The moral consequences of the Big Bang philosophy.
Last updating: 18 January 2000
Summary of the details:
The most important inference of the big bang philosophy is that we were ONE before the birth of the universe. This is tremendously important in our everyday lives. Indeed, our attitude toward others, those who do not belong to our family or our circle of friends, will be completely different whether we consider them as competitors we must beat or as part of ourselves. If we are persuaded that they are, all appearances to the contrary, a part of ourselves, we will have with them the same relationship that Christian morality requires of us: "love thy neighbor as thyself". We will not do so in order to please God, we will do it because we know that it is in our best interest to do so. To love others is to love oneself, according to the Big Bang philosophy.
The methodology of the Big Bang philosophy is to take into consideration only:
The first hypothesis, the most important one because it conditions the other three, will in the future become a scientific reality. We may not be very far from this moment, with the super string theory, that means to explain the entire science of physics, and consequently the whole universe. The demonstration by experimentation will take much longer to come, but it will come, that is a certainty.
In order to reflect on the subject of death, it is not necessary to have recourse to metaphysics. Our knowledge in this area is sufficient. I weigh 67 kilograms. The protons, neutrons and electrons which are at the base of this mass have existed for approximately 15 billions years and will go on existing until the end of the universe. It is the assemblage of this matter at the superior levels of the atoms, molecules and cells that has been different since the last fifty-seven years, when I was born.
It is possible to make a comparison with the plasticine we used to have at school. I would pull a piece of this dough and shape a figure. After a while, I would stick it back in the mass. The form of the figure existed no longer, but its substance still did, mixed with the rest of the plasticine.
It is the same thing with us human beings and all living creatures. We are but forms, infinitely more complicated than plasticine figures, but forms nevertheless.
It is difficult to admit that we are but forms; it becomes more acceptable when we assume that our real self is not this body that lives only for a few decades, but that it is the whole universe. When one has accepted this fact, one accords less importance to the individual one and more to the entire universe: this renders death less of a catastrophe.
This way of reasoning diminishes in no way the importance of life, which remains extremely precious. Life is this short span of time during which a tiny small part of the universe becomes aware of itself and can act. We are the representatives of the entire universe, elected by destiny. It behooves all to make good use of this opportunity of a few dozen years.
Animals are we ourselves. It is therefore unthinkable to exploit them like objects. We shall not eat their flesh, use their wool or their skin or any other substance of animal origin.
Be that as it may, if I have to choose between saving the life of a human being and saving the life of an animal, I shall choose without hesitation to save the life of the human being, because humans are the only living beings that can return the universe in the real world. They will do this for the benefit of the entire universe, and therefore for the benefit of animals as well. This way of reasoning justifies medical experimentation on animals, provided that it is restricted to a minimum, that every possible effort is made to avoid suffering and that the experiment is supervised by an independent vigilance authority.
No objective superior authority exists that could say who is right today and who will be right tomorrow. The only solution for deciding is the democratic method, with its corollary, respect of human rights. Nevertheless, this does not mean that decisions democratically made are always good.
In international politics, the big bang philosophy is in favour of all elements of union and against all elements of division. The construction of Europe is therefore a priority object which should be taken as a goal in other areas of the world.
The big bang philosophy does not say which is best, capitalism or communism, no doubt because these two systems occupy only a part of the history of humanity. On the other hand, it is greatly opposed to all excesses to be found in the one as in the other system.
Globalization is good for the whole of humanity because it equalizes the standard of living on the entire planet.
What is good for me and for others is moral.
There exists only one human race: the one we call "Homo sapiens".
Inside this unique race, there are of course subgroups distinguished by their various physical characteristics. In the course of history, one group was at the top of the hierarchy, then some other, and so on. Today, with globalization, there is a real chance that all groups may attain the same level of wealth and culture. Let us not laugh at those who are slow in entering the main stream, since they are we ourselves. Let us rather make efforts to help them join us as soon as possible.
The big bang philosophy confirms the great religions in their fundamental elements: the love of fellow-beings for Christians, the unity of God for Muslims and Jews, the illusion of life for Buddhists.
The big bang philosophy is therefore a bond between the various religions of our planet.
Yes, in 2000, I see no other better explanations. As for the future, I reserve my judgement. Perhaps a scientific discovery will call everything in question again.
Yes, because we know that we were ONE and that we shall be ONE in the remote future.
No, because we shall never, as long as the universe exists, have an answer to the most important philosophical question: Why does the universe exist?
Humanity and progress are as the two sides of the same coin: inseparable for better, for worse. From the time when our remote ancestors, a few hundred thousand years ago, started chipping stones, progress has never stopped. It has considerably changed our conditions of living and does so today still, more and more rapidly, to the point where it is no longer possible to say, at the time of the birth of a child, what its environment will be at the time of its death.
Progress in the widest sense is impossible to stop. Even if we think that we master every stage, the general direction escapes us completely.
The evaluation of every step of progress seems slightly positive, with improvements generally bigger than damages, so that no one today would wish to live as people did in the Middle Ages or in ancient times. It is useless to regret the negatives aspects of progress for two reasons :
The infinite is not a quantity. We cannot fill the infinite with finite things; we could never manage it. The infinite cannot therefore be composed of finite things, because it cannot be fractionated. The infinite can only be composed of infinite.
Question: Don’t mathematics tell us the contrary?
Answer: The infinite in mathematics is not a reality.
Let us take a simple example, number Pi, that is 3,1416…The number has been calculated up to billions of figures after the comma. But if we tried to make a circle by multiplying a given diameter by 3,14 we would soon find out that in order to tie up the two ends we would have to add a millimeter, then a fraction of a millimeter, then smaller and smaller parts, and so on until we added an atom, then a proton, then a quark and finally a string, the theoretically smallest possible object. It would not be possible to get below this impassable limit. At this point, we would have 33 figures after the comma. All figures coming after these do not therefor correspond to reality and are absurd, a fact which does not prevent them from seeming very real at the time at which you make your calculations.
Talk to me about a universe as vast as your imagination can make it, and I shall feel comfortable with your proposition, but do not talk to me of an infinite universe.
If the universe were infinite, it would be incomprehensible, for all eternity, since we would not be able to know its cause. We could also for all eternity search for proof that it is infinite without ever finding this proof. Whether the universe is finite or infinite, we find ourselves faced with a borderline that intelligence cannot cross.
The finite universe allows us at least the satisfaction of knowing that this borderline will disappear in the very long term.
Let us remind ourselves that the universe, before it was divided by space and time, was ONE in the real world. Living beings are the various forms of a whole.
When we are born, a minute part of the universe becomes incarnated in us for an average term of a few decades. When we die, it gets disincarnated from us. It then gets reincarnated in our successors. Every day, from the time life has existed, it gets incarnated and reincarnated a considerable number of times.
Since our true self is the entire universe, it is right to say that we get reincarnated in the others and that the others get reincarnated in us. But contrary to what is generally believed, there is no soul transmitted from life to life. Moreover, we do not need one, because the others are ourselves. Nevertheless, something is indirectly transmitted. If we have been able to create a better world, our successors, therefore ourselves, will benefit from it.
Even though theoretical possibilities that the big bang is not the beginning of the universe do exist, I have given this name to this philosophy because there exist, for the first time in history, very strong presumptions of evidence supported by scientific experiment, that the universe was born fifteen billion of years ago, and that therefore is not infinite.
In his book "Le moine et le philosophe" ("The Monk and the Philosopher"), Editions NIL 1997, that I strongly recommend, Jean-François Revel states that "Wisdom is not based on any scientific certainty and scientific certainty does not lead to wisdom of any kind".
The big bang philosophy says the contrary: before the big bang, we were not separated by space and time. We were ONE and happy. Today, this body that used to be one is torn apart by space and time. We must therefore react by loving for example our neighbor, since he is ourself.
In this instance, scientific certainty leads to wisdom.