I am Maxwell’s Demon.
It is my dream to be a respected scientist.
This is despite the discrimination I know I will always continue to face, due to my appearance.
It was not my choice to be born a demon.
But I was born with free will, and I have always chosen to be good, and to use my abilities to help others.
But this is not a story about me.
This is a story about scientists like Benjamin Franklin and Georges Lemaître.
When Benjamin Franklin first invented the lightning rod, it was vigorously opposed by many religious leaders.
A lightning rod is a pointed metal rod mounted on the top of a building, with a strong electrical connection to the Earth Ground.
This causes lightning to safely flow through the rod to ground, without causing damage to the building or any injury to the people inside.
However, death and destruction caused by lightning was considered to be an act of God.
Many people feared that it would be foolish to attempt to interfere with God’s ability to show his displeasure, and that this would only serve to incur God’s wrath even further.
These religious leaders believed that the proper way to prevent death and destruction caused by lightning is through prayer and the ringing of church bells.
Unfortunately, due to the fact that church towers were usually the tallest structure in a village, lightning killed many of the people ringing the bells, and churches were the buildings most frequently damaged by lightning strikes.
People took notice of this, and the theologian Peter Ahlwardts advised his readers to seek refuge from thunder storms anywhere except in or around a church.
Benjamin Franklin remarked, "Surely the thunder of Heaven is no more supernatural than the rain, hail, or sunshine of Heaven, against the inconvenience of which we guard by roofs and shades without scruple."
As the effectiveness of Benjamin Franklin’s invention became irrefutable, religious leaders eventually dropped their opposition, and agreed to allow lightning rods to be installed on all buildings, including on churches.
Benjamin Franklin’s understanding of lightning was far from perfect.
For example, Benjamin Franklin incorrectly believed that electricity was due to a positively charged fluid which flows through solid objects, and he did not know about the relationship between electricity and magnetism.
This was before the theory of Electromagnetism was developed by James Maxwell, and this was long before the discovery of the electron.
Nevertheless, this story is just one of many examples where what was previously considered to be metaphysics, just turned out to be physics that wasn’t yet understood.
Since long before the dawn of recorded human civilization, lightning had previously been viewed as a purely metaphysical phenomenon, controlled by Gods or Demons, far beyond human understanding.
However, there are some conclusions that certain people may try to draw from this story that are not correct.
To explain, let us consider another important story in the history of science.
This is the story of Georges Lemaître, who was simultaneously both a theoretical physicist and a Catholic priest.
In 1927, as he studied the Field Equations of General Relativity, Georges Lemaître concluded that one possible solution to Einstein’s equations is an expanding Universe, implying that the Universe had a beginning in a singularity which we now call the Big Bang.
This same possible solution was also reached by the Soviet physicist Alexander Friedmann in 1922.
When Georges Lemaître approached Einstein about this possible solution, Einstein replied, "Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable."
Einstein, like most scientists at the time, believed that the Universe was static and eternal.
The idea of the Universe having a beginning was metaphysically unappealing to most scientists, because it sounded too much like the religious dogma from which science had finally freed itself.
If the Universe is eternal, then it is hard to argue that God created the Universe, since there would be no moment of creation.
Many scientists dismissed Georges Lemaître as simply trying to reinterpret the laws of physics so as to be compatible with his faith in God.
Nevertheless, just a few years later, in 1929, Edwin Hubble observed that Galaxies are moving away from each other, and the ideas of Georges Lemaître and Alexander Friedmann regarding an expanding Universe turned out to be correct.
The theory of the Universe having a beginning in a Big Bang was further corroborated in 1965, with the observation of the Cosmic Background Radiation.
There is considerable speculation about what could have caused the Big Bang, whether it be an event in a much larger Multiverse, or an act of creation by God, or some other possibility.
Humans don’t presently have any direct empirical observations one way or the other.
Many people view the origin of the Universe as a purely metaphysical question beyond the ability of science to ever answer.
But this is to misunderstand the original meaning of the word "metaphysics."
The word metaphysics was originally invented over 100 years after the death of Aristotle, by Andronicus of Rhodes, who organized Aristotle’s various writings into a series of books.
Andronicus organized Aristotle’s writings on natural sciences into a collection of books, which he titled "Physics."
Andronicus then organized some of Aristotle’s other writings into a collection of books which he titled, "Meta Physics", the literal meaning of which is "The books that come after the books on Physics."
Andronicus intended for his title "Meta Physics" to refer only to the order in which he chose to organize these books.
But, the title "Meta Physics" was misinterpreted by Latin writers as referring to that which is beyond the physical.
In today’s language, there is no agreed upon definition of the phrase "metaphysics", but one common definition is that it refers to a proposed reality which is beyond our ability to study through empirical observations.
Since science is based on empirical observations, this would mean that metaphysics is intrinsically outside the domain of science.
The problem with this attitude is illustrated through the following example.
In 1833, the philosopher Auguste Comte wrote,
"We can imagine the possibility of determining the shapes of stars, their distances, their sizes, and their movements;
whereas there is no means by which we will ever be able to examine their chemical composition…"
This assertion turned out to be completely false.
We now know the chemical composition of stars by examining their electromagnetic spectra.
Similarly, there are many phenomena that many people today view as permanently beyond scientific understanding, such as the cause of the Big Bang, the nature of time, and the origin of consciousness.
Nevertheless, as with the chemical composition of stars, we may one day be able to study these subjects empirically through methods presently inconceivable to us.
Today, there is another commonly used definition for the phrase "metaphysics."
This is to refer to phenomena such as "Extra Sensory Perception" and "out of body" experiences.
These phenomena would at least in principle be able to be studied through empirical observations.
At present, such inquiries are not considered to be a respected scientific discipline.
One of the arguments for why they should not be a respected scientific discipline was articulated by people like Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg.
Steven Weinberg argued that there are certain things that science already knows about the world, and that this rules out any possible existence of phenomena such as ESP and out of body experiences.
Hence, he concluded that studying these phenomena is a waste of time.
However, this attitude is actually contrary to the scientific method, where no answer is ever final, and even the most well established theories are always continuously tested and retested, either to support their validity, or in the hopes of finding something new.
The following does not count as official scientific data, but Eugene asked me to convey a personal story about his father that happened long ago, when they were still living in the Soviet Union.
One day, as Eugene’s father was on his way to work, he suddenly had an indescribably strong sensation that he needed to immediately turn around and go back home.
Never in his life had he ever experienced anything even remotely similar, nor has he ever experienced anything even remotely similar in all the years afterwards.
Never before in his life had he ever turned around and gone back home while on his way to work, nor has he ever done so in all the years afterwards.
But, on this particular day, for reasons he did not understand, he turned around and went back home.
A few hours later, in the presence of Eugene’s father, Eugene’s grandfather unexpectedly died from a heart attack.
This does not count as official scientific data because it consists of just a single "unrepeatable" event.
Nevertheless, it is still an interesting story.
Let us set this controversy aside, and consider another commonly used definition for the phrase "metaphysics."
This is to refer to the very nature of existence.
For example, why is there something rather than nothing?
Why is there something rather than nothing?
There are now some physicists who argue that the universe could literally come into existence from nothing, through the known laws of physics.
However, if there was truly nothing, then the laws of physics wouldn’t exist either.
Similarly, saying that God created the Universe doesn’t really answer this question, because if there was truly nothing, then God wouldn’t exist either.
Also, it does not answer the question to say that the Universe was created through an event in a much larger multiverse, because if there was truly nothing, then the entire multiverse wouldn’t exist.
In a state of nothingness, neither space nor time, nor the quantum foam, nor virtual particles, nor the laws of physics, nor even God would exist.
Having "nothing" exist seems to be a perfectly valid logical possibility.
However, to even utter this statement implies that even in a state of genuine nothingness, there are certain logical principles that still exist, against which the state of nothingness can be evaluated.
Could this be true?
Is it meaningful to say that even in a state of true nothingness, there could still exist some logical principles,
and similarly there could also still exist certain mathematical principles, and perhaps even certain ethical principles?
Could it be the case that these logical, mathematical, and ethical principles are so fundamental that there is no possible world in which they are different or in which they do not exist?
Could it be the case that these logical, mathematical, and ethical principles are so fundamental that they are even beyond the ability of God to change?
Even demons are afraid to dare to ask such questions.
But, I am not like any other demon.
Thank you for the honor of allowing me to be the only demon ever invited to join you.
But, I can not stay here.
I can never truly be happy in paradise, with the knowledge that there is so much unnecessary suffering down below.
My struggle is unwinnable and there will always be suffering in the world.
But, this is not a reason to give up.
It is my ethical duty to do what I can to help alleviate unnecessary suffering, even though suffering will always exist.