Satan” merely symbolizes fulfilling Reason’s necessary condition for a rational world (cosmos).
Indeed, between one and none — there lies an infinity.
No wonder Leibniz suspected the number 0 corresponds to the Judeo-Christian conception of a “devil.” If God is everything, the only alternative is nothing… right?
Positive (1) merged with its own negation (0) — go figure! Here lies the heart of the world’s yin and yang. Or as Lao Tzu wrote in the Tao Te Ching: “the world is formed from the Void, like utensils from a block of wood.”
In short, the equation is simple:
The only way something timeless can BEcome time + The only way something non-physical can BEcome physical = BEing had to divorce Itself, from Itself, to BEcome Itself again.
Bingo!
When the saint says she’s saved due to being born again, i.e., “born of the spirit”…
…When the yogi says thru yoga (‘union with the One’) he’s thereby been liberated from “the cycle of reincarnation,” — i.e., the One having to “kill off” its nature to reincarnate into flesh…
…Is it not clear why Einstein called time a stoplight that prevents everything from crashing into a single point? (Singularity… *wink, wink.)
Time is always becoming without ever actually being, Plato whispers.
If Being is eternal and thus everywhere, this means “space” must be a cosmic pizza slicer that chops the omnipresent whole into parts. But right here can no more leave the present than can right now have been absent yesterday.
In short, the deeper we plunge down this metaphysical rabbit hole, the clearer it becomes why Einstein said this:
“I want to know God’s thoughts — everything else is details.”
— Einstein
VIII. Einstein Believed in ‘Destiny’ Till the Very End
“I am a determinist. As such, I do not believe in free will.”
— Einstein
A day after Einstein’s birthday, his best friend (Besso) met his death-day. Think about that for a second…
…Einstein wrote the following in a touching letter to the grieving Besso family:
Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That signifies nothing. For us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
Bingo!
Look deep into the word coincidence, and its mathematical root coincide (“agree in nature”) reveals why Einstein was adamant whoever “looks deep into nature will understand everything better.”
Look deep into nature and, perhaps, you’ll repeatedly glimpse such peculiar patterns as the following:
→ Stephen Hawking was the most celebrated physicist since Einstein.
→ Hawking’s death-day coincidently fell on Einstein’s birthday.
→ Einstein’s birthday coincidently falls on Pi Day (3.14), the most famous number in mathematics. Not to mention, both physicists coincidently died at age 76.
→ Hawking is coincidently born on the very same day the Father of Modern Science (Galileo) died. As for Galileo’s death-day, it coincidently occurred the same year Sir Isaac Newton was born.
→ In short, History’s four most influential physicists are coincidently linked on the same scientific chain.
“In human freedom, in the philosophical sense, I am definitely a disbeliever,” Einstein explained. “Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity.”
In Einstein’s study, along with a portrait of Newton rested a bust of his favorite philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer.
It was from Schopenhauer that Einstein learned though a man can choose what he likes, he can’t possibly choose what to like.
Take me for example…
…Had not my father stood 6’3 and mother 5’10, chances are I wouldn’t stand 6’4.
Given that I’m tall + Black American + grew up in the inner-city —three ingredients that boost any youth’s chances of gravitating toward basketball — my genotype and environment shaped my desire to play basketball.
Notice what’s being suggested here…
IX. Example is Better Than Precept
“You don’t see something until you have the right metaphor to let you perceive it.”
— James Gleick
Of each person’s 60,000 daily thoughts, researchers estimate roughly 80 percent occur in pictures.
“See what I mean?” goes the saying.
For this reason, Aristotle concluded mastering metaphors is a sign of genius. After all, a metaphor reaches for the heavens… strips a metaphysical idea of its “meta”… and then brings it back down to the physical.
(Drum roll) And so, let’s try out the following metaphor…
…A lab rat is born inside a maze.
From the rat’s perspective, as he comes of age, he knows not whether a mad scientist or tree or breeze was responsible for the grand appearance. The only thing for certain he can say is this: “I’m here… now.”
Excellent!
Sure, this lab rat appears free to roam as he pleases — go here, go there. Ahh, but hasn’t it long been said appearances are deceptive?
With each passing day, the lab rat appears to make plans to freely will things into existence. Ahh, but here’s the catch: the rodent is strictly forbidden from ever leaving the confines of the maze.
The maze has a distinct design — interconnected paths, which in turn directly influence the rodent’s behavior. No wonder, then, one fateful evening when the lab rat drops dead, he does so without ever leaving the maze.
In short, if this lab rat could reflect over his life, from birthday to death-day, he’d echo Schopenhauer’s grand insight:
You can choose what you like, but cannot choose what to like.
X. The Takeaway
Armed with the Socratic method, it’s apparent the word control reflects Einstein’s insight.
To control something means “to guide or influence” it.
→ Now ask yourself: when did you, a mere mortal, guide or influence your birthday?
→ Now ask yourself: when did you, a mere mortal, guide or influence the environment in which you grew up?
→ Now ask yourself: when will you, a mere mortal, guide or influence your death-day?
Well, then, given that we’re all caught swinging on this pendulum between two limits called birth and death, when do we — mere mortals — ever actually get to guide or influence… anything?
From Einstein’s insistence that “God doesn’t play dice” down to modern genetics, Nature’s greatest paradox holds.
No wonder Einstein confessed he “believes in Spinoza’s God.” After all, Spinoza identified God with Nature… with the Universe. Spinoza’s magnum opus, Ethics, can best be summed up in one sentence:
To truly realize God or Nature never gave you free will, will free you.
Bingo!
Unsurprisingly when the world attempted to shower Einstein with the title “genius,” he abruptly cleared things up:
“I claim credit for nothing! Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control. It is determined for the insect as well as for the star. Human beings, vegetables or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player.”
(*Note: destiny and destination come from the same Latin root destinare— ‘make firm, establish.’)
What the Ancients called life’s starting line, pregnant with each destination (finish line) and destiny (running race), genetics calls the fertilized egg, pregnant with all our genetic info.
Einstein extended such insight to help cope with the loss of his best friend. Spacetime assumes the illusion of time, after all.
In short, so far as determinism and destiny both inherently mean events that will necessarily happen to someone in the future, it’s no wonder Einstein was convinced:
“God doesn’t play dice.”
Written by Genius Turner
Writer for ILLUMINATION
My work’s popular in academia (biology, psychology, logic, etc) + Signed to the same agency as Eckhart Tolle = I’m an ordinary guy serving an extraordinary God.