I KNOW WHO I AM, WHERE
I AM, WHAT I AM DOING. I LOOK AROUND AND SEE A WORLD. BUT THEN I STOP. WHAT'S "A WORLD"? WHY IS IT HERE? WHAT WE SO OBVIOUSLY SEE... IS NOT WHAT IT
SO OBVIOUSLY SEEMS. DIG DOWN - WAY DOWN. DIG AROUND - WAY AROUND. WHAT'S TO SEE? WHAT'S TO KNOW? HOW TO FIND "ULTIMATE REALITY?" DEEP EXPLANATIONS OF "OUR WORLD"
VARY GREATLY - FROM HARDCORE PHYSICALISM TO TRUE-BELIEVER
THEISM TO FANTASTIC METAPHYSICS. WHAT IS ULTIMATE REALITY? I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND
CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY TO FIND OUT. I SEEK BEDROCK REALITY
- WHAT'S FUNDAMENTAL? WHAT ARE THE MOST
GENERAL FEATURES OF THE WORLD? WHAT'S THE
ESSENCE OF ALL-THAT-IS? I'M OF TWO MINDS HERE -
TWO WAYS OF THINKING - SCIENTIFIC AND PHILOSOPHICAL. I EXPLORE BOTH -
OSCILLATE BETWEEN THEM, TRY TO KEEP BALANCE. PHILOSOPHY COMES FIRST,
ORGANIZES THE ISSUES, MAPS THE TERRAIN. I GO TO ENGLAND, TO THE
UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM, I VISIT YUJIN NAGASAWA -
A PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION, BUT NO TRADITIONAL BELIEVER. FOR YUJIN, NO
QUESTION IS TOO BIG. YUJIN, WHAT ARE THE THINGS
THAT EXIST THAT WE KNOW WE'RE ABSOLUTELY SURE OF? WHAT'S BEDROCK? WHAT IS ULTIMATE REALITY? ACTUALLY THAT'S THE QUESTION
THAT PHILOSOPHERS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR
THOUSANDS OF YEARS. THAT'S NOT A GOOD SIGN. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, PHYSICALISTS,
THEY CLAIM THAT EVERYTHING IS ULTIMATELY PHYSICAL. SO THEY THINK THAT IF YOU
LOOK AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL OF REALITY YOU CAN FIND
ONLY PHYSICAL OBJECTS AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES. SO THEREFORE WE CAN
SAY THAT EVERYTHING IS ULTIMATELY PHYSICAL. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF OBJECTS
LIKE TABLES AND CHAIRS AND BOOKS AND SO ON. AND ALSO THERE IS CONSCIOUSNESS,
BUT EVEN CONSCIOUSNESS IS ULTIMATELY PHYSICAL. BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE
BOTTOM LEVEL OF REALITY YOU CAN ONLY FIND PHYSICAL ENTITIES. AND DUALISTS THINK THAT
THERE IS SOMETHING SPECIAL ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS OR
MENTAL PROPERTIES. SO THEY THINK THAT IF YOU LOOK
AT THE BOTTOM LEVEL OF REALITY YOU CAN FIND BOTH PHYSICAL
ENTITIES AND MENTAL ENTITIES, OR NON-PHYSICAL ENTITIES. SO IF YOU ARE A DUALIST AND
YOU HAVE MENTAL PROPERTIES BEING SPECIAL AND INDEPENDENT AND
IRREDUCIBLE THAT AT LEAST WOULD GIVE YOU SOME SPACE FOR THE
POTENTIAL OF A GOD TO EXIST BECAUSE A GOD IS DISEMBODIED
MENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS. RIGHT, SO, THEISTS TEND TO
SAY THAT GOD IS INCORPOREAL AND SPIRITUAL AND NON-PHYSICAL, SO
IF DUALISM IS TRUE THEN POSSIBLY THEISM IS TRUE AND GOD IS A
KNOWN NON-PHYSICAL MENTAL BEING. BUT IF PHYSICALISM IS TRUE THEN
GOD CERTAINLY IN A TRADITIONAL SENSE IS IMPOSSIBLE. THAT IS CORRECT. BUT THE WORRY THAT I HAVE IS
THAT MAYBE THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE BOTTOM
LEVEL OF REALITY. MAYBE REALITY IS
INFINITELY REDUCIBLE. PERHAPS WE CAN ANALYZE YOUR
CONSCIOUSNESS AND WE CAN REDUCE YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS INTO
PROTO-CONSCIOUS PROPERTIES. BUT MAYBE PROTO-CONSCIOUS
PROPERTIES ARE REDUCED TO FURTHER PROTOCONSCIOUS
PROPERTIES AND SO ON. MAYBE WE NEVER REACH THE BOTTOM
OF LEVEL OF REALITY AND THAT COULD BE REALLY DEVASTATING. I THINK IT'S A GENUINE
POSSIBILITY, THERE IS NOTHING LOGICALLY CONTRADICTORY ABOUT
THINKING THAT EVERYTHING IS INFINITELY DE-COMPOSABLE. I AGREE THERE IS NOTHING
LOGICALLY CONTRADICTORY IN IT BUT IT JUST SOUNDS
SO WILDLY IMPLAUSIBLE. BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN
PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS, AT THE SO CALLED PLANCK LENGTH, AT THAT
LEVEL OUR SENSE OF SPACE AND TIME FALL APART. SO IT SEEMS TO BE
SOME BOTTOM LEVEL. IF YOU FORMULATE THIS PROBLEM
IN TERMS OF DE-COMPOSITION THAT MIGHT BE TRUE BUT WE CAN RUN
A SIMILAR PROBLEM IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION OR CAUSATION. SO, MAYBE THERE IS NO
INFINITE LEVEL OF DE-COMPOSITION BUT THERE MIGHT BE AN INFINITE
LEVEL, INFINITE CONTINUITY OF EXPLANATION OR CAUSATION. SO WHAT WOULD BE THE
IMPLICATIONS OF THAT? MY SUGGESTION IS THAT PERHAPS WE
SHOULDN'T TRY TO FIND A BOTTOM LEVEL OF REALITY. MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST LOOK
AT THE TOP LEVEL OF REALITY. MAYBE THE WHOLE IS MORE
FUNDAMENTAL THAN ITS COMPONENTS. THAT MEANS THAT THE UNIVERSE AS
A WHOLE IS MOST FUNDAMENTAL AND WE ARE JUST DERIVATIVES OF THE
WHOLE UNIVERSE WHICH IS MOST FUNDAMENTAL AND
PRIOR TO OUR EXISTENCE. AND THIS IS A VERY STRANGE
VIEW BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN CALL THIS VIEW
A FORM OF PHYSICALISM OR DUALISM OR IDEALISM. YOU MIGHT THINK THAT THIS IS A
FORM OF PHYSICALISM BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE IS WHAT EXISTS AND
THE UNIVERSE CONTAINS A LOT OF PHYSICAL OBJECTS AND PROPERTIES. BUT THAT'S EXACTLY THE WRONG WAY
OF LOOKING AT A PROBLEM BECAUSE HERE WE HAVE AGREED
THAT THE UNIVERSE IS MOST FUNDAMENTAL, RIGHT? SO IF WE WANT TO DETERMINE
THE ULTIMATE NATURE OF REALITY WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE
NATURE OF THE WHOLE RATHER THAN ITS COMPONENTS. SO, WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE
UNIVERSE IS ULTIMATELY PHYSICAL BECAUSE IT CONTAINS A LOT
OF PHYSICAL ENTITIES. YOU CANNOT DO THAT. INFINITE LEVELS
OF DECOMPOSITION? INFINITE CONTINUITY OF
EXPLANATION OR CAUSATION? DOWN AND DOWN - EVER
LOWER, NEVER ENDING? YUJIN'S DISRUPTIVE POINT IS THAT
THE UNIVERSE-AS-A-WHOLE MAY BE FUNDAMENTAL - NOT THE
STUFF IN THE UNIVERSE. FOR THIS REASON, HE SAYS,
EVERYTHING IS UP FOR GRABS - BECAUSE IF THE
UNIVERSE-AS-A-WHOLE IS FUNDAMENTAL, REALITY COULD BE
PHYSICALISM, DUALISM, OR EVEN IDEALISM, WHERE ONLY
THE MENTAL IS REAL. I LIKE DISRUPTION, IT FORCES
A RADICAL RELOOK AT REALITY. I SHOULDN'T GET CARRIED AWAY... I SHOULD TALK TO A SCIENTIST. I GO TO OXFORD, ENGLAND, TO MEET
A QUANTUM PHYSICIST, THE AUTHOR OF "THE FABRIC OF
REALITY," DAVID DEUTSCH. DAVID, WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS
OF THE FABRIC OF REALITY? IT'S ABOUT WHAT'S FUNDAMENTAL,
AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, ABOUT THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL
THINGS THAT WE KNOW. WHAT I CALL FUNDAMENTAL, A
FUNDAMENTAL IDEA, IS ONE THAT IS NEEDED IN THE EXPLANATION OF
MANY OTHER IDEAS OR MANY OTHER PHENOMENA AND SO ON, AND THE
MOST FUNDAMENTAL ONES WE KNOW ARE BASICALLY THE ONES THAT
ARE NEEDED IN THE EXPLANATION OF PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING. AND THERE ARE FOUR THAT I
PICKED OUT AS BEING THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL FORMED A SORT
OF UNIFIED FABRIC OF REALITY, A CONCEPTION OF THE WORLD,
WHERE NONE OF THEM COULD BE UNDERSTOOD WITHOUT THE OTHER
THREE, AND THEY WERE QUANTUM PHYSICS, WHICH IS MY ACTUAL
FIELD, AND THEN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, THE THEORY OF
COMPUTATION, AND THE THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE, WHICH IS USUALLY
NOT EVEN CONSIDERED PART OF SCIENCE, BUT THOSE
WERE THE FOUR STRANDS. GIVE ME A QUICK
SYNOPSIS OF EACH OF THE FOUR. QUANTUM THEORY IS THE LANGUAGE
THAT ALL OTHER THEORIES IN PHYSICS ARE EXPRESSED IN, AND IT
SORT OF CONSTRAINS THE KINDS OF IDEAS THAT ONE CAN
EXPRESS WITHIN PHYSICS. IT'S THE DEEPEST AND
MOST SUCCESSFUL THEORY. GOOD. EVOLUTION? AND THEN, SO, THE THEORY OF
EVOLUTION IS THE BASIC THEORY OF EMERGENT PROPERTIES. IT'S HOW LARGE OBJECTS CAN HAVE
PROPERTIES, CAN BE UNDERSTOOD, IN TERMS THAT DO NOT FOLLOW FROM
THEIR LOW-LEVEL DEFINITIONS IN TERMS OF ATOMS. DARWIN SOLVED ONE OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL MYSTERIES OF NATURE, BUT IT CANNOT BE
EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF ATOMS. COMPUTATION? AND THEN THE THEORY OF
COMPUTATION IS THE THEORY OF WHAT PROCESSES IN NATURE ARE
INDEPENDENT OF, OR TRANSCEND, THE MATERIAL SUBSTANCE
THAT THEY ARE EMBODIED IN. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, I CAN SAY I
HAD AN IDEA LAST YEAR AND NOW I'M TELLING IT TO YOU. AND THAT IDEA IS AN ABSTRACT
ENTITY THAT IS INSTANTIATED IN - FIRST OF ALL, IT'S INSTANTIATED
IN THE BRAIN, THEN IT'S INSTANTIATED IN MOVEMENTS OF MY
MOUTH, THEN IN THE VIBRATIONS OF AIR MOLECULES, AND SO ON, AND
IT CAN BE INSTANTIATED IN INK ON PAPER AND AN ENORMOUS
VARIETY OF THINGS. BUT IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND ANY
OF THOSE TRANSITIONS, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT IS
AFFECTING THINGS, WHAT IS MOVING THINGS HERE, IS THE INFORMATION
ITSELF, NOT ITS INSTANTIATIONS. AND THE GENERAL THEORY OF HOW
INFORMATION IS PROCESSED IN THE WORLD IS THE
THEORY OF COMPUTATION. AND THAT IMMEDIATELY LEADS TO
KNOWLEDGE, WHICH IS THE KIND OF INFORMATION THAT CAN DO THINGS. SO, OR SOLVE PROBLEMS AS WE
WOULD SAY AT THE HUMAN LEVEL, BUT IN THESE TERMS, ADAPTATIONS
IN LIVING THINGS ARE ALSO A FORM OF KNOWLEDGE. SO, DNA EMBODIES KNOWLEDGE. HUMAN BRAINS EMBODY KNOWLEDGE. BOOKS AND COMPUTERS
EMBODY - AND THE INTERNET - ALL EMBODY KNOWLEDGE. AND THE THING ABOUT THE
KNOWLEDGE THAT MAKES IT FUNDAMENTAL IS THAT IF YOU THINK
OF ANY KIND OF TRANSFORMATION OF A PHYSICAL SYSTEM, YOU KNOW,
FROM HOT TO COLD OR FROM A BLOCK OF MARBLE INTO A STATUTE, AND
SO ON, IF YOU THINK ABOUT ALL POSSIBLE TRANSFORMATIONS THAT
ARE PERMITTED BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS, THE OVERWHELMING
MAJORITY OF THOSE ONLY HAPPEN IF THE RIGHT KNOWLEDGE IS PRESENT. SO, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF
WHAT CAN BE TRANSFORMED INTO WHAT, IT'S PRACTICALLY ALL THE
THEORY OF WHAT KNOWLEDGE CAN DO, AND THAT IS WHY KNOWLEDGE
IS A FUNDAMENTAL THING IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD. QUANTUM PHYSICS. EVOLUTION. INFORMATION. KNOWLEDGE. EACH ITS OWN CATEGORY, EACH ITS
OWN WAY OF VIEWING REALITY - AS IF EACH WERE A SPECIAL
FILTER ENABLING ITS OWN KIND OF SPECIAL INSIGHT. YES, "STRANDS" OF
THE FABRIC OF REALITY. BUT, THE WHOLE CLOTH? ULTIMATE REALITY? BUT IS ULTIMATE REALITY
LIMITED TO PHYSICAL REALITY? IF NOT, COULD INFORMATION
AND KNOWLEDGE BE KEYS? COULD THEY LEAD
TO CONSCIOUSNESS? BECAUSE IF REALITY WERE A
KINGDOM, CONSCIOUSNESS COULD BE KING. I GO TO CALTECH TO CONSULT
A LEADING BRAIN SCIENTIST, CHRISTOF KOCH. CHRISTOF, DO YOU THINK THE
FACT THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS EXISTENT IS SOMETHING THAT WE
NEED TO CONSIDER IN DISCERNING WHAT ULTIMATE REALITY IS? COMPLETELY. ABSOLUTELY. WELL, THE ONLY WAY I
KNOW ABOUT THE WORLD IS MY CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE. BUT THAT DOESN'T
MEAN CONSCIOUSNESS IS FUNDAMENTAL TO REALITY. HOW ELSE DO I KNOW WHAT... I ACCEPT THAT THAT'S YOUR WAY OF
KNOWING ABOUT REALITY BUT THAT COULD BE A TOTAL RANDOM
ACCIDENT THAT JUST HAPPENED TO BE THAT WAY. IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE
BUT THAT WAY, YES, SO I FIND MYSELF IN A UNIVERSE WHERE I
HAPPEN TO HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS, BUT IT'S SUCH A CENTRAL FACT
THAT IF THAT GETS LEFT OUT THEN I'VE ALMOST EXPLAINED
NOTHING REALLY RELEVANT ABOUT THE UNIVERSE. AND SO, WHAT I WANT TO EXPLAIN
IS EVERYTHING PHYSICAL BUT ALSO THIS MOST CENTRAL ASPECT THAT I
HAVE AND THAT YOU HAVE AND THAT DOGS HAVE AND LOTS OF OTHER
CREATURES HAVE AND SO HOW CAN WE LEAVE THAT OUT? I THINK THE MORE RELEVANT
QUESTION IS, IS THAT LIKE ANOTHER PHENOMENON LIKE WETNESS. PEOPLE DON'T THINK TO
UNDERSTAND WHY WATER IS WET, WHY IT CLINGS TO WALLS. YOU NEED TO INTRODUCE A NEW
THING CALLED WETNESS, RIGHT? IT JUST EMERGES OUT OF -
YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF SYSTEMS, THERE'S LAWS OF PHYSICS
AND CHEMISTRY THAT TELL YOU ULTIMATELY WHAT WETNESS IS. MOST BIOLOGISTS THINK
CONSCIOUSNESS IS OF THAT ILK, SO THEREFORE YOU DON'T
NEED TO ADD ANYTHING SPECIAL. CONSCIOUSNESS IS JUST
ANOTHER EMERGENT PROPERTY LIKE WETNESS OR LIKE
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. IT'S INHERENT IN PHYSICS. BUT, THE OTHER ATTITUDE IS
THAT BECAUSE CONSCIOUSNESS IS SO RADICALLY DIFFERENT FROM
ANYTHING ELSE, CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE IT'S NOT AT ALL
IDENTICAL WITH THE SUBSTRATE WITH THE BRAIN THAT GIVES
RISE TO FUNDAMENTALLY TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THERE'S AN EXPLANATORY GAP
BETWEEN THE TWO AND TO REALLY SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THAT
WE NEED TO POSTULATE THERE'S SOMETHING IN ADDITION TO
YOU KNOW SPACE AND TIME AND MATTER AND ENERGY. AND THAT'S CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE. AND WHAT DOES THAT IMPLY
ABOUT ULTIMATE REALITY? WELL IT IMPLIES THERE'S
MORE TO THE UNIVERSE THAN JUST WHAT TODAY ACCEPTED PHYSICS. SO JUST LIKE TODAY PEOPLE THINK,
OH, WE HAVE TO ENLARGE PHYSICS. OH, THERE'S THIS DARK ENERGY, SO
I THINK IN THE FULLNESS OF TIME WE'LL ALSO REALIZE, YEAH,
CONSCIENCE HAS TO BE ALSO PART OF THAT AND SO WE HAVE
TO ENLARGE PHYSICS FURTHER. I'M NOT SURE IT'S FAIR TO EQUATE
DARK ENERGY WITH CONSCIOUSNESS. YOU CAN EXPLAIN DARK ENERGY
BY PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES THAT WE'VE KNOWN BEFORE. EXCEPT THAT NO
PHYSICISTS HAVE DONE SO. BUT THEY ARE AT LEAST IN
PRINCIPLE ABLE TO THINK ABOUT HOW THE PHYSICS OF EMPTY
SPACE CAN GENERATE ENERGY. YEAH I CAN THINK HOW THE PHYSICS
OR HOW THE MATHEMATICS MORE PRECISE OF COMPLEX SYSTEM
GENERATES CONSCIOUSNESS. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT OF IT? THERE'S A PREDICTIVE
THEORY AND YOU CAN MEASURE IT. THAT'S WHAT SCIENCE IS ABOUT. WHY SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN
THE CASE THAT CONSCIOUSNESS, THIS WONDERFUL EXPERIENCE, TO
SEE A RED TABLE AND GREEN PANTS, IF THAT'S RIGHT. WHY SHOULD IT HAVE BEEN
THE CASE THAT THAT IS WHAT THIS UNIVERSE IS? WE DON'T KNOW. FAIR ENOUGH - NOBODY KNOWS
WHY CONSCIOUSNESS IS PART OF OUR UNIVERSE. BUT CHRISTOF ARGUES THAT THERE'S
MORE TO OUR UNIVERSE THAN JUST WHAT IS KNOWN BY TODAY'S
PHYSICS - AND THAT TO EXPLAIN CONSCIOUSNESS, PHYSICS
WILL HAVE TO BE ENLARGED. THERE IS ANOTHER POSSIBILITY
- SOME KIND OF OVERARCHING PRINCIPLE THAT
TRANSCENDS THE PHYSICAL. I GO BACK TO BIRMINGHAM,
ENGLAND, TO MEET THE DISTINGUISHED PHILOSOPHER
OF RELIGION, JOHN HICK. JOHN, I LOVE TALKING
ABOUT ULTIMATE REALITY. YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT
SOMETHING CALLED 'THE REAL.' I'D LIKE TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS. THE REAL IS SOMETHING THAT WE
HAVE TO POSTULATE IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND CERTAIN DATA. THE DATA INCLUDE THE EXPERIENCE
OF A TRANSCENDENT REALITY OF SOME KIND, IN RELIGIOUS
EXPERIENCE OR TRANSCENDENTAL EXPERIENCE, IT INCLUDES THE FACT
OF A PLURALITY OF RELIGIONS, AND THE FACT THAT IN THEIR BELIEF
SYSTEMS, THEY CONTRADICT ONE ANOTHER VERY OFTEN. FROM A POINT OF VIEW THAT
ACCEPTS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE AS AUTHENTIC, AS EXPERIENCE OF
SOMETHING, WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHY IT TAKES
SUCH DIFFERENT FORMS. AND THE REASON, I THINK, IS
FAIRLY CLEAR, NAMELY THAT IT OCCURS WITHIN DIFFERENT HUMAN
CULTURES WHICH HAVE GROWN UP OVER THE CENTURIES, WHICH
PROVIDE US WITH DIFFERENT VOCABULARIES, DIFFERENT
CONCEPTS, AND CONCEPTS GO TO CREATE AND TO
FORM OUR EXPERIENCE. SO, THE ACTUAL EXPERIENCE IS OF
A GOD, A PERSONAL GOD, OR OF THE UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLE OF THE
TAO, IN TAOISM, OR OF ANOTHER PERSONAL GOD, THE ALLAH
OF ISLAM, OR VISHNU, SHIVA, ET CETERA, WITHIN
THE HINDU FAITHS. ALL OF THESE ARE JOINT CREATIONS
OF THE IMPACT UPON US OF THE TRANSCENDENT REAL, AND
HUMAN SETS OF CONCEPTS. SOME WOULD SAY THAT THE HUMAN
CONSTELLATION OF CONCEPTS THAT DEVELOPED OUT OF CULTURE
ENTIRELY EXPLAIN RELIGION, AND THE EXPERIENCES THAT PEOPLE
HAVE ARE BIOLOGICALLY BASED - SOMETHING IN THE BRAIN SHOOTS
HERE OR THERE, AND THEY HAVE AN EXPERIENCE, AND WE
REALLY CAN'T TRUST THAT. BUT WHAT WE CAN TRUST
ARE THE LAWS OF SCIENCE. IF THERE IS SOMETHING BEYOND THE
PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES HAVE NOTHING TO DO
WITH IT, THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO DISCOVER IT. SO, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY,
IF THEY EXIST IN OUR MODERN CULTURE, THEY'RE GOING
TO SAY IT DOESN'T EXIST. IT SEEMS A LITTLE FLIMSY TO
TETHER ALL OF THESE CONFLICTING RELIGIONS TO SOME REAL. WELL, THE EXPERIENCE THAT -
AS IT'S FORMED WITHIN THE RELIGIONS, IS
VERY, VERY POWERFUL. I MEAN, THE CHRISTIAN
WORSHIPPING THE HOLY TRINITY CAN HAVE A VERY POWERFUL
SENSE OF THE REALITY OF GOD. AND LIKEWISE, THE MUSLIM, AT THE
FRIDAY PRAYERS IN THE MOSQUE, CAN HAVE A VERY POWERFUL SENSE
OF BEING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE HOLY ALLAH. I UNDERSTAND THAT WE LEARN THAT
THE REAL EXISTS BY SEEING ITS EXPRESSION IN DIVERSE RELIGIONS,
BUT WHAT CAN WE SAY ABOUT THE REAL, AS IT
EXISTS IN ITSELF? AS IT EXISTS IN ITSELF, WE CAN'T
SAY ANYTHING IN HUMAN LANGUAGE ABOUT IT, BECAUSE IT IS
TRANSCATEGORIAL, BEYOND THE CATEGORIES OF THE HUMAN MIND. SOME WOULD SAY
THAT'S A RATIONALIZATION. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST,
YOU PUT IT IN A TRANSCATEGORIAL MODE, SO WE'RE PREVENTED
FROM ASKING ANY QUESTIONS. YOU PUT A MOAT AROUND IT,
SO I CAN'T ATTACK IT. WELL, I CAN SEE
THAT POINT OF VIEW, YES. BUT, YOU SEE, I COME BACK,
ALWAYS, TO THE STARTING POINT OF EXPERIENCE -
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. IF YOU IGNORE RELIGIOUS
EXPERIENCE, RELIGION CAN SIMPLY CONSIST IN HUMAN INSTITUTIONS,
WHICH ARE NOT ONLY HUMAN, BUT ALL TOO HUMAN. JOHN'S "REAL" IS ATTRACTIVE -
THE BENEFITS OF REALITY BEYOND THE PHYSICAL WITHOUT THE COSTS
OF RELIGIOUS DOCTRINES OBLIVIOUS TO COMMON SENSE. AND, TO KEEP IT SAFE FROM
HOUNDING CRITICS, JOHN'S REAL IS "TRANS-CATEGORICAL"
- BEYOND CATEGORIES. I FIND MYSELF ATTRACTED. "THE REAL" CAN BE COMFORTING -
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT OFFENSIVE. BUT, TOO EASY? TOO SOFT? I FEAR THE "FOOL'S GOLD"
OF IMMERSING MYSELF IN THIS MYSTICAL 'REAL'. PERHAPS THERE'S A DIFFERENT
ROUTE TO "ULTIMATE REALITY"? NOT THE KINDS OF STUFF OF
WHICH THE WORLD IS MADE. BUT THE REASONS OR PURPOSES
FOR WHICH THE WORLD IS MADE. I GO TO LONDON, TO MEET
ATHEISTIC PHILOSOPHER, JULIAN BAGGINI. IT'S NO SECRET THAT
JULIAN REJECTS GOD AND DISMISSES ULTIMATE PURPOSE. WHEREFORE, THEN,
"THE MEANING OF LIFE"? JULIAN, WHAT'S ULTIMATE REALITY? WHAT'S IT ALL ABOUT? WHEN PEOPLE ASK THAT QUESTION,
THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT WAYS OF ANSWERING IT, STANDARDLY. ONE IS TO SORT OF GO BACK AND
SAY, WELL, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE MEANING OF LIFE, YOU
LOOK TO ITS CAUSE, YOU KNOW, WHAT MADE US. THE OTHER WAY IS YOU
SAY, WELL, USE THE FUTURE. WHERE'S IT ALL GOING? WHERE ARE WE GOING TO END UP? WHAT'S THE PURPOSE, IN THE END? AND OF COURSE, THE TWO THINGS
CAN BE CONNECTED, BECAUSE YOU MIGHT THINK THAT IF YOU LOOK TO
CAUSES, IT'S A GOD, FOR EXAMPLE, AND GOD CREATES US IN THE PAST,
AND WE HAVE A FUTURE DESTINY, WHICH IS TO BE REUNITED
WITH HIM, AND SO FORTH. ACTUALLY, THOUGH, I THINK THAT
NEITHER OF THOSE WAYS OF LOOKING AT IT REALLY EXPLAIN THIS,
BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE IS A DESTINY WE'RE
ALL HEADING TOWARDS. THERE ISN'T AN ULTIMATE
PURPOSE IN THE FUTURE. AND IF YOU LOOK TO THE PAST,
IT'S JUST EVOLUTION, BIG BANGS, THERE'S NO PURPOSE THERE. IF YOU WANT TO FIND MEANING, YOU
HAVE TO FORGET PAST AND FUTURE. YOU HAVE TO LOOK IN THE PRESENT. IT'S WHAT MAKES
LIFE WORTH LIVING NOW. A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL SAY, WELL,
THAT AIN'T ENOUGH, YOU KNOW? I WANT THERE TO BE MORE. I WANT THERE TO BE SOMETHING
TRANSCENDENT, SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE, SOME DESTINY. I THINK WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THE
FACT THERE'S NOTHING OUT THERE. WE HAVE TO FIND WHAT
MAKES LIFE LIVING NOW. FOR ME, THAT'S A COP OUT. IF THAT'S TRUE, I DON'T
CARE TO MAKE MEANING, TODAY. IT'S MEANINGLESS. YOU DON'T CARE? WELL, I THINK
THAT'S INTERESTING. PEOPLE HAVE THAT ASSUMPTION. I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT ASSUMPTION
HOLDS, BECAUSE CERTAINLY THERE ARE PLENTY OF PEOPLE WHO COME
TO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO PRE-EXISTING MEANING, WHO HAVE
NO PROBLEM LIVING THEIR LIVES FROM DAY TO DAY. OH, I HAVE NO PROBLEM
LIVING MY LIFE FROM DAY TO DAY, I JUST DON'T THINK, IF THERE
ISN'T ANY OVERARCHING PURPOSE, THAT I DON'T WANT TO
ARTIFICIALLY CREATE SOME SUPERFICIAL PURPOSE, AND TRY TO
FOOL MYSELF INTO THINKING THAT THERE'S SOMETHING REAL
TODAY, WHEN THERE ISN'T. OH, BUT, I'M NOT QUITE
SURE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING - CREATE SOME ARTIFICIAL PURPOSE
OR MEANING, OR PRETEND THERE'S SOMETHING REAL. THERE IS SOMETHING REAL. THERE'S LIFE,
THERE'S EXPERIENCE. THERE'S RELATIONSHIPS. THERE'S BEAUTY. THERE'S LOVE. THERE'S PLEASURE. THERE'S PAIN. THERE'S STRUGGLE. THAT'S THE ONLY MEANING WE HAVE. SO, A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK,
IT'S JUST SO INADEQUATE, BUT IT'S BECAUSE THEY'VE KIND OF
BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO THE IDEA, THERE MUST BE SOMETHING
REALLY DEEP AND IMPORTANT. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S
INADEQUATE, IF THAT'S THE TRUE ANSWER, THEN I DON'T WANT
TO FOOL MYSELF INTO THINKING THERE'S ALL THIS
WONDERFUL MEANING - SURE, I'LL ENJOY LIFE. TO SAY THAT I FIND MEANING IN MY
LIFE IS NOT TO CLAIM THAT IT HAS ANY, YOU KNOW,
ENDURING VALUE, OR ANYTHING. OKAY. AND THE MEANING I FIND IN MY
LIFE IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO GO WITH ME. THERE'S NO SIGNIFICANCE
FOR ME, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE UNIVERSE. SO, AS LONG AS YOU DON'T IMAGINE
THAT THE MEANING YOU FIND IN LIFE, THE SIGNIFICANCE YOU FIND
IN LIFE IS MORE PERMANENT THAN IT IS, THERE'S NO PROBLEM IN
ACCEPTING THAT IT'S SUFFICIENT TO GET BY. LOOK, I'VE HAD SOME ATHEISTS
TALK ABOUT SOME KIND OF TRANSCENDENCE, IN ORDER
TO GIVE PEOPLE A HOPE THAT WHEN THEY ELIMINATE THE
RELIGIOUS TRANSCENDENCE, THEY'VE STILL
GOT SOMETHING LEFT. IF BY TRANSCENDENCE, WE MEAN
PARTICIPATING, HAVE A SENSE OF SOMETHING GREATER THAN
OURSELVES, THEN YOU CAN HAVE A SENSE OF TRANSCENDENCE
IN A SECULAR SENSE. YOU CAN HAVE IT THROUGH
AN ARTISTIC EXPERIENCE, OR EXPERIENCE OF NATURE. BUT, I THINK WE HAVE TO BE
HONEST AS ATHEISTS, AND SAY THAT THIS IS A LESSER TRANSCENDENCE. IT'S ONE THING TO PARTICIPATE
IN SOMETHING WHICH IS, PERHAPS, A LITTLE BIT
GREATER THAN OURSELVES. IT'S QUITE DIFFERENT, THOUGH,
TO FULLY PARTICIPATING IN THE DIVINE AND THE ETERNAL. SO, I JUST THINK WE
HAVE TO BE HONEST. THERE ARE LOSSES. IF YOU GIVE UP THE RELIGIOUS
LIFE, THERE ARE SOME KINDS OF EXPERIENCE, OF TRANSCENDENCE,
AND SO FORTH, WHICH ARE NOT ACCESSIBLE TO YOU. THAT IS THE PRICE OF TRUTH,
AS AN ATHEIST WOULD SEE IT. I HAVE TO BE HONEST. IT IS A PRICE. WHAT'S ULTIMATE REALITY? FIVE POSSIBILITIES. 1) THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE,
GOVERNED BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS. 2) AN EXTENDED PHYSICAL
UNIVERSE, WITH DEEP META-LAWS - PERHAPS DEEPER
THAN WE CAN IMAGINE. 3) INFORMATION AS A
FOUNDATION OF THE UNIVERSE. 4) LITTLE CONSCIOUSNESS
- AS A BASIC ADDITION TO TODAY'S PHYSICS. 5) BIG CONSCIOUSNESS - WHETHER
"THE REAL" OR SOMETHING LIKE GOD - AS THE ULTIMATE GROUND
OF BEING, THE CAUSE OF ALL PHYSICAL REALITY. TO ME, THE DEFAULT DESCRIPTION
OF ULTIMATE REALITY IS THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE. BUT IS THE PHYSICAL
UNIVERSE, EVEN IN ITS DEEPEST TRUTHS, SUFFICIENT? THE TEST, I THINK, IS
CONSCIOUSNESS - NOT RELIGION. AM I PROGRESSING
TOWARD ULTIMATE REALITY? HERE'S HOW THE PHILOSOPHER
STEPHEN LAW ADMONISHED ME. IT'S A MYTH, YOU'RE ON A WILD
GOOSE CHASE IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE ULTIMATE, YOU KNOW,
WHAT IS ULTIMATE REALITY? I SUSPECT YOU NEED
SOME LINGUISTIC THERAPY. THANKS, STEPHEN - I KNOW
YOU MEAN WELL, AND YOU MAY WELL BE CORRECT. BUT I TRUDGE ALONG STRIVING
FOR ULTIMATE REALITY... WHAT OTHER WAY TO GET... CLOSER TO TRUTH?
