[♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN:<i> It's the
question that haunts me always.</i> <i> It's the question
that supersedes</i> <i> the theory of everything
in physics.</i> <i> Supersedes the origins
and ends of the universe.</i> <i> Supersedes the nature
of consciousness.</i> <i> Supersedes
the existence of God.</i> <i> Though I ask it often,</i> <i> it's the question
I never tire of asking.</i> <i> It's the question for which
I seek expert ideas</i> <i> and ways of thinking.</i> <i> I must benchmark my beliefs,
test my doubts.</i> <i> It's the question, the only
question that grounds me</i> <i> in the deepest
foundations of reality.</i> [♪♪♪] <i>I cannot not ask this question.</i> <i> Why is there something
rather than nothing?</i> <i> Why is there anything at all?</i> [♪♪♪] <i> I'm Robert Lawrence Kuhn</i> <i> and</i> Closer To Truth<i>
is my journey to find out.</i> [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] KUHN:<i> Why is there
anything at all?</i> <i> I seek every opportunity
to immerse myself</i> <i> in the inscrutable enigma.</i> <i> Explore its substance,
enjoy its subtleties.</i> [♪♪♪] <i> I hear of a workshop</i> <i> on the apparent fine-tuning
of the universe.</i> <i> A gathering of physicists,
cosmologists, and philosophers.</i> <i> Do they also wonder</i> <i> why is there anything at all?</i> <i> I decide to attend.</i> <i> The workshop is in Crete,</i> <i> whose simple beauty
seems to resonate</i> <i> with the bracing impact
of the ultimate question.</i> <i> I speak with participants,
talk fine-tuning and cosmology.</i> <i> I look for an opportunity
to spring my question.</i> <i> Because to explore
fundamental physics,</i> <i> is to appreciate
quantum physics,</i> <i> I begin with a philosopher
of science</i> <i> who focuses on foundations
of quantum physics,</i> <i> Tim Maudlin.</i> Tim, the question
that has literally haunted me most of my life has been the classic
why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there anything at all? The question of why there's
something rather than nothing is not one that's ever
bothered me because it seems
to me pretty evident there can't be
what you would consider to be a satisfactory
answer to it. If I say well there's something
rather than nothing because, the because is going
to mention something, right? It's got to mention
something existent. It can't be that there's
something rather than nothing because of something
non-existent. So, then I'm begging
the question because then you're just going to ask me but
that thing you just pointed to, to explain the existence
of everything, why does it exist? And so, you're obviously
on a regress that's never going to end. So, your claim is that
the question itself is nonsensical? I think the question
clearly is not one to which there can be
a satisfactory answer. So, you're wasting your time
puzzling yourself over it. Yeah. It is in the range
of possibilities, the possibility that there
could have been nothing, absolutely nothing. Not in the sense that people
often talk about this. So, as I say, I think there
are mathematical facts, and in some sense or other,
mathematical entities. I don't think there's
any possibility in which math isn't true. If you're asking physically, would there have
to be a physical world or is it physically possible for there not to be
a physical world, to say it's physically possible
for not to be a physical world, is, of course, a kind of funny
thing to say, you know. It's such an odd elocution, I'm not quite sure
even how to answer it. So, if you would believe,
for example, that the laws of physics
or quantum physics or whatever below is
the universe generator in some sense, I can imagine a condition where
those laws weren't there. I mean, that's not hard to do. Yeah, you can imagine lots
of things that can't happen. So, you have to be
a little careful from going from your imagination
to what's possible. Well said. But now you use an interesting
term that can't happen. That means something
is necessary, necessary in
the philosophical sense. - Right.
- Okay. Yeah, right, necessarily
in some serious science. So, as, as some people say, in any possible world,
that has to be there. There's no logical way
that could not exist. - Right, right.
- Okay. So, if that's true,
and that maybe true, what populates
that category of stuff that you've claimed,
you know, can't not be? They're the things that we don't
think of as contingent anyway, like mathematics. And I would claim
certain moral claims are not contingent,
about the physical world. I think you get into
tricky questions about could the laws of nature
have been different? When we talk about
physical possibility, we usually mean hold the laws of nature fixed, that's what makes
it a physical possibility, is it's in accordance
with the laws of physics. So, just by definition, in order to be
physically possible, the laws have to be the same
as the actual laws of nature. You can play a game of saying
well what would happen if gravity had been
an inverse cube law. I don't think I have to take
that as a serious possibility, I understand how
that game is played. I understand that game
but that's a different game. This game says is it possible
for those laws of physics, whichever ones you want,
not to have been at all. Are the laws of physics
contingent? As oppose to being necessary? Right.
So, again, I think just by definition
of physical possibility, it's not physically
possible for the laws not to have been what they are. You know, what's possible -- But this is ontologically
or metaphysically possible? Right, but it's inconsistent with the essence or
nature of water. Could the laws of physics
be not there at all? In the same sense, that you said would work because
metaphysically water could not be
different than H2O. If you put a gun to my head
and say answer this question. - I'm trying to do that.
- Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, I guess
I would say, no, I don't think
it would be possible for there not to be
laws of physics. That's a view. That the laws of physics
are necessary metaphysically. Yeah, right. And my reaction to that, is what an odd way
for reality to be. [laughter] Well, it's not odd for reality
to have laws of physics. We're pretty sure they do. [♪♪♪] KUHN:<i> Tim's point
I take seriously.</i> <i> Whenever we begin to try
to answer the question,</i> <i> why is there something
rather than nothing,</i> <i> we must ground any punitive
answer on something.</i> <i> Something that exists
prior like logic,</i> <i> which makes
the question circular,</i> <i> and therefore self-refuting.</i> [♪♪♪] <i>I'd buy it but I don't feel it.</i> <i> Rationally, I can see how
to dismiss the question.</i> <i> Emotionally, I cannot
escape its elusive appeal.</i> <i> I do not expect a real
answer but I persist.</i> [♪♪♪] <i> Now, to jump to make
the laws of physics</i> <i> metaphysically necessary
seems a leap too far.</i> <i> To me, such an aggressively
materialistic answer,</i> <i> ironically validates
the non-materialistic force</i> <i> of the original question.</i> <i> I remain deeply unsatisfied,</i> <i>my angst compelling me forward.</i> [♪♪♪] <i> The claim is made that quantum
physics has creation mechanisms,</i> <i> the power to bring
a universe into existence,</i> <i> literally from nothing.</i> <i> Thus, transforming
a philosophical question</i> <i> into a scientific one.</i> <i> While I'm suspicious of this
kind of quantum heavy nothing,</i> <i>I should hear out the mechanism.</i> [♪♪♪] <i> I speak with an advocate
of quantum creation</i> <i>attending the workshop in Crete.</i> <i> An expert on the structure
of the universe,</i> <i> astrophysicist Mario Livio.</i> [♪♪♪] KUHN: Mario, why is there
anything at all? So, let me first say
I do not know why there is -- I would hope not. Anything at all,
I do not know. However, there is one
thing that I can say. The total energy
of our universe is zero. Namely, there is positive
energy that is in mass in energy radiation. And there is negative
energy in gravity. And the two of those
add up to zero. Which means that our universe
appearing out of nothing, does not violate any
kind of conservation of energy or
something like this. Now we also know that
quantum mechanics allows for processes
such as tunneling. If I have a barrier here
and I send the particle here in classical physics,
it would not pass through. In quantum mechanics, because the particle
is more like a wave, there is a probability
that it will pass through, even if it doesn't have enough
energy to overcome it -- this barrier. So, since the total energy is zero, and things can tunnel, then it is possible that even
though there was something that you would call nothing,
and I mean nothing at all, that could tunnel to a situation
where you actually have a geometry,
like our universe, still with zero energy. That is allowed by the laws
of physics that we know. I don't need to invoke
new laws of physics. Now, in physics,
what we have learned that basically everything
that is allowed happens. And so, our universe could literally
appear out of nothing, for no reason. So, there is no answer
to the question why there is. Why? Because it could, not because, you know,
there was any purpose or, you know, any such thing. Now, to get a universe
from nothing, you've described the process but what you're starting with doesn't sound a lot
to me like nothing. It sounds like the laws
of quantum physics. It's nothing in the sense of that there is
no geometry in particular. Because our universe
has a geometry. KUHN: There's no geometry but it is a geometry
generating mechanism. If we have quantum physics
which is the generator, quantum physics
is very complicated. It is very complicated. It is also, in many, in many
respects counterintuitive. Right, right.
But it is complicated, it is something, and it's
a lot, a lot of stuff. You have a mechanism
to generate a universe with geometries
and everything else. But you're starting
with something pretty rich. Right, well you start
with some laws. KUNH: Some laws, yeah. So, you're right. So, the question is why
are there some laws? And again, I don't know
the answer to that. [♪♪♪] KUHN:<i> Yes, Mario,
why are there some laws?</i> <i> Why the laws of physics?</i> <i> Especially why the laws
of quantum mechanics,</i> <i> which seem fiendishly complex.</i> <i> Here's the big question.</i> <i> What's the reason
for the existence</i> <i> of the laws of physics
in the first place?</i> <i> Can the laws of physics
be addressed</i> <i> from within physics itself?</i> <i> I asked the distinguished
South African mathematician</i> <i> and cosmologist, George Ellis.</i> <i> To George, the laws of physics
do not exhaust reality.</i> KUHN: George,
of all the questions, the deep question about why
is there anything at all? The more you think about it,
the dizzier you get. But if it's a deeper
question really than the theory of everything
in physics, or is there a God -- how as a physicist
and as a believer, do you deal with this question? I don't think physics can
have anything to say about it because physics assumes the existence of a
whole lot of stuff. It's physics as humanity exists,
and so the laws of physics. And something for it to act on. The whole structure
of quantum field theory, symmetry principles,
all of that, is assumed before
you can even start physics. And so, physics cannot make
a beginning out of nothing because it requires
all of that stuff, which would have to exist
in some platonic sense before it could do anything. The underlying further
question is that all of that physics depends
on mathematics. If you take it
in the standard way, that old question of the laws
of the nature are written in mathematical terms
and so mathematics also, in some sense, has to exist
before anything physical exist. So, I'm sure that physics itself
can't answer this question. It's a philosophical question and at a certain level, I simply
don't know the answer at all. I think it's a really
deep question. What I do know is that
if people say that physics can explain
why something comes, came out of nothing,
they're simply wrong. Because the structure
of physics is not nothing. And so, the existence
of physics by itself, as I already said,
something exists. So, this question actually deals with
the kind of naïve comeback of, you know, where
did God come from? - Oh, yeah, yeah.
- Or who created God? Because the question why
is there anything at all deals with questions
of contingency and necessity. Now is there something
that is a necessity, that had to exist, as we say, in all possible worlds,
no matter what? In terms of human thought,
because of the way we think, we can keep drilling down,
and at some point, we just have to take a stand
and say here I stand, I cannot go any further. This is where I'm going
to start my thought, with equivalency in math --
in logical thought, you have to start
with a set of axioms and you just have to
accept those axioms as being what they are. And so, what are those axioms
for existence, for you? If you take the classical
theological position, it's Genesis One, God existed. That's the ground and the other
stuff follows from that. If you are a physicist, and you refuse to go
in that direction, then you have to assume the laws of physics, they're
eternal, unchanging, omnipresent on this,
and so on. And so, you have
to say that's my ground, the laws of physics is,
but that's not enough to cause a universe
to come into being. because the attempts
which are being made, are trying to use laws of what happens
within the universe, to describe how the universe
itself came into existence. That may or may not make sense. But, in any case, there's no way
you can prove it was true. You can't get back.
You can't re-run it. You can have theories of wave
functions of the universe or of quantum foam or whatever. Nobody can ever test them. So, you're in the domain
where physics is giving way to philosophy, even if you try to make
it look like physics. It's actually philosophy. KUHN: And a lot of physicists
though, would like to kill philosophy or say
philosophy is dead, or new stuff becomes
good philosophy, then it becomes physics. Yeah, well, I think that a lot
of my physics colleagues are very naïve about philosophy. They are doing philosophy
whether they know it or not. And if you don't think about
the philosophy you're doing, you're just doing
simple-minded philosophy. [♪♪♪] KUHN:<i> I agree with George.</i> <i> Why is there anything at all,
cannot even be addressed</i> <i> within physics,
much less answered.</i> [church bells toll] <i> Theology, of course,
has its ready answer,</i> <i> but doesn't God just kick
the question up a level?</i> <i> If God exists,
why does God exist?</i> <i> There seems
no conceivable answer.</i> <i> Can philosophy,
sophisticated philosophy,</i> <i> save theology?</i> <i> I know the one person to ask.</i> <i> The orthodox
philosophical theologian</i> <i> with a vast vision
of God, David Bentley Hart.</i> <i> To meet David,
I go to Notre Dame.</i> KUHN: David, my friends know
that throughout my life, I have been obsessed
by the question of why something
rather than nothing and many, many
people are as well. Your answer to that,
I think I know, I -- that there is an absolute
being that you call God and that God is a necessity. To me, that's a great -- that would be a great
answer but I don't, I don't see why that's the case. It's the classic
question of ontology. Many different strategies
down the centuries have been employed either
to answer it or to evade it. Very popular strategies right
now, in analytic philosophy, are to say that it's,
it's a mistaken question because absolute nothingness
is just one possible state among an infinite set
of possibilities, all equi-possible,
you know. And therefore,
it's zero probability. I reject that because
it assumes that there's equal weighting
to a state of nothing in every one of those
infinite possibilities. Right. And I, then I don't
have to correct you, - which is good.
- [Kuhn laughs] It also mistakes nothing
as a modal qualifier, as being a physical state
simply devoid of constraints. So, get off that table. I'm with you on that. HART: Well, in a sense then, you already accept
the principle, even if you reject it. Because if you're willing
to accept the existence of the universe as
an ensemble of contingence, the event itself
of the existence of such a universe, is something that in a sense
you have to leave unquestioned. You've just said it can't be
simply one possible state over against another possible
state that is nothingness. Therefore, that the universe
exists at all, carries with it, it would seem
a certain logical necessity. It's not nothing. It's not nothing, but I, I don't
then make the step to where it becomes there has
to be some necessity. This could have just be the way
things are, the brute fact as, as they say. HART: No, you're using the word
necessity equivocally there. The claim necessity is not that
it needs to have been the case. The necessity here
is purely ontological. If the universe,
if all that exists is, is a state of finite contingency
and causal sequacity, sequence. If you try to explain how
that can come to be. Sooner or later,
in the deductive peregrinations that take you towards
an answer, you're going to find that
you have to make a choice. Are these contingent
facts grounded simply in more contingency, along an infinite regress? Or does there have to be
that which is not contingent to allow for even
the possibility of the contingent? I think that's a good question. And, the second, I think is the logically
inevitable correct answer, for the simple reason an entire
system of contingencies is itself a contingent
phenomenon. An order that's entirely
contingent in its constitution, down to its uttermost
first causes, require a first cause, not just -- I don't temporarily
first, I mean prior. But the most fundamental
cause itself, would have to be contingent... on what? It would simply be there, well then it wouldn't be
contingent, would it? It would, again, in some
sense, be a factual necessity. But does that factual necessity
explain itself any better than all the other
contingencies of experience, which require dependency? So, I might agree with you that to have that first cause
in a logical sense, not necessarily temporal sense, I would agree that, that being
some kind of necessity, has a better feeling to it. But I can't say
that necessarily. So, what's the alternative? What you said, that the first
cause was a brute fact or a factual necessity. That's the way things were. I'm sorry. I was invoking that as
a nonsensical answer, I'm sorry. A brute fact then that is a brute contingent fact
that's contingent on nothing, you're talking then about
an absolute contingency. It's, it maybe an attractive
premise if one wants to avoid the other possible conclusion. But I don't see it as
being able to survive much logical scrutiny. That first brute fact, if it's
just a brute fact, like what? What sort of fact then
would we be talking about? KUHN: Doesn't, doesn't matter. The question is how do
you characterize that? Do you, much you characterize
that as a necessity, if it's the first brute fact?
And I don't see -- HART: Not if it's
a contingent first fact, then it's contingent
on something necessary. [Kuhn laughs] So, there is still a necessity
you haven't reached yet. Well, you've added that
point, that you need to -- That's because, because
everything that's contingent is contingent on something, otherwise it's not contingent. If it's not contingent,
then it's self-existent, which in case,
it's logically necessary. I want to go now
to the second big problem here and that is if you accept, if now you got me, I'm going
with you to the second point. I'm saying there has to be
something that is necessity in order --
to answer the question why is there something
rather than nothing? Why is there anything at all? Why, then, must that necessity be what you and,
and the classical traditions have called absolute being which is your definition of God? Why does it have to be that way
rather than some other way? Because the very definition
of absolute being is absolute. That is, it's what absolved
of all the qualities of contingency. In that case,
it's a deduction by negation. What is it that makes
something contingent? That is precisely what would
be absent from the necessary. Okay.
It's almost a tautology? Sure, at the level of ontology,
it is almost tautological. And there's no reason
it shouldn't be. Because it's precisely
that tautology which should, you think, be a simple deduction
of reason, that's absent from,
from a lot of the arguments. So I can go there
but then how do you put other characteristics on that, that begin to look like your
kind of God, because I -- HART: Because
the questions asked -- KUHN: Don't think -- how you can
layer onto that tautology? Sure you can. A -- qualities that
you would call God. Yeah, because you ask
the question of the absolute, not only in terms
of its ontological nature, but the way it underlies
the full range of human experience, and experience
of the existence world, and that would include
the structure of consciousness, the way in which it seems to
allude physical reduction, the way in which it seems
to be pre- preoccupied with transcendental ends. As I said, as long as
you're asking the question only in terms of ontology, all you arrive at
is the absolute, in a rather vacuous
sense perhaps. Although, that definition
of absolute also has to contain, you know, an infinite
capacity of being. So, it's not entirely vacuous,
but yeah, it's devoid of all the warm and inviting
features of devotional theism. But no picture of God
is simply the product of ontological deduction. That's simply one of the aspects under which one
asks the question of the relation
of the finite experience to its ultimate ends
or its ultimate source. [♪♪♪] KUHN:<i> Why is there something
rather than nothing?</i> <i> Why is there anything at all?</i> <i> Why does the question
torment me?</i> <i> It doesn't.</i> <i> I luxuriate in it.</i> <i> As for the existential knot
in the pit of my stomach,</i> <i> I like it there.</i> <i> There are multiple
ways to approach</i> <i> why is there anything at all.</i> <i> Here are four.</i> <i> One, the question
is not a normal question</i> <i>and cannot be answered normally.</i> <i> The laws of physics
must be as they are.</i> <i> Two, the laws of physics
can bring the universe</i> <i> into existence from a kind
of quantum heavy nothing.</i> <i> Three, the question cannot
be answered within physics,</i> <i> only within philosophy.</i> <i> Four, contingent causes,
however vast the series,</i> <i> must terminate in something
that is ultimate necessity.</i> <i> Each of these answers
are attacked.</i> <i> For example, many philosophers
see no logical contradiction</i> <i> in an infinite series
of contingent causes.</i> <i> Moreover, one cannot
leap from absolute being</i> <i> to the existence of God,</i> <i> much less to a personal God.</i> <i> So, I always come home
to the original question.</i> <i> Why is there something
rather than nothing?</i> <i> Why is there anything at all?</i> <i> I ask the question again
and again and again and again,</i> <i> because I am driven
to get</i> Closer To Truth. [♪♪♪] ANNOUNCER:<i>
For complete interviews</i> <i>and further information, please
visit closertotruth.com.</i> [♪♪♪]
