I was in my 20s when I met a friend who was smart, charming, Ivy-educated, and wealthy, heir to a large family fortune. He'll be called Gallagher. He could do whatever he wanted. He tried out different fields, including neuroscience, philosophy, law and philosophy. He was so critical and picky that he could not settle on a profession. He was not satisfied with anything. For the same reason, he never found love. He also ridiculed the choices of his friends, to the point that he ended up excluding us. He was bitter and lonely. That's what I believe. Gallagher has not spoken to me in many decades.It is possible to be too picky when it comes to work, love, and nutrition. Even the pickiest eaters have to eat something. Gallagher taught me this lesson. When it comes to answering big mysteries, we aren't as picky. For example, our parents, priests, or professors may believe that we have the right answers. Although we believe we must believe it, we don't. It is possible, and advisable, to decide that there are no good answers. We should be agnostics.Agnosticism (not knowing), is sometimes confused with apathy. Francis Collins is a geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health. He is a fervent Christian who believes Jesus did miracles, died for our sins, and rose from the grave. Collins' 2006 book The Language of God calls agnosticism a "cop-out". I was shocked when he said that I was an agnostic.Collins apologized. He said that this was a slur that shouldn't be applied to earnest agnostics, who have examined the evidence but still don't find an answer. I was responding to the agnosticism that I see within the scientific community. This has not been proven by careful examination of all the evidence. I am not convinced by scientific creation stories like those that show our cosmos as a bubble within an oceanic multiverse.People who admire me are critical of my indecisiveness. Huston Smith, a late religious philosopher, called me convictionally impaired. Robert Wright is another friend who has often argued with me about evolutionary psychology and Buddhism. Wright once exasperatedly asked me, "Do you believe anything?" I actually believe many things. For example, war is evil and should be ended.I am with Voltaire when it comes to theories regarding ultimate reality. Voltaire said that doubt is not a pleasant state, but certainty is absurd. We should be just as critical as Gallagher when considering the alleged answers to these three riddles.THE PROBLEM WITH EVILWhat is the reason we are here? According to major monotheistic religions (including the Catholic faith), the answer is that we were created by an all-powerful, supernatural entity. The deity loves us as a father would love his child and expects us to behave in certain ways. Hell will reward us if we are good. Hell will punish us if we are bad. (I use He as the pronoun because most scriptures refer to God as a male.This explanation of reality has my main objection: the problem of evil. If you look at human history and the world today, you will see immense suffering and injustice. Why is it that so many people are suffering in life, even though God is all-powerful and loves us? The standard answer to this question is that God gave each of us free will. We can choose to be good or bad.In his book Dreams of a Final Theory, Steven Weinberg, a late great physicist and atheist, slams the free will argument. Weinberg questions why so many Jews died in Nazi concentration camps during the Holocaust. That doesnt seem fair. What about children who are diagnosed with cancer? Is it possible to believe that cancer cells are free will?However, life doesn't have to be miserable all the time. There are many things we can experience in life: love, friendships, adventure, and heartbreaking beauty. All this could be possible due to random collisions between particles. Weinberg admits that sometimes life seems more beautiful than necessary. Hence, agnosticism.INFORMATION PROBLEMQuantum mechanics, the most powerful theory of reality in science, is the best. It has been used to predict many experiments and spawn countless applications. It is difficult to interpret because philosophers and physicists differ on what it means. Many physicists most likely adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation by Niels Bohr, a Danish physicist. This is an anti-interpretation that says physicists shouldn't try to understand quantum mechanics. Instead, they should just shut up and compute, as David Mermin, a physicist, once said.This is the view of philosopher Tim Maudlin. He argues in his 2019 book Philosophy of Physics, Quantum Theory that there are many interpretations of quantum mechanics. They all explain how the world works. These include the GRW model of Ghirardi Rimini, Weber and Weber; David Bohm's pilot-wave theory; and Hugh Everett's many-worlds hypothesis. Here's the irony: Maudlin, who is so meticulous in pointing out flaws in these interpretations, only reinforces my skepticism. All seem hopelessly kludgy, and preposterous.Maudlin doesn't consider interpretations of quantum mechanics as a theory on information. Positive perspectives on information-based interpretations can be found in Beyond Weird, by Philip Ball, and The Ascent of Information (astrobiologist Caleb Scharf). Maudlin's analysis shows that information-based interpretations of quantum mechanics seem less plausible to me than those based on information. Without conscious beings capable of receiving, sending and acting upon information, the concept of information is meaningless.Incorporating consciousness into physics is a breach of physics' objectivity claim. As far as we know consciousness can only be found in organisms that have been around for a short time here on Earth. How can quantum mechanics apply to all of the cosmos, since it is a theory of information and not matter or energy? Information-based theories in physics are a throwback at geocentrism which assumed that the universe revolves around our planet. Agnosticism strikes me again as a sensible position, given the difficulties with all quantum mechanics interpretations.MIND-BODY PROBLEMSThe debate about consciousness is more fractured than that over quantum mechanics. What is the nature of matter and what makes it a mind? A consensus was emerging a few decades back. In his humorously titled Consciousness explained, Daniel Dennett, a philosopher, stated that consciousness is a result of neural processes such as electrochemical pulses within the brain. Francis Crick and Christof Koh suggested that consciousness is created by networks of neurons oscillating at synchrony.This consensus fell apart as empirical evidence failed to support neural theories of consciousness. There are many theories about consciousness, as I have written in my book Mind-Body Problems. Christof Koch supports integrated information theory. This theory holds that consciousness may be a property not only of brains but also of all matter. This theory has the same problems that information-based theories about quantum mechanics. Roger Penrose, a Nobel Prize in Physics winner last year, conjectured that quantum phenomena underpin consciousness. However, evidence for this theory is weaker than integrated information theory.Researchers are not even able to agree on the form that a theory about consciousness should take. Is it a philosophical treatise or a mathematical model? Is it a mathematical model? Perhaps a huge algorithm, possibly based on Bayesian computing? It could borrow concepts from Buddhism like anatta, or the doctrine of no self. None of the above? None of the above? Consensus seems further away than ever. That's a good thing. It is important to be open-minded in all aspects of our lives.What is the difference between Gallagher, my ex-friend, and me? It's a matter style. Gallagher was averse to the choices made by others. Gallagher sounded like an atheist who ridicules the faith of others. I try to not be rigid in my belief and to be open to the possibility that others, such as Francis Collins, may have found solutions that work for them. I also enjoy inventive theories of everything, like John Wheelers it From Bit and Freeman Dysons principle for maximum diversity. Even if they are not my own, they still make me laugh.I am definitely a skeptic. I doubt that anyone will ever be able to tell me if God exists, quantum mechanics, or how mind is made. These three puzzles are, I believe, different aspects of the same, inexplicable mystery that lies at the heart all things. One of the great pleasures of agnosticism is that I can continue looking for answers and hope that a new revelation will be revealed.This article is an opinion/analysis article. Scientific American does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in it.Additional Reading:My agnostic views are expressed in my most recent books Mind-Body Problems and Pay Attention to Sex, Death and Science.You can also listen to my podcast Mind-Body Problems where I speak with experts about God, quantum mechanics, and consciousness.
