The Should Story - #3

Alternative realities are impossible. “Should" is an illusion.

Extra commentary in the video below

“Should”-based stories imply the existence of some “entity” that might have “freedom,” which could then produce an alternative version of reality.

“Should” suggests a fork in reality that produces an alternative version of reality. For this to occur, it would require the existence of “something” that would have the ability to make a “decision.” That “something” would need to have “freedom” as a tool to influence some part of reality that will end up producing an alternative reality.

For instance, if you did not win the lottery and you believe that you should have won, it would imply that some “entity” had the “freedom” to influence the lottery and produce an alternative version of reality where you won the lottery.

This “freedom” raises a fundamental question: freedom from what? “Freedom from the laws of physics? From the principle of cause and effect?” This would mean that there is an area of the brain immune to the laws of physics and causality.

Even if there was this “freedom” or “free will,” the only thing it could be free from is cause and effect, also known as the laws of physics.

In order for this “freedom” to exist, that would require the existence of a small area in the brain that is immune from the laws of physics and causality. But since the brain, like everything else, operates within the laws of physics, this seems unlikely.

In everyday life, we tend to see causal links where only correlations between sequences of events exist. We could always discover an overarching cause generating multiple events. Thunder is not caused by lightning; rather, both are “caused” by an electrostatic charge.

It can be difficult to tell what the root cause is.

We see lightning and after a few seconds we hear thunder. Someone might think that lightning is the cause of thunder because lightning is always followed by thunder.

However, that is not correct. These two events are both effects of a single root cause, an electrostatic discharge. A single root cause can initiate a chain of multiple events.

What may appear to be separate causal links, as a logical consequence, would be derived solely from the action of the single overarching reality, which, however, gives the impression of separate and independent causes.

In reality, every event is dependent on something that came before, all the way back to the Big Bang. What appears as multiple causal links is derived solely from a single root cause.

In this way, we could say that independent Causes do not exist; only the Cause exists. The single Cause would therefore be nothing other than the entire reality at time X, which, containing all of reality, cannot be influenced by anything else. Reality at time X+1, since it cannot materialize from nothing, is entirely determined by reality at time X. For this reason, we should not speak of causes and effects but only of a single cause and a single effect, which can also be expressed as a single “time sequence,” thereby freeing us from the concept of cause and effect.

Reality is everything. There is nothing outside of it. Since nothing exists outside reality, then there is nothing external that can influence reality.

What we perceive as multiple independent causes is only a chain of events derived from a single root cause, which is the Big Bang.

Imagine a ball is bouncing down a staircase. Each bounce seems to be caused by the one before, but this is a limited view. The ball’s position at any moment stems from everything since it was dropped—the force of the release of the ball, the staircase’s shape, the air’s resistance. The drop itself is like the Big Bang, initiating a sequence where every bounce reflects the entire history of reality up to that point.

To focus only on the previous bounce is to miss the deeper truth: the actual cause is the initial drop, which is the single root cause.

Instead of a simplified explanation, “The ball is bouncing now because it bounced on the previous stair,” we now have a more complete explanation: “The ball is bouncing now because of everything that happened before, starting with when it was dropped.”

The Cause is single, but it is impractical to start from the Big Bang every time. To make efficient predictions, we use a simplified model that assumes multiple causes, as this makes prediction much easier. So the existence of multiple causes is not entirely false; it is simply an approximation of the truth of the single Cause, which is far more difficult to compute.

If we want to predict whether or not a glass is going to break if we drop it, we don’t have time to consider all of reality back to the Big Bang. Instead we use a simplified model of reality that assumes multiple independent causes. This model is an approximation of the truth of the single root cause. This simplified model is not entirely false, it is just an approximation, but modeling reality this way makes prediction easier.

So if we want to know whether a glass is going to break when it is dropped, we make use of previous observations that a glass that is dropped on a hard surface usually breaks. Assuming multiple independent causes, even if inherently incorrect, makes it a lot easier to predict events effectively.

Realizing that alternative realities cannot exist will eventually dispel “should”-based stories. But what if there was such a thing as a “soul” or “spirit” existing outside of the laws of physics?

Even if we assumed the existence of a hypothetical decision maker who has absolute “free will” and operates outside of the laws of physics, any decision he would make could only be what he believes is the single best possible decision among his available options. These options are themselves pre-determined by the prior ability, knowledge, and perceptions available to the decision maker at the time of the decision. Thus only one possible choice is allowed, what he believes is the single best possible choice.

This makes the existence of alternative realities impossible.

If the hypothetical decision maker was also omniscient, then instead of making what he believes is the single best decision among some available options, he would simply just always make the absolute best decision – and, of course, there can be only one absolute best decision.

If this hypothetical decision-maker is playing a chess game against an opponent, he can only choose from the set of moves he knows. This set of moves will be based on the knowledge, perception, and experience he has accumulated up to that point in time. Then he will make what he believes is the single best move out of this set of possible moves. This is true for a decision-maker with great experience or little experience: he will always choose what he believes is the single best move from this set of moves, whether the set of moves is a big set or a small set.

Choices are always made on the basis of two parameters: perception and reasoning.

Reasoning relies on memory. For example, when choosing between chocolate and vanilla ice cream, I rely on what I remember about the taste of “chocolate” and “vanilla” to make a choice. Without memories associated with these flavors, the choice would be random or based purely on sensory preferences, such as color.

We make our choices through external perception and reasoning. However, reasoning relies on memory and cannot occur without it. For this reason, “free will” (reasoning) cannot be understood as freedom from past events, since reasoning requires memory, and memory consists of past events.

Memory is a product of past perceptions, and when combined with present perceptions, they both determine our choices; therefore, there is no room for “freedom” in choice.

At first glance, this might lead us to believe that making decisions is no longer worthwhile, adopting a fatalistic and resigned stance toward life.

Someone could say, “It is all deterministic, so I could just sit on my couch and do nothing and see what happens.”

However, that would itself be a new “story.” Not deciding is, in fact, a decision.

We often think of decisions as active choices.

If we are going down a road and we can choose to go left or right, that is an active choice.

But if you are going straight down a road and a deviation appears, refusing to change your path and to continue straight is still a choice.

That is, deciding not to make a choice is itself a choice.

This decision to “not decide” becomes a part of reality that will determine what happens next. Every decision becomes a part of future reality which will determine everything that comes after.

Any decision made is always the one we believe is best among those available. The quality of a decision is influenced by the number of available options, which influences the level of discernment.

Therefore the quality of your decisions depends on how many options are available to you. More experience means more options. For example, a new driver knows only a few routes, while an expert driver knows many routes. Therefore the route the expert driver believes is best and will choose is probably better than the route the new driver believes is best and will choose because it is taken from a bigger set of routes.

By acquiring more knowledge, you increase the number of options that you can choose from, meaning your best decision from that set of options is likely to be better.

“Stories” reduce the level of discernment and consequently the number of available options, whereas removing the “stories” and increasing discernment expands those options, improving the quality of the best decision.

The existence of stories distorts the understanding of reality. Someone who got rid of the stories will see reality more clearly because he will experience less distortion.

For example, if a child believes in the Santa Claus story, he will try to behave well all the time, since he believes that Santa can always see him. This is extremely difficult for him to do because children have a lot of energy. At some point he will probably do something bad in front of his parents.

But if a child learns that Santa isn’t real, he will focus on being good only in front of his parents, which is much easier than acting good all the time. He could burn the school down or bully other kids, but as long as his parents don’t find out it is irrelevant because he understands reality: there is no omniscient Santa looking at him all the time. Only his parents are watching him. He has dismantled the Santa story.

So he can be a monster when his parents aren’t looking as long as he’s good when they are looking, and he will receive nice gifts.

“Should” stories create the perception that the imagined alternative reality is “better” than the real one, causing us to compare it to the latter, judge actual reality negatively, and generate mental suffering.

Stories create an imagined “better” reality in our mind compared to actual reality itself. When we compare imagined reality–what we believe “should” have been–with actual reality, we suffer because the imagined reality is better.

Consider a person who is not hired for a job, but imagines he should have been hired. He imagines an alternative reality where he got the job. This imagined alternative reality, compared to the actual reality where he did not get the job, makes the person judge actual reality negatively. I “should” have gotten the job, he thinks. This comparison between the actual reality with his imagined reality causes suffering.

Once belief in these alternative realities is removed, that mental suffering disappears.

When we no longer believe that alternative realities are possible, the mental suffering associated with this belief goes away.

It is important to distinguish “should stories” from “expectations.”

“Should stories” are about the fact that you think that things “should” have gone differently – that the universe did not work the way you think it “should.” When you think that things “should” have gone differently, the feeling you usually get is anger.

“Expectations” are what you “expect” to happen – not what you believe “should” or “must” happen, but just what you would like to happen. When things don’t go the way you expected, the feeling you usually get is sadness.

For example, let’s say that you wanted to go out for a walk. You expected it to be sunny but instead it was raining. You may feel sad because you cannot go out – your “expectation” was not met. However if you believe it “should” have been sunny, then you implicitly believe that there is something wrong with the universe, and the resulting emotion will be anger.