Truth or rubbish - which?
The Theory of Inevitability
by Derek Brockis
A philosophy of life and religion
(a way of looking at things)
Everything is inevitable therefore predictable. Everything is predictable therefore inevitable.
1. Know the details to know the future
2. Complexity is no limitation
3. The Christian shark - how moral systems evolve inevitably
4. Creation, computers and consciousness
5. Doubt, Blame, Might, Nature, Nurture and Moral Judgements
6. Important, correct, should and ought
8. The inevitable conclusion
It is said any species appearing invulnerable stands on the verge of extinction. Acknowledged threats to the human race range from meteors to viruses but there is another threat we cannot avoid which is being overlooked. Can society adjust to knowing that free will and morality do not exist as we understand them and that everything, including human behaviour, follows an exactly pre-ordained pattern, like parts moving in a very complicated machine?
Blaming while justifying one’s own position and forming groups which kill each other are two human characteristics. Society runs by moralising over right and wrong; limitation of killing depends on this. Recognition that the outcomes of all thoughts and actions are inevitable and predestined could cause such a change in human behaviour that society breaks down. Even if, to survive, we continue to pretend moral ethics exist and are supernatural the pretence itself will one day be recognised as such. Cherished beliefs are given up reluctantly, especially religious ones, but the idea that conscience and free will exist beyond the laws of physics is dying. It could well be that people fear facing up to the simple truth that everything follows an unchangeable pattern - that we are all just puppets dancing to the strings of chance. Thoughts and actions are not matters of abstract moral choice but are all inevitable and, if sufficient facts are known, 100% predictable. The making of the prediction and its content are also part of the inevitable pattern.
Observe the behaviour of writers and broadcasters on subjects like Darwinism and the ‘Dominant Gene’, proposing that soul and free will do not exist and that man is just machine. Nearly all, understandably, fall into the trap of using expressions like ‘must’, ‘it is important that’, and ‘should/ought’ in an undefined and moral sense at the very moment they are arguing against free will, with its consequent moral obligations. This illustrates how far human minds, even the most advanced ones, still stand from adjustment to what, according to all the evidence, is the way things are. You may not like it but it is the way things are.
The following is the case for ‘The Theory of Inevitability’ and its corollary: ‘When you know enough about any situation its future is entirely predictable’. Terms like ‘time’, ‘future’, ‘predictions’, ‘correct or incorrect’ are hard to define but all, including efforts to define them, are parts of the Inevitability and no concept considered so far appears to contradict the Theory.
You do not need advanced statistics to prove the Theory of Inevitability, only to say 2 and 2 make 4, observe the way life really is and, inevitably, keep an open mind.
1. Know the details to know the future
Every person or society proceeds on the assumption that if something is known about a situation its future is predictable to some extent and that the accuracy of the prediction depends on the amount and quality of the information possessed and how far ahead the expected event is. Increased knowledge and shorter time scales enable prediction with greater certainty. This applies to every action from crossing roads to declaring war. Any person or society that does not act in accordance with this rule dies out. Inevitability Theory simply takes this truth to its logical ultimate point, namely that when everything is known about a situation its future is completely predictable and therefore inevitable or, alternatively, everything is inevitable and therefore completely predictable.
If a brick is held above a table and dropped, it will inevitably fall and hit the table. You might argue that lightning or earthquake could unexpectedly prevent this. However, if detectors of every type are installed at adequate distances round the table, all threats can eventually be foreseen and the fall confidently predicted. You might then say a failure in gravity could not be predicted. Better scientific understanding of gravity and therefore prediction of its behaviour is probably not far off and, anyway, you could always fasten springs and elastic bands from the brick into the table. You might finally say that a human threat from someone who wanted to prevent it falling was unique in that it could not be predicted. Start with simple evidence in the case for predictability of people. If you paraded for Queen Victoria 10,000 Grenadier Guardsmen, who had been promised extra pay and a long week-end in Brighton and ordered, “One pace forward march”, you could predict at least 99.9% would do so. You would even know what the majority were thinking. If on the next parade you marshalled 10,000 Guinness drinking prisoners, under no threat, you could predict that less than 99.9% would choose to step forward. If you knew the thoughts or movements of every molecule in the brains of all present you would have 100% short-term predictability, approaching this figure more closely the more information you possessed. Exponents of ideas like Uncertainty and Chaos Theory sometimes claim that things are too complicated and chaotic to predict with certainty. Imagine showing the Internet to Stone Age Man and asking him how it works. He does not know but that does not mean it does not exist.. We are in a similar situation with regard to exact prediction of the future and, like him, will probably one day evolve to a state of understanding. Consider the case of a hairy animal’s coat while running, or forest of leaves blowing in the wind or a random flock of birds suddenly becoming organised in an ordered flight path. We would not think it possible to predict the exact future of such systems because they are too extensive and complicated for our concepts or present stage of technology, even though most people would accept such things as purely mechanical systems until, if you are a moralist, directly influenced by humanity. Chaos Theory is already being used to predict crowd and traffic behaviour, which is evidence of total predictability and consequent inevitability.
Consistent evidence for Inevitability Theory arises from simple situations. If you walked into an American wood in the 18th century and an arrow with feathers on it whizzed by, you would deduce Indians were probably in the wood. If you then came across a wigwam with a fire burning in front of it, items of clothing etc. you would become increasingly certain of their presence but would not be absolutely certain before you had spoken to some and were convinced they were not white men in disguise. The point is the more you know about a situation the nearer you approach absolute certainty and predictability. There is the further aspect that if you are studying Inevitability Theory and nothing you come across ever contradicts it, the absence of contradiction itself is strong evidence for the theory. Contrast this with what happens when you apply religious and moral explanations to situations - in every case anomalies and impenetrable contradictions arise.
Yet another item of evidence is that the nearer in time you come to anything about to happen, the more inevitable the outcome apparently becomes. A speeding bullet one millimetre from a wall is inevitably going to hit it. Why should an event which is in train be any less inevitable in its outcome 5 years, 5 minutes or 5 milliseconds before happening? It appears so only because we do not have and cannot process the greater range of information necessary for prediction the farther we are in time from the event. The information required against time situation can be compared to a fan-shape or funnel. Near to the event you are at the narrow end but as you move farther away in time it widens. How rapidly the fan or funnel widens and in what dimensions we do not yet know but with Inevitabilty Theory we are at least aware of the question. The steadily increasing predictability of events the nearer you get to them is evidence for Inevitability Theory.
Massive evidence for Inevitability Theory arises from archaeology, palaeontology and geology. From the beginning of the world everything, including life, has followed a structured pattern of development originating from a random system. Its evolution from gases to man can be seen to have precisely followed an inevitable pattern, dictated by the local environment and interfered with from time to time by major events such as meteors, unusually severe ice ages etc., some of which have been of sufficient severity almost to wipe out life on earth but all of which were entirely mechanical functions.
It will be possible one day to read molecules, minds and genes sufficiently accurately for exact predictions. Even today, sophisticated machines, similar to Lie Detectors, are being proposed which can read thoughts. With such machines the short-term prediction of human behaviour will approach 100% accuracy, leaving little room for the concept of free will but all the room in the universe for Inevitability Theory. By the way, Inevitability Theory suits very well the concept that an infinite number of universes exist, allowing for every possible combination of circumstances to occur.
Accuracy of prediction will decrease the farther away in time the event is from the prediction but will increase as knowledge improves. This practical limitation does not detract from the basic truth that the events themselves are proceeding to an inevitable pattern - it is just that our technology will need time to analyse all the factors. Your prediction itself is, of course, inevitable and will always be what it was going to be. It will record things either as they do work out or as they do not work out and itself be part of the inevitable course of events. It can be argued that a logical thing to do is to act illogically because that is what you were going to do anyway.
Heisenberg’s and similar uncertainty theories imply that nothing is predictable. This is comforting for the moralists but perhaps enthusiasm for quantum mechanics is coloured a little by a natural human inclination to protect ‘free will’ and by the way in which people already think. Heisenberg and others could, of course be right but it is also possible that their expression of uncertainty and similar principles are simply part of the total inevitability proceeding against a background which is too complicated for them to understand yet.
Conclusion: The more you know about a situation, the more predictable its outcome is and the nearer you get to complete knowledge the more predictable every situation, even human behaviour, becomes, ultimately reaching absolute certainty about what is, anyway, an inevitable event of which the prediction itself is part.
2. Complexity is no limitation
Compare a small spider weighing 10 milligrams with a 100 Kilogram man. The tiny spider’s brain can organise the production of webs from material stronger than steel, feed, hide etc. yet its behaviour, in general, is very predictable. The man’s brain will be 10 million times larger and, because of its size, have scope for more complicated connections, being possibly at least 100 million times more powerful. Considering a spider can erect such an advanced structure as a web, imagine what the 100 million times more powerful human brain is capable of. Is it surprising that such a machine produces concepts of great complexity which, although taken by other humans as evidence of free will and abstract morality, are the result of factual inputs, the outputs being inevitable and predictable? Note again that the prediction itself is part of the general inevitability of everything, as is whether you read it or not and agree with it or not.
The ant lives in organised societies, each of up to 20 million individuals, with more different races than humans. They have loyalties, patterns of behaviour and build many types of complex structures. Humans do not credit ants with having souls or free will, therefore it follows their lives are driven by and proceed in accordance with a different motivation. Without free will, this can be only a mechanical pattern, therefore an inevitable one, probably originally evolving from an apparently random situation. If a moral human kicks over an ant hill, we have the illogical situation where one highly organised society proceeding in an inevitable way is interfered with by a similar society proceeding, allegedly, in a non-inevitable moral way, even if it is not particularly moral to kick over the ant hill. If we cannot prove both humans and ants have free will it is reasonable to conclude both are operating in accordance with the Theory of Inevitability. Humans are in no way superior to nature i.e. they are not supernatural. We cannot, for example, equal the design and materials capability of natural evolution in living creatures. The point is made not to repeat the claims of Darwinism but to extend them to a clear understanding that, where Darwinism is fully accepted, total Inevitability follows.
An illustration of how limited human appreciation of the physical world is can be drawn from the, compared with nature, simple car engine. It can revolve at 6,000 rpm. (look at your rev. counter), which is 100 revolutions per second. Try to imagine something operating valves, switching ignition and controlling fuel one hundred times per second. Human emotion can be compared to a very complicated electronic engine operating at high speed. A more extreme example is the claim that chess-playing computers can analyse 300,000,000 moves per second. It is reasonable to suppose that the brain processes information and dictates patterns of behaviour at similar speeds by complex procedures we do not yet understand. If we ever do understand, we will have the facts to prove that religion, morality etc. are only pre-defined inevitable reactions of the mechanism of the brain to the input into it. The objection that the mind can change in a split second so is unpredictable appears valid only because our speed of perception is slow and our knowledge limited. Everywhere we look there is proof of the predictability of the universe around us but no proof to the contrary, although much is fabricated by wishful thinkers, who are - inevitably - not recognising the inevitable chain ov events in which they find themselves.
Take as an example of inevitability, in that the future is 100% predictable, a man who goes into a room with his hands behind him and a wasp stings his hand. The only sort of man who will not jerk his hand away is one who possesses no sense of pain. If he has his hands in front of him, only a blind man with no sense of pain will not jerk away. Everybody else will. If you know enough about the situation, however complicated it is, you know what will happen next. This approach can be extended to other human motivation and behaviour. For example, many people believe it is ‘important’ for humans to survive and migrate to distant planets. They are just reacting to a stimulus, like the jerked hand does - inevitable outputs of complicated mental programs from inputs possibly fed in over many life times. If you have an itch you scratch it and reactions to moral and ethical situations are nothing more than the inevitable scratching of a complicated itch, the nature and intensity of which changes.
The conclusion is that human behaviour, like everything else, is 100% predictable, if you know enough detail and can process the information in the right way. The behaviour, the prediction itself and this comment on such a prediction and whether it is read or not are all inevitable. If you decide to write a letter about an event, it, your decision, your letter and the acknowledgement are all parts of an inevitable chain. There are no degrees in this. A thing is never ‘not inevitable’ - everything is inevitable. There is no such thing as not being inevitable except its representation as a concept. You might say, “It is not inevitable I will lose my job”, but whether you will lose your job or not is already inevitably decided. Your comment is only a movement of electrons - part of the inevitable train of events.
3. The Christian shark - how moral systems evolve inevitably
Typical of accepted evolutionary mechanisms is that ages ago lightning struck a mixture of elements in a volcanic ocean a million times a year over a million years, one strike eventually producing organic molecules with the property of absorbing and modifying certain others. Some grew into blobs that floated in the sea absorbing more molecules. Eventually one split into others programmed to ensure blobs of the same sort survived. Some via, say, the accepted protozoa route, became fishes that swam around eating anything except other identical fishes. Protozoa have been swimming about in an immensely complicated environment world-wide for 3½ billion years with DNA systems able to feed, reproduce etc. and developing apparently at random, certainly without the aid of ‘free will’. Now we have a biological machine that occasionally goes back to the ‘workshop’ - millions of years of chance evolution - to be modified in a way influenced by its original form. For example, a fish is more likely to be modified into a more efficient fish than into a rabbit, although some fishes might become amphibian and evolve into rabbits. Incidentally, referring to the concept of the workshop, opponents of ideas like Inevitability Theory quote examples such as that the probability of life/humanity evolving by chance is similar to that of a complete aircraft being formed by an explosion in a scrap yard. They do not allow for the building bricks for life/humanity evolving step by step inconceivably slowly from a few chance molecules and millions of, in a technical not moral sense, failures into a homogeneous whole, which is very different from a lot of parts being simultaneously thrown together by chance. There are many mechanisms by which change could occur. Imagine a lake randomly full of tiny balls/molecules in every colour. A computer, photocell and pump could sort them out by colours in any order required, even that leading to an atom bomb or a living DNA organic molecule. Such a simple mechanism, applied more widely, could change the nature of the universe so it is not surprising a more complicated one, like humans, is capable, albeit inevitably, of changing both itself and the rest of the universe. A similar situation would be achieved with elements and molecules by natural chance mechanisms given the unimaginable amount of time and number of tries available and would speed up when some degree of order became established.
At first our fish swims in circles almost becoming extinct but after going back to the workshop he becomes programmed to travel the seas hunting for prey. One day he sees a similar fish that by chance has missed the built-in protection for its own species and is swimming around eating the younger members. A million years later on going back to the workshop our fish asks is it OK to eat the rogue fish to ensure others survive? The workshop says, “Yes.” Next time out, he sees another rogue fish eating not only its own species but also an enemy species that was preying on younger members of our fish’s species. What should/ought our fish do? He has a moral dilemma. This time he might save more of his own species’ lives by letting the rogue live. Back to the workshop, which, if it could carry out a world census of rogues, enemies and species would give him exact instructions on how he should/ought behave. It cannot do this survey so modifies him to count how many enemies and own species the rogue eats per day and how many own species the enemy eats per day and act accordingly. Unfortunately, the rogue eats every day, the enemy only once a week and seven more rogues and enemies of different sizes have just arrived. Then our perplexed fish drifts to a part of the ocean where there is only his own species. Should/ought he eat a few of them so he can survive and go back to where he can kill rogues and save even more lives? In addition, our fish has just discovered he is much more fertile than others of his species so if he kills some of them, eventually, when he breeds, more will survive, unless he is killed in the meantime. You will see that what began as a chance program to preserve blobs is building up a complex code of morality which would occupy a bishop for weeks. However, if sufficient information is available, the optimum course of action can always be calculated to achieve an accurately defined objective. Human moral conscience is no more sophisticated than our fish’s could easily become. Humans kill each other over illogical religious differences without feeling guilt, behave predictably selfishly in spite of their faiths, save a puppy but thoughtlessly take a million insect lives mowing a lawn. If you are really moral, you become a Jain, sweeping your path so you do not tread on an insect and even then will not have gone far enough. Our Christian shark could well behave, by all the usual definitions, in a more moral manner and, in time, could well come to consider its morality as a separate and total entity embodying a soul. After all, in a mechanical sense, it is the most important factor in determining the survival of that particular race of fishes.
Following an evolutionary theme, look how closely the skeleton and brain of amoral monkey, living a family life and loving its children, compares with moral man, who, usually, does the same. It is obvious the differences between monkey and man result only from evolution predictably and inevitably responding to the environment. Over a period man, and probably monkey, evolved consciousness and awareness; it is unreasonable to believe it came to them in a sudden flash of inspiration. Believers in religious concepts, however, maintain there is something special and beyond physical explanation about human consciousness and its ability to be aware of and react to abstracts such as ‘God’ and ‘Free Will’ but the Theory of Inevitability concludes that consciousness and awareness of abstract concepts are as much a part of inevitable physical change as anything else; it being just a matter of greater complexity than simpler and more apparent phenomena. The atoms and molecules move in fixed, inevitable patterns, some of which are more complicated than others but all are part of one pattern, including human awareness. It may be that the full workings of the mechanism of consciousness will for ever remain beyond human understanding. This is unlikely but,even if it should be so, that does not mean consciousness is supernatural and moving in other than an inevitable pattern.
Already, toy robots are being developed to show emotions and modify them in reaction to those of their owners. It is just a matter of software. More advanced interactive computers with morality and emotions closely approaching human behaviour will soon challenge humanity. At what point circuits become conscious is hard to define but it is reasonable to assume that it only needs enough processing power. Your humble PC already says to you, “This file name is unacceptable. Check your spelling”. It will soon say, “I have tested you for alcohol, you should not drive, unless John is dying”. In many fields man’s efforts have already developed mechanisms surpassing his own physical and mental capability. It can be expected that new approaches to computing will provide systems with immense power. The brain’s biological computer, or any other developed for a million years, will have acquired programmes operating at various levels to consider relation to environment and to improve itself. A similarly aware computer could be described as conscious all the time it is switched on, might be bright enough to prevent us from switching it off and eventually even switch us off. Tired old ideas but only now becoming sufficiently apparent to affect human behaviour. Soon it will also be recognised the future is inevitable in every detail and not influenced by human consciousness in the way it is generally understood to be.
4. Creation, computers and consciousness
The Theory of Inevitability recognises one, and only one, thing it cannot explain - the mystery of Creation, although this is probably an inevitability that happened before what we are able to comprehend. The fact that we are here is incomprehensible and impossible. Even empty space would be incomprehensible and impossible. That Inevitability Theory cannot explain Creation is not surprising as no philosopher or scientist has ever come within a mile of doing so but it is surprising how rarely people think in awe about it - another subject, like Inevitability, the brain seems to avoid contemplating. Much remains unknown, for example time is probably nothing like we understand it to be. Consideration of concepts such as ‘correct/incorrect’ and ‘prediction’ hint time may not be the steady linear progression of change we experience. Its pattern could be ripples on the surface of a flat sea or railway tracks with branches eventually rejoining the main line. Some modern theories, including Einstein’s physics and 4 dimensional space/time, consider the future is already there and it is accepted that, if these are correct, ‘free will’ does not exist. Inevitability Theory does not clash with such theories or with the existence of an infinite number of times, universes and lives existing on and moving between many planes. It does not rule out life on other planets operating on moral systems identical to or different from our own, indeed it is probable that such do exist. What it does say is that, within Creation, overwhelming evidence proves everything, however complicated and including human behaviour, happens in an exactly predestined way, which is evidenced by the fact that everything is completely predictable, if you know enough.
What is ‘prediction’? A difficult question. A conscious prediction is basically only movement of electrons in the brain occasioned by events and part of the inevitable change. The prediction and the matter predicted might not be successive as humans envisage but part of a change in a type of time we do not ‘yet’ understand. At first sight, predictions can arise only within calculating machines such as a brains or other computers stimulated to make it by inevitable events but a bird migrating or tree dropping leaves is making a prediction, albeit an unconscious one. The more is registered about a situation the more ‘correct’ a prediction is likely to be. The more accurately it can be predicted with fewer facts the more ‘predictable’ it is considered to be. The easy concept is that the mind examines past facts and trends, which are a series of facts, allows for uncertainties or absence of information, which are the same thing, and deduces what will happen at a future moment. The mind assumes the event has not yet happened, that it proceeds independently of the forecast, although related to it in time and may be aware, as a factor, that the event , for example in politics, can be influenced if the forecast is disclosed. Incidentally, the fact that an event can be influenced by a prediction being known about it is another item of evidence for Inevitability Theory.
Consider horses in a race and two punters. In Inevitability Theory the predictions of the two punters and the actual winner are inevitable. Assume one punter wins and the other loses. The concept of ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ may or may not be not valid, both predictions were in fact parts of an inevitable and possibly simultaneous change as was the result of the race. Both predictions were inevitable events, as is this recording of ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’ against them.
Consider the Stock Exchange in relation to its general movements. It is notoriously difficult to predict but scientists are working on improved computers and programmes and business people/economists on providing better information. It is reasonably to suppose that their accuracy will improve to an extent that markets will one day be predictable, except for the effect of major unforeseen events, such as war and even these ‘unknowns’ will be allowed for in decisions and, in time, become foreseen. Steadily improving forecasting of the Stock Exchange, earthquakes and weather, give circumstantial evidence for the theory that the more you know, the more predictable the future becomes and, if you know all the facts, the future is 100% predictable and therefore inevitable.
Consider a personal share prediction on the Stock Exchange. You make a selection based on information possessed. You do not know if it will prove the most profitable selection. A year later the share has grown in value but not by as much as others. You have made neither a right nor a wrong choice. There is perhaps no such thing. Your selection looking forward and your review looking back have both been events in your mind part of an inevitable pattern of change. The only blank in the knowledge necessary to analyse the situation is understanding of the nature of ‘time’. It might be that there is no forward or backward in time, only, to use an inadequate word, simultaneous change, like the movement of a clock, of which your prediction and retrospection are inevitable parts. Consider your position as an observer of the event. Exponents of ‘soul and free will’ set store by the ability of the individual to learn from the past, observe present and predict future events. In fact the observer is part of the inevitable change as is his observation, prediction and observation of the results. The brain may well be unique in the universe in that it observes and thinks it can think backwards and forwards but that does not mean that it does not operate as part of an inevitable programme and the evidence is that it does.
Consider a prediction in relation to the brain making it. Incidentally, not only humans make conscious predictions. A bear with its cubs, seeing hunters in the distance, makes a prediction, instinctively or otherwise, and acts accordingly. The ‘observation’ software of the brain notes new facts and recalls facts and results of predictions recorded in the past. From these it deduces the changes that are going to happen at various, probably a series, of future times. Confidence in the prediction is graded in accordance with the amount and quality of information available, including past experience. The degree to which what happens is in accordance with the prediction is noted by the brain and may be used when making future predictions. Predictions might be regarded as series of changes proceeding in relation to others, the predictor deducing successive changes. If there is a factor of which the brain has no knowledge, it must ignore it in its prediction but in many cases will build-in an awareness factor allowing for ‘no-knowledge’ areas, based on experience of similar situations and allow for this in the prediction. The concept of ‘prediction’ and its relationship to time is not clear but what supports the Theory of Inevitability is that, however prediction is defined, the more and better quality information the brain or other machine contains, the more accurate the prediction will be, right down to 100% certainty where there is 100% knowledge. In practise, the nearer the event is to its fulfilment at the time of the prediction, the more accurate the prediction is likely to be. This is only because, usually, a greater proportion of information is possessed relevant to an event which is just about to happen than to a distant one. This does not alter the fact that all aspects - observer, information, prediction etc. are part of a situation the future of which is totally predictable when sufficient information is possessed, more being necessary for distant than for imminent events. Again, it is stressed that making the prediction is itself part of the inevitable course of events.
It is often claimed the mind does not behave like a computer. Except for the fact that the brain uses a biological mechanism more complicated than electronic computers developed so far, it would appear to operate exactly like a computer programmed to learn from experience and rebuild its circuits accordingly. Take sailors using a PC to land on a desert island and able to transmit files to parties landing on other islands. They program the computer to scan the beach for pirates and wild animals but are killed by a volcano. The next party scans for volcanoes but is killed by something unknown. Soon the computers will be evaluating how many parties were killed by something unknown and build it in as a risk factor, segregating out the remaining unknowns as they are identified and helping future parties to choose between patterns of known and unknown risks. As computers develop, it is reasonable to expect they will improve on their own initiative and be regarded as conscious all the time they are switched on, as a human is only while he is alive. You might say that the human brain is superior to a computer in that it allows for uncertainties or areas of doubt. In fact, it reacts only to information possessed and not to information not possessed. The volcano would kill just as many people who did not know it existed as it would break computers and wipes out saints just as efficiently and indifferently as it wipes out sinners. You might reasonably argue that humans would be superior to computers, having the capacity to visit the island, consult with others etc. The human brain is perhaps a million times more complex than computers so far developed and is in a mobile machine. The mechanical computer might never catch up with the brain but if the rest of the universe is entirely predictable, why should the human brain be regarded as different? Its greater development and complexity proves neither that it evolved by chance nor that it did not but the balance of evidence is in favour of the Theory of Inevitability, which indicates that it did. Exponents of the idea there is something unique and spiritual in the human brain maintain that other animals are not able to think introspectively. This may or may not be so but software can be envisaged to review past success and carry out modifications to improve the computer’s relationship to survival of computers in their environment, which could be described as introspection.
Consciousness and awareness of surroundings seem to be the most accepted criteria for being human. Most humans are not aware they are living in a system proceeding inevitably in every detail, so their awareness of environment is limited; it is only recently we have started to consider such things systematically and unemotionally. It would be reasonable to describe a clock as a mechanism not aware of its environment, although its mechanism and these considerations of it are all part of the environment. On the other hand, a computer programmed to analyse its environment and, by modifying itself accordingly, to survive in it could be described as being aware of its surroundings. Ultimately the computer would recognise and analyse the inevitable pattern it found both around and within itself. At this point it would be as, or more, conscious than a human brain. Religion is what we call this type of activity in the brain and so far it has assisted survival.
Complexity is a ‘new science’ studied in its own right. It has been tentatively concluded that the Internet might ultimately become conscious within itself, also that, if you were to connect together a great number of electronic circuits you would achieve a type of consciousness.
If you connected all the computers in the world together and put a signal to count them into the first, it would come out of the last with the exact answer, unless there was a breakdown - only one of the countless further proofs of the inevitability of the system within which we exist. If you fire rockets at distant planets a million times every one will be on target if correctly made, programmed and aimed. If rockets start to miss, it will eventually be found that a physical factor was the cause, even if a human has sabotaged the aim. If the whole universe has such inevitable consequences to actions, why should the human brain be regarded as different? An interesting question is whether, if the idea the universe eventually collapses into a small mass and then expands again is correct, will every molecule repeat its history or will there be a new pattern? Inevitability Theory considers that there are two possibilities. Either the history of the universe will repeat in exactly the same pattern or it will proceed to a new exact pattern the last detail of which is already programmed in the existing pattern. At this moment, or state of change, not enough detail is possessed to make the prediction but what and when (whatever this means) it will be, if ever made, is already inevitable in accordance with the Theory of Inevitability and independent of any supposed moral decision in the human brain, except in so far as it is a purely mechanical one and part of the Inevitability. If, alternatively, the universe does not collapse and does go on expanding infinitely, there is equally no reason to expect it or anything within it, to proceed other than in an inevitable and predictable manner.
A typical objection to the Theory is to say, “I just feel there has got to be more to life than that.” Emotions are only a part of the mental programme in your mind. You are programmed to try to ensure the survival of the species; happiness and creativity are part of that program and the fact they are deeply embedded in the mind does not mean there is anything supernatural about them. Which community is, at the present stage of evolution, most likely to survive - one possessing the group selfishness of strong moral and religious convictions, or one with none? Incidentally, the universe does not care about survival, even though it is ingrained and popular to think that it does.
Sorry, but death fits-in with Inevitability Theory. We all proceed on an inevitable and exact path to the point at which our brains cease to function; we are no longer conscious and do not become so again, unless we have been frozen and revived, or the universe repeats its pattern as mentioned above. If the universe grows again to a new pattern determined by the old, it is not impossible that such a pattern could include recollection of memories of the present but these would still be part of the Inevitability and the chances - based on experience - are we will not be aware of them.
5. Doubt, Blame, Might, Nature, Nurture and Moral Judgements
‘Doubt’ is compatible with Inevitability Theory. You might say, “The argument for Inevitability Theory is convincing but I still have my doubts. Free Will might exist”. Doubt is only a reaction of the brain to a subject on which less than 100% of the information to make a certain prediction is known or an option taken by the brain even when 100% is known. If you had sufficient information on the Theory and on what is called free will you would, if you wanted to be, be certain of the existence or non-existence of either. This certainty of prediction supports Inevitability Theory. A doubting man aware of Inevitability Theory might well decide to continue with a Christian or Hindu belief but this would be part of the Inevitability and predictable. The brain’s reaction to a doubt is to allow for it as a risk or influencing factor in deciding on a particular course of action, whether it is buying a shirt or choosing to accept a religion but the doubt itself is part of the inevitable pattern and only a movement of electrons in the brain.
Regarding ‘Blame’, we do not know if animals feel it; they probably do, as they do most other emotions, in an elementary form and some in an advanced form - for example, a dog’s sense of fun. Blame perhaps first became apparent in humans when Cave Man blamed himself under extreme emotional pressure, for example if his children died from his negligent act. Incidentally, civilisation inevitably and simply began when he stopped hitting his neighbour in order to marry-off the kids when they started to hit him. Blame, based on ill-defined concepts of right and wrong, now governs society, religious or otherwise, but represents no evidence against Inevitability Theory. In the ritual allocation of blame by moralists it is popular to debate whether particular behavioural patterns result from genetic inheritance or from environmental factors without admitting that ‘nature and nurture’ are part of the same whole. Only superficially is the moralist making a valid differentiation. If you took 100 boys at birth and brought them up with a duty to hate and kill wolves and, separately, another 100 boys to love and protect wolves then you could reasonably assume the first 100 would kill more than the second 100. To the moralist, this would be a case where nurture was the dominant factor over nature and the wolf-killing boys from the first 100 would be let-off, if killing wolves was a crime. What is the moral judgement if the second 100 boys kill the first 100 boys to protect wolves or the first 100 kill the second 100 so they can kill more wolves?. If you extend this argument it is morally OK for them all to kill each other but you then take over the tricky moral problem of who would have proved the more successful in their holy duties - the killers or the protectors? The existence of all the boys and their genetic construction in fact resulted from inevitable occurrences in the total environment. The trainer, whom he trained to do what and the presence of the moralist and his conclusions were all inevitable and part of the same total environment. Nurture is shorter term and more apparent than nature, which helps the moralist pontificate, but in fact they are both parts of the same whole. To differentiate requires acceptance of the unproved existence of abstract morality. Similar cases arise in the judgement of behaviour of people brought up in hard circumstances compared with those who have had easy lives. The point is that when morality is logically analysed it rarely accords with the facts of the situation, whereas Inevitability Theory always and inevitably does and where it does not it is inevitable that it should not have done so.
When examining the careers of famous men it is often debated to what extent their success is due to innate ability or to luck. Again, superficially, a valid differentiation because it is considering processes within their brains compared with the influence of external factors. However, their brains and the external factors are actually proceeding together in one total, inevitable pattern, being two parts of one whole. It is like debating whether a car broke down because of a faulty engine or a faulty gearbox. The differentiation is a reasonable one but they were both parts of the same car and, like nature and nurture, not operating in separate systems independently of each other.
Consider the confused human reactions to the illogicalities of sincerity and insincerity. There are schools of thought that regard crimes as less heinous if the perpetrators believe they are doing right. There are others that will pillory people for expressing a belief, however sincerely held, if it offends the majority or those in power. There are so many illogicalities in the definitions of sin and right and wrong by religious and other authorities and such confusion reigns that it can be rationalised only by accepting that the universe is a random system proceeding inevitably.
Take the examples of moral differences and judgements: Arabs and Jews, Albanians and Serbs, Northern and Southern Irish. Each insists on the overwhelming correctness of their cause and argues it as if they were totally right and their opponents totally wrong, yet it is clear that almost always both sides have equally valid but irreconcilable cases. Consider how major war criminals brought to trial are always from the losing side. Consider how someone yielding to great provocation or temptation is condemned, whereas his neighbour, who would also have committed the crime in the same circumstances, lives free. Consider the millions who have rushed into battle crying, “God is on our side” in situations where the enemy has been able to taunt, “Then why are you losing?” All these examples - there are 1000’s more - are situations where events, over which the individual has no control, often traceable back for centuries, predominantly decide in advance the fate of individuals or groups. Religions have had thousands of years to resolve the problems but they have proved unresponsive to abstract morality. It is more reasonable to deduce that the events and peoples’ reactions to situations follow an inevitable pattern not involving free will and abstract morality.
Moralists debate man’s behaviour in relation to only mammals, forgetting other species, and whether animals and man have what moralists call ‘souls’. The situation according to Inevitability Theory is that some parts and processes in the human brain have more complicated software than animal brains but that both species proceed on inevitable paths. Inevitability Theory does not say because the decision and outcome are inevitable there is no point in being kind to either men or animals or in taking other moral decisions. It says only that your decision is inevitable, whether it is to be kind or to be cruel. A man whose sons have been eaten by dogs is more conditioned to be cruel to dogs than one whose sons have been rescued by them and someone whose sons have been neither eaten nor rescued by dogs will probably be somewhere in the middle. You will decide in the way you are programmed to decide and there is nothing you can do about it. That being the case, why not decide to be kind to dogs, unless your sons have been eaten by them, even though your decision and its outcome and this record of the imagined situation (which, in terms of atoms and molecules is no less real than a real situation) and your reading or not reading of it, are all inevitable, whether your sons have been eaten by dogs or not?
Take the example of the computer playing chess against the Grand Master. There is general agreement that during the game its play results simply from programmed soulless movements without free will of electrons in its circuits. Some claim a soul and free will exist in the man who programmed it. Inevitability Theory maintains that both concepts are only movements of electrons in an advanced computer called a brain. Given a million years, or even perhaps only twenty, is it too difficult to imagine a computer being programmed to make moral judgements which, if examined by a committee of clergy, could be judged to be superior to those of most human brains, especially primitive peoples’, presented with the same moral dilemmas? It could certainly do it faster. It is equally possible a computer could hold more balanced information on cases, precedents etc. than politically influenced Law Lords and produce ‘fairer’ judgements. Note that the judgements, if any, of the Law Lords are just as inevitable as those of the computer and not necessarily the same. Anyway, what will happen is inevitable. Inevitability Theory is not directed at proving the brain is like a computer. It just happens to be convenient to use the comparison between the two to illustrate the Theory - both process information through complex machines. Argument over the brain/computer comparison is likely to detract from the real point, namely that 100% inevitability and 100% predictability are universal and apply as much to creases in shirts and to life on a coral reef as to brains and computers.
Take the Theory to its logical conclusion in relation to morality for a particular case. A man seizes 10 boys and blinds them. The spectators moralise, “He is a very rotten chap” ( unless the boys were not of their religion, when ‘very’ would be omitted). The Theory simply says what happened was inevitable, it was going to happen, as was everybody’s reaction, as is this real record of the apparently non-existent event. You might say, “If Hitler had not invaded Russia ----.” but there was no moment when Herr H. could have decided to do anything else and his action was just as inevitable as your imagined supposition and this paper’s comment on it and your reading it, or it not being read and your agreeing or not agreeing with it.
You might say that use of the word ‘might’ shows things are not inevitable but in fact the word arises in the mental computer simply as a reaction to inputs on a future situation for which insufficient information is available to make a confident prediction or where a ‘wish’ program of the brain wants to avoid making one. It is like making a sales forecast with an office PC where the latest information on some customers is missing. If so programmed it could warn you of possible inaccuracies, quantify likely ranges of error and print out the word ‘might’ in selected cases where it had done so.
Consider the illogicality of Communists. They are atheists, deny the existence of a God and yet create a party line which it is sin to deviate from. It is difficult to conceive how an atheist can claim a conscience. Their concept of a God, although they do not call it that, is some odd, vague, undefined factor that dwells only in the mind of each man placing on him a collective moral obligation. The real situation is that a group of individuals is behaving in accordance with input in the way it has evolved to do. Inevitability Theory fits the facts much better than dialectic.
Some say that if there is no free will and everything is the result of chance they are free to choose to behave entirely selfishly because there are no moral values. They are missing the point. Whether they decide to be selfish, or saints, or reject the idea altogether is already decided, unchangeable and inevitable. You might equally say that, if everything is inevitable and there is no free will, nothing matters and you might as well just sit around, get drunk and do nothing. Put in a field with tigers, people, unless tiger trainers, blind/deaf, lame, heroes, mad or suicidal, will run away as a natural reaction to avoid pain. Your decision whether to sit drunk doing nothing, or to climb Everest, is just as much an inevitable reaction to an apparently, but not necessarily, more complicated input. It might be inevitable, for example, when the off-licences ran out, that you could not get drunk. If everybody studies Inevitability Theory and decides to sit doing nothing then the human race will die out. If that happens, drunk or not, it was inevitable. What is inevitable is that, in time, these decisions will inevitably be taken in awareness that they are inevitable and predictable, which is a very different situation to what prevails at the present time.
In the programme ‘Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy’ the mighty computer gave the solution to all the mysteries of the universe as ‘42’. Someone must have given the matter a lot of thought because it was the right answer - there could be no other - although 74 and 329 would be equally correct.
6. Important, correct, should and ought
If a gun aimed taking account of distance, wind, etc. misses the target, whereas the gun next door, aimed taking account also of the earth’s rotation, hits, it can reasonably but superficially be stated this was an ‘important’ factor and, under the defined circumstances, the second gun was ‘correctly’ aimed. In fact the aims of both guns were inevitable as is this comment on them. The words ‘important’ and ‘correct’ are simply part of an inevitable situation and would still be so if it were a moral and not an obviously mechanical one. It would be possible to programme a computer with a concept of morality and it could then ascribe ‘importance’ to an item in accordance with the programmed moral code as distinct from ascribing it according to a more obvious defined set of factors. This is what the human brain does with its moral and ethical codes but all are only movements of an, albeit complex, inevitably proceeding system and completely predictable if sufficient is known.
As mentioned before, human scientific thinking, expressed in written and spoken word on subjects such as Darwinism, Dominant Gene and other theories that man is machine, is confused. Scientists often use words such as ‘important, correct, must, should and ought’ in the same paragraph or breath as they say all human behaviour is determined by, for example, genes and that free choice does not exist. Such words are, superficially, factually ‘correct’ only when used in circumstances where the criteria and limitations against which they are used are defined. In reality, correctness /incorrectness might not exist and the words might represent only a situation, not a judgement. We are trying to express such concepts by using an inadequate understanding of time and using language, certainly an inadequate tool, even though it is inevitably the only one we are equipped with. We think in our own national languages, so if you have a bad language you inevitably can’t think clearly and all are far from perfect. Perhaps an electronic language will develop based, like computers, simply on yes/no or on/off which will be more in line with the way things are.
Almost as if it were done subconsciously to avoid facing the truth, use of verbs imposing moral obligation are confusing in several languages, for example ‘should’ in English, ‘sollen’ in German and ‘devoir’, with its subjunctive in French. Take the example of the wicked mercenary who has surrounded a native village. He will say, “I want to kill everybody, so I will send my plane to bomb them”. The priest would say, “You should not do that. It is not right”. The employer of the mercenary would say, “It would be wrong to do that. What you should do is slowly close in with machine guns”. ‘Should’ and ‘right and wrong’ exist in both a moral and a factual sense and we all live confused between the two. We ‘should’ not say the concept of ‘morality’ and ‘blame’ is ‘wrong’. It is just as inevitable the good priest and wicked mercenary boss were going to say what they did as it is that this comment is being written. You might say that something is not in accordance with the facts but even that does not clarify the situation. Basically, everything is an inevitable movement of electrons, or even smaller particles, whether it is a thought, an expression of right or wrong, or a brick.
In awareness of Inevitability Theory you can, of course, still use expressions such as ‘I am entitled to’ and ‘It is right that’ but will be in a position inevitably to recognise the inevitable fallacy.
Inevitability Theory does not rule out the existence of God in the sense of an all powerful being who orders things in the universe. What it does say is that even He or She or It is moving in an inevitable and predictable pattern like everyone and everything else, however complicated the pattern might be.
There is little difference between religion and political dogma. The popular ones are merely social formulae for how people ‘should’ behave in relation to others and result in a lifetime of posturing. A man alone on a desert island has no practical need for the social obligations forming their main content but might continue to adhere to them against the day he is rescued. Religions probably evolved in a Darwinian sense to preserve the species. Without them we kill each other and with them we kill other people. Inevitability Theory describes a real system in which morality is only a cog and not independent of the system. Advocates of religious beliefs behave like the madman believing he is Napoleon - if you believe the one major fallacy then everything depending on it is acceptable as the truth. The madman could equally say Inevitability Theory is a concept in which, if you accept the major fallacy of Inevitability, everything else fits. The difference is the only evidence he can offer for being Napoleon is to wear a big hat and say Monsieur. The only evidence the moralist or cleric can offer for religion is wear a big hat, quote specious arguments and walk around in church demanding blind belief, whereas to prove Inevitability Theory you simply let a brick fall or plot the course of one star in the heavens. The main religions reject things like ghosts and other supernatural beliefs, while demanding belief in the biggest ghost and supernatural story of all - God, Free Will, Life after Death etc. - to the exclusion of all others. The evidence is that the progress of all phenomena is more correctly (whatever that means) described by Inevitability Theory. However, the movements of electrons in their inevitable paths in the brains of those imagining they are Napoleon, or that morality is something supernatural, are as real as in the brain of an astronomer saying the earth rotates round the sun. Neither is correct nor incorrect, they both just ‘are’ but one may be representing the actual situation, the other may not. Really, there is no actual situation and no represent, when you think about it but that’s another story.
The religion into which you are born is beyond your control yet often proves a matter of life or death, being one of the biggest influences on the rest of your life and limiting the decisions you can take. Religious authorities are usually happy if you kill other people in the name of their religion, especially if you believe you are doing ‘right’. You end up with a situation which is mixed-up between the situations you unavoidably find yourself in and those for which your conscience is allegedly responsible. In contrast, Inevitability Theory provides an elegant and homogeneous explanation for all types of situation including the concept of religion itself.
Consider the Theory in relation to criminal insanity. Legal minds are supposed to take the view that if a man breaks society’s rules he is either criminal and sane or he is criminally insane. The difference between sanity and insanity is defined by whether he understood the difference, supernaturally, between the arbitrary concepts of right and wrong as laid down by the society he was in and whether he knew, supernaturally, what he was doing was wrong. A man who is raving mad probably does not comprehend these things. Another criminal might, however, have a keen analytical mind yet be found insane because his comprehension of right and wrong differs from that accepted by his particular society - the greatest crime of all. As usual, the moralist ends up with a woolly, illogical standpoint, mixing supernature with the inevitable situations the man has found himself in. The Theory simply maintains that everything from the man’s existence to his presence in and the judgement of the trial court was part of an inevitable train of events. Whether what would be regarded as an innocent man is found guilty, or vice versa, is only another roll of the dice of chance and the way in which the dice will fall was decided long before the earth started cooling down.
How is the man placed who sacrifices his goat to the Glory of God? If Inevitability Theory is correct, his action is the inevitable consequence of factual inputs into his brain and the equally factual circumstances in which he finds himself, namely being alive, believing in God (in an electronic sense), having a goat and a knife with which to kill it. If Inevitability Theory is incorrect, the man is a mixed-up kid, his morality is non-factual but his life, unfortunate goat and the knife are factual. The predictable material world never creates such an illogical mixture. He is in an even more confusing situation if his God is allergic to goats, because he is in no position to know this. Inevitability Theory provides a more balanced and homogeneous concept and you get to keep your goat without a guilty conscience, because what was going to happen was inevitable.
The moralist submits animals to vivisection, if it is going to help humans. To ‘do good’ and ‘help others’ (almost always applied only up to a point) are the passwords for selfish survival in society. What is special about human life - there is a lot of it about - except for woolly moral concepts and the fact that you are one? Some argue that to survive long term on earth and conquer space, 50% of humans should be disposed of, only the young intelligencia of certain races remaining. Inevitability Theory does not take sides in such matters - what will happen will be and is inevitable, whether it is perpetuation of moralising or a holocaust. The decisions will be taken either in awareness of Inevitability or not and, when in awareness, will be different from what they otherwise would have been, not that they could have been any different anyway.
Consider the slaughter carried out and horror endured by troops in the First World War, ordinary people, mostly of the same basic religion and nearly all believing they were in the ‘right’. If the great majority of them had known they were operating in a system where their next act was as inevitable as the sun’s rising, and had not made their decisions from fear or abstract dogma, their reactions to what they were doing and suffering would have been very different, although exactly what they would have done is hard to say. It would not have been a matter of the sheep-like judgement, “There is nothing we can do about it”, but rather an instinctive basic reaction to do something better, whatever that means, or at least different, in awareness of its inevitability. Of course, their actual behaviour was inevitable and the religious dogma and political pressures were inevitable, as is this recollection of it. There is no way history can be different (unless an infinite number of universes exists, which is quite possible), no way they could have done anything other than they did. This illogicality is used only to illustrate how increasing knowledge and acceptance of Inevitability Theory is likely to affect future human behaviour. Note that probabilities are in fact Inevitabilities; the illogicality of expressing them in reference to the past is itself a useful illustration of Inevitability.
Illustrations of the inadequacy of moral and religious logic are endless. Take the example of a pilot ordered to bomb an enemy city, who does it with a clear conscience. If he is then ordered knowingly to bomb a hospital containing 100 sick children he might well refuse to do so even though he knew, statistically, he had killed 500 children the day before. It is much more logical to accept that the situations he found himself in and his reactions are part of an inevitable series of events than to create a moralising rigmarole that never leads to a satisfactory conclusion. Even if you live by eating grass it could be argued it is morally wrong, because someone else might one day starve because he will not have the opportunity to munch that particular tuft.
Man is now at the stage where he can genetically modify and clone himself - raising many questions ethics and religion are unable to answer. Can two identical clones have different moralities? When man has created Homo Superior, can he logically claim it has morality and free will? Inevitability Theory does at least fit the facts, even if by its nature it gives no answers.
Try to imagine a logically acceptable system different from that proposed by Inevitability Theory. Such must either be random or be what may be called religious. If random, it would be proceeding in an inevitable pattern and there would be a probability of this ultimately leading to apparent order within the system, such as we have now. The ‘religious’ system would be either partly random and partly governed by a non-inevitable ‘religious’ factor, or be totally governed by a non-inevitable factor. You could not logically have an element of inevitability in either of the two sorts of religious system, although that is what is accepted today. In a religious system there is logically no room for any inevitability. Another system could be one where each man has free will within his own universe and his is the only free will in it. All are possibilities but such systems conform less with the evidence arising from predictability than simple old Inevitability Theory does.
Inevitability Theory is not a doctrine, it is merely, inevitably, describing the facts as they are. In comparison with religion, the Theory stands at the opposite end of the spectrum from the beliefs of, for example, the devout Catholic or Moslem who trusts entirely in God, church and priest. Do not confuse the Theory with the concept of ‘The Will of Allah’. The Moslem believes in free will, religious obligations and in the existence of an Allah who interferes occasionally. By the way, there is nothing in Inevitability Theory that says a God, either interfering occasionally or managing everything in detail, does not exist. The Theory simply maintains that, if there is a ‘higher’ being, he is part of the inevitably proceeding total inevitability. The Theory admits only total inevitability, for both God and man, although you may (inevitably) believe in Inevitability Theory and a religion at the same time. It does not say the Catholic and Moslem are wrong. ‘Wrong’ is not a concept of the Theory. Their views are factual movements of electrons in their brains and as real and inevitable as the sun and moon but not necessarily representing the facts as they are, if in fact there are any facts to represent. A brain might say 2+2=5. The statement is as factual as 2+2=4 but may not represent the actual situation; there may be no actual situation to represent, only the fact of existence. The belief of children in fairies might be rejected by adults but, even if the fairies are not actually dancing in the garden, their presence as a pattern of electrons in the brains of the children is a real and inevitable reality. A difficult point, but nothing in the concepts of God, belief and imagination contradicts Inevitability Theory.
The human attitude, usually unconscious, to religion is similar to that to money and politics. Vast numbers of people believe a money-based democracy is the ‘right’ way to run society but in fact society runs that way only because it has, inevitably, evolved as has been dictated by the total environment. Military and religious societies can run without money as dictatorships but so far have not survived widely. Someone once stated that, ‘Money does not exist but we all agree to agree that it does.’ Similarly, people get together and convince themselves they believe moral obligations based on religion exist, but they have no more reality than money, although the existence of both, and other, concepts in terms of molecular movements in the brain are real, and, even if they do not represent the facts as they really are, are facts in themselves, proceeding to an inevitable pattern.
Compared with religions, you will find acceptance of Inevitability Theory offers a surprisingly comforting basis for life. The theory enables you to say, after you have made a bad decision, “It was inevitable I decided that way”. On accepting the Theory you cannot, logically, have regrets and say “If only I had -----” because you never had the option to decide differently than you did. What you did was just as decided beforehand as is your logic and reflection on the matter. A man on finding he is dying, or has been taken hostage by terrorists, traditionally asks, “Why me”? The answer is that the train of events that placed him in that situation was inevitable. His asking the “Why me” question and his illness or the spot on the wall of his cell was just as inevitable as the position of Mars in relation to the sun and that the Titanic was going to hit that particular iceberg. The pattern for all the events started at the moment of creation, perhaps even before that, then proceeded inevitably in every detail to the present state.
Consider the decision to smoke or not to smoke. If you live on an island where tobacco is unobtainable you will inevitably not smoke, indeed may not even be aware the temptation exists - a minor illustration of how Inevitability rather than Morality runs our lives. If you do decide to smoke, get lung cancer, suffer terribly, recover and now decide whether to start smoking again, because of your past suffering it is almost certain you will decide not to smoke, which illustrates how the past decides the future. It was inevitable you were going to find yourself in the position of having to make the decision. If someone else inevitably finding themselves in the same position in apparently the same circumstances decided to smoke, this would not be proof of free will. The situation would be that the circumstances were in fact not the same and had the minutest detail been known, if necessary down to the electron movements in his brain, his decision could have been predicted - for example, at the apparently simplest, he might be suicidal - but, as always, the decision, the prediction itself, and this comment on its being made, would all have been part of the total inevitability. The point is, that there was no moment when either you or the other man could have decided differently from the way you did decide, however much anguish and thought was put into the decision. He or you could think a different decision could have been made but in fact everything, including the retrospection, was part of the inevitable pattern.
Inevitability Theory has 4 main advantages when consciously practised, although, of course, it applies whether practised or not. However, the advantages will be enjoyed only if it is consciously practised but whether you practise it, or not, is part of the Inevitability:
a) Inevitability Theory makes decisions easier and less harrowing. If you know that what you are going to decide is inevitable anyway, you will, while still making the best judgement you can, worry less and probably, being more relaxed, make what night be regarded as a better decision, although, of course, your actual decision was inevitable.
b) It has the effect of making the conscience less sensitive. Inevitability proceeds whether you are aware of it or not and your awareness, or otherwise, is part of the total inevitability. The less sensitive conscience of an Inevitability Theory practitioner is a plus for peace of mind but a minus if you enjoy agonising over ethical questions. Take the example of fox hunting and conscience. A Christian hunter might say, “But it was only a fox”. The practitioner of Inevitability Theory might, while happily chasing the hunter across a field with a pack of dogs, say, “But you are only a man”.
c) As well as easing conscience in advance, Inevitability Theory has the advantage of reducing discomfort arising from later remorse and feelings of guilt. If someone disliking the French was flying over Paris and discovered an atom bomb on board they could give themselves the pleasure of dropping it and when, afterwards, they realised they had also killed a lot of innocent foreign visitors to Paris, they could say to themselves their decision had been inevitable anyway. Note that the dislike, presence of the atom bomb, the decision and remorse, if any, and the degree of it, this comment and your reading or not reading it (and the fact you do not know if you are not reading it) are all part of the inevitable pattern.
d) Finally, Inevitability Theory perhaps makes acceptance of death easier. It enables quiet contemplation of movement towards the finality of things and does not, like most religions, inevitably try to sell itself to you with a promise of eternal life, even though there might, inevitably, be one.
An inevitable, sometimes amusing, inconvenience of practising Inevitability Theory is that awareness of it makes you less likely to accept limitations imposed by social and moral conventions. Irresponsibility becomes easier. If everything you are going to do is inevitable anyway, why not do what you like, even though it gets you into trouble?
These considerations do not prevent you from making what you regard as the best decision under any circumstances. Your decision will be taken either in awareness that it and its outcome are inevitable or without such awareness but it and its outcome will be inevitable either way. Accept the Theory of Inevitability - you really have no other option - and contemplate it before any decision and after any disaster. You will find it a support and comfort. Why not take advantage of what is inevitable anyway to make life better and enjoy advantages a, b, c and d. There are no charges, catches or small print. Do not assume that just because Inevitability Theory rejects religious and moral limitations it offers a cynical, callous and materialistic philosophy. It does not offer any philosophy. It simply states that everything is inevitable and predictable. No more, no less. You take it from there. Nothing in Inevitability Theory prevents you from making happy decisions and there is no situation to which, after thinking about it, Inevitability Theory does not apply. You can even carry on with your moral and religious beliefs and, if you do, it will be inevitable you have done so. Billions of people are not aware of Inevitability Theory and a large percentage of them would not accept it if they were. However, their thoughts and actions are proceeding with the same inevitability as those who are aware of and accept it but their brains are not taking, consciously at least, note of this fact. Indeed, the brains of those who are aware will not consciously take account of it all the time. Anyone not aware of fast road traffic who walks into the road either becomes aware of it (if not drunk), or is killed. Inevitability Theory is just as real, and although the short-term consequences of not being aware of it may be less dramatic, they are just as inevitable. You will end up with two groups of people, the Inevitablists and the others and both groups will be following inevitable but different paths.
The phenomenon of ‘Road Rage’ illustrates how people can be influenced to behave abnormally under the strain of environmental circumstances. Growing awareness of ‘Inevitability’ against a background of increasing human intelligence could lead to similar but much more widespread and extreme behaviour
Can we reject or ignore Inevitability? Yes, our brains can, but it will nevertheless be proceeding and there will inevitably, if humans continue in the same form, be growing awareness of it. This will result in people thinking simply, listening less to considerations such as ‘should’ and ‘ought’ and acting more instinctively.
Accept Inevitability. All we have is life until its end in accordance with an unchangeable inevitable pattern. Our consciousness of it is also part of that pattern, terminating at the end of the life. You may not like it but that’s the way it is. There isn’t a ‘why’, only an ‘is’.
You might recognise those who are practising Inevitability Theory. If you ask them a question involving morality or ethics they will not moralise but perhaps, like Napoleon’s sane General, think, “What is it I wish to achieve”? They may then quietly smile and simply reply, “If it was my decision I would ----- .”
8. The inevitable conclusion
The Theory of Inevitability is complete and answers everything, except so far the mystery of Creation. It holds true whether applied to the falling of bricks or decisions of the human mind and predictions according to it are inevitable and, with sufficient knowledge, themselves predictable. Objections, ethical and factual, although these are ultimately the same things, can be raised against the Theory but solid evidence for it always appears when any situation is sufficiently analysed and it will eventually prevail over the ephemeral ideas of its opponents, although their ideas are factual and part of the total inevitability. Because of its simplicity the Theory will be derided by philosophers and scientists, and by clerics because of its heresy and the fact they will inevitably lose their jobs. No doubt some will say anyone who believes in the claims of Inevitability Theory is mad. They once said that about anyone who believed the world was round. Nevertheless, the Theory seems to fit any situation to which it is applied, given enough thought.
Now we have got Inevitability Theory, what are we going to do with it? Nothing, except what it is inevitable we shall do and everybody will go along doing what they were inevitably going to do anyway which may or may not involve awareness of Inevitability Theory. However, it will grow to be a factor leading to great changes in the concepts of moral ethics and free will. The consequences of these changes, although inevitable, cannot yet be foreseen. It might destroy humanity or it might make it happier but whichever way things go the outcome is inevitable.
The nature of ‘time’, ‘prediction’ and ‘correct’ cannot yet be thought through. It will take time.
This paper is politically incorrect in assuming everybody is male. This was both inevitable and convenient.
“Everything is inevitable therefore predictable. Everything is predictable therefore inevitable”.
Derek A Brockis
First Edition: 20.11.98 Second Edition: 1.12.98 Words:: 13,196
Writes also on The Beast of Gevaudan La Bête du Gévaudan - another great enigma. Published by authorhouse.co.uk and authorhouse.com