>MY NIGHT THOUGHTS ARE ABOUT THE SIMPLEST OF QUESTIONS. WHAT THINGS REALLY EXIST? WHY DOES THIS BOTHER ME? WHY DOES THIS OBSESS PHILOSOPHERS? BECAUSE WHEN YOU THINK DEEPLY ABOUT THE THINGS OF EXISTENCE, YOU SEE EVERYTHING ANEW. WE ACCEPT THE PHYSICAL WORLD OF PARTICLES AND FORCES. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MENTAL WORLD OF THOUGHTS AND IDEAS? THE PLATONIC WORLD OF NUMBERS AND LOGIC? THE SPIRIT WORLD OF GOD OR GODS? I FIND MYSELF LONGING FOR MORE THAN ONE WORLD, SOMETHING BEYOND THE PHYSICAL. BUT WHAT I WANT AND WHAT REALLY EXISTS HAS NO CONNECTION. I MUST NOT FOOL MYSELF WITH FOOLISH HOPE. I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY. TO SIR ROGER PENROSE, A DISTINGUISHED MATHEMATICIAN, THE QUESTION WHAT THINGS REALLY EXIST IS PROFOUND. HE HAS STRONG VIEWS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF WORLDS OR THE KINDS OF EXISTENCES WHICH COMPOSE REALITY. WE MEET AT OXFORD UNIVERSITY. >>IT'S VERY IMPORTANT IN UNDERSTANDING THE PHYSICAL WORLD THAT OUR WAY OF DESCRIBING THE PHYSICAL WORLD CERTAINLY AT ITS MOST PRECISE HAS TO DO WITH MATHEMATICS, AND THAT MATHEMATICS HAS TO HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY LOCATION IN SPACE, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY LOCATION IN TIME. SOME PEOPLE WOULD TAKE IT NOT TO HAVE ANY EXISTENCE AT ALL, BUT IT'S HARD TO TALK ABOUT SCIENCE REALLY WITHOUT GIVING MATHEMATICS SOME KIND OF REALITY BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU DESCRIBE YOUR THEORIES IN TERMS OF MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURES. IT HAS ALSO THIS RELATION TO MENTALITY BECAUSE WE CERTAINLY HAVE ACCESS TO MATHEMATICAL TRUTHS. BUT I THINK IT'S USEFUL TO THINK OF THE WORLD AS NOT BEING A CREATION OF OUR MINDS, BECAUSE IF WE DO THEN HOW COULD IT HAVE BEEN THERE BEFORE WE WERE AROUND? HOW CAN THE MATHEMATICS HAVE BEEN THE CREATION OF MINDS AND STILL HAVE BEEN THERE CONTROLLING THE UNIVERSE? SO I THINK IT'S VERY VALUABLE TO THINK OF THIS PLATONIC MATHEMATICAL WORLD AS HAVING ITS OWN EXISTENCE. SO LET'S ALLOW THAT AND SAY THAT THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT KINDS OF EXISTENCE - THE NORMAL PHYSICAL EXISTENCE, THE MENTAL EXISTENCE, AND THE MATHEMATICAL WORLD WHICH SEEMS TO BE OUT THERE IN SOME SENSE CONJURING ITSELF INTO EXISTENCE. AND THEN THERE'S THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE THREE WORLDS WHICH I REGARD AS VERY MYSTERIOUS. I SOMETIMES REFER TO THIS AS THREE WORLDS AND THREE MYSTERIES. AND MYSTERY NUMBER ONE IS HOW IS IT THAT THE PHYSICAL WORLD DOES IN FACT ACCORD WITH MATHEMATICS, NOT JUST ANY OLD MATHEMATICS BUT VERY SOPHISTICATED SUBTLE MATHEMATICS, TO SUCH A FANTASTIC DEGREE OF PRECISION? MYSTERY NUMBER TWO IS HOW IS IT THAT WHEN YOU HAVE PHYSICAL STRUCTURES OF THE RIGHT KIND, AND HERE I'M REFERRING VERY SPECIFICALLY TO HUMAN...LIVING HUMAN WAKEFUL HEALTHY BRAINS, PROBABLY MANY OTHER ANIMALS I WOULD SAY ALSO HAVE THIS QUALITY OF MENTALITY, AND SOMEHOW IT'S EVOKED WHEN THE STRUCTURES HAVE THE RIGHT CHARACTER, WHATEVER THAT IS. SO THERE IS...MENTALITY SEEMS TO HAVE THIS DEEP RELATION TO CERTAIN KINDS OF PHYSICAL STRUCTURES. AND MYSTERY NUMBER THREE HAS TO DO WITH OUR ACCESS TO THE WORLD OF MATHEMATICS. IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU CERTAINLY CAN'T DESCRIBE IN TERMS OF PURELY COMPUTATIONAL ACTIVITY. THERE'S SOMETHING OUTSIDE THAT'S INVOLVED IN OUR APPRECIATION OF MATHEMATICS. EVEN JUST KNOWING WHAT THE NATURAL NUMBERS, ZERO, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR - I COULD SAY THAT, YOU SEE. AND YOU CAN EXPLAIN A CHILD AND YOU CAN HAVE SESAME STREET THINGS WITH DIFFERENT THINGS, AND THEY GET THE IDEA. THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, THEY KNOW WHAT NUMBERS ARE. YET HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE IF YOU CAN'T DESCRIBE IN A FINITE SET OF RULES WHAT THESE NUMBERS ARE? THERE'S ANOTHER FEATURE ABOUT THIS WHICH IS THAT IN EACH CASE, IT'S ONLY A SMALL PART OF ONE WORLD WHICH ENCOMPASSES SEEMINGLY THE ENTIRETY OF THE NEXT WORLD. IF YOU LOOK AT ANY MATHEMATICAL JOURNAL, IT'S FULL OF THINGS OF ABSOLUTELY NO RELEVANCE TO PHYSICAL ACTIVITY. SO IT'S A SMALL PART OF THE MATHEMATICAL WORLD WHICH SEEMS TO ENCOMPASS THE BEHAVIOR OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD. AND IT'S A VERY SMALL PART OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD WHICH SEEMS TO EVOKE MENTALITY. AND IT'S ONLY A SMALL PART OF OUR MENTAL ACTIVITIES WHICH RELATE TO MATHEMATICS. >NOW THE TYPICAL SCIENTIFIC RESPONSE TO THAT WOULD SAY OK, THE MENTAL WORLD IS JUST AN EXPRESSION OF THE PHYSICAL BRAIN, AND SO IT'S AN ARTIFICIAL PHENOMENA. AND MATHEMATICS IS VERY NICE, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT HUMAN BEINGS HAVE INVENTED TO SORT OF DESCRIBE THE PHYSICAL WORLD. >>TO A MATHEMATICIAN YOU MIGHT TAKE THAT THE MATHEMATICAL WORLD IS SOMEHOW THE ONE, BECAUSE SOMEHOW IT HAS TO BE THERE, YOU SEE. IT SORT OF CREATES ITSELF OUT OF NOTHING. OR YOU MIGHT SAY WELL NO, NO, IT'S MENTALITIES, THAT'S WHERE ALL OUR KNOWLEDGE COMES, THAT'S EVERYTHING ULTIMATELY THAT HAS TO DO WITH OUR CONSCIOUSNESS. AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS THEN EXPLAINED IN TERMS OF IT. >WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE THREE WORLDS, IS IT JUST AS A DESCRIPTION OF REALITY OR IS THERE SOME SENSE OF REAL INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE? >>I DON'T NECESSARILY REGARD THIS AS A SORT OF ULTIMATE PICTURE. I THINK THAT IN SOME SENSE THEY'RE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF REALITY AND THAT THEY'RE THE TRUE REALITY IN SOME SENSE THAT ENCOMPASSES THE WHOLE THING. >TO ROGER, THREE KINDS OF WORLDS EXIST - PHYSICAL, MENTAL, AND MATHEMATICAL OR PLATONIC. A SMALL PART OF EACH WORLD GENERATES THE OTHER. THREE WORLDS, THREE MYSTERIES. I FIND MYSELF DRAWN INTO ROGER'S WORLDS, SEEING NEW REALITIES. BUT REALITIES OR METAPHORS? ARE ROGER'S MENTAL AND MATHEMATICAL WORLDS REALLY REAL, OR MORE A MANNER OF SPEAKING? THIS IS THE STUFF OF METAPHYSICS. PETER VON INWAGEN IS A LEADING METAPHYSICIAN, A PHILOSOPHER WHO SEEKS DEEPER REALITIES OF EXISTENCE. WE MEET IN THE PHILOSOPHY DEPARTMENT AT NOTRE DAME. PETER, IN TRYING TO GET TO THE REALITY BENEATH THE APPEARANCES, THE QUESTION THAT CAN BE ASKED IS WHAT IS THERE? IS THIS EVEN A LEGITIMATE QUESTION TO ASK WHAT THINGS ARE REAL? >>PLATO, YOU KNOW, THOUGHT THAT THE THINGS THAT WE SEE AROUND US, THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE WOULD NORMALLY SAY EXIST, HARDLY EXIST AT ALL. WHAT REALLY EXISTS ARE THINGS THAT WELL, WHAT EXISTS MORE FIRMLY THAN THIS CHAIR WOULD BE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT MATHEMATICIANS INVESTIGATE. GEOMETERS WORKING ON TRIANGLES, AND SPHERES, AND GEOMETRICAL FIGURES IN CONSTRUCTIONS GENERALLY. SOMETHING THAT THE PHYSICAL WORLD THAT WE'RE IN, THESE BARELY REAL THINGS AROUND US MERELY IMITATE. SOME PHILOSOPHERS SAY WE'RE COMPLETELY RIGHT. AT LEAST EVERYTHING WE BELIEVE ABOUT WHAT THERE IS IS RIGHT, ALL THOSE THINGS THAT ARE DREAMT OF IN OUR PHILOSOPHIES. SOME SAY WE'RE COMPLETELY WRONG. SOME SAY THAT TIME AND SPACE AREN'T REAL. SOME SAY THAT MATTER ISN'T REAL. >HOW CAN WE TAKE THIS MASS OF THINGS THAT MAY BE REAL OR NOT REAL, OR EXIST OR DON'T EXIST, AND GIVE IT SORT OF A TAXONOMY TO ORGANIZE IT INTO CATEGORIES? >>I WOULD SAY THAT THERE ARE ATTRIBUTES OR QUALITIES OR PROPERTIES OF THINGS IN ADDITION TO THE THINGS THEMSELVES. AFTER ALL, WE SAY THAT THERE ARE WHEN WE SAY SUCH THINGS AS THAT SPIDERS AND INSECTS HAVE MANY PROPERTIES IN COMMON. THAT'S TO SAY THAT THERE ARE PROPERTIES THAT BELONG BOTH TO SPIDERS AND TO INSECTS. HAVING AN EXOSKELETON FOR EXAMPLE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF YOU ANALYZE WHAT WE SAY, IT'S HARD TO MAKE SENSE OF WHAT WE SAY BEING TRUE WITHOUT THE SUPPOSITION THAT IT COMMITS US TO THE EXISTENCE OF THESE ABSTRACTIONS. >AND DOES THAT MEAN THESE ABSTRACTIONS HAVE SOME REAL EXISTENCE THAT ARE ETERNAL? >>IMAGINE AN OMNIPOTENT GOD. YOU CAN MENTION ANY SET OF CONSISTENT PROPERTIES TO HIM AND ASK HIM TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT BRINGS THOSE PROPERTIES TOGETHER IN ONE THING, BUT WHERE DO THE PROPERTIES COME FROM? I THINK THE PROPERTIES ARE JUST THERE, SOMETHING THAT EVEN GOD JUST HAS TO DEAL WITH. THIS IS THE SET OF PROPERTIES THAT THERE ARE, WHICH IS NOT TO SAY THAT THEY'RE THE SET OF PROPERTIES THAT ANYTHING HAS. THE PROPERTIES YOU MIGHT THINK OF AS WAYS THINGS CAN BE OR POSSIBILITIES FOR THE WAY OBJECTS ARE. THOSE POSSIBILITIES HAVE TO BE THERE. >SO IT DOESN'T TROUBLE YOU THAT GOD IS OVERWHELMED WITH ALL THESE ABSTRACT OBJECTS THAT HE FINDS HIMSELF WITH AND IN THEIR MUTUAL ETERNAL STATE? >>I DON'T SEE WHY THEY SHOULDN'T BE OF MIND THAT WAS CAPABLE OF OFFERING COMPLETE AND EQUAL CONSIDERATION TO ALL THOSE OBJECTS AT ONCE. >TO PETER, THINGS THAT EXIST CAN BE CATEGORIZED AS EITHER CONCRETE OBJECTS OR ABSTRACT OBJECTS. AND CONCRETE OBJECTS CAN BE FURTHER CATEGORIZED AS EITHER MATERIAL LIKE US, OR IMMATERIAL LIKE GOD, IF THERE IS SUCH A THING. MY HEAD IS FLOATING. I NEED SOMEONE TO PLANT MY FEET BACK ON THE GROUND. JOHN SEARLE IS MY MAN. NO ABSTRACT OR IMMATERIAL OBJECTS FOR HIM. A TOUGH MINDED PHILOSOPHER AT BERKELEY, JOHN IS A REALIST WHO TAKES ON ALL WHO AREN'T. WE MEET AT HIS HOME NEAR THE CAMPUS. JOHN, YOU BELIEVE THERE'S ONE WORLD, THE WORLD THAT WE SEE AND THAT'S KIND OF IT. OTHER PEOPLE SAY THERE'S A SPIRIT WORLD, TWO WORLDS. SOME OTHERS SAY THAT THERE MIGHT EVEN BE THREE WITH A PLATONIC WORLD OF NUMBERS AND UNIVERSALS. AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE FOUR. THEY'D HAVE A PHYSICAL, A MENTAL, A SPIRITUAL, A PLATONIC. I MEAN THESE SEEM TO MULTIPLY. >>WELL I THINK IT'S A SIGN OF INTELLECTUAL LAZINESS IF YOU ALLOW YOUR REALITIES TO MULTIPLY. JUST DESCRIBE FACTS, AND THEN WHAT YOU FIND IS THAT THE FACTS OF THE EMPIRICAL REALITY, THE THINGS YOU CAN SEE AND FIND OUT ABOUT IN THE SCIENCES, THEY FORM A UNITY. THERE'S A SINGLE UNIVERSE THAT WE LIVE IN. NOW THERE ARE TWO REASONS WHY PEOPLE WANT TO REJECT THAT. ON ONE HAND THEY WANT TO SAY WELL NO, THERE'S A MENTAL REALITY THAT'S IN ADDITION TO THAT, AND I THINK THAT'S A MISTAKE. IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO POSTULATE A DIFFERENT REALM IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND INTENTIONALITY AS BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA. HOWEVER, ANOTHER REASON THAT THEY MAKE THIS MISTAKE IS THEY SEE WELL, CLEARLY THERE ARE MATHEMATICAL ENTITIES, AND MATHEMATICAL ENTITIES DON'T OCCUPY SPACE, THEY DON'T FUNCTION CAUSALLY, SO IT LOOKS LIKE THEY MUST BE IN A DIFFERENT REALM. AND I THINK THAT'S A CONFUSION AS WELL. IF THERE ARE TWO HORSES IN THE FIELD, WELL, HOW MANY THINGS ARE THERE IN THE FIELD? IS THERE JUST THIS HORSE AND THAT HORSE, OR IS THERE ALSO THE PROPERTY OF HORSE-NESS? AND IS THERE THEN THE PROPERTY OF TWO-NESS? AND THERE I THINK NOW WE HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE. THE FACT THAT MAKES IT A CASE THAT THERE ARE TWO HORSES IN THE FIELD IS THE SAME FACT AS WHAT MAKE IT THE CASE THAT THE PROPERTY OF HORSE-NESS IS TWICE INSTANTIATED, OR THAT THE PROPERTY TWO-NESS IS INSTANTIATED BY ONE SET, THE SET OF HORSES. THOSE ARE JUST THREE DIFFERENT WAYS OF SAYING THE SAME THING. THERE ISN'T ANY ADDITIONAL FACT WHICH IS POSTULATED BY TALKING ABOUT NUMBERS OR PROPERTIES. IT'S JUST A MANNER OF SPEAKING. >ALL OF THAT MAKES WONDERFUL SENSE AND WELL THOUGHT OUT, BUT THAT WHOLE PROCESS OF THINKING IF THERE WERE NEVER ANYTHING, IF THERE WAS NO UNIVERSE, NO LAWS, NOTHING, ZERO - THAT STILL WOULD'VE BEEN TRUE. >>THE TEMPTATION ALWAYS IN PHILOSOPHY IS TO SUPPOSE THAT THERE MUST BE SOME DEEP MYSTERY, HOW CAN THERE BE AN INFINITE SEQUENCE OF NATURAL NUMBERS STRETCHING OUT FOREVER AND EVER? HOW CAN THEY BE TIMELESS? AND THE WAY TO GET OUT OF ALL THESE MYSTERIES IS TO BRING IT DOWN TO REAL LIFE CASES. NUMBERS ARE TO COUNT WITH, SO IF YOU CAN COUNT, THEN YOU'VE ALREADY GOT NUMBERS. AND IF YOU'VE GOT NUMBERS, THEN YOU CAN IMAGINE A WORLD IN WHICH NO ONE WAS ABLE TO ACCOUNT BUT YOU STILL WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY WELL ALL THE SAME, THERE'S ALL THESE NUMBERS. BUT THE MISTAKE IS TO THINK THAT THAT'S SOME DEEP PROFOUND TRUTH ABOUT A MYSTERIOUS REALM THAT YOU'VE POSTULATED. WHAT YOU'VE DONE IS DESCRIBE A FEATURE OF OUR LANGUAGE. DO NUMBERS EXIST? OF COURSE, BUT THAT'S A MANNER OF SPEAKING. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IN THE FIELD THERE ARE TWO HORSES PLUS THE NUMBER TWO. >WHY AM I SO BOTHERED BY THIS? I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I STILL THINK YOU ELIMINATE EVERYTHING AND NUMBERS STILL EXIST. I CAN'T GET OUT OF THAT. >>WELL BUT THEN THAT'S A MARK OF THE PHILOSOPHER. THE MARK OF THE PHILOSOPHER IS TO BE OBSESSED BY QUESTIONS THAT DON'T SEEM TO HAVE ANY PRACTICAL INTEREST AND WHICH MOST PEOPLE DON'T WORRY ABOUT AT ALL. I'M TRYING TO GET YOU TO SEE THAT WE HAVE A NATURAL URGE TO ASK THIS QUESTION IN THIS WAY, BUT THE WAY TO SOLVE THE QUESTION IS NOT TO GIVE A DIRECT ANSWER - YES, NUMBERS ARE WAY OUT THERE, YOU JUST CAN'T SEE THEM OR NO, NUMBERS DON'T EXIST AT ALL. BOTH OF THOSE ARE WRONG. BOTH OF THOSE MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE. THE WAY OUT OF IT IS TO SEE HOW WE ACTUALLY WORK WITH A NUMERICAL VOCABULARY AND HOW THE WAY WE OPERATE WITH THAT VOCABULARY NATURALLY GENERATES AN INFINITE SEQUENCE OF NATURAL NUMBERS WHICH ARE NOT THEMSELVES SPATIALLY LOCATED AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY WEIGHT. >SO IF WE TAKE SOME OF THESE WORLDS THAT ARE POSTULATED, WE HAVE OUR PHYSICAL WORLD WHICH WE ALL SUBSCRIBE TO, MENTAL WORLD WE ELIMINATE BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED IT TO HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS, SPIRITUAL WORLD IF YOU BELIEVE IN SOME GOD OR SOMETHING YOU NEED, BUT YOU DON'T NEED IT, AND THE PLATONIC WORLD OF UNIVERSALS AND NUMBERS IS IN A SENSE AN ARTIFACT, MANNER OF SPEAKING FROM OUR LANGUAGE. >>EXACTLY. IT'S AN ARTIFACT OF OUR DISCOURSE. IT'S NOT A SPECIAL METAPHYSICAL REALM. >SO YOU'RE JUST COMFORTABLE LIVING WITH OUR ONE LITTLE WORLD NOW. >>WELL IT'S THE ONLY ONE I'VE GOT. IT'S A POOR THING, BUT IT'S MY OWN. >JOHN GROUNDS HIS PHILOSOPHY ON FACTS, AND AS HE SEES THE FACTS, THEY ALL COME FROM ONE WORLD - THE PHYSICAL WORLD, THE REAL WORLD OF SCIENCE, AND THERE IS NO OTHER. MY HEAD, TRAINED IN SCIENCE AND LOGIC, TELLS ME JOHN'S RIGHT. MY HOPE, ROOTED IN SENSE AND INTUITION, IMPELS ME BEYOND. SUPPOSE THERE WERE A GOD? STILL, WHAT ABOUT ABSTRACT OBJECTS? THEY WOULD SEEM TO EXIST WITH OR WITHOUT GOD. WILLIAM LANE CRAIG IS A CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHER WHO BELIEVES IN GOD, AND HE IS BOTHERED BY ABSTRACT OBJECTS. BILL, WE ALWAYS HEAR THAT GOD IS THE CREATOR. OK, SOUNDS SIMPLE. BUT WHAT IS THE CREATION? WHAT IS A WORLD? >>WELL I THINK THE DOCTRINE OF CREATION MEANS THAT GOD IS THE SOURCE OF ALL REALITY OUTSIDE HIMSELF. THAT APART FROM GOD, EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO BEING BY GOD. >NOW WHAT IS EVERYTHING ELSE? >>WELL IT WOULD INCLUDE ALL REALITY, WHATEVER REALMS OF REALITY YOU MIGHT THINK THAT EXIST. IT WOULD BE ALL PHYSICAL CONCRETE OBJECTS, IT WOULD BE TIME AND SPACE THEMSELVES, IT WOULD BE ANY REALMS OF SPIRITUAL REALITY THAT YOU MIGHT BELIEVE EXIST SUCH AS ANGELS AND OTHER SPIRITUAL BEINGS. AND IT WOULD INCLUDE ANY SORT OF ABSTRACT OBJECTS IF YOU THINK THAT THOSE SORTS OF THINGS EXITS. >LIKE MATHEMATICS, TWO PLUS TWO EQUALS FOUR... >>YES LIKE SETS, AND NUMBERS, AND PROPOSITIONS, AND SO FORTH. >HOW ABOUT THINGS LIKE CAUSATION OR LOGIC, OPERATIONS AMONG IDEAS? >>I WOULD SEE THINGS LIKE LOGIC AS GROUNDED IN THE VERY MIND OF GOD HIMSELF. >SO EVERYTHING OUTSIDE OF GOD HIMSELF GOD IS RESPONSIBLE FOR, AND THIS IS A VAST NUMBER OF THINGS, ANYTHING THAT WE CAN CONCEIVE OF AND ANYTHING WE CAN'T CONCEIVE OF? >>WELL ANYTHING THAT EXISTS. I MEAN THERE ARE IN A SENSE FICTIONAL ENTITIES. FOR EXAMPLE SHERLOCK HOLMES. I DON'T THINK SHERLOCK HOLMES EXISTS, SO GOD DOESN'T BRING SHERLOCK HOLMES INTO BEING UNLESS YOU THINK THAT SHERLOCK HOLMES IS SOME SORT OF ABSTRACT OBJECT AS SOME PHILOSOPHERS DO. SO EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS OWES ITS BEING TO GOD, AND I WOULD SAY WAS BROUGHT INTO BEING BY GOD AT A SPECIFIC TIME. WHICH IMPLIES THAT THE CREATION OR THE WORLD OR REALITY OUTSIDE OF GOD HAS NOT ALWAYS EXISTED. I THINK THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THE IDEA OF CREATION IS INHERENTLY BOUND UP WITH TEMPORAL CONSIDERATIONS. THESE THINGS ARE NOT JUST DEPENDENT UPON GOD FOR THEIR BEING, BUT THEY WERE BROUGHT INTO BEING BY GOD. >SINCE BILL BELIEVES THAT GOD CREATED EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS OUT OF NOTHING, THIS MUST LITERALLY BE EVERYTHING, WHICH INCLUDES ABSTRACT OBJECTS. BUT HOW? SOMEHOW, BILL BELIEVES, ABSTRACT OBJECTS MUST BE GROUNDED IN THE MIND OF GOD. ANY OTHER IDEAS OUT THERE? TO JOHN LESLIE, A CANADIAN PHILOSOPHER, WHAT REALLY EXISTS IS ASTONISHING. HE STARTS WITH CONSCIOUSNESS WHICH SEEMS NORMAL ENOUGH, BUT THEN WHERE DOES HE TAKE IT? >>FOR EXAMPLE, YOU COULD BE A BELIEVER IN GOD WHO THOUGHT THAT THE WORLD WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CREATED AT ALL HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR CONSCIOUSNESS. YOU CAN EVEN DEFEND THE THEORY THAT NOTHING COULD ACTUALLY BE REAL UNLESS THERE WAS CONSCIOUSNESS INVOLVED. IT COULD BE THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE OF THE WORLD IS A STRUCTURE THOUGHT BY AN INFINITE MIND. OR IT COULD SIMPLY BE THAT YOU COULD DEFEND THE VIEW THAT EVEN AT THE LEVEL OF VERY SIMPLE SYSTEMS LIKE ATOMS THERE IS A VERY OBSCURE SORT OF CONSCIOUSNESS. IF YOU WERE A PANTHEIST YOU COULD THINK THAT ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING EXISTS INSIDE A DIVINE MIND, THAT THE STRUCTURE OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD IS THE STRUCTURE OF THE THOUGHTS IN A DIVINE MIND. I MYSELF CAN'T THINK THAT THE UNIVERSE WOULD HAVE ANY VALUE AT ALL, EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, IF CONSCIOUSNESS WERE ABSENT FROM IT. 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'S TO SAY IT'S SOMETHING WHICH IS A WORTHWHILE PART OF AN INFINITELY RICH SITUATION, WHICH IS THE SUPREME GOOD. >AND THAT SUPREME GOOD WOULD ENGENDER CONSCIOUSNESS IN SOME WAY? >>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 BECAUSE OUR WORLD IS SOMETHING WHICH IS WORTH KNOWING ABOUT. AND THIS PUTS ME YOU MIGHT THINK IN THE SAME SORT OF CAMP AS A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO THINK GOD IS A DIVINE PERSON WHO THEN CREATES ALL SORTS OF OTHER THINGS. I MYSELF GO FOR THE VIEW THAT THERE EXISTS AN INFINITE NUMBER OF DIVINE MINDS, EACH OF WHICH KNOWS EVERYTHING WORTH KNOWING, BECAUSE IN THIS WAY WE HAVE A SITUATION WHICH IS THE BEST POSSIBLE SITUATION, AND IT'S PRECISELY WHAT YOU'D EXPECT A FORCE OF CREATIVE ETHICAL REQUIREMENT TO CREATE. SOME PEOPLE THINK OF GOD AS A DIVINE MIND WHICH CARRIES IN ITSELF THE STRUCTURE OF OUR UNIVERSE. THAT WHAT PHYSICISTS INVESTIGATE IS STRUCTURE ALWAYS, AND THEY HAVE NOTHING TO SAY AS TO WHETHER THE STRUCTURE IS THE STRUCTURE OF THOUGHTS IN A DIVINE MIND. I TAKE THAT THEORY VERY SERIOUSLY. YOU COULD CALL THE WHOLE INFINITE COLLECTION GOD, OR YOU COULD USE THE WORD GOD JUST FOR THE GOD IN THE INFINITE MIND IN WHICH YOU EXIST. OR YOU COULD SAY THAT THE WORD GOD SHOULDN'T BE USED HERE AT ALL. >INFINITE DIVINE MINDS EACH KNOWING EVERYTHING WORTH KNOWING, ALL EXISTING BECAUSE IT IS GOOD TO EXIST. JOHN'S VISION IS THE GRANDEST OF ALL, WHICH OF COURSE DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. HERE'S MY LANDSCAPE OF WHAT MIGHT REALLY EXIST. SIX KINDS OF WORLDS. WORLD ONE, THE KNOWN PHYSICAL, EXTENDED WITH BETTER THEORIES. WORLD TWO, THE UNKNOWN PHYSICAL, EXPANDED BEYOND OUR WILDEST IMAGINATION. WORLD THREE, THE MENTAL, WHERE CONSCIOUSNESS IS FUNDAMENTAL, THE BUILDING BLOCK OF REALITY. WORLD FOUR, THE PLATONIC, FILLED WITH FORMS AND NUMBERS AND LOGIC, EXISTING FOREVER EVEN IF NOTHING ELSE EVER HAD. WORLD FIVE, THE NON-PHYSICAL, POPULATED BY NON-PHYSICAL BEINGS BE THEY ANGELS AND DEMONS, SOULS AND SPIRITS. WORLD SIX, THE SPIRITUAL, AN ULTIMATE GOD PLAIN EXISTENCE. NO WORLD HAS UNANIMOUS SUPPORT. EACH WORLD HAS PASSIONATE PROPHETS. WHAT DO I THINK? WHAT REALLY EXISTS IS MORE THAN WORLD ONE. SOMETHING BEYOND THE KNOWN PHYSICAL IS REAL. THAT'S THE BEST I'VE GOT. FOR NOW, THAT'S CLOSER TO TRUTH.
