The Mystery of Existence | Episode 913 | Closer To Truth

Video Statistics and Information

Video

Captions Word Cloud

Reddit Comments

Captions

>WHAT IS THE BIGGEST OF ALL QUESTIONS? DOES GOD EXIST? HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BEGIN? WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS? IS THERE LIFE AFTER DEATH? BIG QUESTIONS, SURELY, BUT NONE OF THEM THE BIGGEST. HERE'S THE BIGGEST: WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL? ROLL EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS INTO ONE WORD, AND CALL IT ALL, SOMETHING. WHY IS THERE SOMETHING, RATHER THAN NOTHING? THIS QUESTION NEVER STOPS HAUNTING ME. THIS IS THE MYSTERY OF EXISTENCE. I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN, AND CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY TO SOLVE THIS MYSTERY; SOLVE -- NO, NOT REALLY. I'M NOT DELUDED. I'M JUST OBSESSED. WHY IS THERE SOMETHING, RATHER THAN NOTHING? THIS IS NO ORDINARY QUESTION. TRUST ME. THE MORE YOU PONDER THIS, THE MORE WOBBLY YOU FEEL. I KNOW. I TEETER. SO, TO STEADY MYSELF, I START WITH A PHYSICIST WHO EXPLORES RADICAL QUESTIONS, BUT WHO CENTERS HIS EXPLORATIONS IN SCIENCE. MICHIO KAKU. MICHIO, THROUGHOUT MY LIFE, I HAVE BEEN OBSESSED WITH THE QUESTION: WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING, WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL? ANY LAWS OF PHYSICS, ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. IN FACT, WELL KNOWN PHILOSOPHERS SAID, IF THIS QUESTION DOESN'T TOTALLY DRIVE YOU NUTS, YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. >>WELL, I, AS A PHYSICIST, TRY TO FIND MEANING, ULTIMATELY, THROUGH EQUATIONS, OBSERVATIONS, AND THEN, AFTER THE OBSERVATIONS AND EQUATIONS ARE DONE, THEN WE CAN LOOK BACK AND SEE, WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH ALL THIS? AND WHAT WE SEE IS A PATTERN. WE SEE A PATTERN THAT THE LAWS OF PHYSICS SEEM SO STRANGE AND DISCONNECTED AND NUTTY, IN FACT, BUT THEY ARE CONVERGING -- CONVERGING TO A HARMONIOUS END. SO THE TREND OF UNIFICATION, THE TREND OF HARMONY, IS SOMETHING YOU SEE THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE PROCESS. THEN YOU ASK THE QUESTION, WELL, WHAT'S BEYOND THAT? IS THERE AN EQUATION, LIKE E=MC?, THAT WILL GIVE US THE WHOLE SHOOTING MATCH? AND I TEND TO BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS YES, THAT THERE IS AN EQUATION, PERHAPS NO MORE THAN HALF AN INCH LONG, WHICH WILL GIVE US THE ENTIRE THEORY OF CREATION ITSELF. YOU REALIZE THAT, ON A SHEET OF PAPER THIS BIG, WE CAN ALREADY WRITE DOWN ALL THE KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS, EXTENDING FROM THE HEART OF AN ATOM ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE NATURE OF THE BIG BANG AND THE GALAXIES THEMSELVES. THEN, THE QUESTION IS, WELL, WHERE DID THAT SHEET OF PAPER COME FROM? WHERE DID THAT ONE INCH EQUATION COME FROM? WHEN EINSTEIN WOULD WORK, HE WOULD SAY TO HIMSELF, IN THE MORNING -- AND HE WROTE ABOUT THIS IN HIS MEMOIRS -- IF I'M GOD, TODAY, HOW WOULD I CREATE A UNIVERSE? WHAT WOULD I START WITH? WHAT PRINCIPLES WOULD I NEED? AND, YOU CAN SAY TO YOURSELF, WELL, FIRST, I NEED AN ARENA. FIRST, I NEED A PLACE FOR THINGS TO HAPPEN. THEN, I NEED STUFF TO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN. SO WHEN YOU START WITH AN ARENA, IMMEDIATELY, YOU'RE LED TO AN IDEA THAT THE MINIMAL UNIVERSE YOU CAN CREATE IS A UNIVERSE WITH SOME KIND OF SPACE AND TIME FOR STUFF TO HAPPEN. THEN, YOU HAVE TO HAVE STUFF HAPPENING. BUT IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE THIS BIZARRE QUANTUM THEORY, BUT IT DOES HAVE TO BE THIS BIZARRE QUANTUM THEORY. YOU SEE, THE SIMPLEST STUFF THAT YOU COULD HAVE IS NEWTONIAN, THINGS GOING AROUND OTHER THINGS, EARTH GOING AROUND STARS. THAT'S THE SIMPLEST STUFF YOU CAN HAVE. BUT, IT'S UNSTABLE. IF I HAVE TWO SOLAR SYSTEMS COLLIDE, WHAT HAPPENS? I GET MUSH. IF I HAVE SOLAR SYSTEMS BUMPING INTO EACH OTHER, I HAVE PLANETS BEING FLUNG OUT, STARS COLLIDING WITH STARS; IT'S A MESS. SO THEREFORE, ATOMS, MADE OUT OF GRAVITY, ARE NOT STABLE. THEREFORE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A GLUE THAT CAN HOLD STUFF TOGETHER. THINGS HAVE TO BE IN MORE PLACES AT THE SAME TIME IN ORDER TO MAKE TWO THINGS STICK. THAT'S WHERE THE QUANTUM THEORY COMES IN. >SO, YOU HAVE BOTH OF THESE MAJOR WAYS OF THINKING. YOU HAVE THE ARENA, SPACE IN TIME IN WHICH THINGS HAPPEN, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE KINDS OF LAWS WHICH CREATE THE MATTER, THE STUFF OR THE EVENTS, TO HAPPEN WITHIN THAT ARENA. AND THAT ALL COHERENTLY MAKES SENSE. BUT THE QUESTION PUSHES US BACK ONE STEP FURTHER. WHERE DID THOSE LAWS COME FROM? HOW DO YOU GET THEM NOW, SO BEAUTIFULLY, THAT WORK TOGETHER? >>THE ANSWER, I THINK, IS MATHEMATICAL SELF-CONSISTENCY. WHEN YOU START TO CREATE A THEORY OF AN ARENA, AND A THEORY OF STUFF THAT STICKS TOGETHER, ALMOST IMMEDIATELY, YOU FIND THE MATHEMATICS IS UNSTABLE. THINGS FALL APART. THINGS DON'T STICK TOGETHER. NEWTONIAN ATOMS DON'T STICK TOGETHER. WHEN YOU START TO PUT IN CONSISTENCY, MATHEMATICAL CONSISTENCY, THEN YOU REALIZE, IT COULD BE UNIQUE. THERE COULD BE ONLY ONE THEORY WHERE STUFF STICKS TOGETHER AND IS STABLE, AND EXISTS IN AN ARENA. SO, IN SOME SENSE, GOD IS A MATHEMATICIAN; GOD IS A GEOMETER, CREATING ALL THE UNIVERSES WHICH ARE MATHEMATICALLY SELF-CONSISTENT. AND ONCE YOU HAVE AN ARENA, AND ONCE YOU HAVE STUFF THAT'S STABLE, IT COULD BE UNIQUE. THERE COULD BE ONLY ONE THEORY OF STUFF IN AN ARENA. >WHEN YOU'RE USING THE TERM, GOD, YOU'RE USING THE TERM IN EINSTEIN'S SENSE, IN THE SENSE OF UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF THE UNIVERSE, AS OPPOSED TO A RELIGIOUS SENSE OF A PERSONAL GOD, I ASSUME. >>THAT'S RIGHT. THE GOD OF SPINOZA IS WHAT EINSTEIN BELIEVED IN. HE CALLED HIM THE OLD MAN, THAT IS, THE LAW GIVER THAT EXISTED, IN SOME SENSE, BEFORE THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED. >YEAH, THE OLD ONE, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >>THE OLD ONE, RIGHT. AND, THE OLD ONE WAS NOT A PERSON, AS MUCH AS THIS UBIQUITOUS PRINCIPLE OF HARMONY, OF ORDER, OF CONSISTENCY. >>RIGHT, AND SO, MATHEMATICAL CONSISTENCY IS SO STRINGENT -- SO STRINGENT THAT EINSTEIN SAID, MAYBE GOD DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE. HE ASKED HIMSELF THE KEY QUESTION: DID GOD HAVE A CHOICE IN MAKING THE UNIVERSE? AND HE REALIZED THAT, MAYBE, THE UNIVERSE WAS UNIQUE; IT HAD TO BE THE WAY IT IS, BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER POSSIBILITY. >BUT MICHIO, EVEN IF THERE COULD BE ONLY ONE SELF-CONSISTENT AND STABLE UNIVERSE, WHICH MANY PHYSICISTS NOW RELUCTANTLY REJECT, WHY SHOULD THAT UNIVERSE EXIST RATHER THAN NO UNIVERSE AT ALL? GRANTED, SELF-CONSISTENCY AND STABILITY ARE NEEDED FOR THE UNIVERSE TO EXIST, BUT DO THESE QUALITIES HAVE ORIGINATING, CREATING POWER, TO CAUSE THE UNIVERSE TO EXIST? BUT MAYBE, THE UNIVERSE DOESN'T NEED A CAUSE. WITHOUT INVOKING ANYTHING SUPERNATURAL, NO GODS ALLOWED, COULD A UNIVERSE EMERGE FROM NOTHING? SCIENTISTS SAY, YES, AND THEY START WITH THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. BUT THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE NOT 'NOTHING'. MY 'NOTHING', THANK YOU, IS MORE 'NOTHING' THAN THEIR 'NOTHING'. TO CONTINUE WITH MY 'NOTHING', I TURN TO PHILOSOPHY. I GO TO OXFORD, TO MEET THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK, WHY THERE IS SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING , BEDE RUNDLE. >>WHEN COSMOLOGISTS TALK ABOUT THE BEGINNING TO THE UNIVERSE, STEMMING, ORIGINATING FROM NOTHING, THEY NEARLY ALWAYS, IF NOT ALWAYS, THINK OF NOTHING IN THE NON-LITERAL SENSE, WHERE IT MEANS EMPTY SPACE. AND SO - >SO THEIR COSMOLOGIST NOTHING IS FILLED WITH STUFF. >>WELL, THAT'S RIGHT. >ALL THIS QUANTUM FOAM, AND THINGS GOING ON. SO, THE NOTHING OF THE COSMOLOGIST IS, TO ME, NOT NOTHING. >>THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S SEETHING WITH ACTIVITY. >SEETHING, RIGHT. >>IF THERE'S A PRESUPPOSITION THAT YOU HAVE AT LEAST A SPACE -- EVEN IF IT'S AN EMPTY SPACE, THEN THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR. YOU CAN SAY THINGS LIKE, OH, NOTHING MIGHT HAVE EXISTED. BUT, IF YOU SAY THAT, YOU ARE IN EFFECT SAYING, WELL, THIS MIGHT NOT HAVE EXISTED, THIS MIGHT NOT HAVE EXISTED, AND SO ON; AND YOU DON'T NEED THAT. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? LOOK, NOT, THERE'S A THING CALLED 'NOTHING' THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE OF SOMETHING. HERE, WE HAVE A PROBLEM OF THINKING OF NOTHING AS SORT OF BOUNDING THE UNIVERSE IN ANY SENSE. AND MY FEELING IS THAT, PEOPLE WHO TALK CONFIDENTLY ABOUT NOTHING DO SO BECAUSE OF THE ANALOGY WITH AN EMPTY SPACE. SO, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CUPBOARD. RIGHT -- MAKES PERFECTLY GOOD SENSE, BUT THERE'S STILL A CUPBOARD. SO, IF THAT'S OUR MODEL, THEN WE IMAGINE GETTING RID OF THE CUPBOARD, AND ANY OTHER CONTAINER, AND HERE, WE HAVE JUST EMPTY SPACE. AS I SAY, EMPTY SPACE IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. >NOT GOOD ENOUGH. >>AND, IT'S VERY HARD TO GIVE ANY SUBSTANCE TO THE NOTION OF THERE BEING NOTHING THAT WILL GIVE YOU A GENUINE ALTERNATIVE TO OUR INITIAL QUEST. >BUT THEN, TAKE AWAY ALL THE SPACE AND TIME, AND SO THAT REALLY IS NOTHING ; THERE'S NO SPACE. >>WELL - >YOU JUST HAVE TO MAKE THE STEP THAT SAYS, OKAY, THAT ONE MICRO-MICRO, VERY HOT ESSENCE THAT BEGAN THE BIG BANG NEVER CAME, NEVER HAPPENED. AND SO, THEN, YOU REALLY DO HAVE NOTHING, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE SPACE. >>OR TIME. >OR TIME. >>THAT'S RIGHT, YEAH. BUT THEN, CAN YOU SAY THAT YOU HAVE NOTHING, IN THE SENSE THAT THAT'S AN ACTUAL STATE OF AFFAIRS THAT OBTAINED, AT THIS POINT. AND THAT'S THE THING THAT I HAVE MOST TROUBLE WITH MAKING SENSE, BECAUSE, LOOK - >NOTHING MAKES SENSE. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. >>NOW, THAT'S A GOOD WAY OF SHOWING THE SLIPPERY CHARACTERS OF THE WORLD. >RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. >>YOU JUST SAY, THINGS GOING OUT OF EXISTENCE, ONE BY ONE, JUST LIKE ALL THE STARS GOING OUT, LIKE LIGHTS. YOU IMAGINE THEM, YEAH. AND THEN, WE'RE LEFT WITH NOTHING. THAT'S JUST THE CULMINATION OF THIS. BUT THEN, YOU NOTICE, IF A PERSON THINKS IN THOSE TERMS, YOU COULD, BY REVERSING THE PROCESS, REPOPULATE THE WORLD. >YES. >>AND THAT'S BECAUSE, AS I SAY, HE'S LEFT WITH A SETTING, A FRAMEWORK INTO WHICH THINGS COME AND GO. WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS, WE ONLY THINK WE CAN MAKE SENSE OF THE EMPTY SPACE. BUT THAT'S, UNFORTUNATELY, NOT NOTHING. AND, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS THERE BEING NOTHING. >TO BEDE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THERE TO HAVE BEEN NOTHING. THERE MUST ALWAYS HAVE BEEN SOMETHING OR OTHER. I DO NOT AGREE. MY INTUITION CRIES OUT THAT THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NOTHING, THAT NOTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN EASIER, SIMPLER, THAN ANYTHING. BUT, NOTHING DOES NOT OBTAIN. WHY? I GO TO A PHILOSOPHER WHO, FOR HIS ENTIRE CAREER, HAS WRESTLED WITH, WELL, NOTHING. THE CO-EDITOR OF THE BOOK, THE MYSTERY OF EXISTENCE: WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL, JOHN LESLIE. JOHN, THE QUESTION, WHY IS THERE SOMETHING, RATHER THAN NOTHING? ISN'T THIS, AT THE END OF EVERYTHING, THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THAT HUMAN BEINGS CAN ASK? HOWEVER FAR BACK YOU WANT TO GO IN THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE TO THE COSMIC FOAM ERUPTING IN UNIVERSES, THAT SOMETHING COMES OUT OF THAT NOTHING -- WELL, THAT'S NOT A NOTHING. THAT COSMIC FOAM HAS LAWS, IT HAS PARTICLES, ANTI-PARTICLES, FORCES, ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF THINGS IN THAT KIND OF NOTHING; YOU HAVE TO ASK WHY THERE WAS THAT SOMETHING. SO, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE STILL HAVE THAT QUESTION: WHY IS THERE SOMETHING EXISTING, RATHER THAN NOTHING? >>I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, QUANTUM PHYSICS TELLS US THAT IT'S LIKELY THAT A BLANK WOULD FLUCTUATE INTO A REAL WORLD, AND THAT'S YOUR FINAL ANSWER BECAUSE THE QUESTION WOULD BE: WHY DOES THIS QUANTUM PHYSICS APPLY TO REALITY? BECAUSE, THE BASIC QUESTION IS: WHY WOULD THAT SET OF QUANTUM-PHYSICAL LAWS BE RIGHT? >IT WOULD SEEM THAT NOTHING IS SIMPLER, AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE, RATHER THAN SOMETHING. SOMETHING, YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN IN DIFFERENT WAYS. NOTHING, IN ESSENCE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN. >>I THINK THAT'S CORRECT, BUT EVEN IN A BLANK, THERE WOULD BE ALL SORTS OF FACTS. SO, IF YOU TRY TO IMAGINE, OUT OF EXISTENCE, ALL ACTUAL THINGS, AND SAY, THAT'S NOTHING, IN A SENSE THAT'S RIGHT; BUT ALSO, YOU'VE OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT THERE'S AN INFINITE RICHNESS OF TRUTHS ABOUT POSSIBILITIES WHICH IS BOUND TO EXIST, EVEN IF NO ACTUAL THINGS EXIST. >SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE PURELY NOTHING, BECAUSE YOU ALWAYS HAVE POSSIBILITIES? >>YOU ALWAYS HAVE POSSIBILITIES. YOU HAVE FACTS ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN POSSIBILITIES, AND YOU HAVE THE FACT THAT CERTAIN POSSIBILITIES ARE GOOD AND OTHER POSSIBILITIES ARE BAD. THESE ARE FACTS WHICH YOU CAN'T GET AWAY FROM. >SO NOW, IN OUR NOTHING, WHICH MAYBE NAïVELY, I THOUGHT WAS VERY SIMPLE, WE NOW HAVE TRUTHS THAT EXIST -- MATHEMATICAL TRUTHS, LOGICAL TRUTHS -- AND NOW, AN INFINITE SERIES OF POSSIBILITIES WHICH, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT ACTUALIZED, THE POSSIBILITIES EXIST. SO MY 'NOTHING' SUDDENLY BECOMES VERY RICH. >>IT BECOMES VERY RICH AND IT BECOMES EVEN RICHER IF YOU ACCEPT THE VIEW WHICH HAS BEEN PRESSED BY ONE OR TWO PHILOSOPHERS THAT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOMETHING BEING MERELY POSSIBLE AND SOMETHING BEING ACTUAL IS JUST LIKE THE DISTINCTION OF BEING OVER THERE AND BEING HERE, THAT ALL THE POSSIBILITIES ARE ACTUAL SOMEWHERE. >THAT'S SAID AS METAPHOR OR AS JOKE? >>NO. SOME PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN THAT COMPLETELY SERIOUSLY. THEY'VE SAID, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ALL THE GREEK GODS, SO LONG AS THEY DON'T COMMIT CONTRADICTIONS IN THEIR EXISTENCE, THEY ARE SOMEWHERE. THIS HAS BEEN HELD. IT'S A BIT OF AN ODD VIEW. >I KNOW JOHN, AND HE HAS ODD VIEWS OF HIS OWN. I SAY THAT WITH RESPECT AND AWE. JOHN FAMOUSLY CLAIMS THAT VALUE -- INTRINSIC ETHICAL VALUE -- IS THE FOUNDATION OF EXISTENCE. CAN THIS MAKE SENSE? >>I THINK YOU CAN'T HAVE INTRINSIC VALUE ACTUALLY BROUGHT INTO THE WORLD. I THINK YOU CAN HAVE FACTS ABOUT INTRINSIC VALUE, WHICH WOULD BE THERE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONSCIOUSNESS. FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK IF YOU HAD A COMPLETE BLANK, NOTHING AT ALL EXISTING, NO CONSCIOUSNESS, THEN IT WOULD BE TRUE, IN THAT BLANK, THAT IT WAS A VERY FORTUNATE THING THAT A WORLD, TERRIBLE WORLD OF SUFFERING, IN WHICH ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY WAS IN AGONIZING PAIN ALL THE TIME, WASN'T IN EXISTENCE. NOW, THAT FACT WOULD BE A FACT ABOUT INTRINSIC VALUE; THAT IS TO SAY THAT A WORLD OF THIS SORT WOULD HAVE TERRIBLE NEGATIVE VALUE. AND THAT SORT OF FACT DOESN'T DEPEND ON ANYONE'S CONSCIOUSNESS. >SURE. BUT, THE TYPICAL SCIENCE APPROACH TODAY IS THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF REALITY HAS NO -- IS NEUTRAL ON VALUE. IT'S NOT POSITIVE. IT'S NOT NEGATIVE. IT JUST IS, AND IT'S HUMAN BEINGS WHO IMPOSE THEIR OWN SENSE OF WHAT VALUE IS, IS NOTHING INTRINSIC. THAT'S RIDICULOUS. >>WELL, I THINK THAT'S A WRONG VIEW. I THINK IT'S A PITIABLE VIEW. BUT I HAVE TO BEAR IN MIND THAT SOME OF MY FRIENDS ACCEPT THIS. BUT I THINK THEY JUST HAVEN'T THOUGHT THINGS OUT PROPERLY. ARE THEY REALLY THINKING THAT IT WOULDN'T BE TRUE UNTIL WE'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT, THAT ANIMALS SUFFERING IN FOREST FIRES BEFORE THE EVOLUTION OF HUMAN BEINGS WERE HAVING A TERRIBLE TIME, THAT THEIR LIVES COULD, AT THOSE MOMENTS, AT ANY RATE, HAVE NEGATIVE INTRINSIC VALUE? BUT THAT -- THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STRUCTURE OF REALITY. THAT'S JUST THE FORTUNATE OR UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT BEINGS ARE IN. NOTHING FOLLOWS FROM IT IN TERMS OF WHAT REALITY IS ALL ABOUT. >OKAY. I THINK IN ONE WAY THAT'S QUITE RIGHT. IT COULD WELL BE THAT REALITY WAS A PRODUCT OF CHANCE, THAT THE UNIVERSE JUST HAPPENS TO EXIST, THAT THE UNIVERSE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PRODUCING VALUES. THAT'S ONE THING. I TEND TO THINK THAT, IF THERE ARE DECENT PEOPLE, THEN, IN THEIR HEART OF HEARTS, THEY WILL THINK THAT IT REALLY WAS UNFORTUNATE IN ITSELF THAT THE ANIMALS WERE SUFFERING IN THE FOREST FIRES. >I THINK THEY WOULD SAY THAT. BUT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE? >>AT THE END OF THE DAY, I BELIEVES SOME THINGS ARE BETTER THAN OTHER THINGS. I BELIEVE, ALSO, THAT IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE UNIVERSE EXISTS, YOU OUGHT TO TAKE SERIOUSLY PLATO'S NOTION THAT IT EXISTS BECAUSE IT'S BETTER THAT IT EXISTS THAN NOT, THAT THERE WAS AN ETHICAL REQUIREMENT THAT A GOOD WORLD EXISTS, AND THAT OUR WORLD, FOR ALL ITS BAD SIDES, IS SOMETHING GOOD. THE SUPREME GOOD WOULD ITSELF BE THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING WHICH WAS INFINITELY WIDE RANGING IN ITS CONSCIOUSNESS, WHICH WOULD KNOW, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE STRUCTURE OF OUR WORLD. >BUT IN THAT COSMOLOGY, IF YOU WILL, IS: WHICH IS THE MORE FUNDAMENTAL -- THE PURE CONSCIOUSNESS OR THE, IN YOUR TERM, ETHICAL REQUIREMENT OF THE SUPREME GOOD? >>NEITHER COMES FIRST, BECAUSE IT'S LIKE THIS, THAT WHAT'S ETHICALLY REQUIRED IS A GOOD SITUATION, AND THE GOOD SITUATION IS A SITUATION IN WHICH THERE'S GOING TO BE CONSCIOUSNESS, IF YOU TAKE MY POINT THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE ONLY THING WHICH, IN THE END, HAS ANY VALUE, EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE. SO, IT'S THE FACT THAT THERE'S THIS POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A GOOD SITUATION OF CONSCIOUSNESS, WHICH LEADS TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT SHOULD ACTUALLY EXIST, AND THE REQUIREMENT JUST WOULDN'T BE THERE UNLESS -- UNLESS IT WERE TRUE THAT THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF THE GOOD OF THE CONSCIOUSNESS EXISTING. >TO JOHN, THE REASON THERE IS SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING IS THAT IT IS GOOD SOMETHING EXISTS. THAT'S CLEVER, I THINK. BUT SORRY, JOHN, THAT'S ALSO ABSURD. HOW COULD VALUE AND ETHICAL REQUIREMENT BE A CREATING FORCE WHICH ENGENDERS SOMETHING FROM NOTHING? THEN, CALMLY, I FOLLOW JOHN'S ARGUMENT, THAT EVEN IF THERE WERE NOTHING, THERE WOULD ALWAYS BE POSSIBILITIES, TRUTHS OF LOGIC, MATHEMATICS AND VALUE. I WAVER. JOHN'S INSIGHT IS NOT ABSURD. BUT, NO -- I SNAP BACK. VALUE JUST CANNOT CAUSE EXISTENCE. I RECALL WHAT RICHARD SWINBURNE, THE EMINENT PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION, TOLD ME. >>I THINK A LOT OF PHILOSOPHERS, PARTICULAR A NUMBER OF RECENT PHILOSOPHERS HAVE GIVEN A STATUS TO THESE THINGS THAT THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE, AS IT WERE. PHILOSOPHERS HAVE SAID, WELL, AS WELL AS OUR WORLD, THERE'S REALLY A POSSIBLE WORLD WHICH IS ALMOST A REAL WORLD, SOMEWHERE ELSE, IN WHICH THINGS HAPPEN. NOT SO. PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC ARE, IN MY VIEW, RULES FOR WHICH HUMAN SENTENCES MAKE SENSE. THEY ARE NOT ETERNAL TRUTHS, AND THEREFORE, TALK OF POSSIBLE WORLDS IS JUST TALK ABOUT WHICH COMBINATIONS OF SENTENCES ARE CONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER. SO, THEY'RE ALL TRUTHS ABOUT HUMAN LANGUAGE THAT DON'T EXIST APART FROM HUMANS. >AS FOR NOTHING, SOME CLAIM THAT THE IDEA ITSELF IS NOT LEGITIMATE, THAT EVEN TO ASK THE QUESTION IS ALREADY A MISTAKE. AND ALTHOUGH I SENSE I WILL REJECT THIS CONCLUSION, I KNOW I MUST CONSIDER THE ARGUMENTS. SO, I GOT TO BERKELEY, TO MEET HUBERT DREYFUS, A SCHOLAR OF THE GERMAN PHILOSOPHER, MARTIN HEIDEGGER. BERT, IF WE HAD TO COME UP WITH THE ULTIMATE QUESTION, IT'S THAT FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT: WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL? WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING? >>HEIDEGGER THOUGHT THAT WAS THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION, TOO, BUT HE THOUGHT THAT, THAT WAY OF PUTTING THE QUESTION WAS WRONG. HEIDEGGER'S GOT A WHOLE BOOK ABOUT THE PRINCIPLE OF SUFFICIENT REASON, WHICH IS ABOUT WHY THERE MUST BE A REASON WHY THERE'S SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING. AND HE SAYS, IT'S PART OF METAPHYSICS. IT'S A WRONG-HEADED QUESTION. YOU CAN'T ASK THAT QUESTION, EXPECTING A KIND OF RATIONAL ANSWER TO IT. WHAT HEIDEGGER'S THINKING IS THAT WE'RE ALWAYS ALREADY IN IT, THE MEANING, THE UNIVERSE, THE WORLD, THINGS THAT ARE. AND, IT'S ONLY FROM WITHIN IT THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH IT AND SO FORTH; INSTEAD OF GETTING AN ANSWER, YOU SORT OF SWITCH THE POSITION, AND INSTEAD OF LOOKING LIKE A PHILOSOPHER AND A METAPHYSICIAN, STANDING OUTSIDE AND LOOKING AT BEING, AND SAYING, WELL, WHY IS THERE BEING RATHER THAN NOTHING, YOU SEE THAT YOU COULD NEVER BE IN THAT POSITION. AND THEN, YOU CAN HAVE A KIND OF MYSTICAL AWE IN THERE BEING SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING, A FEELING SOMEHOW ABOUT IT, THAT HEIDEGGER SEEMS TO HAVE. BUT YOU CAN'T ASK THIS KIND OF TRADITIONAL PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION. >BECAUSE, I FEEL -- I FEEL THAT EMOTION ABOUT THAT QUESTION. >>WELL, AND HEIDEGGER DOES, TOO. HE THINKS THAT THAT'S - >SO, THAT'S LEGITIMATE. >>POETS AND PAINTERS SENSE THIS QUESTION. >AND, THE CORE REASON WE CAN'T MAKE PROGRESS IS BECAUSE WE'RE IN IT AND WE CAN'T GET OUT OF IT, TO LOOK AT IT AS A THIRD PERSON? >THAT'S RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE THE PHILOSOPHICAL MISTAKE; PHILOSOPHERS HAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT THEY COULD BE, AS PLATO PUT IT, FRIENDS OF GOD, STANDING ON THE OUTSIDE, LOOKING IN, THAT IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, THEN YOU HAVE HEIDEGGER. >WHY IS THERE SOMETHING, RATHER THAN NOTHING? THE ANSWER MUST BE ON THIS LIST. ONE -- A 'NOTHING' IS ABSURD. TWO -- NO EXPLANATION IS NEEDED. THREE -- CHANCE. FOUR -- VALUE OR PERFECTION IS ULTIMATE. FIVE -- MIND OR CONSCIOUSNESS IS ULTIMATE. I, MYSELF, REJECT ONE AND TWO. NOTHING IS NOT ABSURD, AND AN EXPLANATION IS NEEDED. CHANCE, THREE, CAN EXPLAIN WHY WE ARE HERE, BUT NOT WHY THERE IS ANYTHING AT ALL. VALUE OR PERFECTION, FOUR, IS INTRIGUING, BUT WHERE, PRAY TELL, IS ITS CREATING POWER? AS FOR MIND, OR CONSCIOUSNESS, FIVE, WHY SHOULD AN ETHEREAL GOD, OR COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS, HAVE SELF-EXISTENCE? HERE'S MY TAKE: BECAUSE SOMETHING DOES EXIST, THERE MUST BE SOMETHING THAT IS SELF-EXISTING, IN THAT ITS ESSENCE IS ITS EXISTENCE. THIS HAS BEEN A TRADITIONAL DESCRIPTION OF GOD. BUT IT COULD ALSO APPLY TO ULTIMATE LAWS OF PHYSICS, OR TO CONSCIOUSNESS. IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO KNOW THIS SELF-EXISTING SUBSTANCE, AS IT REALLY IS, OUR ASTONISHMENT, I SUSPECT, WOULD NOT BE THAT IT IS SELF-EXISTING, BUT RATHER, THAT IT COULD GENERATE STUFF -- US -- THAT IS NOT SELF-EXISTING. OH, THAT BOOK ON WHY ANYTHING AT ALL?: THE MYSTERY OF EXISTENCE, WHICH JOHN LESLIE IS CO-EDITOR? -- I AM THE OTHER CO-EDITOR, WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM ANY CLOSER TO TRUTH.

Info

Channel: Closer To Truth

Views: 358,144

Rating: undefined out of 5

Keywords: closer to truth, robert lawrence kuhn, Michio Kaku, Bede Rundle, John Leslie, Richard Swinburne, Hubert Dreyfus, Mystery of Existence, closer to truth full episodes, Why do we exist, Why is there anything, why is there something instead of nothing, existence, philosophy existence, Materialism, Idealism, ontology, scholasticism, philosophy, lifes big questions

Id: YxePKHHgyJw

Channel Id: undefined

Length: 26min 46sec (1606 seconds)

Published: Thu Sep 03 2020