Art vs. Science

"Einstein's creativity was incredible, though. When you think about it, it's not that surprising that today's physicists are stalled out on solving the mysteries of the universe. Our entire modern society is geared towards producing scientists, not artists. You should never send a scientist to do an artist's job."

"What's that supposed to mean?" Zac asked. "We've spent the last few hours talking about science, not art. You just gave me a 'rigorous proof.' Isn't that science?"

"No. It's art."

"Huh?"

I sighed. "Zac, I'm not a scientist. I know nothing about science, beyond a very cursory understanding of very specific topics that fascinate me — and even then, I'd be surprised if I haven't gotten some of the details wrong. I don't care much for scientific detail. It's all just noise to me. It takes an entire career of study to understand the specifics of these topics, and therefore I wouldn't presume to teach a Ph.D. in physics about physics."

"Isn't that what you're doing, though?" Zac asked. "You're presuming to tell the entire scientific community that they're wrong. I mean, I love it and all. But isn't that a bit presumptuous?"

I chuckled. "Firstly, I'm not schooling them on the details. I'm just correcting their big picture, which is obviously wrong. It only takes a few minutes of critical thought to figure that out.

Secondly, it is only presumptuous if I am incorrect, and I am not. Logic forbids it. According to their own set of rules — the scientific method — I am right by default. I'm only postulating the existence of one variable, consciousness, which I already know with 100 percent certainty exists. I don't even need to provide a rigorous proof, because I'm not actually claiming anything. Remember that diagram I drew on the whiteboard a few hours ago?"

I grabbed the notebook and began scribbling again.

"Let's call consciousness, x. We know for sure that x exists. We can also assume that reality — everything outside of myself — is also x, without adding in any extra postulates. If scientists want to claim that I'm wrong, they have to satisfy a burden of proof that another variable, y, exists. This y variable represents a material reality, separate to consciousness. Even if that could be done, they'd have to add in many extra assumptions to explain everything from quantum mechanics to relativity to out-of-body experiences and the placebo effect — all things that are accounted for under my model, and not under theirs.

So let's say the scientific community could do that, and they come up with some convoluted explanation that supports this ridiculous idea of a material, mechanical universe. When you place these two models side by side, their model will lose by default because it has way more assumptions. Materialism is such a stupidly inefficient model of reality — it has much less explanatory power with much more complexity.

And so, Ockham's razor will slit King Materialism's throat. Blood will splatter across the castle walls, and the world will watch as that old authoritarian dictator falls to his knees, clutching his neck as he bleeds out on the ground in front of his army of helpless soldiers. Then the rightful heir — Queen Consciousness — will take her throne in the Kingdom of Truth. We will usher in a new era of understanding and human progress. This is how you start a revolution, Zachary: with weapons forged from thought, not steel.

So, you see, I actually don't need to do anything. The scientific method does all the work for me. Technically, I can just sit back, sip some cocktails, and watch as the scientific establishment tries to rip my thesis to shreds — which is their job, by the way. Assuming they care to listen to the thoughts of an uneducated young female in the first place, they'll surely attack my argument as they desperately try to defend their beloved King Materialism.

But they can't touch me. I'm sitting in a logical fortress they constructed with their very own hands. That's the power of deduction — it gives you certainty. My argument looks like this..."

Premise 1: I think, therefore I am.
Premise 2: Logical reasoning is the most effective method for determining the objective truth.
Conclusion: The observer is the observed; reality and consciousness are the same thing.

"If anyone wants to claim I'm wrong, they have to invalidate one of my premises because the conclusion is certain if my premises are true. By arguing that 'I think, therefore I am' is untrue, they are thinking and therefore they exist. The mere act of trying to invalidate my first premise, proves my first premise.

The same can be said of my second premise. If they try to argue that the rules of logic are not the most effective method for determining the objective truth, then they are using the rules of logic to argue for their version of objective truth. In doing so, they render my second premise true. My argument is booby-trapped.

Furthermore, the scientific method is grounded in the rules of logic and rationality. If scientists even attempt to invalidate my argument, they are invalidating their entire profession and all the work that scientists have done over the centuries. Everything they stand for and value will be rendered untrue, and they'll pave the way for complete intellectual anarchy. Imagine that: a sick strain of postmodernism eating away at the natural sciences. Trust me — they're not going to commit seppuku.

So the scientific establishment can pick their battle, but either way it's checkmate. Their beloved King Materialism is backed into a corner on the chessboard, and none of his indoctrinated pawns can save him. Since the materialists have lost the game, they may as well surrender and come quietly.

A wise person once observed that all truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. The idea that we're living in a kind of illusory dream is not a new idea — it is one that has been touted by mystics for millennia and laughed at by the scientific establishment with no logical basis for doing so. We've already passed through the tiresome ridicule phase, so let's get over that already. It's just so boring.

The next phase is violent opposition. Baby-boomer men, in particular, seem to be devoted followers of materialism, and blindly worship it like a religion. At the risk of sounding like a cold-hearted bitch, the baby-boomers are all going to die out in the next few decades. They'll take their blatant cognitive biases and shitty ideas with them, so I have some hope that the violent opposition phase won't last too long in the scientific community. Some of the younger, more open-minded scientists will finally be allowed to explore ideas that don't adhere to the illogical dogma of the people funding their research.

It would be much smarter and easier on everyone if we just exercise a little self-awareness and skip to the final phase: self-evidence. Because, honestly, this whole thing is so basic and self-evident when you take two seconds to think about it critically.

So, in conclusion, no — I'm not telling physicists how to do their job. I'll leave science to the scientists. They're experts in their field, and I'm merely an innocent bystander calling them out for not playing by their own rules. I'm an artist. That's what artists do. They observe the world and expose the truth. They make you confront uncomfortable things about yourself, about society. Artists push buttons and challenge existing paradigms. They hold a mirror up and force you to stare at your ugly reflection until you squirm. Some artists do it with paint, and I'm merely doing it with words and logic. And so, you see, an artist is very different from a scientist. An artist will get you from zero to one, whereas a scientist will get you from one to n."