“Our reality depends on what our biology is up to.”–David Eagleman
“What a life in science really teaches you is the vastness of our ignorance.”–David Eagleman
Note: Regular followers of this blog will have noted that I avoid discussions of religion and faith issues herein. There is a reason for this: I am not interested in discussing them. Anyway, if you have read many of my posts you will likely have figured out where I stand on this by now. However, I am making an exception with this post for a specific reason. Possiblianism is to faith, what these Millennium Conjectures are to physics and metaphysics. I am speculating on what might be the answers to unknown questions, based on what we do know about physics and cosmology–all the while keeping an open mind and not drawing any absolute conclusions.
In between theism and atheism lies a vast limbo generally referred to as agnosticism. While the dictionary definition of agnostic is someone who believes the answer to the question of god’s existence and/or the meaning of life is unknowable, the term is often used more broadly. The agnostic may be undecided. The agnostic may not care and consider the question irrelevant. Some point to such individuals and say they are just too wishy-washy to make up their minds. The common thread among all of these, though, is that the agnostic sees no firm proof either way. Along comes Possibilianism, which might be seen as a sort of proactive form of agnosticism.
The term Possibilianism was coined and defined by neuro-scientist and author David Eagleman, in discussion of his book, Sum: 40 Tales from the Afterlife. When asked by an NPR interviewer whether he was a theist or atheist, Eagleman replied that he considers himself Possiblian. “I’m open to…ideas that we don’t have any way of testing right now,” he said. That is a good way of explaining what my Millennium Conjectures are as well.
I’ve read Sum, which is a compilation of 40 possible scenarios for what happens when we die; none of these scenarios are typical religious views of heaven or hell,
or atheist views of eternal nothingness. Many of the scenarios seem over-the-top bizarre. Except when you stop to think about it. None of them are really any more preposterous than what most religions already believe. But all of them do have rather strong moral or philosophical points to them; they are all excellent fodder for contemplation. At any rate, it was a best seller that received rave reviews from the likes of The Wall Street Journal, The Observer and The Los Angeles Times.
Below is a short You Tube discussion of the concept by Eagleman. There are much longer ones available if you have the time and inclination. As for my ever getting to conjecture #5, I think I’m finally done with the preliminaries, so, yes, it’s a possibility!