Contact theSOPAbout theSOPSupport theSOPWritersEditorsManaging Editors
theSOP logo
Published:February 3rd, 2009 13:30 EST
How probable is probable?

How probable is probable?

By Clinton Van Inman



Because modern theory dictates that 70% must be missing in the universe, three generations of astronomers have looked for it.  Even though the bulk of astronomers are in mad pursuit of this illusive butterfly, no one has the nerve to tell them that they are wasting their time because futile pursuit may open a door to newer explanations of better ways of looking at things.  This missing mass problem reminds me of the turn of the last century when the bulk of astronomers were trying to find the missing ether in the universe.  This ether had to exist to explain the wave particle motion of light and for other reasons.  It took a young thinker named Einstein who showed them that it did not exist.


Modern anthropologists are also in pursuit of another illusive butterfly.  Three generations of anthropologists have sought to define mankind in terms of cultural aspects alone and believe that the rise and fall of human civilizations is the direct result of choice, the power and impact of human cognition alone.  In short, this means that man alone makes and directs his world.


In recent years the power of geological discoveries and the realization that things like climate change and global catastrophes have a more immediate and powerful effect upon humans than anything else.  In short, we owe much about ourselves to chance alone.  For instance if the East African Rift had not occurred precisely in the vicinity of where early primates were breeding we humans would have never evolved.  This rift caused a change in climate as the lush forests retreated into open savannahs.  Climate change forced our descendants to either change and adapt or become extinct.  If our ancestors would have remained in the trees we would still be there today.  We owe much to chance.  Even our history is determined by random events in nature more so than historians and anthropologists like to agree.  Climate change plays a very active part in shaping our history than any congressional change or parliamentary decision.  We now know that the Vikings were destroyed not any nation, but by climate change.  Clovis man became extinct in his New World, not by aggression or cultural change, but by climate change via an asteroid.


So what does mean for us?  It means that we too like to think that we are in total control of our lives and our world, but it too will be determined by random events of which we have little or no control over.  We are here today because of pure caprice in nature and not something inherently determined within ourselves.  I won`t say that we are dust in the wind because there is more than dust in the wind: a mind that knows that there is only dust in the wind!