The Knowledge Contradiction

The conventional idea of evolution suggests that we live to serve the protein overlord, i.e. the gene. We live so that it can multiply and occupy the entirety of the universe, not unlike how a tiny volume of gas tries to occupy the whole of its perceived world — be it a jar, a box or a room. So, the extreme of the idea of gene propagation is the point where the entirety of the world — every molecule — is just that single gene alone.

One can argue that rather than occupying the world one hundred per cent, there will exist some equilibrium between several such proteins. But, for the sake of argument, let us assume this line of reasoning away by bringing in some exogenous factor, making it possible to break that equilibrium and allow for just one gene to exist. Now with this starting point, let us think about the implications.

The one question that immediately arises here is that of backwards-looking, which is, is the quest for this expansion to infinity solely driven by the flesh? Or, as some philosophers in the past argued, is it also driven by the need of the consciousness for a “unity” in some sense? But, we can safely leave this question aside because the implications don’t care about the seed or the causal element (it is Markovian, in a sense).

For ease of reference, let us call this state where the single entity — the gene and the accompanying consciousness — fills the world as the singularity. Then, the first observation that will follow is that this state is absolute in terms of matter and knowledge or information, not by any logic, but merely by its definition that this is the state where the entity encompasses everything.

At this state, it should then follow that there is no aspiration — only stasis. Let us take the analogy of a gas filling a jar. Now, assume the setting is a small jar with an outlet in a larger jar with no exit. Then, once the gas expands in the small jar, it escapes. Then, eventually, there will be a point where it occupies the larger jar and reaches the singularity. And we say that because, if there had been a way for the gas to get out of the jar, it would have, because it has absolute knowledge of the jar and by induction, at any other point in time, it would not get out of the jar. This reasoning might seem like wordplay, but it is not.

Finally, let us take the analogy back to human thought. The singularity means unity and homogeneity. We have proved that the existence of singularity implies stasis. In the realm of thought, this means a cease of the “searching” because of the premise that knowledge is absolute. So, thought ceases to exist, and if we conflate existence with the existence of thought, then at the singularity, the existence transcends, quite ironically, into non-existence or nothingness.

This argument is all a thought experiment, but there is some practical insight here. It addresses the deep sadness we see with knowledge in that we constantly try to increase it, knowing fully well that true and absolute knowledge is unattainable. But, taken to the extreme and looking at the singularity, we see that the quest for knowledge is utilitarian only as long as the promise that the knowledge will never be absolute accompanies it. This understanding should pacify the restless search and give us some solace in knowing that the imperfection, the ubiquity of cracks in the structure, is protecting us.