Chances of anybody being born is practically Zero. For example, if one is to calculate the probability that a person A is born, he's to include so many factors.
The probability of 'that' particular sperm fertilizing 'that' particular egg, which now forms the person A, would itself be close to zero(whatever that means). Then, moving further backwards, what would have been the chances of his parents meeting together and marrying together? What would be the probabilities of his parents being born? And this goes on till the metaphorical Adam. Further, for a theoretically more sound analysis one has to also factor in emergence of life forms, a habitable planet, the whole Universe,the Big Bang itself ? Multiplying all their probabilities would give the probability of a person being born, that is to say, probability of his existence. But this number would be too unimaginably minute to be of any significance. Now, we face a dilemma.
Any rational person will posit that a person being born is purely a chance factor. And that, it is not preordained or destined. But through reason alone we've arrived at the conclusion that a person should, according to probability or mathematics, not exist. Rather, no body should. (Mere thinking that, "where or what would 'I' be if 'I' were to be permanently non-existent?" , is deeply unsettling, isn't it.)
The second option is to conclude that it's not probability or chance which decides somebody's (something's?) existence. Rather, it's destined or planned(by whom or what?). "I exist because I was to exist".
Now, some foods for thought.
what does 'I' represent? Body-brain complex or Self? This perennial question has occupied philosophers since eternity. Especially so in Indian Philosophy. The reason I raise this question here is, it could perhaps give new perspectives to our problem at hand. Perhaps,it could synthesize the two opposed viewpoints or conclusions. But I leave that for later.
If only we replace 'somebody' with 'something' in the above discussion, our question moves on to the 'world' and is no more restricted to an individual. Was this whole Universe destined or permanently 'here'? If so, how do we define change then?
Time for reflection....To Be Continued.........
Now, some foods for thought.
what does 'I' represent? Body-brain complex or Self? This perennial question has occupied philosophers since eternity. Especially so in Indian Philosophy. The reason I raise this question here is, it could perhaps give new perspectives to our problem at hand. Perhaps,it could synthesize the two opposed viewpoints or conclusions. But I leave that for later.
If only we replace 'somebody' with 'something' in the above discussion, our question moves on to the 'world' and is no more restricted to an individual. Was this whole Universe destined or permanently 'here'? If so, how do we define change then?
Time for reflection....To Be Continued.........
