>I AM ASTONISHED BY ALL THAT WE KNOW. FROM THE BIZARRE BEHAVIORS OF SUB-ATOMIC PARTICLES TO THE MAJESTIC EXPANSION OF THE ENTIRE, VAST UNIVERSE. I MARVEL THAT WE REALLY UNDERSTAND HOW THE WORLD WORKS. BUT I CHILL BECAUSE MUCH OF WHAT WE TODAY THINK, FUNDAMENTALLY, 150 YEARS AGO, WE DID NOT KNOW AT ALL. IS OURS THAT SPECIAL TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY WHEN ALL SHALL BE KNOWN? WILL WE COMPLETE THE PUZZLE OF THE COSMOS, OR ARE THERE REVOLUTIONARY DISCOVERIES YET TO BE MADE? NOT REFINEMENTS OF CURRENT THEORIES, BUT RADICAL REVELATIONS AND SHOCKING SECRETS. DOES PHYSICAL REALITY GO BEYOND WHAT WE KNOW TODAY? WHAT IS BEYOND PHYSICS? I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY TO FIND OUT. I SEEK FIRST CLASS SCIENTISTS UNAFRAID TO TACKLE BIG QUESTIONS. I GO TO ICELAND TO A GATHERING OF THE FOUNDATIONAL QUESTIONS INSTITUTE. I BEGIN WITH THE DIRECTOR OF THE ORIGINS INITIATIVE AT ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, LAWRENCE KRAUSE. AS FOR BIG QUESTIONS, LAWRENCE HITS, HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BEGIN AND HOW DID LIFE ARISE. LAWRENCE, QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL RELATIVITY, THESE ARE THE GREAT BREAKTHROUGHS OF THE 20TH CENTURY THAT HAVE SO CHANGED OUR PERCEPTIONS OF WHAT REALITY IS. >>SURE, ABSOLUTELY. >IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER THINGS OUT THERE AS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT NOW AS QUANTUM MECHANICS AND RELATIVITY WAS ONCE? >>A FAIR STATEMENT IS THAT THE 20TH CENTURY SPOILED PHYSICISTS. I MEAN, THAT WAS A TIME IN ALMOST EVERY SINGLE WAY OUR WORLD VIEW CHANGED. NOT JUST WITH QUANTUM MECHANICS AND GENERAL RELATIVITY, BUT WE KNOW THEY ARE AT LEAST FOUR FORCES IN NATURE - A CENTURY AGO, WE KNEW TWO OF THEM AT BEST. WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO UNDERSTAND ONE OF THEM WITH QUANTUM MECHANICS. THE PROGRESS HAS BEEN TREMENDOUS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I CAN'T HELP BUT THINK THAT THERE IS MUCH MORE THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE UNIVERSE THAN WE DO KNOW. EVERY TIME WE HAVE LOOKED OUT AT THE UNIVERSE WITH MACHINES, WE HAVE BEEN SURPRISED AND ONE GREAT EXAMPLE IS THE DISCOVERY OF DARK ENERGY. HERE IS SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD HAVE ASKED ANY PHYSICIST A LITTLE MORE THAN A DECADE AGO, WE WOULD HAVE ALL BEEN CERTAIN OF WHAT THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE WAS, IT WAS ZERO. IT'S NOT ZERO. AND IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF UNDERSTANDING. IT ALSO IS GOING TO COMPLETELY CHANGE OUR PICTURE OF THE FUTURE. FOR ME, THE MOST EXCITING DEVELOPMENTS THAT I EXPECT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IS THE MERGING OF PHYSICS AND BIOLOGY. IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND HOW BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS WORK AND HOW WE EXIST, WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND NEW PHYSICAL PRINCIPALS. THAT THE PHYSICS OF BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN THE PHYSICS OF TABLES OR THE PHYSICS OF THE UNIVERSE. SO I THINK WE ARE GOING TO FIND THAT THE FOREFRONT OF PHYSICS IS GOING TO MOVE NOT JUST TO THESE EXTREMES OF SCALE WHERE I EXPECT THERE WILL BE SURPRISES, BUT AS WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE PHENOMENA THAT ARE CENTRAL TO OUR VERY EXISTENCE. WE MAY UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO TREAT SCIENCE IN A DIFFEREAY. IT MAY STILL ADDRESS A QUESTION YOU MIGHT THINK OF AS FUNDAMENTAL, WHICH WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO, WHICH IS - IS LIFE A COSMIC COMPARATIVE? OR JUST A PHENOMENAL ACCIDENT? ARE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS SET UP - IT MAY BE TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER LIFE IS A COSMIC IMPERATIVE, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND PHYSICS IN A NEW WAY. >YOU WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED BY SURPRISE? >>I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THERE WEREN'T SURPRISES, PUT IT THAT WAY. >BUT IT HAS TO STOP SOME PLACE - >>WHY? >I HAVE HEARD PEOPLE SAY THAT, THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT YOU HAVE AN INFINITE - AND INFINITE PROGRESS, A XENO PARADOX OF CONSTANTLY MORE AND MORE FUNDAMENTAL THINGS. >>WELL, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED - >IT SOUNDS LIKE A MYTH. >>WELL, NO, WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED IS WHAT IS FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES. OKAY, SO THAT WHEN WE ASK FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS, WHENEVER WE COME UP WITH ANSWERS, WHAT WE FIND ARE MORE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS. IT MAY BE THAT THE LAWS END AND WE HAVE A THEORY OF EVERYTHING. IN A SENSE, A THEORY THAT EXPLAINS THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE AND WHY THE LAWS OF NATURE SEEM TO BE WHY THEY ARE. I SEE NO EVIDENCE OF THAT CASE, BUT THE QUESTION IS, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW NOW WHAT THE RIGHT QUESTIONS ARE. DOES THE UNIVERSE EXIST IN MANY DIFFERENT STATES OF THE SAME TIME? IF YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION A CENTURY AGO, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT IN A LUNATIC ASYLUM. I SUSPECT WHAT QUESTIONS WE FIND ARE PROFOUNDLY INTERESTING WILL CONTINUE TO EVOLVE AND I CERTAINLY HOPE IT DOESN'T END. >LAWRENCE IS SURE THERE IS MORE TO REALITY THAN WHAT WE KNOW TODAY. FINE, I'M WITH HIM. BUT HE SAYS, THERE COULD BE NO BOTTOM. MORE FUNDAMENTAL THEORIES COULD GO ON FOREVER, A NEVER ENDING SERIES OF DEEPER AND DEEPER LAWS, LIKE A RUSSIAN NESTING DOLL, ONE PLACED INSIDE THE OTHER. LAWRENCE THINKS THEORIES WITHOUT END. I THINK THAT IS ABSURD. BUT MUCH AS I HATE TO ADMIT IT, LAWRENCE KNOWS MORE THAN I KNOW. AT LEAST IN PHYSICS. SO WHAT MIGHT WE FIND? I ASK PHYSICIST MICHIO KAKU WHO EXPLORES THE FAR REACHES OF THE POSSIBLE. TO MICHIO, LITTLE IS IMPOSSIBLE. >>AROUND 1900 PEOPLE TALKED ABOUT THE END OF PHYSICS. THE US PATENT OFFICE WAS THINKING OF CLOSING DOWN BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO INVENT. THEN WE HAD TWIN BOMB SHELLS OF QUANTUM THEORY, WHICH OPENED UP THE WORLD OF THE ATOM AND GENERAL RELATIVITY WHICH OPENED UP THE UNIVERSE, BLACK HOLES, SPACE TIME, AND THEN YOU REALIZED THAT WE WERE SO NAïVE AROUND 1900 TO THINK IT WAS THE END OF PHYSICS. NOW TODAY, WE ASK THE SAME QUESTION - IS THIS ALL THERE IS? I DON'T THINK SO, BECAUSE YOU SEE, WE HAVE THESE TWO GREAT THEORIES BUT THEY DON'T TALK TO EACH OTHER. THEY DON'T LIKE EACH OTHER. THEY HATE EACH OTHER. WHY SHOULD NATURE BE SCHIZOPHRENIC? WHY SHOULD NATURE CREATE TWO BIZARRE THEORIES - ONE FOR THE BIG AND ONE FOR THE SMALL, THAT DON'T TALK TO EACH OTHER? SO I THINK WE ARE BOUND FOR A NEW PARADIGM SHIFT ON THAT SCALE. A THEORY WHICH GOES BEYOND JUST RELATIVITY. A THEORY WHICH GOES BEYOND THE QUANTUM THEORY. AND THEN OF COURSE WE CAN ASK ANOTHER QUESTION - WHAT HAPPENS BEYOND THAT? >IT WOULD SEEMT THE REGRESS HAS TO END AT SOME POINT. SOME HAVE SAID THAT IT CAN GO ON FOREVER. I - CONCEPTUALLY I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE. AT SOME POINT THIS HAS TO END. >>WELL THERE IS SEVERAL WAYS OF LOOKING AT IT - ONE IS THE ONION THEORY. YOU SEE LAYER INSIDE LAYER INSIDE LAYER, WHICH SEEMS TO GO ON FOREVER, EACH TIME YOU PROBE A NEW ENERGY, YOU HAVE A NEW LAYER OF PHYSICS. BUT THERE IS THE OTHER THEORY OF THE NORTH POLE. THE ANCIENT MARINERS WOULD DRAW A MAP WITHOUT THE NORTH POLE. NO ONE HAD EVER VISITED THE NORTH POLE. WELL, WE HAVE NOW FOUND THE NORTH POLE, THERE IS AN END. THE EARTH IS NOT LIMITLESS. I TEND TO LEAN MORE TOWARD THE NORTH POLE IDEA, BECAUSE ALL THE COMPASS NEEDLES DO POINT TO A THEORY OF EVERYTHING AND AT THAT POINT IT WOULD STOP. >WHAT CAN THE FAR FUTURE BECOME IN TERMS OF POSSIBLE THINGS THAT SEEM IMPOSSIBLE TODAY? >>SOME PEOPLE SAY PHYSICS STOPS AT THE BIG BANG, YOU CAN'T GO BELOW THE BIG BANG BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING THERE BEFORE THE BIG BANG. WELL, WE PHYSICISTS HAVE MANY MODELS OF THE PRE-BIG BANG ERA. A NEW GENERATION OF MACHINES ARE COMING ONLINE WHICH MAY ANSWER THESE FABLED QUESTIONS OF WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE GENESIS, HOW WILL DOOMSDAY UNFOLD? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THERE ARE OTHER UNIVERSES? >LET'S LOOK AT THE PHYSICS OF THE IMPOSSIBLE. THINGS THAT TODAY SEEMED LUDICROUS. THINGS THAT SEEM TO DEFY ALL PHYSICAL LAW TODAY. >WHEN PEOPLE SAY, "BAH, HUMBUG, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE!" WHAT THEY ARE REALLY SAYING IS, THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH TODAY'S TECHNOLOGY. BUT WHAT ABOUT 100 YEARS IN THE FUTURE? WHAT ABOUT 500 YEARS? WHAT ABOUT 1,000? WHAT ABOUT A MILLION YEARS IN THE FUTURE? LOOK AT INVISIBILITY AND TELEPORTATION - TWO STAPLES OF SCIENCE FICTION. ANY PHYSICIST WOULD SNICKER AND LAUGH, HA! INVISIBILITY? TELEPORTATION? BEAM ME UP, YOU KNOW? WELL, WE HAVE ACTUALLY DONE IT NOW. WE HAVE ACTUALLY, ON MICROWAVE RADIATION, MADE OBJECTS INVISIBLE. AND NOW WE ARE TESTING IT ON VISIBLE LIGHT NOW, FOR THE FIRST TIME. ALSO, TELEPORTATION. WE CAN TELEPORT INDIVIDUAL ATOMS. NOW EXTEND THAT MAYBE 100 YEARS IN THE FUTURE AND THEN BEGIN TO REALIZE, HEY, YOU KNOW, THE STUFF THAT WE USED TO CONSIDER SCIENCE FICTION AND LAUGH AT, WELL THAT IS GOING TO BECOME PERHAPS THE REALITY OF THE FUTURE. >IN SEEKING REALITY, MICHIO MAXIMIZES SCIENCE. ENVISIONS WHAT HYPER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES CAN DO IN THE FUTURE. WHAT WOULD SEEM TO BE UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE TODAY. MICHIO IS A VISIONARY, BUT STILL HE STAYS WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF KNOWN PHYSICAL LAWS. THAT IS WHERE HE IS COMFORTABLE. AS FOR ME, I GO FOR DISCOMFORT. I DO NOT LIKE TO BE RIDICULED AND I WILL BE TOUGH MINDED, BUT I SEEK TO BREAK THE BOUNDS OF KNOWN PHYSICAL LAWS. IT'S PROBABLY IMPOSSIBLE, BUT STILL I MUST TRY. VERY FEW SCIENTISTS GO BEYOND TODAY'S REALM OF THE PHYSICAL. ONE LIVES IN ENGLAND, A BOTANIST BY TRADE AND ICONOCLAST BY REPUTATION. I GO TO OXFORD TO THE PITT RIVERS MUSEUM TO MEET THIS OFF THE EDGE SCIENTIST - RUPERT SHELDRAKE. IN DRIVING REALITY, RUPERT SEES STRANGE NEW LAWS. >>A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK THAT WE HAVE AN EVOLVING UNIVERSE, BUT THE MOMENT OF THE BIG BANG, ALL THE LAWS OF NATURE WERE THERE FULLY FORMED, LIKE A COSMIC NAPOLEONIC CODE. I DON'T THINK ITS LIKE THAT AT ALL, I THINK THE LAWS EVOLVE ALONG WITH NATURE AND IN FACT, I THINK THE TERM "LAW" IS A REALLY BAD TERM FOR THEM BECAUSE LAW IMPLIES A HUMAN LEGAL SYSTEM. IT'S A HUMAN METAPHOR. I THINK A MUCH BETTER TERM IS HABIT. SO MY VIEW IS THAT THE UNIVERSE EVOLVES AND WITH IT, THE HABITS OF NATURE. SO ITS RADICALLY EVOLUTIONARY, IT'S FULL OF HABIT AND ALSO CREATIVE BECAUSE THE EVOLUTION DEPENDS BOTH ON REPETITION, WHICH IS WHAT HABITS DO AND CREATIVITY, WHICH IS WHERE NEW THINGS COME FROM. IF YOU HAVE JUST HABITS, NOTHING HAD CHANGED. IF YOU HAD JUST CREATIVITY, YOU HAVE A KIND OF CHAOS OF INNOVATION WITH NOTHING STABILIZING. >WHAT ARE SOME OF THE EXEMPLIFICATIONS OF THAT OR IMPLICATIONS? >>IF YOU MAKE A NEW CHEMICAL COMPOUND THAT HAS NEVER BEEN MADE BEFORE AS FAR AS WE KNOW, THAT IS SOMETHING NEW IN NATURE. IF YOU CRYSTALLIZE IT, THAT IS A NEW FORM IN NATURE. SO WHEN THE CRYSTAL FIRST FORMS, IT HASN'T GOT A HABIT. AND IT'S ACTUALLY RATHER HARD TO GET CRYSTALS TO FORM FOR THE FIRST TIME. ANYWAY, YOU GET A CRYSTAL SOONER OR LATER AND THEN IT GETS EASIER ALL AROUND THE WORLD, TO CRYSTALLIZE THESE THINGS ON THE WHOLE. CHEMISTS HAVE KNOWN THIS FOR YEARS. I WOULD SAY THIS IS A NEW HABIT GETTING ESTABLISHED THE MORE OFTEN IT'S DONE AS A KIND OF MEMORY OF THE PREVIOUS CRYSTALS. >SO YOUR VISION IS THAT SOMEHOW MAKING THAT FIRST CRYSTAL EMBODIES THAT FORM IN SOME SUPER FIELD SENSE AS OPPOSED TO JUST THE COMMON HUMAN ABILITY TO DO THINGS BECAUSE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE, THEY READ ABOUT IT AND THEY LEARN HOW TO DO IT BETTER AND BETTER. >>THAT'S RIGHT. MY HYPOTHESIS IS THAT IT HAPPENS BY A PROCESS THAT I CALL MORPHIC RESONANCE. MORPHIC RESONANCE IS THE INFLUENCE OF SIMILAR PATTERNS OF ACTIVITY ON SUBSEQUENT SIMILAR PATTERNS OF ACTIVITY. SO WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS SIMILARITY AND THIS MOVES ACROSS SPACE AND TIME. IT'S A KIND OF CUMULATIVE MEMORY. THE FIRST TIME YOU MAKE A NEW CRYSTAL, THERE ISN'T A FIELD FOR IT ALREADY, BUT IT COMES INTO BEING. THE SECOND TIME ITS INFLUENCED BY THE FIRST CRYSTALS, THE THIRD TIME IS INFLUENCED BY THE FIRST AND SECOND ONES, THE FOURTH TIME IS THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD. IT BUILDS UP, THIS INFLUENCE, BY MORPHIC RESONANCE. SO EACH KIND OF THING, EACH KIND OF CRYSTAL, EACH BIOLOGICAL SPECIES HAS A KIND OF COLLECTIVE MEMORY ON WHICH INDIVIDUAL DRAWS AND TO WHICH IT CONTRIBUTES. >AND THESE FIELDS ARE UNIVERSAL? >>THEY ARE UNIVERSAL, ONCE THEY HAVE OCCURRED, THIS INFLUENCE OF MORPHIC RESONANCE CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE. EVERYTHING IN NATURE ORGANIZES ITSELF AND I THINK THAT EACH SELF-ORGANIZING PATTERN OF ACTIVITY HAS A MORPHIC FIELD AND A KIND OF COLLECTIVE INHERENT MEMORY. TEACH A RAT A NEW TRICK IN OXFORD, OR BETTER, TEACH HUNDREDS OF RATS A NEW TRICK IN OXFORD AND RATS OF THE SAME BREED ALL OVER THE WORLD SHOULD BE ABLE TO LEARN THE SAME TRICK QUICKER. TEACH PEOPLE A NEW TRICK, A NEW VIDEO GAME, A NEW SPORTS TECHNIQUE AND IT SHOULD GET EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO LEARN ALL AROUND THE WORLD. ALL THE SORT OF EASY EXPLANATIONS - BETTER NUTRITION, BETTER BRAIN, BIGGER BRAIN SIZE, MORE EXPOSURE TO TELEVISION, ALL THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND NONE OF THEM CAN EXPLAIN MORE THAN A SMALL PART OF THIS EFFECT. SO IT'S A GENUINELY MYSTERIOUS PHENOMENON THAT FITS PERFECTLY WITH MORPHIC RESONANCE FIELD. I MEAN, IT COMPLETELY CHANGES THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT THE WORLD. >WELL, FEW SCIENTISTS THINK THE WAY RUPERT DOES, CONJURING UP, ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES THAT ALMOST CERTAINLY DO NOT EXIST. BUT THAT RUPERT IS WRONG DOES NOT PREVENT MY ENJOYING HIS DISRUPTIVE IDEAS. EXPANDING MY BOUNDARIES, CONFRONTING IDEAS I HAD NEVER IMAGINED. LIKE BEING FREED FROM A PRISON IN WHICH I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS BEING CONFINED. I SCURRY BACK TO MAINSTREAM SCIENCE, BUT WITH A FRESH OPENNESS TO CONSIDER RADICAL IDEAS. I MEET A COSMOLOGIST WHO BOLDLY ADDRESSES QUESTIONS MANY THINK UNADDRESSABLE. PAUL DAVIES. PAUL WONDERS WHETHER THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE FROM FOREVER. >>VERY FEW OF MY COLLEAGUES WOULD AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY AND QUANTUM MECHANICS ARE SOMEHOW THE LAST WORD. IT CLEARLY IS A STEPPING STONE AND IMPORTANT ONE, ON THE WAY TO SOME DEEPER LEVEL. AND SO FOR EXAMPLE, SPACE AND TIME ARE THESE TRULY PRIMITIVE ENTITIES OR ARE THEY BUILT OUT OF SOMETHING ELSE? PARTICLES OF MATTER WE ARE PRETTY SURE HAVE BUILDING BLOCKS INSIDE THEM, MAYBE STRINGS, MAYBE SOMETHING ELSE. AND THEN THERE ARE DEEPER ISSUES LIKE QUANTUM PHYSICS IT IS THE ONE THING THAT ALL PHYSICISTS SEEM PRETTY CERTAIN ABOUT IS WHATEVER COMES BEYOND THEIR PRESENT THEORIES WILL BE CAST IN A QUANTUM FRAMEWORK. BUT ON CAN STILL ASK WHY QUANTUM MECHANICS? WHY IS THAT THE LAST WORD OR IS THERE SOME OTHER WAY OF DESCRIBING REALITY? IF IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT WAY, IS THERE SOMETHING SPECIAL ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR SETUP? AND I THINK THE ANSWER IS YES, THERE IS SOMETHING PRETTY SPECIAL ABOUT THREE SPACE AND ONE TIME DIMENSION, ABOUT THE SET OF PARTICLES THAT WE HAVE AND THE FORCES THAT BIND THEM TOGETHER. SO WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHERE ALL THESE THINGS ARE COMING FROM AND THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS TO HAVE SOME DEEPER LEVEL OF REALITY FROM WHICH THEY EMERGE. THAT IS REALLY TOUGH. COULD IT BE THAT SOMEHOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE UNIVERSE IS CAPTURED JUST BY THAT TWO DIMENSIONAL SURFACE? THE INFORMATION ON THAT SURFACE. IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS FAR LESS IN THE UNIVERSE THAN WE REALLY THOUGHT. IT'S LIKE A HOLOGRAM. A HOLOGRAM IS A TWO DIMENSIONAL SURFACE, YOU SHINE A LASER ON IT AND YOU GET A THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGE. SO COULD THE UNIVERSE BE A THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGE OF WHAT IS REALLY TWO DIMENSIONS? THE PHYSICS IN TWO DIMENSIONS. IF WE COMBINE THAT HOLOGRAPHIC PRINCIPLE WITH SOME OTHER PRINCIPLES MAYBE WE WILL HAVE AN TOTALLY DIFFERENT VIEW OF PHYSICS. SO WHAT WE HAVE NOW IS AN IMAGE OF THE UNIVERSE WHERE INSTEAD OF REGARDING MATTER AS THE PRIMARY STUFF OF THE UNIVERSE AND INFORMATION AS BEING A SORT OF SECONDARY DERIVED CONCEPT, WE ARE THINKING THAT MAYBE THE INFORMATION IS THE PRIMARY CONTENT OF THE UNIVERSE AND THAT MATTER IS THE DERIVED THING. IF YOU THINK OF THE UNIVERSE NOW AS A GIGANTIC INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, THEN THE LAWS PLAY THE ROLE OF SOFTWARE AND THE UNIVERSE PLAYS THE ROLE OF HARDWARE AND THAT TO ME SUGGESTS THAT THE LAWS OF PHYSICS HAVE A FINITE ACCURACY, A FINITE FIDELITY, A FINITE PRECISION. AND SO THIS SUGGESTS A VIEW PHYSICAL LAW INSTEAD IT BEING STAMPED ONTO THE UNIVERSE FROM WITHOUT LIKE A MAKER'S MARK, INFINITELY PRECISE LAWS BOOM, THERE RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, FROM THE BIG BANG. INSTEAD, THE LAWS ARE INHERENT AND EMERGENT WITH THE UNIVERSE. SO THEY START OUT SORT OF FUZZY AND UNFOCUSED AND ZERO IN OVER TIME. MORE INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE; THE RESULTS BECOME BETTER AND BETTER DEFINED. SO THE LAWS ARE NOW WITHIN THE UNIVERSE AND NOT MAGICALLY IMPOSED ON IT FROM OUTSIDE. AND THAT TRADITIONAL VIEW OF THE LAWS BEING IMPOSED FROM WITHOUT IS ESSENTIALLY THEOLOGICAL, I MIGHT SAY. IT COMES FROM THE IDEA THAT THERE WAS AN EXTERNAL LAW GIVER GOD WHO MADE THE UNIVERSE AND IMPOSED LAWS UPON IT FROM OUTSIDE. PHYSICISTS HAVE THOUGHT BY TRADITION BOTH EXACTLY THAT IMAGE. THEY SAY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE NOT IN THE UNIVERSE, THEY ARE OUTSIDE OF IT AND THEY ARE IMPRINTED ON IT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH AND THEY ARE FIXED, IMMOVEABLE, UNIVERSAL, ABSOLUTE LAWS. AND I THINK THAT THE TIME HAS COME TO ABANDON THAT IDEA THAT WOULD APPEAL TO SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF THE UNIVERSE TO EXPLAIN THE LAWS THAT ARE WITHIN IN THE UNIVERSE. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN EXPLANATION FROM ENTIRELY WITHIN THE SYSTEM BASED ON THE NOTION OF INFORMATION AS THE PRIMARY ENTITY OUT OF WHICH EVERYTHING IS PUT TOGETHER. >TO PAUL, THE REASON FOR THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE MUST BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE UNIVERSE, NOT IMPOSED FROM WITHOUT. NOT BY A CREATOR GOD, NOT BY ALL MIGHTY PHYSICS. AND THESE LAWS, WHICH PAUL SAYS CAN CHANGE, ARE AT THEIR CORE, INFORMATION. HIS UNIVERSE PULLS CONVENTIONAL WISDOM INSIDE OUT, EXPOSING GAPS IN COMMON EXPLANATIONS. PAUL'S GOT GUTS AND I GO WITH HIS GAPS. BUT NOT WITH HIS THEORIES. IF ALL REASONS ARE TO BE SUFFICIENTLY SUBSUMED WITHIN THE UNIVERSE, SOMETHING ABOUT THE UNIVERSE MUST BE SELF-EXISTING. BUT WHAT COULD EVEN COUNT AS A CANDIDATE? WHAT ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS? SOME SCIENTISTS ASSERT THAT BEYOND THE PHYSICAL SITS CONSCIOUSNESS. THAT THE BEDROCK OF REALITY IS A KIND OF MIND, BUT NOT NECESSARILY A KIND OF GOD. I ASK DAVID CHALMERS, AN AUSTRALIAN PHILOSOPHER OF MIND, WHO RETURNED RESPECTABILITY TO THE ANCIENT IDEA THAT MIND IS MORE THAN BRAIN. DAVID SPECULATES THAT WHAT'S FUNDAMENTAL IN THE COSMOS MAY BE CONSCIOUSNESS. >>CONSCIOUSNESS IS A NATURAL PHENOMENON. I'M CONSCIOUS, YOU ARE CONSCIOUS; IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL FACT OF OUR EXISTENCE. SO I THINK OUR SCIENTIFIC THEORIES OUGHT TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT. ONE OF THE BASIC MYSTERIES OF CONSCIOUSNESS AND SCIENCE IS, HOW DOES CONSCIOUSNESS FIT IN TO THE NATURAL ORDER IF INDEED IT IS A NATURAL PHENOMENON. YOU COULD THINK OF QUANTUM MECHANICS HERE AS OFFERING A REALLY INTERESTING HYPOTHESIS, WHICH IS, HERE IS THE ROLE OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE PHYSICAL WORLD. IT COLLAPSES THE WAVE FUNCTION, MAKES THE INDEFINITE, DEFINITE. >SO YOU ARE IN A SENSE, ADDING CONSCIOUSNESS TO THE PHYSICAL WORLD OR MAYBE THE BETTER TERM THAT YOU USE IS THE NATURAL WORLD, BECAUSE YOU DON'T NEED ANY NON-NATURAL PERSONS LIKE GODS OR ANGELS OR BEINGS TO MAKE THIS WORK. >>NO GODS HERE, NO SPIRITS, NO SPOOKS. JUST CONSCIOUSNESS AND NATURAL PHENOMENON, MAYBE SOMEONE THINKS OUR BEST SCIENCE SAYS THAT ALL THAT IS REAL IS PHYSICAL, BUT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE OUR BEST SCIENCE HAS TO BRING IN CONSCIOUSNESS. FOR AT LEAST POTENTIALLY TWO REASONS - ONE, TO ACCOMMODATE THE VERY FACT OF OUR CONSCIOUSNESS. WE ARE MORE SURE OF IT THAN ANYTHING IN OUR EXISTENCE. AND TWO, MAYBE TO HELP EXPLAIN QUANTUM MECHANICS. IF SO, THAT GIVES US TWO CONVERGING REASONS TO BELIEVE IN THE FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL CONSCIOUSNESS. >I'M STILL SLIGHTLY TROUBLED BY THE DIFFERENCE, IF THERE IS ONE, BETWEEN NATURALISM AND PHYSICAL WORLD. ARE THEY SYNONYMOUS? >>PHYSICALISM IS A VIEW THAT ALL THERE IS IS ATOMS IN THE VOID. SO TO SPEAK. THERE IS SPACE AND TIME AND PARTICLES OF MASS AND CHARGE AND MAYBE A WAVE FACTION OVER THEM. AND NATURALISM, ON THE OTHER HAND, IS A BROADER THESIS. ITS - THE WORLD IS ULTIMATELY SIMPLE. COMPLEXITY IS GENERATED BY SIMPLE ENTITIES OBEYING SIMPLE LAWS. AND WHAT THIS CASE SHOWS US, IS THOSE TWO THINGS CAN COME APART. MAYBE WE HAVE REASONS TO GO BEYOND THE PHYSICAL, TO GO BEYOND ATOMS IN THE VOID TO INCLUDE CONSCIOUSNESS. SO THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE, BUT THE WORLD IS STILL ULTIMATELY NATURAL, STILL INVOKES SIMPLE ENTITIES, FUNDAMENTAL PROPERTIES, OBEYING FUNDAMENTAL SCIENTIFIC LAWS. IT'S JUST THAT THOSE LAWS HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS.NOW TO INCLUDE SO I WOULD CALL THIS NATURALISM, BUT NOT PHYSICALISM. AND I'M JUST BASICALLY TAKING THE GOOD SCIENTIST'S ATTITUDE HERE. I WAS BROUGHT UP A MATERIALIST, I BELIEVE ONLY IN WHAT YOU HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE. DON'T MULTIPLY ENTITIES WITHOUT NEEDING TO. CONSCIOUSNESS, YOU HAD TO BRING IT IN. >YOU NEED TO MULTIPLY SOMETHING TO GO FROM THE PHYSICAL WORLD TO A BROADER NATURAL WORLD. >>SO LET'S BRING IN A NEW PROPERTY. YOU MIGHT SAY THIS IS AN EXPANDED PHYSICAL WORLD, OR YOU COULD SAY IT'S A PHYSICAL AND MENTAL WORLD, I DON'T CARE. WHAT MATTERS TO ME IS THAT IT'S A NATURAL WORLD WITH EXPANDED NATURAL PROPERTIES. YES, THE UNIVERSE CONTAINS MORE THAN WE MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT ORIGINALLY THAT IT CONTAINS, BUT IT'S STILL AN ULTIMATELY NATURAL WORLD, SCIENTIFICALLY INVESTIGATEABLE AND GOVERNED BY NATURAL LAWS. >HERE IS MY TAKE ON PHYSICAL REALITY. IS THERE AN ULTIMATE THEORY THAT EXPLAINS SPACE, TIME, MATTER AND ENERGY? YES. UNDERLYING LAWS OR PRINCIPLES CANNOT CONTINUE FOREVER. ARE THERE SWEEPING NEW LAWS OF NATURE WHICH WILL ALTER OUR SENSE OF REALITY? PROBABLY, BUT THEY WILL BE MORE UNIFYING THAN DISRUPTIVE. DO LAWS EVOLVE? POSSIBLY, THOUGH I DOUBT RADICALLY. DOES THE PHYSICAL WORLD AS WE KNOW IT EXHAUST REALITY? NO. THERE IS MORE. BUT I KNOW NOT WHAT. NOW, WHAT ABOUT CONSCIOUSNESS? TO ME, IT'S THE TEST CASE, THE PROBE OF THE REACH OF REALITY. CONSIDER THREE POSSIBILITIES: ONE, CONSCIOUSNESS IS PURELY PHYSICAL AND THERE IS NOTHING LEFT OVER TO EXPLAIN. TWO, CONSCIOUSNESS REQUIRES PROFOUND RENEW PHYSICAL LAWS OR STUFF. THREE: CONSCIOUSNESS CANNOT BE ENTIRELY EXPLAINED WITHIN THE PHYSICAL WORLD AND MUST INCLUDE NON-PHYSICAL OR SPIRITUAL ELEMENTS. WHAT DO I CONCLUDE? THERE IS MORE TO REALITY THAN TODAY'S PHYSICAL WORLD. THAT IS AS FAR AS I GO FOR NOW. GETTING CLOSER TO TRUTH.
