CHAPTER ONE | SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND CURIOSITY
CONCEPT SOUND
On a warm July evening, a young musician plays the Spanish Romanza in E minor for an audience of couples having dinner at the local café. The music fills the background with ambiance, resonating with every sip of red wine and every bite of that chocolate dessert. It is as if the melody embellishes a movie scene as it complements the experience and amplifies the emotions. The event is happily shared with that special someone. The senses are overjoyed under the flickering candlelight. A few years and a few heartbreaks later, some of that audience, wherever they may be, suddenly hear that same romantic melody in a radio commercial that is advertising an exclusive getaway to a faraway island. The thought of vacation blends into a recollection of that euphoric evening, of her or of him. A reaction to the memory occurs. It is either a smile at all of life’s events that occurred since—graduation, new job, wedding, pregnancy, sleepless nights—or it is a sigh of a hope once gone.
When a minor chord is strung on a classical guitar, the listener gets flooded with feelings of romance, melancholy, or an appreciation of the present moment. It is a curious function how the brain reacts to a particular chord arrangement, which is just a combination of audio waves produced out of certain atmospheric vibrations. The reaction prompts the nerves for a dose of dopamine, causing one to perceive the feeling of romance. Also curious is how the experience is recorded in the psyche; its memory held dormant until something triggers it to rise up to the surface of the mind, if only for an instant.
A major seventh chord, on the other hand, resembles a question mark, an unanswered expression, or a curiosity. This chord, when heard by its bare ring, requires a response to follow; otherwise, the listener will be left unsatisfied. Each chord speaks to the observer just as words in a book, colors in a painting, or spices in a gourmet dish. If the minor chord captures our adolescent desire for love, then the major seventh chord expresses our innocent urge for answers. Such as, where does the memory remain? Is it in our brain cells and gets carried to every place we go? Is it in our subconscious mind, in the realm of a higher quantum dimension, beyond the unique coordinates of space and time? Or does it become a meme that infects all those who encounter a situation that is attuned to its distinct set of characteristics?
Perhaps we identify with music because tones resemble the frequencies of the mind. Each thought progression is played on the scale of a personal melody. Similarly, rhythm resembles the pulse of the body. As the beat changes speed, so does our perception of time, our focus, and our productivity. The composition is ours alone, and life becomes a soundtrack—sometimes dramatic, sometimes romantic, and sometimes curious.
CHAPTER ONE | SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND CURIOSITY
Curiosity is the desire to acquire information, knowledge, and skill. Just as we are concerned about our own wellbeing, its progress, or at least its preservation, so too we are curious about everything else. We often find ourselves interested in the affairs of others that seemingly have nothing to do with us. This curiosity extends outward, passes through our fellow neighbors, and looks to fill as much of the universe as possible. It is an emotion that is at the core of our education. It is the foundation of every subject of study. It drives social media. It is exploited in profit-seeking industries. And it is wonderful.
All scholars are curious beings, especially the philosophers. Such a savant asks many questions and attempts to structure ideas in a logical and uniform manner. He observes his surroundings objectively and inquires into their nature and origin. While the course of the examination remains impartial, the root of the query originates from the selfish curiosity factor. The philosopher is not content until a question begets an answer that can be believed beyond a reasonable doubt. For the scientist, it is not enough to believe. The answer must not only make sense, but also hold solid evidence.
Philosophy is at best a hypothesis to the scientist. Such a detective investigates the nature and origin of his own curiosity to prove or disprove a philosophy by means of observation, experimentation, mathematical evaluation, and the like. The scientist is a very determined individual who has the job of concretely answering many questions raised by philosophers over time. If science is unable to adequately address a given philosophical proposition, then it will remain a conjecture until a scientific breakthrough replaces it with explicit proof. Though certain questions take lifetimes to answer.
Philosophy is known as the love of wisdom while science may be referred to as the wealth of that wisdom. The scientist provides the philosopher with an abundance of facts from which the philosopher arranges and shapes his premise accordingly. In this way, the philosopher presents the world with either a new idea or at least a stimulating digest. It is as if a child gets a box full of clay and carefully molds their creation. This creation may, in turn, inspire the scientist to pursue a practical invention, or it may forever remain a work of art.
Both the scientist and the philosopher are driven by their common curiosities to uncover the secrets of the universe. These secrets reciprocally spark the urge to satisfy other newfound curiosities. This vicious cycle creates the perfect dance in which both partners are fueled by each other’s nature. Each dancing step conquers more territory and covers more ground on which we mark our presence and expand our base of knowledge. Within each one of us, we will find a scientist or a philosopher at one point or another because of this constant need to learn, grow, and evolve. Such is our human nature. As long as there are uncovered terrains and unsolved mysteries, we will not rest until we have satisfied our curiosities and triumphed the dominions in which we have set our feet and our minds in.
From the beginning of our humankind, we have proceeded to overtake the world by learning all that we could about it and manipulating its possessions to our benefit. Still, it seems as though there is much more work to be done and an endless amount of subjects to learn about. The question becomes—how much can we learn about anything? How much can a subject be broken down into its finest principles until there is nothing left of it to investigate? And when all subjects have been thoroughly explored and mastered down to their tiniest details, will there be anything left to achieve? The scientist is still unsure as to whether the universe is finite. If so, then the amount of subjects to study must also be finite. If not, our curiosity may grow indefinitely.
As the scientist explains, it all began with the Big Bang. Suddenly, the universe started to expand from an undefined and infinitesimal point. The first moment occurred at a single and only spatial coordinate and contained within it all the potential that we now call reality. It has since been expanding in every direction, and this expansion is accelerating. The scientist does not exactly yet know why and attributes this perplexity to a placeholder that he terms dark energy. There are several propositions on the likely fate of the universe. Some believe that it will be expanding forever. Others prophesies the recollapse of the universe into what is known as the Big Crunch, perhaps followed by a new Big Bang that starts the process all over again. And so on to infinity? It is the scientist’s responsibility to clear up such cosmic issues and eventually populate all the placeholders. In the meantime, let us adopt the philosopher’s approach and base our forecast on a recipe of inductive reasoning applied to an encyclopedia of facts, postulates, theories, and probabilities. Perhaps we may get a glimpse of what is to come.
The world has a lot of knowledge to offer. We look around, observe its functions, and marvel at its many possessions. But unless we start asking questions, we will only get what is in front of us. A question raised to the scientist is a case to be solved. If the scientist does not arrive at a conclusion to a particular inquiry, then we are left to patiently wait for time to uncover the mystery. After all, the answer must exist in one form or another. In this way, we have once confirmed that the Earth is round and later discovered that it is not the center of the solar system, let alone the universe. And one day we may be surprised to find that it is not the only planet that harbors life. For now, we can only imagine who is out there.
The philosopher is more impatient by nature. If the scientist has not answered the matter in question, then the philosopher will use all the tools of logic, history, and the collective wisdom of humanity to reason through the uncertainty. In such an undertaking, the philosopher puts himself in a position to answer many of humanity’s difficult questions that reach beyond the scope of that which science can offer today. Of these are morality, reason, and purpose. This is where the difference emerges between the scientist and the philosopher.
Prior to the Renaissance, religion largely provided the public with morality, reason, and purpose. The problem that the scientist found with religious philosophy is that it is not based solely on logic but marks its foundation in faith. To him, man’s ability to reason will not allow any concept to be based on faith unless that ability is surrendered. As the scientific revolution dominated religious influence, contemporary philosophy too made its way into modern thinking. Faith was no longer a given; rather, it was now allowed to be questioned, analyzed, considered, or rejected.
The scientific community requires a hypothesis to be thoroughly validated for a consensus to be reached in establishing it as an admissible contributor to a scientific theory—that which the public comes to accept as a given fact. If, however, the hypothesis is not yet substantiated in a manner that is acceptable to the community, then the scientist may consider it in such a way that it would have the most likelihood of being verified in the future. The philosopher would agree that his argument as well be factually based. If it too happens to surpass current scientific limits, then the philosopher would ensure that his syllogism is sound, with carefully reviewed assumptions and alternatives filling in the gaps. These assumptions could, after all, make or break the argument as they are nothing more than educated guesses. Such philosophical and scientific approaches to problem solving grew to complement each other’s methodologies and overlapped on social principles like morality or physical properties like time travel.
Although traveling through time is not currently possible, the scientist does not discard the possibility. Instead, he attempts to explain this concept by way of the scientific method—not allowing for any implausibilities to contribute to its formulation. Per Albert Einstein, the property of time is a fundamental element in the theory of relativity. It becomes more evident as objects near the speed of light. At such great speeds, nature prevents an object from approaching the universal speed limit by slowing down the passage of time relative to other objects. Theoretically, if someone were to move fast enough for long enough, they would perceive to have traveled into the future once they arrive at their destination. Alternatively, traveling into the past leads to many philosophical questions that arise as a result of temporal paradoxes. However, even here the scientist is not taken aback and proposes to resolve such conundrums with the multiverse theory.
Farfetched notions like time travel, when considered in all seriousness, at this time belong to the bookshelves of theoretical physics. This field is one of the oldest and yet constantly evolving disciplines that pushes science to its mathematical limits. Some of its theorems may not be ready for experimentation while some are placeholders for observations that lack a theoretical component. Once an experiment demonstrates an apriority that was once predicted by theoretical physics, it graduates to be catalogued as a phenomenon that can be observed in nature, rather than just on paper. Until then, the theory dwells in the pages of the abstract, inspiring science fiction and engaging the philosopher’s imagination.
There are many branches of science whose propositions we will draw upon and formulations rely on in supporting the point at hand. Some practices are newly developed and less established than others. Nonetheless, new ways of thinking often prove to be revolutionary, as the scientific method is dynamically oriented, thrusting itself forward by means of its own discoveries. Younger practices are often offshoots of major branches or may be cross-disciplinary, combining previously unrelated fields or borrowing techniques from one field to expand on the other.
Evolutionary psychology, for example, is a cross-discipline that uses the methods applied to evolutionary biology on psychological analysis. This approach explains how mental processes evolved in humans over time, similar to how physiological traits changed as a result of adaptations. It makes clear how our psyche is predisposed to being conditioned by way of repeatedly generating habits, which themselves arise from an ancestral mechanism of acting on reflexes. We will have more to say on both the evolutionary process as well as psychological conditioning in the pages to come. For now, let us appreciate how modern science has reached a level of fluidity that allows previously unrelated fields to overlap in ways that make it more obvious to see that the universe is, in fact, just a sum of its interrelated parts.
Each scientific domain reflects a part or aspect of the universe. Natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, astronomy, and geology describe the workings of the world. Social sciences such as anthropology, psychology, and sociology describe the wonders of humanity. The latter will necessarily include an overtone of philosophy since being human is certainly more complex than rocket science. Until a time comes when the human element can be expressed as a mathematical equation, there will be such unknowns as the variable of curiosity. Till then, science can only be transcended by filling it with a layer of philosophy.
Propelling a science using a philosophical motor means using logical reasoning to explain some aspect of corporeality. With time and experience, such reasoning solidifies into a given that we come to accept as a matter of fact. Take morality as an example. It is one of the oldest and most popular topics of every religion. It has been examined by Ancient Greek philosophy, which influenced many of our Western ethical values. As well, it is explored within the social sciences, even if indirectly. These sciences underlie a theoretical framework of social philosophy, which is put to the test by observing, sampling, and surveying various demographic populations for the purpose of understanding their differences and inclinations.
Social philosophy seeks to discover those behaviors that are most beneficial among individuals within a given community. As individual behavior is linked to many factors of nature and nurture, one’s choice of it arises from a complex set of past events and predispositions that form the current state of one’s personality. Individual behavior and, consequently, one’s personality is then judged by society based on certain established principles and accepted standards. These standards have been shaped and reshaped over the centuries and are the culmination of many lessons learned. They serve as principles of law enforcement, ways of public interaction, and good old etiquette. Adhering to them enables us to build cities and live together, embrace the weekdays and work together, and enjoy dinner with good company.
Standards, which are presupposed by the notions of normality and conformity, dictate the kinds of behaviors that are generally recognized as being good or bad for society at large. We thus base our rights and wrongs on these standards and, as a result, identify our conduct with morality. Of course, our sense of it is subjective as one can judge oneself to be more or less moral than someone else. Although the devil’s advocate may argue that morality is open to interpretation, the sociologist would dispute in that by following certain principles, it can be defined to outline the most optimum way of living for the benefit of the majority.
The politician is infamous for taking advantage of both sides, often going to great lengths to mold a society based on dogmatic ideals. Numerous laws, often extreme, enacted to uphold those ideals have historically maintained limited stability and in many cases led to economic failure, national collapse, social revolt, and reconstruction. So does this mean that we are yet to get it right? The takeaway is that human societies are complex, dissimilar, and ever-changing. A particular social order will not necessarily ring true in all lands. Even our next-door neighbor will have a difference of opinion about anything that comes up in daily chitchat. Culture, national identity, and many other societal differentiators necessitate laws to be customized so as to fit the norms of a particular geographical region. Hence, the city, county, state, provincial, and federal jurisdictions of the numerous nation lands around the world. Still, the argument can persist in that there are certain moral principles that really ought to apply to all people everywhere.
The easiest such moral concept to agree with is that murder is wrong. Religion proclaims that if one kills, then the sinner is surely destined for purgatory. While effective, identifying this commandment with fear can be misleading and only goes so far. Ironically, holy wars, sacrifices, and executions in the name of God were among the most popular activities in the history of many religions. Unfortunately, for some extremists, they still are. Interestingly, the logical explanation for this abnormality was always there in the sacred texts. However, its true meaning was often overlooked since fear and blind faith prevented the human mind from thinking in rational terms. The familiar phrase is “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It was the early version of sociology, the experience of civilization, which made it possible to understand what the Golden Rule really means. It became clear that the act of homicide is detrimental to the wellbeing of society and must be prevented. In this way, morality made its way from the Bible into the Constitution, enforcing social governance and protecting civilian welfare. Although fear keeps would-be criminals from being punished, most people have a basic sense of understanding as to why they should not kill.
Society extends such standards to cover other wrongdoings like theft, deception, breach of contract, or traffic violation. There are logical reasons for all these transgressions, set forth by the common experience of people sharing their lives with each other. As psychology addresses the impact of morality on individual behavior and the health of one’s state of mind, sociology leverages on those moral principles by which groups of individuals adhere to and by which their communities are strengthened. After all, people make up societies. In this respect, psychology has a direct impact on sociology. The former deals with the state of one’s individual consciousness while the latter concerns one’s interaction and identification with the collective consciousness.
When considering the social sciences, we can see why it is difficult to abstain from bringing philosophy into the discussion. On the other hand, physical sciences are able to do without a philosophical additive unless some element of life is brought into the picture. For instance, all natural occurrences can be represented by mathematical means—chemical reactions, atmospheric pressures, fundamental forces, speed of light, expansion of the universe, singularities, and soon enough dark matter and dark energy. Some of these do tempt us to add a philosophical constituent but without involving life, strictly speaking, there is just no need. Though as soon as we consider any sort of life force, philosophy becomes part of the overall topic. The Big Bang and our entire universe may not mean much without the life that it has accomplished. As a result, cosmology leads us to question reason and purpose in the same way as sociology leads us to explore morality.
To understand the universe in its holistic sense, we ought to examine humanity in its many contexts. And rightly so as life and its harbor are necessarily intertwined. By way of observation, the astronomer examines phenomena that are light years away for the purpose of understanding the nature of the universe. By way of meditation, the Buddhist monk examines the mind and body phenomena for the same purpose. All the atoms in our bodies have come from various places to assemble for our own purposes. They each tell a story of some place and time in our vast universe.
There are many places and times from which we can choose to begin our story—from the initial point of the Big Bang that eventually led to the formation of our planet, from the single celled organisms that became the ancestors of all the Earth’s creatures, or from a biographical account of those individuals whose impacts on society teach great lessons of historic value. As everything is interrelated, each approach will eventually lead us to gain insights into the essence of existence. Modern science is racing to formulate the theory of everything. Similarly, philosophy always had the aim of formulating an understanding of everything. This is what we are after as well, if only ever so slightly.
We have briefly reflected on the various sciences and their interaction with philosophy. Facts and experience turn into knowledge and wisdom, which become the remedies to curing our curiosities. Studying the entire universe at different levels of complexity or simplicity helps us to turn the abstracts of philosophy into the actuals of science. The interplay between both disciplines is everbearing. Whether we engage in theoretical physics or theoretical philosophy, physics or metaphysics, psychology or philosophy of mind, sociology or social philosophy, or explore the philosophy of science, sometimes even the scientist and the philosopher switch roles. After all, these roles just point to different means of understanding reality and interpreting its many shades of truth.
Both the scientist’s and the philosopher’s curiosities pushes them to discover the reason, nature, and purpose of existence. Existence being all that exists. All that exists being the whole of the universe. To understand not just how it came to be but why and out of what. Science has so far provided us with the Big Bang, which is as much an effect of something as it is the cause of everything. An ambiguity just like the classical view of God’s infinite nature—both incomplete in theory and definition. Can the philosopher in us arrive at a plausible consideration using all the available tools of existent knowledge and the human potential to think through the gaps? Let us remain with our optimistic and creative nature and attempt the discovery.
A DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE SCIENTIST AND THE PHILOSOPHER
The scientist and the philosopher are enjoying a game of chess in Central Park under an open blue sky. They meet every Sunday morning for the sake of discussing various topics of interest, ranging from the latest developments in quantum theory to the socioeconomic issues of developing nations. This, over a freshly squeezed blend of veggie juice and roasted peanuts while also musing over the Sunday paper funnies. Today is August 5th, 2035. They are discussing the science of concepts and, off-topic, the concept of science.
Scientist
Nice day, isn’t it?
Philosopher
Relative to yesterday, one year ago, or which other day?
Scientist
Oh Charlie, there you go again chasing tangents.
Philosopher
There is no such thing as a stupid question, Erik. Your implications may not always come across to your fellow conversationalist.
Scientist
What are you talking about?
Philosopher
That’s the spirit, buddy. Hehe! So what is this revolutionary idea that you want to share with me?
Scientist
Well, on Monday night, I was revising my code that simulates temporal lobe processing. While debugging a system crash, I’ve stumbled upon an infinite loop within a sub-function that’s made to output the hippocampal region’s action potential. At first, I couldn’t reconcile this anomaly. Each trace led me to a procedure that handles nerve impulses—a piece of code that reliably expresses a cell’s electric polarization. I spent all night running the analysis until I fell asleep at my desk. When I woke up, I realized that the loop must be a representation of a singularity. My assumption was confirmed when I replaced the data structure of an electrically charged particle with a wave function. While it’s no news that observation has impacts at the quantum realm, you see, I haven’t considered the wave-particle duality from a neurological perspective. This means that the singularity contains all of the possibilities that can manifest as a result of one’s thought process.
Philosopher
It’s as if the answer came to you while you were asleep.
Scientist
Perhaps. I ended up coding a yoctometric formula that quantifies the neuro-frequencies of concepts as they arise in the mind.
Philosopher
Interesting. You found a way to quantify actual thoughts?
Scientist
No, actual concepts. In other words, not just a written sentence but a whole paragraph expressed as an idea. When passing the unique concept variable into the wave function, it offsets the loop and computes the frequency of the quantum neuron field that’s generated when the mind comprehends that particular concept. Unlike words that often mislead, as you’ve just so graciously pointed out, the frequency completely reflects the idea as it’s intended to be perceived in the mind. I’ve started working on the technical specs for the prototype, which I’ve termed the “neuroquanceptre.”
Philosopher
Oh, how lovely. You’ve invented a mind-reading gadget just to shut me up! When will you present this neuro-thingy to the Academy and get yourself published already?
Scientist
Haven’t thought about that yet. These days my interests simply lie in the pursuit of scientific discovery.
Philosopher
How boring, Erik. You know, science isn’t simply an end in itself. It certainly serves a practical purpose. Biology allows us to understand the living world so that we can use that knowledge to, for example, advance our health. Cosmology allows us to understand the universe so that we can use that knowledge for, say, intergalactic travel.
Scientist
I agree, Charlie. But can’t the ambition to pursue science be rooted in an ever-yearning desire to gain knowledge for its own sake? At the very least, each scientific experiment and mathematical exercise strengthens our cognitive capabilities.
Philosopher
You said it yourself: ever-yearning. This desire is ingrained in the human psyche. It’s a fire that can’t be extinguished and looks to consume everything in its path. So there must be something deeper to all this than just desire. The point of eating is not just to alleviate hunger, but to sustain our very existence.
Scientist
But then the same may be said of biology, cosmology, and all the other sciences. To advance our health is to sustain our existence. To travel to different planets is to search for a suitable environment in which more humans could, well, exist.
Philosopher
So it seems. Existence is the goal.
Scientist
Exist for the sake of existing?
Philosopher
As opposed to not existing? I think so. Existence is worth all that much more than non-existence. Every living creature on Earth can agree to that.
Scientist
In evolutionary terms, surviving to exist is the name of the game.
Philosopher
I’m sure Mr. Darwin didn’t develop the theory of evolution purely for intellectual amusement. Don’t you know? He struggled with the idea of publishing his work for many years.
Scientist
I get your point. This is why I enjoy our Sunday mornings, my friend. Nothing better than a shot of motivation before lunch time.
Philosopher
Likewise, old chap. Existence, interesting concept. Can you quantify it?
Scientist
Hold that thought, Charlie. We digress as usual.
Philosopher
Oh, look at this one. It’s a cartoon about the cat that actually lived all of its nine lives. Schrödinger blindfolds the poor cat before placing him in the chamber. He does this eight times and claims that because no one, not even the cat, observes the decay of the radioactive matter, the cat is never in any danger. One day, the cat decides to see what is so fascinating and sneaks into the chamber in the middle of the night. The door accidentally locks and poof, there goes the cat. Can you believe it? Curiosity killed the cat!
Scientist
Charlie, please be serious. You’re right that there’s no such thing as a coincidence. Our thoughts aren’t just electrical impulses that share information within the brain’s neural network. Our neural circuitry phases into ripples that oscillate along the fabric of spacetime and pass through the upper dimensions. The ripple is a superstring whose vibration tunes into the thought harmonic. But what’s interesting is that the ripple seems to precede the thought, not the other way around. Do you see what I mean?
Philosopher
Hmm. Are you suggesting that we’re not the source of our own thoughts? They’re projected from someplace else?
Scientist
Neither some place nor some time. Remember, the upper dimensions aren’t bound by space nor time because those are dimensions in their own right. The ripples are timeless and spaceless. From our perspective, they’ve always existed. From the perspective of the upper dimensions, that’s all they are: ripples. They came from “nothing,” just like the Big Bang. The source is undefined. It’s a singularity, which is where my sub-function encounters the infinite loop. That is, unless the unique concept variable is plugged into the wave function to compute the ripple’s frequency modulation.
Philosopher
You’re getting closer to the mind of God, my friend.
Scientist
That’s not even the most interesting part, Charlie.
Philosopher
Of course not, Eric. I’m bored out of my damned mind!
Scientist
Look, all neurological activity can be traced back to the same undefined point in the yoctometric formula. This means that all thoughts from the past, present, and future originate from this common derivation. It’s as if a source of light generates photons that travel in all the directions of space and time and reach the minds of beings that have the ability to perceive them.
Philosopher
I can understand that. I have light bulbs flashing in my head all the time!
Scientist
The ripples oscillate with different frequencies and some are more in tune with certain minds than others. Why do you think you and Jean frequently finish each other’s sentences?
Philosopher
I’ve suspected her to be a telepath, but your argument is much more plausible. So what you’re saying is that people have similar ideas at different places and times all because these ideas have a common origin?
Scientist
Precisely. And these people have something in common. They share a particular state of mind. Think of Newton and Leibniz, Gray and Bell, or Darwin and Wallace. This very well explains memetics, coincidences, and even déjà vu.
Philosopher
You better go on and publish your findings before some other mad fellow catches your idea. Which is not really yours after all, is it?
Scientist
Indeed. It’s all borrowed knowledge. Do you remember how we met?
Philosopher
Of course. August of ’99 in Parc de la Villette. You came with all of your equipment to analyze that solar eclipse. I could’ve spotted you from a mile away with all those telescopes, cameras, and what was that other contraption?
Scientist
The spectrogravitron.
Philosopher
Ah yes. It was making some funny noises.
Scientist
I came to Paris to study the eclipse, and you had recently moved from London to conduct “research” with Jean.
Philosopher
Yes. We were having a nice picnic. That is, until you showed up.
Scientist
But we never spoke that day, did we?
Philosopher
No. You were just too intimidating and bothersome, I must say.
Scientist
Oh, that’s not it. I believe Jean commanded all of your attention.
Philosopher
Then again two years later in June. We were vacationing in South Africa, and I recognized you when I heard that gravispectro-thingy.
Scientist
You were enough of a gentleman to introduce yourself.
Philosopher
Oh, stop flattering yourself. My curiosity got the better of me. What were the chances of running into each other like that again?
Scientist
Given the recent findings, one hundred percent. However, the coincidence is certainly remarkable. And who would’ve thought that you’d end up moving to New York City after all, just blocks away from the University?
Philosopher
I couldn’t resist the teaching position. NYCU is the first to offer a course that’s based entirely on my thesis, “The impact of sitcoms on globalization.”
Scientist
I guess, my friend, it was meant to be.
