Chance, Necessity or Interdependence?

How can we interpret such an astonishing fine-tuning of the physical constants and initial conditions of the universe that make it possible for life and consciousness to emerge? From a non-Buddhist point of view, there are two possible alternatives. One can evoke either chance or necessity.

If chance is the right answer, then the very precise tuning of the laws of physics and the initial conditions, so as to allow consciousness to arise, could be explained by the existence of a multitude of parallel universes. These parallel universes would contain all possible combinations of physical laws and initial conditions. Virtually all these universes would be barren and incapable of harboring life and consciousness ... all except ours, that, by pure coincidence, would have the winning combination, with us as the grand prize! Quantum mechanics allows the existence of such parallel universes; every time a choice or decision must be made, the universe could split into two: in one universe the Declaration of Independence would be written, in another America would remain a colony of England. In one universe the Berlin Wall would be torn down, in another it would remain. The observer himself would divide in two. There are also some Big Bang models that allow the idea of parallel universes: our universe would be only one small bubble among a multitude of other bubble-parallel universes within a meta-universe. On the other hand, if we choose the “necessity” option (i.e. reject the parallel universe hypothesis and adopt the one of a single universe, our own), then in order to account for the extremely precise fine-tuning, we must postulate a Great Architect who adjusted from the outset the laws of physics and initial conditions in order for the universe to become conscious of itself.

Both options are possible, and science cannot settle the issue. Like the 17th century French philosopher Blaise Pascal, we must make a wager: either humanity emerged by chance in an indifferent universe that is totally devoid of meaning, or our ascent was preprogrammed at the very beginning so we could give meaning to the universe by understanding it.

Buddhism offers a third alternative to account for such a precise fine-tuning for the emergence life and consciousness. As we have seen, it is not necessary to invoke a First Cause, a creative principle that has regulated everything from the start. There is no need for an “anthropic principle” or for a notion of design. According to Buddhism, consciousness has co-existed, co-exists and will co-exist with matter for all times. The same goes for the animate with the inanimate. Neither the universe nor consciousness had a beginning or end. Because they are interdependent, it is not surprising that the properties of the universe are compatible with the existence of consciousness. Two interdependent entities cannot exclude each other, but must be necessarily in harmony with each other.

This cosmic vision is in contrast to the usual picture of an ascent of the pyramid of complexity, where there is the formation of ever more complex forms of matter with the passage of time, which forms as they pass a complexity threshold become animate and endowed with consciousness. This does not mean that Buddhism rejects the Darwinian idea of evolution. Rather Buddhism would interpret the whole sequence of Darwinian evolution of ever more complex organisms as simply an increase in sophistication of the material support of a stream or a continuum of consciousness going from one form of material support to another.

In summary, the cosmological view of Buddhism rests on the basic concept of interdependence. Because everything depends on something else, there can be no entity that exists independently of all the others. Thus, there is no First Cause and no creation ex-nihilo. There is also no need to invoke an “anthropic principle” or any notion of design. The universe must be such as to harbor consciousness simply because the two are interdependent. This concept of interdependence is strongly reminiscent of the properties of interconnectedness and non-locality found in the science of quantum mechanics for subatomic particles.

Contributed by: Trinh Xuan Thuan