0:00

You are listening to the

0:00

always asking.com podcast. This

0:04

is episode number nine. Today's question, why does

0:07

anything exist?

0:13

Why is there something rather

0:13

than nothing? This has been

0:17

called the first question we

0:17

have any right to ask. In

0:20

today's episode, we will review

0:20

the latest theories and evidence

0:24

which may have finally settled

0:24

this mystery. Enjoy.

0:29

Why does anything exist?

0:29

Why is there something rather

0:33

than nothing? Wouldn't nothing

0:33

have been so much easier? This

0:38

question has ordered and

0:38

mystified people throughout

0:41

time. Quote, the first question

0:41

which we have a right to ask

0:47

will be Why is there something

0:47

rather than nothing? Gottfried

0:51

Wilhelm Leibniz in the

0:51

principles of nature and grace

0:55

based on reason 1714.

0:59

Quote, not how the world is, is

0:59

the mystical, but that it is

1:05

Ludwig vidkun Stein in treatise

1:05

on logic and philosophy 1921.

1:11

Quote, no question is more

1:11

sublime than why there is a

1:16

universe why there is something

1:16

rather than nothing. Derek

1:20

parfit in why anything? Why this

1:20

2008

1:28

Martin Heidegger call this

1:28

question the fundamental

1:31

question of metaphysics, but it

1:31

might as well be the fundamental

1:35

question for any being, our

1:35

existence poses a mystery that

1:39

demands an answer. Where does it

1:39

all come from? Why is there

1:44

anything at all? every society

1:44

in every time has wrestled with

1:49

this dilemma. It's our most

1:49

enduring question. For we all

1:53

seek to know why we are here.

1:53

Lacking an answer, we are like a

1:59

ship adrift. Our ignorance on

1:59

this question makes us like an

2:03

amnesiac who awakens in a dark

2:03

and strange place, knowing

2:07

neither where we are nor how we

2:07

got here. Some say without an

2:11

answer to this question, we

2:11

can't know anything. Quote, it

2:17

is possible to think that one

2:17

cannot answer any question if

2:20

one cannot answer the question

2:20

of why there is something rather

2:23

than nothing. How can we know

2:23

why something is or should be a

2:27

certain way? If we don't know

2:27

why there is anything at all?

2:31

Surely this is the first

2:31

philosophical question that has

2:35

to be answered. And quote,

2:35

Robert nozick in philosophical

2:40

explanations 1981.

2:44

With an answer to this question,

2:44

we could orientate ourselves, we

2:48

would know our place in reality,

2:48

and understand the reason behind

2:52

it all. An answer to this

2:52

question would tell us not only

2:56

why we exist, but also what else

2:56

exists both within the universe

3:00

we see and beyond. But can this

3:00

question even be answered? Some

3:06

have suggested the answer is

3:06

unknowable. Quote, who knows

3:11

truly, who here will declare

3:11

whence it arose? whence this

3:16

creation, the gods are

3:16

subsequent to the creation of

3:20

this, who then knows whence it

3:20

has come into being? whence this

3:26

creation has come into being?

3:26

Whether it was made or not he in

3:30

the highest heaven? Is it

3:30

surveyor? Surely he knows, or

3:34

perhaps he knows not? The hymn

3:34

of creation in rigveda, circa

3:40

1500 BC. For most of history, the

3:43

question remains beyond the

3:46

possibility of being answered.

3:46

But we live in a most exciting

3:50

point in time, one where this

3:50

question has fallen to the

3:53

progress of human knowledge. In

3:53

the past decades, results from

3:58

physics, cosmology, mathematics,

3:58

and computer science have

4:03

coordinated at last to solve

4:03

this timeless question. We can

4:08

now say, with some confidence,

4:08

why we exist. The answer we have

4:13

is more than an idle

4:13

philosophical speculation. It

4:16

can be observationally tested

4:16

and thereby be confirmed or

4:19

falsified. So far, observations

4:19

are in agreement with this

4:24

answer. Let us retrace

4:24

humanity's steps in finding this

4:29

answer and see what this answer

4:29

reveals about the nature of

4:32

reality and our place in it. two

4:32

paths to existence. One reason

4:39

we find Why does anything exist

4:39

so difficult is that there are

4:43

only two possible answers. Both

4:43

are repugnant to our intuition

4:47

as each contradicts our common

4:47

sense understanding of the

4:50

world. given something exists

4:50

either one, something emerged

4:57

from nothing or two

5:00

There are self existent

5:00

things. The idea that something

5:04

came out of nothing is contrary

5:04

to reason. How can nothingness

5:09

do nevermind create anything?

5:09

The idea that there exists self

5:14

exists and things is contrary to

5:14

experience. Everything we know

5:19

appears to have a proceeding

5:19

cause How could anything create

5:23

itself or exist without some

5:23

creative act? And yet that one

5:29

of these answers must be writes

5:29

seems inescapable? There's no

5:33

other way to reach something

5:33

exists without either starting

5:37

with something at the beginning,

5:37

or starting with nothing and

5:40

having something emerge from

5:40

nothing? If we seek an answer to

5:44

this question, we have to be

5:44

willing to accept an idea

5:46

contrary to our common sense

5:46

understanding of the world. But

5:51

which of these paths leads to

5:51

the correct answer? something

5:55

from nothing? The first of the

5:55

two answers Is that something

5:59

emerged from nothing. But how is

5:59

this possible, doesn't even make

6:05

sense logically. For at least

6:05

2500 years, humans have debated

6:11

whether anything can come from

6:11

nothing. The Greek philosopher

6:15

power manatees made the earliest

6:15

recorded arguments that nothing

6:18

comes from nothing, quote, I

6:18

will not permit the to say or to

6:24

think that being came from not

6:24

being for it is impossible to

6:28

think or to say that not being

6:28

is what would then have stirred

6:32

it into activity that being

6:32

should arise from not being

6:36

later rather than earlier. So it

6:36

is necessary that being either

6:40

is absolutely or is not.

6:40

Permanent, is in the way of the

6:45

truth, circa 475 BC.

6:49

To decide whether

6:49

existence emerging from

6:52

nothingness is even logically

6:52

possible, we need a precise

6:55

definition of nothing. For

6:55

instance, by nothing do we mean

6:59

no things? Or do we mean

6:59

absolute nothingness? No laws,

7:03

structures, properties or

7:03

principles? defining nothing.

7:09

Quote, it might have been true

7:09

that nothing ever existed. No

7:13

living beings, no stars, no

7:13

atoms, not even space or time.

7:19

When we think about this

7:19

possibility, it can seem

7:22

astonishing that anything

7:22

exists. And quote, Derek parfit,

7:28

in why anything? Why this 2008?

7:34

What is nothing? It seems like a

7:34

straightforward question. Just

7:39

keep removing things until there

7:39

is nothing left. Start with the

7:44

universe as it is. wipe away all

7:44

the matter and energy. take away

7:50

all the quantum fields of the

7:50

vacuum, and any virtual

7:53

particles popping in and out of

7:53

existence. And voila,

7:58

nothingness. nothingness is

7:58

reality after we delete

8:02

everything out of existence. But

8:02

wait, there's still space, it

8:08

still has dimensionality and

8:08

curvature. There is still time

8:13

and physical law, even if there

8:13

are no particles or fields left

8:17

to be governed by them. Let us

8:17

delete those two. Let's raise

8:22

the volume of space you raise

8:22

time and raise physical law.

8:27

Quote, when we say out of

8:27

nothingness, we do not mean out

8:31

of the vacuum of physics. The

8:31

vacuum of physics is loaded with

8:35

geometrical structure and vacuum

8:35

fluctuations and virtual pairs

8:40

of particles. The universe is

8:40

already in existence when we

8:44

have such a vacuum. Know when we

8:44

speak of nothingness we mean

8:49

nothingness, neither structure

8:49

nor law nor plan. And quote,

8:55

john Archibald Wheeler in law

8:55

without law 1983

9:01

What are we left with? If we

9:01

eliminate all the dimensions of

9:06

space and time we're left with

9:06

zero dimensional changes point

9:11

by point is still a thing. Can

9:11

we delete that two kinds of

9:17

nothing. So long as we operate

9:17

from a theory of geometry, we

9:21

can't define nothingness as

9:21

anything less than a space of

9:24

zero dimensionality. This leaves

9:24

us with a point. If we want to

9:30

eliminate the point, we need to

9:30

define nothingness not as a

9:33

space of zero dimensionality,

9:33

but as something non geometric.

9:38

For this, we must define

9:38

nothingness in terms of some

9:41

other theory. But any theory we

9:41

might choose has its own notion

9:46

of nothing. In other words,

9:46

nothingness is theory dependent.

9:51

For physics, it's no energy, the

9:51

vacuum for geometry, it's no

9:58

dimensionality, a point For set theory, it's no

10:00

elements, the empty set. For

10:05

arithmetic, it's no magnitude

10:05

zero. For information theory,

10:11

it's no information, zero bits.

10:11

There is an unlimited number of

10:16

possible theoretical systems.

10:16

Does this mean there are also

10:21

unlimited conceptions of

10:21

nothing, quote, nothing is

10:26

simple, not even nothing. And

10:26

quote, Bruno Mars shall,

10:34

might there be a true nothing

10:34

one with no laws, principles,

10:38

nor any theory behind it? Or

10:38

might every conception of

10:42

nothing require a theory of

10:42

things in order to declare that

10:45

there are none of them? rules

10:45

for nothing. We are called for

10:51

absolute nothingness, neither

10:51

structure nor law nor plan, but

10:56

is this kind of absolute nothing

10:56

achievable. For instance, the

11:01

law of identity holds that for

11:01

any A, A equals a, without such

11:07

a rule, there would be nothing

11:07

to ensure that nothing stayed

11:10

nothing, and didn't later become

11:10

equal to something. from

11:14

nothingness to persist, the

11:14

rules of logic must apply.

11:18

Further, if nothingness is the

11:18

state where zero things exist,

11:22

then the rules of arithmetic

11:22

must also hold to ensure that

11:26

zero equals zero rather than

11:26

zero equals one. For that, to

11:31

remain no things requires some

11:31

minimum set of laws, there might

11:36

be no things as such, but the

11:36

idea of no laws seems

11:40

incompatible with their being

11:40

and remaining no things. Quote,

11:45

in the beginning, there was only

11:45

truth, logic and their relation,

11:50

no possible reality can do

11:50

without them. CW varieties in

11:55

four dimensional reality

11:55

continued 2018.

12:00

If there were no logic, what

12:00

logic or reason ensures that

12:04

nothing comes from nothing. If

12:04

there were no laws, what law

12:08

principle would prohibit the

12:08

spontaneous emergence of a

12:12

universe? The trouble with

12:12

nothing? Can we define nothing

12:17

in a way that suppresses all

12:17

forms of existence? That is to

12:22

not only have no things but an

12:22

absolute nothingness and

12:25

nothingness of no objects,

12:25

neither abstract nor concrete,

12:29

no properties, no laws, no

12:29

principles, and no information

12:34

content? Or is this a fool's

12:34

errand? One that leads to a

12:40

logical inconsistency and thus

12:40

an impossibility? Might

12:44

nothingness be, in some sense

12:44

unstable? If absolute

12:49

nothingness can be shown to be

12:49

an impossible dream, it will

12:52

advance us on our path to

12:52

discover the reason for

12:55

existence. It might even reveal

12:55

some self existence or

12:59

necessarily existence thing,

12:59

properties of nothing. Anytime

13:04

we delete something from

13:04

reality, we leave something else

13:08

in its place. When we deleted

13:08

matter, we created a vacuum.

13:13

When we eliminated light, we

13:13

created darkness. When we

13:17

removed heat we created cold.

13:17

When we deleted space, we

13:22

created a point, quote, the idea

13:22

of nothingness has not one jot

13:28

more meaning than a square

13:28

circle, the absence of one thing

13:32

always being the presence of

13:32

another, which we prefer to

13:35

leave aside because it is not

13:35

the thing that interests us all

13:38

the thing we were expecting,

13:38

suppression is never anything

13:41

more than substitution, or two

13:41

sided operation which we agree

13:45

to look at from one side only.

13:45

So that the idea of the

13:48

absolution of everything is self

13:48

destructive, inconceivable. It

13:51

is a pseudo idea, a mirage

13:51

conjured by our own imagination,

13:57

on rebirths, and in the two

13:57

sources of morality and religion

14:00

1935. If every deletion is a

14:03

substitution for something else,

14:06

then appeal nothing devoid of

14:06

any properties whatever is

14:10

impossible. So while we might

14:10

succeed in removing all material

14:14

things from reality, we could

14:14

not remove all properties from

14:18

reality. The existence of

14:18

properties appears in escapable

14:23

nothingness of any kind will

14:23

always have some description and

14:27

properties, even when it's just

14:27

a cold, dark, empty vacuum. But

14:33

how far can we go in eliminating

14:33

properties. For instance, if we

14:38

define nothingness as the empty

14:38

set from set theory, what

14:42

properties would remain,

14:42

temperature has no meaning for a

14:46

set will any properties remain

14:46

for such a nothing? properties

14:51

of zero? Every conception and

14:51

the definition of nothing

14:55

contains at its heart zero for

14:55

any conception of

15:00

thing, nothing will always be

15:00

zero of them. The vacuum, zero

15:05

energy, geometry, zero

15:05

dimensionality, the empty set,

15:11

zero elements, arithmetic, zero

15:11

magnitude, information theory,

15:18

zero bits. If zero is a

15:18

universal property of nothing,

15:23

we must ask what are the

15:23

properties of zero? What does

15:27

zero bring to the table of

15:27

reality? Zero has many

15:31

properties. It's even, it's the

15:31

additive identity. It's the only

15:36

number that's neither positive

15:36

nor negative. It's the number of

15:40

elements in the empty set and

15:40

the number of even Prime's

15:43

greater than two. In fact, zero

15:43

has more properties than we

15:48

could list if we recruited all

15:48

the atoms in the observable

15:51

universe to serve as paper and

15:51

ink. This effort is doomed

15:55

because zeros properties are

15:55

infinite in number. zeros

16:00

factors couldn't be listed as

16:00

zero has infinitely many of

16:03

them. Every number evenly

16:03

divides zero and hence is one of

16:07

zeros factors. Aside from zeros

16:07

factors, we could list infinite

16:13

trivial properties of 00 is the

16:13

difference between one and one

16:17

and it's the difference between

16:17

two and two. And it's the

16:20

difference between three and

16:20

three and so on. But there are

16:24

also an infinite number of non

16:24

trivial properties of zero. Some

16:28

are even beyond the

16:28

understanding of today's

16:31

mathematicians. As an example,

16:31

mathematicians have for

16:35

centuries wondered, are there

16:35

even numbers greater than two

16:40

that aren't the sum of two

16:40

primes? This question is known

16:44

as goldbach conjecture after

16:44

Christian goldbach, who posed it

16:47

in 1742. Nearly three centuries

16:47

later, it remains unsolved.

16:54

Between 2002 1002 a $1 million

16:54

prize was offered to anyone who

17:00

could answer this question. All

17:00

this money to settle a question

17:04

about a property of zero. To

17:04

decide is zero the number of

17:09

exceptions to go box rule, we

17:09

now see why nothing is simple,

17:15

not even nothing. All

17:15

definitions of nothing include

17:19

the concept of zero. Far from

17:19

being simple. Zero is an object

17:24

of unlimited complexity. An

17:24

explosion of entities can zero

17:30

exist in isolation, completely

17:30

alone from other numbers, or do

17:34

relationships between numbers

17:34

make them inseparable. zeros

17:39

properties reference other

17:39

numbers. And each of these

17:43

numbers carries its own set of

17:43

properties and relations to the

17:46

other numbers are the properties

17:46

of one any less real than the

17:50

properties of zero, perhaps in a

17:50

reality having no things one is

17:56

meaningless. In a reality

17:56

containing nothing, there are no

18:00

things as such, at least no

18:00

material things. But in such a

18:05

nothing, there is an abstract

18:05

thing. 00 reflects the number of

18:10

material things to count. But

18:10

how many abstract things are

18:15

there to count, there is at

18:15

least one, the one number that

18:19

exists to define the number of

18:19

material things is zero. But if

18:24

we have one number, and it is

18:24

one thing to count, now another

18:28

number exists one, we then have

18:28

zero and one together as the

18:33

only numbers. But now we have

18:33

two numbers. Now to exists. This

18:40

is how numbers are defined in

18:40

set theory. Within set theory,

18:45

each number is formed as the set

18:45

of all previous sets. The

18:49

process starts with the empty

18:49

set, which contains zero things.

18:55

zero equals the empty set.

18:58

One equals the set of 02 equals

18:58

the set of zero and one,

19:07

three equals the set of 01 and

19:07

two,

19:12

four equals the set of 012 and

19:12

three, it seems once a single

19:19

abstract number is admitted,

19:19

each next number comes to life

19:23

as the count of the abstract

19:23

numbers that preceded it. Is

19:27

there any way to stop the

19:27

proliferation of infinite

19:29

abstract entities? If zero

19:29

exists by virtue of there being

19:34

zero things to count, then on

19:34

that basis, shouldn't every

19:38

number have the same rights to

19:38

exist by virtue of being the

19:41

number of proceeding numbers

19:41

there are to count, quote, the

19:46

existence of any number in

19:46

virtue of its properties entails

19:50

the existence of all the others

19:50

is a system of mathematics

19:53

couldn't exist bereft only of

19:53

the number, say 42 and the

19:58

existence of any number In virtue of the false set of

20:00

its properties or structural

20:03

relationships entails the

20:03

existence of every other number.

20:07

And quote, David Pearson. Why

20:07

does anything exist 1995

20:15

set theory and building up

20:15

numbers from the empty set of

20:18

modern ideas, they appeared

20:18

around the turn of the 20th

20:22

century. Yet the idea of numbers

20:22

giving rise to themselves goes

20:26

back much farther. Quote, the

20:26

Tao gives birth to one, one

20:33

gives birth to two, two gives

20:33

birth to three, three gives

20:38

birth to all things, large die

20:38

in chapter 42 of Tao Te Ching,

20:44

circa 600 BC, not true nothing. Whenever we

20:47

specify or define nothing, we

20:52

invoke theories and concepts,

20:52

which in turn, lead to

20:56

properties and abstract

20:56

entities. But what if we forego

21:00

even specifying nothing? might

21:00

this be a path to achieve

21:04

absolute nothingness? A true

21:04

nothing having

21:10

no things, no objects?

21:14

No definitions, no properties,

21:18

no abstract entities, no

21:18

concepts.

21:22

No sex, no numbers.

21:26

No set theory, no mathematics,

21:30

no specifications, no

21:30

information. avoiding all this

21:35

we have no theories of any kind.

21:35

We are left with a plain and

21:39

simple, pure, unadulterated

21:39

nothing at all. But again, this

21:44

leads to trouble. There's a

21:44

problem with this kind of

21:48

nothing and nothing of no

21:48

information is identical to

21:51

everything. Quote, we note that

21:51

the collection of all possible

21:56

descriptions has zero complexity

21:56

or information content. This is

22:01

a consequence of algorithmic

22:01

information theory, the

22:04

fundamental theory of computer

22:04

science. There is a mathematical

22:09

equivalence between the

22:09

everything as represented by

22:12

this collection of all possible

22:12

descriptions and nothing has

22:15

state have no information. And

22:15

quote, Russell Standish, in

22:21

theory have nothing 2006.

22:25

At first, this sounds counter

22:25

intuitive, if not outright

22:29

wrong. Yet this consequences

22:29

something we intuitively

22:32

understand in other contexts.

22:32

Let's review three such cases on

22:38

sculpted marble and unsent

22:38

email, and the library of

22:42

baybel. Each demonstrates an

22:42

equivalence between the nothing

22:46

of no specification and the

22:46

everything of all possibilities

22:50

and sculpted marble. Before

22:50

marked by a sculptors chisel, a

22:55

block of marble contains every

22:55

figure, or at least every figure

22:59

fitting the dimensions of the

22:59

block. Michelangelo's piatto was

23:03

in the block before he uncovered

23:03

it. It was there with all the

23:07

other figures. To bring forth

23:07

the piatto alone required the

23:12

addition of information,

23:12

Michelangelo had to uniquely

23:16

specify the pietta from among

23:16

the set of all possibilities.

23:20

Quote, there is a beautiful

23:20

angel in that block of marble

23:25

and I am going to find it all I

23:25

have to do is to knock off the

23:29

outside pieces of marble and be

23:29

very careful not to cut into the

23:33

angel with my chisel. In a month

23:33

or so you will see how beautiful

23:37

it is. George F Pentecost in the

23:37

angel in the marble 1883.

23:45

This specification requires

23:45

adding information to the block

23:49

by way of chisel marks. It is

23:49

only in the absence of this

23:53

information in the absence of

23:53

any chisel marks that all

23:57

possible figures remain. In this

23:57

sense information is subtractive

24:02

rather than additive. When

24:02

information specifies it

24:06

eliminates from the pre existing

24:06

infinite set of possibilities.

24:10

Absent such information, all

24:10

possibilities remain an unsent

24:16

email you are at your desk

24:16

awaiting an important email from

24:21

your boss. Before this message

24:21

arrives, you know nothing about

24:25

the contents of this email. You

24:25

are in a state of having no

24:29

information. But there is one

24:29

thing you know before the email

24:33

arrives. The email will be one

24:33

message from among the infinite

24:37

set of possible emails. Only

24:37

after the email arrives in your

24:42

inbox do you learn which from

24:42

among the infinite set of

24:45

messages the boss chose to send

24:45

you? But consider the case where

24:49

instead of sending a single

24:49

email, the boss sent you every

24:53

possible email Would you be able

24:53

to learn anything from these

24:57

infinite messages about what

24:57

your boss wants?

25:00

The lack of specification in the

25:00

infinite set of messages is

25:04

equal to the lack of

25:04

specification that existed prior

25:07

to receiving anything. Both

25:07

states are equivalently

25:10

unspecified. Therefore, both

25:10

represents states of complete

25:15

ignorance and a state of having

25:15

zero information. Having every

25:20

message is as informative as

25:20

having no message. The Library

25:25

of baybel one of the best

25:25

illustrations of the uselessness

25:29

of all information comes from

25:29

Jorge Luis Bohr has his concept

25:33

of a total library, described in

25:33

his short story The Library of

25:37

baybel. This library is

25:37

described as follows, quote, the

25:44

universe, which others call the

25:44

library is composed of an

25:47

indefinite and perhaps infinite

25:47

number of hexagonal galleries

25:51

with vast air shafts between

25:51

surrounded by very low railings.

25:56

from any of the hexagons, one

25:56

can see interminably the upper

26:00

and lower floors. There are five

26:00

shelves for each of the hexagons

26:05

walls. Each shelf contains 35

26:05

books of uniform format. Each

26:10

book is a 410 pages, each page

26:10

have 40 lines, each line have

26:16

some 80 letters which are black

26:16

in color. This thinker observed

26:20

that all the books, no matter

26:20

how diverse they might be, are

26:24

made up of the same elements,

26:24

the space, the period, the

26:28

comma, the 22 letters of the

26:28

alphabet. He also alleged to

26:32

factor which travelers have

26:32

confirmed in the vast library

26:35

there are no two identical

26:35

books. From these two

26:39

incontrovertible premises he

26:39

deduced that the library is

26:42

total and that it shelves

26:42

register all the possible

26:45

combinations of the 20 odd

26:45

orthographical symbols. Jorge

26:50

Luis Boer has in the library of

26:50

baybel 1941.

26:56

From the provided information,

26:56

we can calculate the number of

26:59

books in this library. This

26:59

total library contains every

27:04

possible 410 page book

27:04

representing every possible

27:08

arrangement of 25 characters.

27:08

Each page with 40 lines and 80

27:14

characters contains 3200

27:14

characters. Each book with 410

27:21

pages contains 410 times 3200 or

27:21

1,312,000 characters. With an

27:30

alphabet of 25 characters. This

27:30

gives 25 to the 1,312,000 power

27:36

possible books. This number is

27:36

25 multiplied by itself over a

27:42

million times. To put its

27:42

magnitude in context, the number

27:46

of atoms in the observable

27:46

universe is only 25 to the power

27:50

of 57, or 25. multiplied by

27:50

itself 57 times this library is

27:57

a great treasure. For in this

27:57

library we can find every book,

28:01

article, poem, and novel ever

28:01

written or that could be

28:05

written. We will find

28:05

descriptions of every scientific

28:09

theory from Newton's Principia

28:09

to Einstein's relativity to the

28:13

presently unknown theory of

28:13

quantum gravity, we will find

28:17

blueprints to world changing

28:17

technology is not yet invented

28:20

based on principles not yet

28:20

discovered. This library

28:25

possesses the greatest works of

28:25

literature, the complete works

28:28

of Shakespeare, Dickens and

28:28

Tolstoy. It also has every work

28:33

yet to be written, the completed

28:33

Game of Thrones series, as well

28:37

as the unfinished works of

28:37

talking Hemingway, and Twain.

28:42

The library has the untold

28:42

histories of every civilization,

28:46

including civilizations now last

28:46

time, it has the contents of

28:50

every scroll burned in the fire

28:50

of Alexandria. The library has

28:55

biographies of every person

28:55

who's ever lived, and even

28:58

biographies of those yet to be

28:58

born. What could be more

29:02

valuable than this boundless

29:02

trove of information with its

29:06

complete knowledge, its answers

29:06

to every mystery, and its

29:09

articulated solutions to every

29:09

problem. This is where the

29:13

equivalence between all

29:13

information and no information

29:16

rears its ugly head. it renders

29:16

the library worthless. There are

29:22

issues with this library to

29:22

start for every valid theory,

29:27

technology, history, and

29:27

autobiography in the library,

29:31

there are countless others that

29:31

are subtly wrong, inaccurate, or

29:34

utterly bogus. Worse, finding

29:34

any book with more than a few

29:39

grammatically sensible words is

29:39

next to impossible. Most books

29:44

are pure gibberish, or babble

29:44

indistinguishable from random

29:48

sequences of characters. A

29:48

typical page from a book in the

29:52

library of Babel contains

29:52

English sounding words, but

29:56

these are no more frequent than

29:56

random chance predicts.

30:00

Perhaps all hope is not lost.

30:00

Since this library contains

30:05

every possible book. Surely this

30:05

library contains books that

30:08

serve as indexes to find all the

30:08

other meaningful and sensible

30:12

books in the library. But this

30:12

dream is also impossible. Given

30:18

the number of books, it's

30:18

impossible to uniquely reference

30:21

any other book with a descriptor

30:21

shorter than the length of the

30:24

book. Thus, it takes all 410

30:24

pages to reference a specific

30:30

book in this library. Due to its

30:30

completeness, the library itself

30:35

is the most compact catalog of

30:35

all the books in the library. In

30:39

other words, a card catalog of

30:39

the library would be the library

30:43

itself. What if we organize the

30:43

books somehow, such as by

30:48

sorting them in alphabetical

30:48

order, then finding any

30:52

particular book would be easy.

30:52

This too suffers from a

30:56

pathological breakdown. While

30:56

this makes it easy to find any

31:01

particular book, The difficulty

31:01

shifts from finding the book to

31:04

deciding which book we want to

31:04

find. This is a consequence of

31:09

the library having every

31:09

possible book. As one seeks a

31:13

book of interest. One is faced

31:13

with 25 choices to choose which

31:17

of the 25 characters is next in

31:17

the content of the book we seek.

31:22

During the search, the seeker

31:22

must choose each next letter,

31:26

and must do this for all

31:26

1,350,000 characters in the

31:31

book. Thus, finding a book in

31:31

this library is as difficult as

31:36

writing the book in the first

31:36

place. In a way, we already have

31:40

access to this library, as we

31:40

are already free to put down any

31:44

sequence of characters we want,

31:44

and thus find a book that is

31:48

already present somewhere in

31:48

this total library. Thus, this

31:52

library provides no new

31:52

knowledge or information. Its

31:56

set of all books is as helpful

31:56

to us as if it had no books. And

32:01

so a total library offers

32:01

nothing. It's equivalent to

32:05

having no information at all.

32:05

You can explore this frustrating

32:10

enigma of the library of Babel,

32:10

Jonathan bazille, created an

32:15

online version of library of

32:15

Babel dot info. Everything from

32:19

nothing. information theory

32:19

reveals the equivalence between

32:24

the totality of all information

32:24

and the nothingness of zero

32:27

information. Both lack any

32:27

specification. Both are

32:32

completely uninformative, both

32:32

contained within them the

32:37

complete and infinite set of

32:37

every possibility. We've seen

32:41

this equivalence firsthand. We

32:41

saw it in the ns sculpted block

32:46

of marble, in the unsent email,

32:46

and in the library of baybel. So

32:51

is nothing of no specification,

32:51

or nothing or an everything.

32:56

less information more reality.

32:56

How much information is in the

33:01

library of baybel. To determine

33:01

this, we need only consider what

33:06

is the shortest description that

33:06

can generate the content of the

33:10

library. For instance, a library

33:10

containing one of each possible

33:15

410 page book with 3200

33:15

characters per page and a fixed

33:21

alphabet of 25 characters. The

33:21

proceeding description for the

33:26

library is 125 characters long,

33:26

there could be shorter

33:31

descriptions, but this sets an

33:31

upper bound for the information

33:34

content of the library of

33:34

baybel. It takes next to no

33:39

information to describe the vast

33:39

library of baybel.

33:42

Paradoxically, there's more

33:42

information in a single page

33:46

from a single book in the

33:46

library than in the entire

33:49

library itself. How could this

33:49

be? How can there be less

33:54

information in the library as a

33:54

whole than there is in a single

33:57

book or page from the library.

33:57

This is a consequence of

34:02

algorithmic information theory,

34:02

which includes the science of

34:05

data compression. It reveals

34:05

that it is simpler in terms of

34:10

needing a shorter description to

34:10

generate every book in the

34:13

library than it is to generate

34:13

only a single book or a single

34:17

page of a book in the library. A

34:17

shorter, less specific and more

34:22

general description casts a

34:22

wider net. A single book

34:26

requires 1,312,000 characters.

34:26

The Library of Babel requires

34:33

125 characters. all possible

34:33

books requires 18 characters.

34:41

The description or possible

34:41

books needs fewer characters

34:45

than the description of the

34:45

library of Babel, but it defines

34:48

a much larger set of books. In

34:48

fact, it defines an infinite set

34:52

of books of all possible lengths

34:52

and character sets. The Library

34:57

of baybel though vast was still

35:00

finite, Mike the same apply to

35:00

our universe and reality. To

35:05

describe one universe like ours

35:05

requires a vast amount of

35:09

information. It requires

35:09

specifying not only the physical

35:13

laws, but also the position,

35:13

direction and speed of every

35:17

particle in the universe. This

35:17

is estimated to require on the

35:21

order of 10 to the power of 90

35:21

bits. Yet to specify every

35:26

possible universe of our kind, a

35:26

multiverse of every possible

35:30

arrangement of particles ruled

35:30

by our laws of physics needs

35:34

much less information. Such a

35:34

multiverse requires only the

35:38

information to define the

35:38

physical laws, particle types,

35:42

fundamental forces and constants

35:42

of nature. This can be done in

35:47

just a few pages of equations.

35:47

describing our specific

35:51

universes like describing a

35:51

specific book from the library

35:55

of baybel. It needs more

35:55

information than the library

35:59

itself. In theories, such as the

35:59

string theory landscape, the

36:03

constants of nature are not

36:03

specified by the theory leading

36:07

to an even greater multiverse

36:07

consisting of every possible

36:10

universe having every set of

36:10

possible values for the

36:13

constants of nature, for

36:13

example, different values for

36:16

things like the electron mass

36:16

and the strength of

36:18

electromagnetism. There are

36:18

reasons to suspect this for

36:23

something like it is true. For

36:23

one, it explains why laws of

36:27

physics and constants of nature

36:27

appear fine tuned for the

36:31

emergence of life. See, was the

36:31

universe made for life. This

36:37

description of a string theory

36:37

landscape needs less

36:40

information, it might save a

36:40

page by not having to include

36:44

the 30 some odd constants of

36:44

nature, and yet, it describes a

36:48

vastly larger multiverse. the

36:48

observable universe with

36:53

particle velocities, physical

36:53

constants and physical equations

36:57

requires 10 to the 90 bits or

36:57

about 10 to the 85 pages to

37:01

specify the quantum multiverse

37:01

with physical constants and

37:05

physical equations requires

37:05

approximately 144,000 bits or

37:10

about six pages to specify. The

37:10

string theory landscape with its

37:15

physical equations requires

37:15

approximately 120,000 bits or

37:19

about five pages to specify all

37:19

physical possibility requires

37:25

zero bits. What happens when the

37:25

length of reality's description

37:30

goes to zero? This would leave

37:30

the equations themselves

37:34

unspecified, implying an even

37:34

greater multiverse. This

37:38

multiverse includes universes

37:38

not just of every arrangement of

37:42

matter, nor universes of every

37:42

set of constants, but universe

37:46

is ruled by every kind of

37:46

physical equations. Quote, if

37:51

all possible string vacuolar

37:51

spacetime geometries, masses of

37:55

elementary particles and

37:55

interaction strengths and laws

37:59

and by laws of physics are

37:59

realized, then all possible

38:02

descriptions are satisfied. This

38:02

is equivalent to zero

38:06

information. And quote, David

38:06

Pearson, why does anything

38:12

exist? 1995.

38:16

Thus, to specify all possible

38:16

physical laws, all possible

38:20

physical constants for all

38:20

possible universes, needs no

38:24

information at all. Might we

38:24

inhabit such a nothing. This is

38:30

the thesis of Russell Standish,

38:30

his 2006 book theory of nothing.

38:35

Standish believes our universe

38:35

with its seemingly vast quantity

38:39

of information is something like

38:39

a book in the library of baybel.

38:44

We will then be denizens of

38:44

nothing, occupying a place

38:47

within a total reality which

38:47

altogether amounts to zero

38:50

information. Such a reality one

38:50

of zero information is the

38:56

simplest state of existence.

38:56

It's simpler than an empty

38:59

vacuum or a geometrical point.

38:59

As these both need a nonzero

39:04

amount of information to

39:04

describe necessary existence.

39:09

We've attempted but

39:09

frustratingly failed to define a

39:13

true nothing. When we tried to

39:13

specify a nothing, whether as a

39:17

vacuum, a point or an empty set,

39:17

we inevitably invoke properties,

39:22

abstract entities, the numbers

39:22

zero and the infinitude of

39:25

numbers and their relationships.

39:25

Furthermore, this specification

39:31

is not an absolute nothing as it

39:31

requires reality to have a

39:34

nonzero amount of information to

39:34

specify it. Alternatively, if we

39:39

attempt to nothing of zero

39:39

information and zero

39:42

specification, we get a total

39:42

reality containing all

39:45

possibility. Neither approach

39:45

succeeds in bringing about

39:49

absolute nothingness. Moreover,

39:49

these approaches rely upon and

39:54

assume the validity of logical

39:54

principles and consistency. No

39:59

reality. Not even and nothing appears

40:00

possible without laws and

40:03

principles of logic. And so the

40:03

goal of the philosophers nothing

40:08

the neither structure nor law,

40:08

nor plan kind of true nothing at

40:12

all seems an impossible dream.

40:12

The nothings we attempt to break

40:17

down and lead to some things. With no structure, there are

40:20

zero structures. This introduces

40:24

zero, and with it the structure

40:24

of all numbers and their

40:27

interrelations. With no law, there are no

40:30

restrictions on what can or

40:33

cannot exist nor any law to

40:33

prevent things spontaneously

40:37

popping into existence. With no plan, there is no

40:40

information which is equivalent

40:44

to a totality. Inspired by his

40:44

discovery of binary numbers,

40:49

libraries wrote to the Duke of

40:49

Brunswick in 1679, suggesting a

40:53

design for a coin. He titled it

40:53

imago creation is all the image

40:58

of creation. Its motto reads,

40:58

quote, Omnibus x nihill, do send

41:06

these sufficeth, Unum for

41:06

producing everything out of

41:10

nothing, one principle is

41:10

enough. And quote, Gottfried

41:15

Wilhelm Leibniz in letter to

41:15

Duke 1679.

41:21

If a true and absolute Nothing

41:21

is impossible, or unstable, does

41:24

this mean there must be self

41:24

creating or self existent

41:27

things? kind of thing exist out

41:27

of logical necessity? Because

41:32

its absence is impossible? What

41:32

might the nature of such things

41:36

be a self existence thing? If

41:36

something did not emerge out of

41:42

nothing, then there's only one

41:42

other possibility that there is

41:46

something that has always

41:46

existed. In other words,

41:50

nothingness is not the default

41:50

state of reality. Quote, it is

41:55

extraordinary that there should

41:55

exist anything at all. Surely,

41:59

the most natural state of

41:59

affairs is simply nothing, no

42:03

universe, no God, nothing. But

42:03

there is something Richard

42:09

Swinburne in Is there a god

42:09

1996.

42:14

Given that something exists, it

42:14

either came from nothing or else

42:18

something has existed from the

42:18

beginning, the existence of this

42:22

thing is somehow necessary, it

42:22

existed without any proceeding

42:27

cause. This, we also find

42:27

contrary to intuition. It's

42:33

strange because everything we

42:33

are familiar with can trace its

42:36

existence to some earlier cause.

42:36

Manufactured things are made by

42:41

people, or by machines that were

42:41

made by people. Life comes from

42:46

other life. Things not created

42:46

by humans or other life, like

42:51

rivers and mountains are created

42:51

by natural forces acting on

42:54

matter. It seems to defy reason

42:54

for a thing to exist without a

42:59

cause. And yet, we know the

42:59

universe exists. The universe

43:05

either came from some proceeding

43:05

cause or else the universe has

43:09

always existed is self existent

43:09

or self creating, there is no

43:14

third option. If the universe is

43:14

not the end of this causal

43:18

chain, then something else is

43:18

therefore we must accept some

43:23

things are self creating come

43:23

out of nothing, or are self

43:27

existent. Let's call such a

43:27

thing causeless. Existing

43:32

without cause, take anything

43:32

that exists the chair, you're

43:37

sitting in your conscious

43:37

thoughts, the Eiffel Tower. For

43:41

the purposes of the reasoning,

43:41

it doesn't matter what thing we

43:44

start with. Given that this

43:44

thing exists, there are two

43:49

possibilities either that thing

43:49

was caused or it was not caused.

43:54

If a thing has no cause, then it

43:54

is causeless. Otherwise, the

43:59

thing has a cause and its

43:59

existence is owed to some other

44:02

thing. If we follow the chain of

44:02

causality back towards an

44:06

ultimate root cause there are

44:06

three possibilities. One, first

44:12

cause the chain of causality

44:12

comes to an end in a first

44:16

cause. to infinite regression,

44:16

the chain of causality continues

44:22

forever. Three, causal loop, the

44:22

chain of causality forms a

44:28

closed cycle, or a loop. These

44:28

represent all possibilities. The

44:34

trace either ends or first cause

44:34

or it continues forever. If it

44:39

continues forever, it forms an

44:39

infinite chain that's either

44:42

open an infinite regression, or

44:42

closed a causal loop. In all

44:48

three cases, we find something

44:48

that has always existed, either

44:52

the first cause the infinite

44:52

chain itself, or the causal loop

44:56

itself, this thing which has

44:56

always exists

45:00

Did we can describe as causeless

45:00

first Cause if when tracing back

45:06

through the series of causes, we

45:06

happen upon something causeless

45:10

then our existence results from

45:10

a first cause. Leading

45:14

cosmological theories such as

45:14

the Big Bang and cosmic

45:18

inflation posits that the

45:18

universe is not infinitely old,

45:21

but rather underwent an abrupt

45:21

event where it came into

45:24

existence that our universe has

45:24

appoints that maybe marketers

45:28

are beginning leaves open the

45:28

possibility that there is a

45:31

proceeding cause for our

45:31

universe. Another possibility is

45:35

that the universe has its own

45:35

cause emerging as a random

45:39

quantum fluctuation allowed by

45:39

laws of physics. many religions

45:44

speak of the first cause as a

45:44

divine act of creation. In such

45:48

a case, God would be the first

45:48

cause. Yet some other non

45:53

theistic objects could as well

45:53

be responsible for our

45:56

existence. If the universe is

45:56

not eternal, we should look for

46:00

some reason for the sudden

46:00

appearance of the universe to

46:03

explain how it could arise by

46:03

itself be self existent, or be

46:08

the product of some prior cause.

46:08

Infinite regression. If our

46:13

universe has an eternal history,

46:13

or if it belongs to a reality

46:17

having an eternal history, then

46:17

we exist due to an infinite

46:21

regression. A number of

46:21

scientific theories propose that

46:25

our universe is eternal. Prior

46:25

to wide acceptance of the Big

46:30

Bang, the steady state model was

46:30

popular. It proposed that the

46:34

universe is eternally expanding

46:34

with new matter perpetually

46:38

created to fill the void in the

46:38

newly made space. Since the

46:42

acceptance of the Big Bang,

46:42

various new models suppose that

46:46

the Big Bang is itself part of

46:46

an eternal succession of big

46:50

bangs. Roger Penrose is

46:50

conformal. cyclic cosmology

46:54

supposes that the heat death of

46:54

our universe could appear as a

46:58

new big bang in the next year

46:58

and Lee Smolin proposed

47:02

cosmological natural selection

47:02

where in a new universe spawns

47:06

every time a black hole forms.

47:06

Accordingly, if the laws mutate,

47:11

he suggests that universes might

47:11

even evolve towards having laws

47:15

that maximize the production of

47:15

black holes. Sean Carroll notes

47:20

that the equations of quantum

47:20

mechanics unlike those of

47:23

general relativity, permit

47:23

physicists to calculate

47:26

eternally into the past or

47:26

future. With a theory of quantum

47:30

gravity, we could in principle

47:30

predict backwards to times

47:33

proceeding the Big Bang, quote,

47:33

the Schrodinger equation has an

47:39

immediate, profound consequence.

47:39

Almost all quantum states evolve

47:44

eternally toward both the past

47:44

and the future. Unlike classical

47:49

models, such as spacetime in

47:49

general relativity, which can

47:53

hit singularities beyond which

47:53

evolution cannot be extended,

47:56

quantum evolution is very

47:56

simple. If this setup describes

48:01

the real world, there is no

48:01

beginning nor end to time. Shown

48:06

Carolyn, why is there something

48:06

rather than nothing? 2018.

48:13

According to ancient legends,

48:13

the world rests on the back of a

48:17

cosmic turtle. When asked what

48:17

the cosmic turtle rests on a

48:21

common responses, it is turtles

48:21

all the way down an infinite

48:25

regression. If an infinite

48:25

regression is true, there is no

48:30

ultimate cause. However, we

48:30

might still look for an ultimate

48:34

explanation for the chain of

48:34

causes. causal.

48:39

It might be that our existence

48:39

is part of an infinite series,

48:43

but one that repeats forever. If

48:43

true, we are stuck in a never

48:48

ending causal loop. The

48:48

hypothesized big bounce is an

48:52

example of a cyclic cosmology.

48:52

In 1922, Alexander Freedman

48:58

applied Einstein's equations of

48:58

general relativity to the

49:01

universe as a whole. He found

49:01

that for certain values of the

49:05

density of the universe and the

49:05

cosmological constant, the

49:09

universe will expand for a

49:09

period of time, slow down, and

49:13

eventually re collapse. In his

49:13

1923 book, the world of space

49:18

and time, Friedman speculates

49:18

that the collapse or Big Crunch

49:23

could rebound in a big bounce,

49:23

causing a new Big Bang. The

49:27

process could repeat forever.

49:27

The idea of cyclic cosmology has

49:32

appealed to many scientists,

49:32

including Georges Lemaitre,

49:36

Richard Tolman, George gameau,

49:36

William Bonnell, Herman Sangster

49:41

and Robert Dick, among others.

49:41

Quote, we can now ask ourselves

49:47

two important questions. Why was

49:47

our universe in such a highly

49:52

compressed state? And why did it

49:52

start expanding? The simplest

49:58

and mathematically most a consistent way of answering

50:00

these questions would be to say

50:03

that the big squeeze which took

50:03

place in the early history of

50:06

our universe was the result of a

50:06

collapse which took place at a

50:09

still earlier era. And that the

50:09

present expansion is simply an

50:14

elastic rebound which started as

50:14

soon as the maximum permissible

50:17

squeezing density was reached.

50:17

And quote, George gameau in the

50:23

creation of the universe, 1952

50:28

cyclical cosmologies can be

50:28

found in many religions. For

50:32

example, there is the concept of

50:32

the Wheel of Time in the dharmic

50:36

religions. Quote, the most

50:36

elegant and sublime of these is

50:42

a representation of the creation

50:42

of the universe at the beginning

50:45

of each cosmic cycle, a motif

50:45

known as the cosmic dance of

50:48

Shiva. The God called in this

50:48

manifestation netta Raja, the

50:54

dance King has four hands. In

50:54

the upper right hand is a drum

50:58

whose sound is the sound of

50:58

creation. In the upper left hand

51:03

is a tongue of flame, a reminder

51:03

that the universe now newly

51:07

created will billions of years

51:07

from now be utterly destroyed,

51:12

and quote, Carl Sagan in Cosmos

51:12

1980.

51:18

But cyclic models lacking

51:18

observational evidence and

51:22

theoretical support remained on

51:22

the periphery of cosmology. In

51:27

1998, observations revealed the

51:27

expansion of the universe was

51:31

not slowing but accelerating.

51:31

This seems to rule out a future

51:36

collapse. The driver of this

51:36

acceleration, dark energy

51:41

remains little understood. If it

51:41

is constant, the expansion will

51:45

continue forever, but in some

51:45

theories, it varies with time

51:50

and so a later collapse may be

51:50

possible. cyclic models have

51:55

seen a revival. In 2001, Justin

51:55

Horry vert offered Paul Steiner

52:02

the Neil terrick proposed the

52:02

EAC pi erotic universe. This

52:06

idea marries string theory and

52:06

cosmology to give a model where

52:10

periodic brain collisions

52:10

trigger cycles of big bangs and

52:13

big crunches. If our universe is

52:13

part of a causal loop, no

52:18

beginning or end is

52:18

identifiable. But what got it

52:22

started? Did one of the

52:22

succession of states spring

52:26

forth out of nothing? Or might

52:26

the loop have always existed?

52:30

The nature of uncaused things

52:30

given that reality exists, we

52:36

know there must be an entity

52:36

that is causeless. What is it

52:40

about causeless entities that

52:40

makes them existent? If a first

52:45

cause, how did it bring itself

52:45

into existence? If an infinite

52:50

regression or causal loop? How

52:50

did it come into being? Might it

52:54

exist out of logical necessity?

52:54

Or is it a result of chance?

53:00

Almighty it exists simply

53:00

because it can exist, and

53:03

nothing forbids it. tracing

53:03

causes backwards can tell us

53:08

where the previous state came

53:08

from, but it won't answer where

53:11

the chain or loop itself came

53:11

from. Quote, some believe that

53:17

if all events were caused by

53:17

earlier events, everything would

53:20

be explained. That however, is

53:20

not so even an infinite series

53:27

of events cannot explain itself.

53:27

We could ask why this series

53:31

occurred rather than some other

53:31

series or no series? Derek

53:36

parfit in why anything? Why this

53:36

2008

53:43

what we are looking for is not a

53:43

cause, but a reason and

53:47

explanation. For in the cases of

53:47

the loops or infinite

53:51

regression, we can always find

53:51

an earlier cause, but may never

53:55

reach a satisfactory reason.

53:55

Quote, for the question to be

54:00

properly fully answered, we need

54:00

a sufficient reason that has no

54:04

need of any further reason. Or

54:04

because that doesn't throw up a

54:07

further why and this must lie

54:07

outside the series of contingent

54:11

things and must be found in a

54:11

substance which is the cause of

54:14

the entire series. It must be

54:14

something that exists

54:18

necessarily carrying the reason

54:18

for its existence within itself.

54:22

Only that can give us a

54:22

sufficient reason at which we

54:25

can stop having no further why.

54:25

Question taking us from this

54:29

being to something else. And

54:29

quote Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

54:35

in the principles of nature and

54:35

grace based on reason 1714.

54:41

If we seek a final because that

54:41

puts an end to any further wise,

54:45

we must find something that we

54:45

can show must exist. Not only

54:49

must this thing exist, but we

54:49

must also show how this thing

54:53

can account for the reality we

54:53

experience. Only then will we

54:57

have succeeded in our quest can

55:00

It's for self existence.

55:00

Throughout history,

55:04

philosophers, scientists and

55:04

religions have suggested

55:07

candidates for self existence.

55:07

These causeless entities

55:12

generally fall into one of seven

55:12

categories. One, logic to truth,

55:21

three, numbers, four,

55:21

possibility, five, the universe,

55:31

six, the higher plane, and seven

55:31

consciousness. Let's review each

55:39

candidate and its merits for

55:39

self existence. Afterwards, we

55:44

will consider whether that

55:44

entity could further serve as an

55:47

ultimate explanation or self

55:47

existence starting point from

55:50

which the rest of reality

55:50

emerges as a direct consequence

55:54

of that thing. Logic. Some

55:54

suppose rational principles,

55:59

like the laws of logic, are self

55:59

existent. Unlike physical laws,

56:05

logical laws have an air of

56:05

inevitability to them. These are

56:09

laws such as the law of identity, things are

56:12

identical to themselves. For

56:17

example, a equals A

56:20

the law of the excluded middle

56:20

statements are either true or

56:24

not true. The law of non contradiction, no

56:26

statement is both true and

56:30

false. These are laws that seem

56:30

inevitable and necessary in any

56:35

reality, as it's hard to imagine

56:35

any reality where logical laws

56:39

would not hold. If logical laws

56:39

apply in all universes and all

56:44

possible realities, they

56:44

represent universal laws,

56:48

applying everywhere and to

56:48

everything. If we can say laws

56:52

of physics exist, because all

56:52

matter a university is to

56:55

physical laws, then could we say

56:55

laws of logic exist? Because all

57:00

things in all possible realities

57:00

adhere to these logical laws? If

57:05

so, then laws of logic are self

57:05

existent. They are necessary

57:10

even in a reality of no things

57:10

as logical laws ensure nothing

57:14

equals nothing. Quote, if I

57:14

asked myself why bodies or minds

57:19

exist, rather than nothing, I

57:19

find no answer. But that a

57:23

logical principle, such as a

57:23

equals A should have the power

57:27

of creating itself triumphing

57:27

over the Lord throughout

57:30

eternity seems to be natural,

57:30

and quote, on rebirths and in

57:36

creative evolution 1907

57:40

this idea that logical law and

57:40

rational principles have

57:44

eternally existed predates

57:44

modern philosophers. It's a

57:47

cornerstone belief in Taoism.

57:47

Quote, there was something

57:53

formless and perfect before the

57:53

universe was born. It is serene,

57:59

empty, solitary, unchanging,

57:59

infinite, eternally present. It

58:07

is the mother of the universe,

58:07

for lack of a better name, I

58:12

call it the Tao Lao Jain,

58:12

Chapter 25, of Tao teaching,

58:17

circa 600 BC. Towel translates as the way

58:20

principles and natural order. A

58:26

similar sentiment is expressed

58:26

in Christianity. The Gospel of

58:30

john begins, quote, In the

58:30

beginning was the Word and the

58:36

Word was with God, and the Word

58:36

was God. gospel of john chapter

58:41

one verse, one 100 ad,

58:46

the term word is a translation

58:46

of verbal in Latin, which is a

58:50

translation of logos in Greek.

58:50

Logos has a deep and rich

58:54

meaning. Aside from word logos

58:54

also means reason, principles,

59:00

and rational law. Logos is the

59:00

root from which we get the word

59:05

logic. It is also the origin of

59:05

the suffix ology, as in biology,

59:10

geology and psychology, where it

59:10

means the principles explanation

59:16

and story they're off. quote,

59:16

If, however, he be admitted to

59:21

exist apart from matter in

59:21

virtue of his character as a

59:24

principle and a rational law,

59:24

logos, God will be bottleless

59:29

the creative power bottleless

59:29

plotinus in the NT ad,

59:35

six to 70 ad.

59:38

In Chinese Bibles, logos has

59:38

been translated as Tao. In this

59:44

way, both Taoist and Christian

59:44

ideas. Suppose that the Tao

59:47

slash logos, order reason,

59:47

principles, logic, rational law

59:52

exists prior to the material

59:52

universe. Truth Some believe

59:58

that truth is caused Plus, there seems to be some

1:00:00

essential difference between

1:00:03

zero is even and zero is odd.

1:00:03

Only one of them is true. Did

1:00:08

anything make it so? When did

1:00:08

this statement become true? Did

1:00:14

it require a human mind to

1:00:14

conceive of it as being true? Or

1:00:17

has it always been true? Mike

1:00:17

this property of truth have an

1:00:21

independent and necessary

1:00:21

existence. If logical laws apply

1:00:27

universally, then any well

1:00:27

formed statement is either true

1:00:30

or false. The law of non

1:00:30

contradiction says a statement

1:00:34

can't be both true and false.

1:00:34

The law of excluded middle says

1:00:39

a statement must be either true

1:00:39

or false, there is no middle

1:00:42

ground. Thus, if logical laws

1:00:42

apply to everything, they apply

1:00:47

to all statements, forcing on

1:00:47

them the objective property of

1:00:51

being either true or false. As

1:00:51

Derek parfit said, some truth is

1:00:56

logically necessary when it's

1:00:56

denial leads to a contradiction.

1:01:01

Accordingly, the truth that zero

1:01:01

is even would exist before

1:01:05

humans proved it. It would be

1:01:05

true before it was first spoken.

1:01:10

Presumably, it would be true

1:01:10

appcenter universal things, for

1:01:14

even in the case zero things

1:01:14

exist, it remains true that an

1:01:17

even number of things exist.

1:01:17

Quote, when we imagine how

1:01:22

things would have been if

1:01:22

nothing had ever existed, what

1:01:25

we should imagine away are such

1:01:25

things as living beings, stars

1:01:29

and atoms, there would still

1:01:29

have been various truths, such

1:01:34

as the truth that there were no

1:01:34

stars or atoms, or that nine is

1:01:38

divisible by three, we can ask

1:01:38

why these things would have been

1:01:42

true. And such questions may

1:01:42

have answers. Thus, we can

1:01:47

explain why, even if nothing had

1:01:47

ever existed, nine would still

1:01:52

have been divisible by three,

1:01:52

there is no conceivable

1:01:55

alternative. End quote, Derek

1:01:55

parfit, in why anything? Why

1:02:02

this 2008.

1:02:07

Ultimately, nothing is

1:02:07

responsible for creating this

1:02:10

truth. Truth exists out of its

1:02:10

own necessity. It has always

1:02:16

existed and could never not

1:02:16

exist. The idea of the primacy

1:02:21

of truth is very old. It can be

1:02:21

found in many religions, some of

1:02:25

which draw an equivalence

1:02:25

between God and truth. In the

1:02:30

3000 year old religion of

1:02:30

Zoroastrianism, it is said that

1:02:34

assha, meaning truth and order

1:02:34

is the Divine Law behind all

1:02:38

things. Quote, Iran, as India

1:02:38

presents us with a term which

1:02:44

has had to signify, first of

1:02:44

all, true statement, that this

1:02:47

statement, because it was true,

1:02:47

had to correspond to an

1:02:51

objective material reality. And

1:02:51

that, as the discourse did, this

1:02:56

reality must embrace all things.

1:02:56

And finally, that one recognized

1:03:00

in it a great cosmic principle

1:03:00

since all things happen

1:03:03

according to it, and quote, jack

1:03:03

dushane, demon, inherit cleitus

1:03:09

and Iran 1963.

1:03:12

In the book of Psalms, Chapter

1:03:12

31, verse five, God is called

1:03:17

the God of truth. In the Quran,

1:03:17

Allah hoc, meaning the truth is

1:03:22

one of the 99 names of God.

1:03:22

similar ideas are found in

1:03:27

dharmic religions. The moolman

1:03:27

ta, or route mantra is the most

1:03:32

important verse of the Sikh

1:03:32

religion. It begins there is one

1:03:37

creator whose name is truth and

1:03:37

is described as timeless beyond

1:03:41

birth or death, and self

1:03:41

existent in the Brahma Samhita,

1:03:46

a Hindu prayer book, the

1:03:46

primeval Lord give India is

1:03:49

described as the indivisible,

1:03:49

infinite, limitless truth.

1:03:54

Quote, if it is possible for the

1:03:54

human tongue to give the fullest

1:03:58

description of God by have come

1:03:58

to the conclusion that God is

1:04:02

truth. End quote. Mahatma Gandhi

1:04:02

in all men are brothers 1953

1:04:10

numbers. Some speculate that

1:04:10

numbers or their relationships

1:04:16

are self existent. If truth has

1:04:16

an independent existence, this

1:04:21

truth includes the infinite

1:04:21

truths describing all true

1:04:24

relationships between the

1:04:24

numbers. These include

1:04:28

arithmetical statements such as

1:04:28

two is even. Seven is prime. One

1:04:36

is greater than 02 plus two

1:04:36

equals four, and times zero

1:04:43

equals zero. And that the square

1:04:43

root of nine is three truths

1:04:49

concerning the numbers are

1:04:49

boundless. Might this infinite

1:04:54

truth provide a scaffolding and

1:04:54

structure to all the numbers and

1:04:58

if there is nothing more to numbers than their properties

1:05:00

and relations, then Mike numbers

1:05:03

in some sense really exist. It's

1:05:03

been said, math is the science

1:05:09

we could still do if we woke up

1:05:09

tomorrow and there was no

1:05:12

universe. The idea that math

1:05:12

holds some claim to reality is

1:05:16

known as mathematical realism,

1:05:16

or platonism. It's believed by

1:05:21

many, if not most

1:05:21

mathematicians. Quote, it is an

1:05:27

idea that many mathematicians

1:05:27

are comfortable with. In this

1:05:31

scheme, the truths that

1:05:31

mathematicians seek are in a

1:05:34

clear sense already there. And

1:05:34

mathematical research can be

1:05:38

compared with archaeology. The

1:05:38

mathematicians job is to seek

1:05:43

out these truths as a task of

1:05:43

discovery rather than one of

1:05:46

invention. Roger Penrose in the

1:05:46

big questions, what is reality?

1:05:52

2006.

1:05:56

But can number relations have

1:05:56

any reality in the absence of

1:05:59

things? If zero things exist, it

1:05:59

would have to be true that zero

1:06:04

not equal one, and also that

1:06:04

zero not equal to and true that

1:06:09

zero not equal any other number.

1:06:09

So even with no things, an

1:06:14

infinite number of arithmetical

1:06:14

relations are needed to avoid

1:06:17

contradiction and preserve

1:06:17

nothing of zero things. Quote,

1:06:23

if all things were absent, would

1:06:23

too and to make fobian non

1:06:27

reality remaining like that

1:06:27

until at least four things that

1:06:30

come to exist? Presumably, the

1:06:30

answer must be no. JOHN a Leslie

1:06:36

and Robert Lawrence Kuhn in the

1:06:36

mystery of existence 2013.

1:06:42

This idea that numbers have an

1:06:42

independent existence is

1:06:45

ancient. It can be traced to

1:06:45

some of the earliest records of

1:06:50

human thought. It was taught by

1:06:50

ancient philosophers, and is

1:06:54

found in the oldest religious

1:06:54

texts. Taoism, for instance,

1:07:00

sets the existence of numbers as

1:07:00

prior to things. Quote, the Tao

1:07:06

gives birth to one, one gives

1:07:06

birth to two, two gives birth to

1:07:11

three, three gives birth to all

1:07:11

things, larger and chapter 42 of

1:07:18

Tao Te Ching, circa 600 BC,

1:07:23

the Greek mathematician

1:07:23

Pythagoras taught all things are

1:07:26

number. Quote, Pythagoras

1:07:26

applied themselves to

1:07:31

mathematics, and were the first

1:07:31

to develop this science. And

1:07:35

through studying it, they came

1:07:35

to believe that its principles

1:07:38

are the principles of

1:07:38

everything. Aristotle in

1:07:41

metaphysics circa 350 BC.

1:07:46

Pythagoras was the first to

1:07:46

propose that the motions of the

1:07:49

planets are governed by

1:07:49

mathematical equations, which he

1:07:52

called the harmony of the

1:07:52

spheres. When Newton discovered

1:07:56

his law of universal

1:07:56

gravitation, some 2000 years

1:07:59

later, he credited Pythagoras

1:07:59

for the discovery. Across times,

1:08:04

mathematicians have described a

1:08:04

seemingly divine connection

1:08:08

between mathematics and reality,

1:08:08

quote, geometry, which before

1:08:14

the origin of things was co

1:08:14

eternal, with the divine mind

1:08:17

and is God himself for what

1:08:17

could they be in God which would

1:08:20

not be God Himself supplied God

1:08:20

with patterns for the creation

1:08:23

of the world and passed over to

1:08:23

man along with the image of God

1:08:27

yohannes Kepler in the harmony

1:08:27

of the world 1619

1:08:33

quotes from these considerations

1:08:33

it is now wonderfully evident

1:08:38

how a certain divine mathematics

1:08:38

or metaphysical mechanics is

1:08:41

employed in the very origination

1:08:41

of things. Gottfried Wilhelm

1:08:46

Leibniz in on the ultimate

1:08:46

origination of things 1697.

1:08:51

Quote, to all of us who hold the

1:08:51

Christian belief that God is

1:08:56

truth, anything that is true is

1:08:56

a fact about God. And

1:08:59

mathematics is a branch of

1:08:59

theology. An old Greek, a French

1:09:04

child, and a self taught Indian

1:09:04

each finds for himself the same

1:09:09

theory of geometrical conics.

1:09:09

The simplest and therefore, the

1:09:13

most scientific way of

1:09:13

describing this is that they

1:09:16

have discovered not created a

1:09:16

geometry that exists by itself

1:09:20

eternally the same for all the

1:09:20

same for teacher as for taught

1:09:24

the same for manners for God.

1:09:24

The truth that is the same for

1:09:29

manners for God is pure

1:09:29

mathematics. Hilda P. Hudson in

1:09:33

mathematics and eternity 1925

1:09:38

possibility. Some speculate that

1:09:38

simply not being impossible is

1:09:43

sufficient for being actual. If

1:09:43

true, then every possible object

1:09:49

structure and entity exists.

1:09:49

What then is impossible. At a

1:09:55

minimum, we can say self

1:09:55

contradictory things. For

1:09:59

example, pole square circles, married

1:10:00

bachelors, triangles with five

1:10:04

sides and so on. We might also

1:10:04

include things proven to not

1:10:09

exist. odd numbers easily

1:10:09

divisible by two, a largest

1:10:13

prime number, a sixth platonic

1:10:13

side. If consistency and

1:10:17

provability are the requirements

1:10:17

for possibility, then possible

1:10:21

existence is mathematical

1:10:21

existence. As David Hilbert

1:10:25

said, mathematical existence is

1:10:25

merely freedom from

1:10:29

contradiction. The idea that all

1:10:29

possible things exist has

1:10:33

enjoyed many names. In 1936,

1:10:33

Arthur Lovejoy dubbed it the

1:10:39

principle of plenitude. In 1981

1:10:39

Robert nozick named it the

1:10:44

principle of fecundity, David

1:10:44

Lewis, in 1986, developed it as

1:10:50

a theory he called modal realism

1:10:50

in Max Tegmark 1998 model of

1:10:55

multiverses he called it the

1:10:55

mathematical universe

1:10:59

hypothesis. Most recently, in

1:10:59

2008, Derek parfit, coined the

1:11:05

all worlds hypothesis, if all

1:11:05

possible objects are actual,

1:11:10

then our universe is just one

1:11:10

such possible structure and an

1:11:13

infinite and total set of all

1:11:13

possible structures. Anything

1:11:18

that could happen happens

1:11:18

somewhere, quote, there are so

1:11:23

many other worlds, in fact that

1:11:23

absolutely every way that a

1:11:27

world could possibly be is a way

1:11:27

that some world is. And as with

1:11:32

worlds, so it is with parts of

1:11:32

worlds, there are ever so many

1:11:37

ways that a part of a world

1:11:37

could be and so many and so

1:11:41

varied are the other worlds that

1:11:41

absolutely every way that a part

1:11:45

of a world could possibly be as

1:11:45

a way that some part of some

1:11:48

world is, end quote, David Lewis

1:11:48

in on the plurality of worlds

1:11:54

1986. Quote, if the universe is

1:11:57

inherently mathematical, then

1:12:02

why was only one of the many

1:12:02

mathematical structures singled

1:12:05

out to describe the universe, a

1:12:05

fundamental asymmetry appears to

1:12:10

be built into the heart of

1:12:10

reality. As a way out of this

1:12:14

conundrum, I have suggested that

1:12:14

complete mathematical symmetry

1:12:18

holds that all mathematical

1:12:18

structures exist physically as

1:12:22

well. Every mathematical

1:12:22

structure corresponds to a

1:12:25

parallel universe. And quote,

1:12:25

Max Tegmark in parallel

1:12:31

universes 2003

1:12:35

the idea that possibility is

1:12:35

sufficient for actuality is not

1:12:39

new. Arthur Lovejoy, who wrote

1:12:39

about the history of this idea,

1:12:44

traced it to 360 bc beginning

1:12:44

with Plato's theory of forms,

1:12:49

Plato hypothesized the realm

1:12:49

containing all possible forms

1:12:53

eternal, perfect idealizations.

1:12:53

We find this idea expressed in a

1:12:59

variety of ways throughout

1:12:59

history, quote, the one is all

1:13:05

things and not a single one of

1:13:05

them. It is because there is

1:13:09

nothing in it that all things

1:13:09

come from it in order that being

1:13:12

may exist, the one who is not

1:13:12

being but the generator of being

1:13:17

plotinus in the ads five, to one

1:13:17

to 70 ad,

1:13:23

quote, but to explain more

1:13:23

distinctly how from eternal or

1:13:28

essential metaphysical truths

1:13:28

there arise temporal contingent

1:13:31

or physical truths, we must

1:13:31

first observe that, from the

1:13:36

very fact that there exists

1:13:36

something rather than nothing,

1:13:39

it follows that impossible

1:13:39

things or in possibility or

1:13:43

essence itself. There is a

1:13:43

certain need of existence, or so

1:13:48

to speak, a claim to exist in a

1:13:48

word that essence of itself

1:13:52

tends to existence. Gottfried

1:13:52

Wilhelm Leibniz in on the

1:13:56

ultimate origination of things

1:13:56

1697.

1:14:01

Others have linked God's

1:14:01

infinite nature to an infinite

1:14:04

creation. Quote, from God's

1:14:04

supreme power, or infinite

1:14:10

nature, an infinite number of

1:14:10

things, that is, all things have

1:14:14

necessarily flowed forth in an

1:14:14

infinite number of ways, or

1:14:18

always flow from the same

1:14:18

necessity. In the same way as

1:14:22

from the nature of a triangle,

1:14:22

it follows from eternity and for

1:14:26

eternity, that it's three

1:14:26

interior angles are equal to two

1:14:29

right angles, Baruch Spinoza, in

1:14:29

ethics, 1677.

1:14:36

Quotes now thou have a truth

1:14:36

that the worlds of God are

1:14:40

countless in their number, and

1:14:40

infinite in their range. None

1:14:44

can reckon or comprehend them

1:14:44

except God, the all knowing the

1:14:48

all wise baja Allah in tablet to

1:14:48

offer circa 1885

1:14:56

quotes. It makes sense that an

1:14:56

infinitely creative

1:15:00

deity will create other

1:15:00

universes, not just our own. For

1:15:05

the theist, the existence of

1:15:05

multiple universes would simply

1:15:09

support the view that creation

1:15:09

reflects the infinite creativity

1:15:12

of the Creator. Robin a Collins

1:15:12

in spiritual information 2005

1:15:20

the universe. Some say that the

1:15:20

universe or the physical law

1:15:25

that enabled it to come into

1:15:25

existence has always existed and

1:15:29

so is self existent. The

1:15:29

reasoning is simple. If we know

1:15:34

at least one thing is causeless.

1:15:34

Why not just presume this

1:15:38

causeless thing is the universe

1:15:38

itself. Quote, I should say that

1:15:43

the universe is just there. And

1:15:43

that's all and quote Bertrand

1:15:49

Russell in Russell copplestone

1:15:49

debate 1948.

1:15:54

Perhaps there is no reason it

1:15:54

simply is and has no

1:15:59

explanation. Given the universe

1:15:59

exists, we know the universe is

1:16:04

possible. Perhaps it exists

1:16:04

because it is possible, and

1:16:09

nothing forbade it from

1:16:09

existing. But there are other

1:16:12

tracks to follow. Perhaps we can

1:16:12

demonstrate that the universe is

1:16:17

self creating, or that it exists

1:16:17

due to some higher law. Modern

1:16:23

cosmology made progress along

1:16:23

these directions. The theory of

1:16:28

cosmic inflation uses general

1:16:28

relativity to explain how a tiny

1:16:32

quantum fluctuation can inflate

1:16:32

into the huge universe we now

1:16:36

see, quote, inflation is

1:16:36

radically at odds with the old

1:16:41

dictum of democritus and

1:16:41

lucretius. Nothing can be

1:16:44

created from nothing. If

1:16:44

inflation is right, everything

1:16:49

can be created from nothing, or

1:16:49

at least from very little. If

1:16:53

inflation is right, the universe

1:16:53

can properly be called the

1:16:56

ultimate free lunch and quote,

1:16:56

by Alan Guth and inflation and

1:17:02

the new era of high precision

1:17:02

cosmology 2002.

1:17:08

According to the laws of quantum

1:17:08

mechanics, the quantum

1:17:11

fluctuation that seeded our

1:17:11

universe appeared because it was

1:17:14

possible emerging out of nothing

1:17:14

but the physical laws

1:17:17

themselves. Quote, is there any

1:17:17

bound to how small the initial

1:17:23

universe could be? For my

1:17:23

surprise, I found that the

1:17:27

tunneling probability did not

1:17:27

vanish as the initial size

1:17:30

approached zero. I also noticed

1:17:30

that my calculations were

1:17:35

greatly simplified when I

1:17:35

allowed the initial radius of

1:17:38

the universe to vanish. This was

1:17:38

really crazy. What I had was a

1:17:43

mathematical description of a

1:17:43

universe tunneling from a zero

1:17:46

size from nothing. And yet, the

1:17:46

state of nothing cannot be

1:17:51

identified with absolute

1:17:51

nothingness. The tunneling is

1:17:55

described by the laws of quantum

1:17:55

mechanics, and thus nothing

1:17:58

should be subjected to these

1:17:58

laws. The laws of physics must

1:18:03

have existed even though there

1:18:03

was no universe and quote,

1:18:08

Alexander the Lincoln in many

1:18:08

worlds in one 2006.

1:18:14

General relativity and quantum

1:18:14

mechanics are the two

1:18:18

Cornerstone theories of modern

1:18:18

physics. from them alone, we can

1:18:22

explain a self emerging

1:18:22

universe. Quantum Mechanics

1:18:26

shows how possible fluctuations

1:18:26

spontaneously pop into

1:18:30

existence. General Relativity

1:18:30

explains how such a fluctuation

1:18:35

could expand exponentially to

1:18:35

reach an unfathomable size. See

1:18:40

what caused the Big Bang? But we

1:18:40

must wonder why these laws?

1:18:46

What, if anything, is special

1:18:46

about them? Who or what anointed

1:18:51

these equations with existence?

1:18:51

quote? What is it that breathes

1:18:57

fire into the equations and

1:18:57

makes a universe for them to

1:19:00

describe? The usual approach of

1:19:00

science of constructing a

1:19:05

mathematical model cannot answer

1:19:05

the questions of why there

1:19:08

should be a universe for the

1:19:08

model to describe. Why does the

1:19:12

universe go to all the bother of

1:19:12

existing Stephen Hawking in a

1:19:17

brief history of time 1988.

1:19:21

The idea that the universe is

1:19:21

uncreated or exists due to some

1:19:25

laws predates the successes of

1:19:25

modern physics and cosmology.

1:19:30

The ancient Greeks and Romans

1:19:30

believed that the material of

1:19:34

the universe has always existed,

1:19:34

since nothing comes from

1:19:37

nothing. Quote, the first

1:19:37

principle is that nothing can be

1:19:42

created from the non existent

1:19:42

for otherwise anything would be

1:19:46

formed from anything without the

1:19:46

need of seed. And quote,

1:19:51

Epicurus in letter to Herodotus

1:19:51

circa 300 bc

1:19:57

this matter was originally in a

1:19:57

state of disarray.

1:20:00

Order or chaos. Quotes before

1:20:00

the ocean and the earth appeared

1:20:06

before the skies had over spread

1:20:06

them all. The face of nature in

1:20:09

a vast expanse was not but chaos

1:20:09

uniformly waste of it in

1:20:14

metamorphosis, ad.

1:20:18

It was not until a divine

1:20:18

Craftsman imposed mathematical

1:20:21

order on this chaos that the

1:20:21

ordered universe the cosmos,

1:20:25

appeared in religions with past

1:20:25

eternal cosmologies. The

1:20:30

universe is believed to be

1:20:30

causeless. Jainism explicitly

1:20:34

says the universe was not

1:20:34

created, quote, The doctrine

1:20:40

that the world was created is

1:20:40

ill advised and should be

1:20:43

rejected. If God created the

1:20:43

world, where was he before the

1:20:47

creation? If you say he was

1:20:47

transcendent, then and needed no

1:20:52

support? Where is he now? How

1:20:52

could God have made this world

1:20:56

without any raw material? If you

1:20:56

say that he made this first and

1:21:01

then the world you are faced

1:21:01

with an endless regression, if

1:21:06

you declare that this raw

1:21:06

material arose, naturally you

1:21:09

fall into another fallacy for

1:21:09

the whole universe might have

1:21:12

been its own creator, and have

1:21:12

arisen quite naturally. And

1:21:17

quote, Jean rcnn ma piano 898

1:21:17

ad,

1:21:24

a higher plane. Some suppose our

1:21:24

universe exists on account of a

1:21:29

higher plane and that this

1:21:29

higher plane rather than the

1:21:32

universe is self existent. There

1:21:32

are many conceptions of what

1:21:37

this higher plane of reality is.

1:21:37

Some describe this plane as a

1:21:41

cause of being, be it God, a

1:21:41

creator, Divine Will, a first

1:21:46

cause or an unmoved mover.

1:21:46

Others describe it as a source

1:21:51

of being the mind of God, the

1:21:51

one or the towel. Still others

1:21:56

describe it as a ground of being

1:21:56

the absolute the all or what

1:22:01

Hindus call Brahman. Not all

1:22:01

theories of higher planes of

1:22:05

existence need the supernatural.

1:22:05

There are also naturalistic

1:22:10

descriptions of higher

1:22:10

realities. In multiverse

1:22:14

theories, a higher reality

1:22:14

contains our universe among

1:22:17

others. In brain cosmology, our

1:22:17

universe is caused by collisions

1:22:22

in a literal, higher dimension.

1:22:22

In the simulation hypothesis,

1:22:27

our universe is the result of

1:22:27

computations occurring in a more

1:22:30

fundamental reality. See, are we

1:22:30

living in a computer simulation?

1:22:37

Though these theories deal with

1:22:37

phenomena that are beyond the

1:22:40

nature of our universe, and

1:22:40

hence supernatural evidence is

1:22:44

accumulating for some of these

1:22:44

higher realms. Quote, every

1:22:49

experiment that brings better

1:22:49

credence to inflationary theory

1:22:52

brings us much closer to hints

1:22:52

that the multiverse is real.

1:22:57

Andrei Linde in interview 2014

1:23:01

quotes quote, various theories

1:23:01

imply that various types of

1:23:05

parallel universes exist so that

1:23:05

by modus ponens if we take any

1:23:10

of these theories seriously,

1:23:10

we're forced to take seriously

1:23:13

also some parallel universes.

1:23:13

Parallel Universes aren't a

1:23:18

theory, but predictions of

1:23:18

certain theories. Max Tegmark in

1:23:23

our parallel universes

1:23:23

unscientific nonsense 2014.

1:23:30

The idea of a pre existent

1:23:30

cause, source or ground of being

1:23:34

one that's external to end

1:23:34

beyond our universe is as old as

1:23:38

religion itself. Quote, by means

1:23:38

of the higher knowledge the wise

1:23:44

behold, everywhere, Brahman,

1:23:44

which otherwise cannot be seen,

1:23:47

or seized, which has no root or

1:23:47

attributes, no eyes or ears, no

1:23:52

hands or feet, which is eternal

1:23:52

and omnipresent, all pervading

1:23:57

and extremely subtle, which is

1:23:57

imperishable, and the source of

1:24:01

all beings mundaka Upanishad,

1:24:01

chapter one, verse six, circa

1:24:07

800 BC, quote, In the beginning, God

1:24:10

created the heavens and the

1:24:14

earth. Genesis chapter one verse

1:24:14

one circuit 600 BC.

1:24:21

Consciousness, some posits that

1:24:21

consciousness is self existent,

1:24:27

if true consciousness could be

1:24:27

the cause of a universe that

1:24:30

exists only in appearance. The

1:24:30

idea seems strange, but we must

1:24:36

admit all knowledge of existence

1:24:36

comes to us through experiences

1:24:39

that exist in our conscious

1:24:39

minds. This fact hasn't escaped

1:24:44

the attention of scientists.

1:24:44

Quote, it is difficult for the

1:24:49

matter of fact physicist to

1:24:49

accept the view that the

1:24:52

substratum of everything is of

1:24:52

mental character, but no one can

1:24:57

deny that mind is the first and

1:24:57

most

1:25:00

Direct thing in our experience

1:25:00

and all else is remote

1:25:03

inference. And quote, Arthur

1:25:03

Eddington in the nature of the

1:25:08

physical world 1927.

1:25:12

Quote, I regard consciousness as

1:25:12

fundamental. I regard matter as

1:25:19

derivative from consciousness.

1:25:19

We cannot get behind

1:25:23

consciousness, everything that

1:25:23

we talk about everything that we

1:25:27

regard as existing postulates

1:25:27

consciousness. And quote, Max

1:25:33

Planck in interviews with great

1:25:33

scientists 1931

1:25:39

the relation between Mind and

1:25:39

Matter perplexes scientists to

1:25:42

this day, it leads to

1:25:42

philosophical conundrums like

1:25:46

brains in a vat Boltzmann brains

1:25:46

and the simulation argument, all

1:25:52

of which suppose that perceived

1:25:52

reality is an illusion, a

1:25:55

byproduct of a deluded mind.

1:25:55

It's also led physicists to

1:26:00

propose theories where conscious

1:26:00

minds play a fundamental role in

1:26:04

shaping reality as we see it.

1:26:04

Physics, after all, is

1:26:09

fundamentally about experiences.

1:26:09

Physics is the science of

1:26:13

predicting future observations

1:26:13

from prior observations. In

1:26:18

1970, Heinz dtsa proposed the

1:26:18

many minds interpretation of

1:26:22

quantum mechanics, which

1:26:22

proposes that differentiation of

1:26:26

an infinity of observer mind

1:26:26

states explains quantum

1:26:29

phenomena. Quote, a many minds

1:26:29

theory, like a many worlds

1:26:35

theory, suppose is that

1:26:35

associated with a sentient being

1:26:39

at any given time, there is a

1:26:39

multiplicity of distinct

1:26:42

conscious points of view. But a

1:26:42

many minds theory holds that it

1:26:46

is these conscious points of

1:26:46

view all minds, rather than

1:26:50

worlds that are to be conceived

1:26:50

as literally dividing or

1:26:53

differentiating over time.

1:26:53

Michael Lockwood in many minds,

1:26:58

interpretations of quantum

1:26:58

mechanics 1995

1:27:04

the mysterious link between

1:27:04

consciousness and reality

1:27:07

inspired john wheelers idea of a

1:27:07

participatory universe, as

1:27:12

Martin Redfern described, many

1:27:12

don't agree with john Wheeler.

1:27:15

But if he's right then we and

1:27:15

presumably other conscious

1:27:18

observers throughout the

1:27:18

universe are the creators, or at

1:27:22

least the minds that make the

1:27:22

universe manifest. The idea that

1:27:26

consciousness proceeds the

1:27:26

material world has a rich

1:27:30

history. It is found across

1:27:30

philosophies and religious

1:27:34

traditions, where physical

1:27:34

reality is seen as a dream or

1:27:38

construct of a mind or soul.

1:27:38

Quote, for it is the same thing

1:27:44

that can be thought and that can

1:27:44

be permanent is in fragment

1:27:48

three circa 475 BC.

1:27:53

A few millennia later, the

1:27:53

philosopher George Berkeley

1:27:56

echoed poem and it is concluding

1:27:56

that to be is to be perceived.

1:28:00

Quote, it is indeed widely

1:28:00

believed that all perceptible

1:28:05

objects, houses, mountains,

1:28:05

rivers, and so on, really exist

1:28:10

independently of being perceived

1:28:10

by the understanding. But

1:28:14

however widely and confidently,

1:28:14

this belief may be held, anyone

1:28:18

who has the courage to challenge

1:28:18

it will, if I'm not mistaken,

1:28:21

see that it involves an obvious

1:28:21

contradiction for what our

1:28:26

houses, mountains, rivers, etc,

1:28:26

but things we perceive by sense,

1:28:31

and quote, George Berkeley in

1:28:31

the principles of human

1:28:36

knowledge 1710. Hindus believe the universal

1:28:39

mind or world soul Atman became

1:28:44

the universe. Accordingly, the

1:28:44

universe is not real, but the

1:28:48

dream of a god under the spell

1:28:48

of Maya, a temporary ignorance

1:28:52

of the true reality. Buddhists

1:28:52

believe that the mind underlies

1:28:57

and forms everything. Quote, all

1:28:57

the phenomena of existence of

1:29:03

mind as their precursor mind as

1:29:03

their Supreme Leader, and of

1:29:06

mind are they made, end quote,

1:29:06

Gautama Buddha in the dhammapada

1:29:12

circa 500 BC, the Taoist philosopher Zhu ang

1:29:16

Jo said the world is a dream,

1:29:20

quote, while he is dreaming, he

1:29:20

does not know it is a dream. And

1:29:25

in his dream, he may even try to

1:29:25

interpret a dream. Only after he

1:29:30

wakes does he know it was a

1:29:30

dream. And someday there will be

1:29:34

a great awakening when we know

1:29:34

that this is all a great dream.

1:29:39

And quote, Zhu ng Joe and join z

1:29:39

circa 300 BC.

1:29:46

Reviewing answers, we've

1:29:46

considered seven proposals for

1:29:50

self existence things, logic,

1:29:50

truth, numbers, possibility

1:30:00

The universe, a higher plane,

1:30:00

and consciousness. yet so far,

1:30:07

none of these is satisfactory as

1:30:07

an ultimate explanation. None

1:30:12

stands out as a final because

1:30:12

that doesn't throw up a further

1:30:15

Why? abstract entities, logic,

1:30:15

truth numbers. First, we have

1:30:23

abstract entities, logic, truth

1:30:23

and numbers. But though these

1:30:28

things are plausibly causeless,

1:30:28

how could they cause anything?

1:30:33

These things are eternal and

1:30:33

unchanging, not to mention

1:30:36

abstract, how can they cause

1:30:36

anything like the huge dynamic

1:30:41

universe we see, quote, so the

1:30:41

cause of the universe must at

1:30:46

least causally prior to the

1:30:46

universe's existence transcends

1:30:50

space and time and therefore

1:30:50

cannot be physical or material.

1:30:55

But there are only two kinds of

1:30:55

things that could fall under

1:30:58

such a description, either an

1:30:58

abstract object, like a number,

1:31:02

or else a mind, a soul, a self.

1:31:02

But abstract objects don't stand

1:31:08

in causal relations. This is

1:31:08

part of what it means to be

1:31:12

abstract. The number seven, for

1:31:12

example, doesn't cause anything.

1:31:18

And quote, William Lane Craig in

1:31:18

reasonable faith, 1994.

1:31:25

possibility, mathematical

1:31:25

consistency. What about all

1:31:30

possibility? If all possible

1:31:30

things exist, then our universe

1:31:35

would be counted among those

1:31:35

possible things? But why should

1:31:39

possible things be actual, as

1:31:39

JJC smart remarked that anything

1:31:44

should exist at all does seem to

1:31:44

me a matter for the deepest or

1:31:49

existence is what we seek to

1:31:49

explain. And there is another

1:31:54

issue, why is our universe so

1:31:54

simple and ordered compared to

1:31:58

all else that exists in the

1:31:58

space of all possibility? quote,

1:32:03

Tegmark proposal, however, faces

1:32:03

a formidable problem. The number

1:32:09

of mathematical structures

1:32:09

increases with increasing

1:32:12

complexity, suggesting the

1:32:12

typical structures should be

1:32:15

horrendously large and

1:32:15

cumbersome. This seems to be in

1:32:19

conflict with the simplicity and

1:32:19

beauty of the theories

1:32:22

describing our world. Alexander

1:32:22

the Lincoln in many worlds in

1:32:27

one 2006,

1:32:30

the physical, the universe,

1:32:30

physical law, if the universe

1:32:36

alone exists, it explains

1:32:36

exactly what we see. But there

1:32:41

would be lingering questions.

1:32:41

Why does consciousness exist?

1:32:46

are abstract entities real? And

1:32:46

perhaps the biggest mystery of

1:32:50

all? Why should this universe or

1:32:50

its laws be the only real ones?

1:32:56

As Lee Smolin asked, Why do

1:32:56

these laws and not others hold

1:33:01

in our universe? Does the

1:33:01

existence of laws require some

1:33:05

higher principle? quote,

1:33:05

although science may solve the

1:33:11

problem of how the universe

1:33:11

began, it cannot answer the

1:33:14

question. Why does the universe

1:33:14

bother to exist? Maybe only God

1:33:19

can answer that. Stephen Hawking

1:33:19

in interview 1988

1:33:26

hyperplanes God multiverse

1:33:26

simulation, we might appeal to a

1:33:32

higher cause to explain the

1:33:32

universe we see. But as JJC

1:33:37

smart reminds us if we postulate

1:33:37

God, in addition to the created

1:33:41

universe, we increase the

1:33:41

complexity of our hypothesis. We

1:33:46

have all the complexity of the

1:33:46

universe itself. And we have In

1:33:49

addition, the at least equal

1:33:49

complexity of God. This seems

1:33:53

true for any higher principle.

1:33:53

For example, if we presume our

1:33:58

universe is the result of a

1:33:58

simulation in a higher reality,

1:34:02

what's responsible for that

1:34:02

higher reality? quote, whatever

1:34:08

our final theory of physics, we

1:34:08

will be left facing an

1:34:11

irreducible mystery. For perhaps

1:34:11

there could have been nothing at

1:34:15

all. Not even empty space, but

1:34:15

just absolutely nothing. If you

1:34:21

believe God is the Creator,

1:34:21

well, why is God that way? The

1:34:26

religious person is left with a

1:34:26

mystery which is no less than

1:34:30

the mystery with which science

1:34:30

leaves us. End quote. Steven

1:34:35

Weinberg in closer to truth,

1:34:35

cosmos, consciousness, God 2008

1:34:43

and 2009. The mental mind soul

1:34:45

consciousness. If consciousness

1:34:50

is causeless, it could explain

1:34:50

why perceptions exist. But if

1:34:55

reality is only a dream or

1:34:55

illusion, why do our perceptions

1:34:59

appear to follow Long with the universe adhering

1:35:00

to physical laws, if it's all an

1:35:04

illusion, what's the source of

1:35:04

this illusion? quote, even if

1:35:10

everything in this universe were

1:35:10

an illusion, there would still

1:35:13

have to be something outside

1:35:13

this universe that generates the

1:35:16

illusion. End quote. JOHN a

1:35:16

Leslie and Robert Lawrence Kuhn

1:35:22

in the mystery of existence 2013

1:35:27

causeless cause what we seek and

1:35:27

have so far have failed to

1:35:32

identify is a causeless cause.

1:35:32

This is something that not only

1:35:37

has a plausibly self existence

1:35:37

and causeless nature, but also

1:35:41

plausibly accounts for the

1:35:41

reality we see. We find things

1:35:46

that appear to be causeless,

1:35:46

logic, truth, and numbers, but

1:35:50

these things also appear in

1:35:50

capable of being a cause.

1:35:54

Conversely, we found things that

1:35:54

could be a cause the universe, a

1:35:59

higher plane and consciousness,

1:35:59

but they don't seem causeless

1:36:04

then there is possibility for

1:36:04

which we have reason to question

1:36:07

whether it is causeless and

1:36:07

whether it causes what we see,

1:36:11

we find an almost inverse

1:36:11

relation, the more plausibly

1:36:15

something is causeless, the less

1:36:15

plausible it seems to be the

1:36:18

cause for what we see. causeless

1:36:18

cause would provide us with a

1:36:23

complete explanation. It will

1:36:23

explain both itself and the

1:36:27

properties of observed reality.

1:36:27

It will describe the relation

1:36:31

between the mental and material.

1:36:31

It will tell us why the universe

1:36:36

exists and why it has simple

1:36:36

ordered laws. to progress we

1:36:40

need to find the connecting glue

1:36:40

the missing piece of the puzzle

1:36:44

that shows either how a

1:36:44

causeless thing accounts for the

1:36:47

reality we see or alternatively,

1:36:47

why the reality we see is

1:36:51

causeless three modes of

1:36:51

existence. In reviewing the

1:36:56

seven categories of possibly

1:36:56

costless things, we encountered

1:36:59

three modes of existence,

1:36:59

loosely speaking they are

1:37:05

mathematical existence, material existence, and mental

1:37:08

existence. Mathematical

1:37:15

existence includes abstract

1:37:15

entities, logic, truth, numbers,

1:37:20

math, properties, forms,

1:37:20

equations, relations,

1:37:24

possibility, structures, laws,

1:37:24

and principles. This mode might

1:37:30

include religious concepts of

1:37:30

divine law will order, Tao, or