Why does anything exist? - AlwaysAsking.com - AlwaysAsking.com Podcast

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Amy (00:00):
You are listening to the always asking.com podcast. This

(00:04):
is episode number nine.
Today's question, why doesanything exist?
Why is there something ratherthan nothing? This has been
called the first question wehave any right to ask. In
today's episode, we will reviewthe latest theories and evidence
which may have finally settledthis mystery. Enjoy.

Brian (00:29):
Why does anything exist?
Why is there something ratherthan nothing? Wouldn't nothing
have been so much easier? Thisquestion has ordered and
mystified people throughouttime. Quote, the first question
which we have a right to askwill be Why is there something
rather than nothing? GottfriedWilhelm Leibniz in the

(00:51):
principles of nature and gracebased on reason 1714.
Quote, not how the world is, isthe mystical, but that it is
Ludwig vidkun Stein in treatiseon logic and philosophy 1921.

(01:11):
Quote, no question is moresublime than why there is a
universe why there is somethingrather than nothing. Derek
parfit in why anything? Why this2008 Martin Heidegger call this
question the fundamentalquestion of metaphysics, but it
might as well be the fundamentalquestion for any being, our

(01:35):
existence poses a mystery thatdemands an answer. Where does it
all come from? Why is thereanything at all? every society
in every time has wrestled withthis dilemma. It's our most
enduring question. For we allseek to know why we are here.
Lacking an answer, we are like aship adrift. Our ignorance on

(01:59):
this question makes us like anamnesiac who awakens in a dark
and strange place, knowingneither where we are nor how we
got here. Some say without ananswer to this question, we
can't know anything. Quote, itis possible to think that one
cannot answer any question ifone cannot answer the question

(02:20):
of why there is something ratherthan nothing. How can we know
why something is or should be acertain way? If we don't know
why there is anything at all?
Surely this is the firstphilosophical question that has
to be answered. And quote,Robert nozick in philosophical
explanations 1981.

(02:44):
With an answer to this question,we could orientate ourselves, we
would know our place in reality,and understand the reason behind
it all. An answer to thisquestion would tell us not only
why we exist, but also what elseexists both within the universe
we see and beyond. But can thisquestion even be answered? Some

(03:06):
have suggested the answer isunknowable. Quote, who knows
truly, who here will declarewhence it arose? whence this
creation, the gods aresubsequent to the creation of
this, who then knows whence ithas come into being? whence this

(03:26):
creation has come into being?
Whether it was made or not he inthe highest heaven? Is it
surveyor? Surely he knows, orperhaps he knows not? The hymn
of creation in rigveda, circa1500 BC.
For most of history, thequestion remains beyond the

(03:46):
possibility of being answered.
But we live in a most excitingpoint in time, one where this
question has fallen to theprogress of human knowledge. In
the past decades, results fromphysics, cosmology, mathematics,
and computer science havecoordinated at last to solve
this timeless question. We cannow say, with some confidence,

(04:08):
why we exist. The answer we haveis more than an idle
philosophical speculation. Itcan be observationally tested
and thereby be confirmed orfalsified. So far, observations
are in agreement with thisanswer. Let us retrace
humanity's steps in finding thisanswer and see what this answer

(04:29):
reveals about the nature ofreality and our place in it. two
paths to existence. One reasonwe find Why does anything exist
so difficult is that there areonly two possible answers. Both
are repugnant to our intuitionas each contradicts our common
sense understanding of theworld. given something exists

(04:50):
either one, something emergedfrom nothing or two

Unknown (05:00):
There are self existent things. The idea that something
came out of nothing is contraryto reason. How can nothingness
do nevermind create anything?
The idea that there exists selfexists and things is contrary to
experience. Everything we knowappears to have a proceeding
cause How could anything createitself or exist without some

(05:23):
creative act? And yet that oneof these answers must be writes
seems inescapable? There's noother way to reach something
exists without either startingwith something at the beginning,
or starting with nothing andhaving something emerge from
nothing? If we seek an answer tothis question, we have to be

(05:44):
willing to accept an ideacontrary to our common sense
understanding of the world. Butwhich of these paths leads to
the correct answer? somethingfrom nothing? The first of the
two answers Is that somethingemerged from nothing. But how is
this possible, doesn't even makesense logically. For at least

(06:05):
2500 years, humans have debatedwhether anything can come from
nothing. The Greek philosopherpower manatees made the earliest
recorded arguments that nothingcomes from nothing, quote, I
will not permit the to say or tothink that being came from not
being for it is impossible tothink or to say that not being

(06:28):
is what would then have stirredit into activity that being
should arise from not beinglater rather than earlier. So it
is necessary that being eitheris absolutely or is not.
Permanent, is in the way of thetruth, circa 475 BC.

Brian (06:49):
To decide whether existence emerging from
nothingness is even logicallypossible, we need a precise
definition of nothing. Forinstance, by nothing do we mean
no things? Or do we meanabsolute nothingness? No laws,
structures, properties orprinciples? defining nothing.
Quote, it might have been truethat nothing ever existed. No

(07:13):
living beings, no stars, noatoms, not even space or time.
When we think about thispossibility, it can seem
astonishing that anythingexists. And quote, Derek parfit,
in why anything? Why this 2008?

(07:34):
What is nothing? It seems like astraightforward question. Just
keep removing things until thereis nothing left. Start with the
universe as it is. wipe away allthe matter and energy. take away
all the quantum fields of thevacuum, and any virtual
particles popping in and out ofexistence. And voila,

(07:58):
nothingness. nothingness isreality after we delete
everything out of existence. Butwait, there's still space, it
still has dimensionality andcurvature. There is still time
and physical law, even if thereare no particles or fields left
to be governed by them. Let usdelete those two. Let's raise

(08:22):
the volume of space you raisetime and raise physical law.
Quote, when we say out ofnothingness, we do not mean out
of the vacuum of physics. Thevacuum of physics is loaded with
geometrical structure and vacuumfluctuations and virtual pairs
of particles. The universe isalready in existence when we

(08:44):
have such a vacuum. Know when wespeak of nothingness we mean
nothingness, neither structurenor law nor plan. And quote,
john Archibald Wheeler in lawwithout law 1983
What are we left with? If weeliminate all the dimensions of

(09:06):
space and time we're left withzero dimensional changes point
by point is still a thing. Canwe delete that two kinds of
nothing. So long as we operatefrom a theory of geometry, we
can't define nothingness asanything less than a space of
zero dimensionality. This leavesus with a point. If we want to

(09:30):
eliminate the point, we need todefine nothingness not as a
space of zero dimensionality,but as something non geometric.
For this, we must definenothingness in terms of some
other theory. But any theory wemight choose has its own notion
of nothing. In other words,nothingness is theory dependent.

(09:51):
For physics, it's no energy, thevacuum for geometry, it's no
dimensionality, a pointFor set theory, it's no
elements, the empty set. Forarithmetic, it's no magnitude
zero. For information theory,it's no information, zero bits.
There is an unlimited number ofpossible theoretical systems.

(10:16):
Does this mean there are alsounlimited conceptions of
nothing, quote, nothing issimple, not even nothing. And
quote, Bruno Mars shall,might there be a true nothing
one with no laws, principles,nor any theory behind it? Or

(10:38):
might every conception ofnothing require a theory of
things in order to declare thatthere are none of them? rules
for nothing. We are called forabsolute nothingness, neither
structure nor law nor plan, butis this kind of absolute nothing
achievable. For instance, thelaw of identity holds that for

(11:01):
any A, A equals a, without sucha rule, there would be nothing
to ensure that nothing stayednothing, and didn't later become
equal to something. fromnothingness to persist, the
rules of logic must apply.
Further, if nothingness is thestate where zero things exist,

(11:22):
then the rules of arithmeticmust also hold to ensure that
zero equals zero rather thanzero equals one. For that, to
remain no things requires someminimum set of laws, there might
be no things as such, but theidea of no laws seems
incompatible with their beingand remaining no things. Quote,

(11:45):
in the beginning, there was onlytruth, logic and their relation,
no possible reality can dowithout them. CW varieties in
four dimensional realitycontinued 2018.
If there were no logic, whatlogic or reason ensures that
nothing comes from nothing. Ifthere were no laws, what law

(12:08):
principle would prohibit thespontaneous emergence of a
universe? The trouble withnothing? Can we define nothing
in a way that suppresses allforms of existence? That is to
not only have no things but anabsolute nothingness and
nothingness of no objects,neither abstract nor concrete,

(12:29):
no properties, no laws, noprinciples, and no information
content? Or is this a fool'serrand? One that leads to a
logical inconsistency and thusan impossibility? Might
nothingness be, in some senseunstable? If absolute
nothingness can be shown to bean impossible dream, it will

(12:52):
advance us on our path todiscover the reason for
existence. It might even revealsome self existence or
necessarily existence thing,properties of nothing. Anytime
we delete something fromreality, we leave something else
in its place. When we deletedmatter, we created a vacuum.

(13:13):
When we eliminated light, wecreated darkness. When we
removed heat we created cold.
When we deleted space, wecreated a point, quote, the idea
of nothingness has not one jotmore meaning than a square
circle, the absence of one thingalways being the presence of
another, which we prefer toleave aside because it is not

(13:35):
the thing that interests us allthe thing we were expecting,
suppression is never anythingmore than substitution, or two
sided operation which we agreeto look at from one side only.
So that the idea of theabsolution of everything is self
destructive, inconceivable. Itis a pseudo idea, a mirage
conjured by our own imagination,on rebirths, and in the two

(13:57):
sources of morality and religion1935.
If every deletion is asubstitution for something else,
then appeal nothing devoid ofany properties whatever is
impossible. So while we mightsucceed in removing all material
things from reality, we couldnot remove all properties from

(14:18):
reality. The existence ofproperties appears in escapable
nothingness of any kind willalways have some description and
properties, even when it's justa cold, dark, empty vacuum. But
how far can we go in eliminatingproperties. For instance, if we

(14:38):
define nothingness as the emptyset from set theory, what
properties would remain,temperature has no meaning for a
set will any properties remainfor such a nothing? properties
of zero? Every conception andthe definition of nothing
contains at its heart zero forany conception of

(15:00):
thing, nothing will always bezero of them. The vacuum, zero
energy, geometry, zerodimensionality, the empty set,
zero elements, arithmetic, zeromagnitude, information theory,
zero bits. If zero is auniversal property of nothing,

(15:23):
we must ask what are theproperties of zero? What does
zero bring to the table ofreality? Zero has many
properties. It's even, it's theadditive identity. It's the only
number that's neither positivenor negative. It's the number of
elements in the empty set andthe number of even Prime's

(15:43):
greater than two. In fact, zerohas more properties than we
could list if we recruited allthe atoms in the observable
universe to serve as paper andink. This effort is doomed
because zeros properties areinfinite in number. zeros
factors couldn't be listed aszero has infinitely many of

(16:03):
them. Every number evenlydivides zero and hence is one of
zeros factors. Aside from zerosfactors, we could list infinite
trivial properties of 00 is thedifference between one and one
and it's the difference betweentwo and two. And it's the
difference between three andthree and so on. But there are

(16:24):
also an infinite number of nontrivial properties of zero. Some
are even beyond theunderstanding of today's
mathematicians. As an example,mathematicians have for
centuries wondered, are thereeven numbers greater than two
that aren't the sum of twoprimes? This question is known

(16:44):
as goldbach conjecture afterChristian goldbach, who posed it
in 1742. Nearly three centurieslater, it remains unsolved.
Between 2002 1002 a $1 millionprize was offered to anyone who
could answer this question. Allthis money to settle a question

(17:04):
about a property of zero. Todecide is zero the number of
exceptions to go box rule, wenow see why nothing is simple,
not even nothing. Alldefinitions of nothing include
the concept of zero. Far frombeing simple. Zero is an object
of unlimited complexity. Anexplosion of entities can zero

(17:30):
exist in isolation, completelyalone from other numbers, or do
relationships between numbersmake them inseparable. zeros
properties reference othernumbers. And each of these
numbers carries its own set ofproperties and relations to the
other numbers are the propertiesof one any less real than the

(17:50):
properties of zero, perhaps in areality having no things one is
meaningless. In a realitycontaining nothing, there are no
things as such, at least nomaterial things. But in such a
nothing, there is an abstractthing. 00 reflects the number of

(18:10):
material things to count. Buthow many abstract things are
there to count, there is atleast one, the one number that
exists to define the number ofmaterial things is zero. But if
we have one number, and it isone thing to count, now another
number exists one, we then havezero and one together as the

(18:33):
only numbers. But now we havetwo numbers. Now to exists. This
is how numbers are defined inset theory. Within set theory,
each number is formed as the setof all previous sets. The
process starts with the emptyset, which contains zero things.

(18:55):
zero equals the empty set.
One equals the set of 02 equalsthe set of zero and one,
three equals the set of 01 andtwo,
four equals the set of 012 andthree, it seems once a single

(19:19):
abstract number is admitted,each next number comes to life
as the count of the abstractnumbers that preceded it. Is
there any way to stop theproliferation of infinite
abstract entities? If zeroexists by virtue of there being
zero things to count, then onthat basis, shouldn't every
number have the same rights toexist by virtue of being the

(19:41):
number of proceeding numbersthere are to count, quote, the
existence of any number invirtue of its properties entails
the existence of all the othersis a system of mathematics
couldn't exist bereft only ofthe number, say 42 and the
existence of any numberIn virtue of the false set of
its properties or structuralrelationships entails the

(20:03):
existence of every other number.
And quote, David Pearson. Whydoes anything exist 1995
set theory and building upnumbers from the empty set of
modern ideas, they appearedaround the turn of the 20th
century. Yet the idea of numbersgiving rise to themselves goes

(20:26):
back much farther. Quote, theTao gives birth to one, one
gives birth to two, two givesbirth to three, three gives
birth to all things, large diein chapter 42 of Tao Te Ching,
circa 600 BC,not true nothing. Whenever we

(20:47):
specify or define nothing, weinvoke theories and concepts,
which in turn, lead toproperties and abstract
entities. But what if we foregoeven specifying nothing? might
this be a path to achieveabsolute nothingness? A true
nothing havingno things, no objects?

(21:14):
No definitions, no properties,no abstract entities, no
concepts.
No sex, no numbers.
No set theory, no mathematics,no specifications, no
information. avoiding all thiswe have no theories of any kind.

(21:35):
We are left with a plain andsimple, pure, unadulterated
nothing at all. But again, thisleads to trouble. There's a
problem with this kind ofnothing and nothing of no
information is identical toeverything. Quote, we note that
the collection of all possibledescriptions has zero complexity

(21:56):
or information content. This isa consequence of algorithmic
information theory, thefundamental theory of computer
science. There is a mathematicalequivalence between the
everything as represented bythis collection of all possible
descriptions and nothing hasstate have no information. And
quote, Russell Standish, intheory have nothing 2006.

(22:25):
At first, this sounds counterintuitive, if not outright
wrong. Yet this consequencessomething we intuitively
understand in other contexts.
Let's review three such cases onsculpted marble and unsent
email, and the library ofbaybel. Each demonstrates an
equivalence between the nothingof no specification and the

(22:46):
everything of all possibilitiesand sculpted marble. Before
marked by a sculptors chisel, ablock of marble contains every
figure, or at least every figurefitting the dimensions of the
block. Michelangelo's piatto wasin the block before he uncovered
it. It was there with all theother figures. To bring forth

(23:07):
the piatto alone required theaddition of information,
Michelangelo had to uniquelyspecify the pietta from among
the set of all possibilities.
Quote, there is a beautifulangel in that block of marble
and I am going to find it all Ihave to do is to knock off the

(23:29):
outside pieces of marble and bevery careful not to cut into the
angel with my chisel. In a monthor so you will see how beautiful
it is. George F Pentecost in theangel in the marble 1883.
This specification requiresadding information to the block
by way of chisel marks. It isonly in the absence of this

(23:53):
information in the absence ofany chisel marks that all
possible figures remain. In thissense information is subtractive
rather than additive. Wheninformation specifies it
eliminates from the pre existinginfinite set of possibilities.
Absent such information, allpossibilities remain an unsent

(24:16):
email you are at your deskawaiting an important email from
your boss. Before this messagearrives, you know nothing about
the contents of this email. Youare in a state of having no
information. But there is onething you know before the email
arrives. The email will be onemessage from among the infinite

(24:37):
set of possible emails. Onlyafter the email arrives in your
inbox do you learn which fromamong the infinite set of
messages the boss chose to sendyou? But consider the case where
instead of sending a singleemail, the boss sent you every
possible email Would you be ableto learn anything from these
infinite messages about whatyour boss wants?

(25:00):
The lack of specification in theinfinite set of messages is
equal to the lack ofspecification that existed prior
to receiving anything. Bothstates are equivalently
unspecified. Therefore, bothrepresents states of complete
ignorance and a state of havingzero information. Having every
message is as informative ashaving no message. The Library

(25:25):
of baybel one of the bestillustrations of the uselessness
of all information comes fromJorge Luis Bohr has his concept
of a total library, described inhis short story The Library of
baybel. This library isdescribed as follows, quote, the
universe, which others call thelibrary is composed of an

(25:47):
indefinite and perhaps infinitenumber of hexagonal galleries
with vast air shafts betweensurrounded by very low railings.
from any of the hexagons, onecan see interminably the upper
and lower floors. There are fiveshelves for each of the hexagons
walls. Each shelf contains 35books of uniform format. Each

(26:10):
book is a 410 pages, each pagehave 40 lines, each line have
some 80 letters which are blackin color. This thinker observed
that all the books, no matterhow diverse they might be, are
made up of the same elements,the space, the period, the
comma, the 22 letters of thealphabet. He also alleged to

(26:32):
factor which travelers haveconfirmed in the vast library
there are no two identicalbooks. From these two
incontrovertible premises hededuced that the library is
total and that it shelvesregister all the possible
combinations of the 20 oddorthographical symbols. Jorge
Luis Boer has in the library ofbaybel 1941.

(26:56):
From the provided information,we can calculate the number of
books in this library. Thistotal library contains every
possible 410 page bookrepresenting every possible
arrangement of 25 characters.
Each page with 40 lines and 80characters contains 3200
characters. Each book with 410pages contains 410 times 3200 or

(27:21):
1,312,000 characters. With analphabet of 25 characters. This
gives 25 to the 1,312,000 powerpossible books. This number is
25 multiplied by itself over amillion times. To put its

(27:42):
magnitude in context, the numberof atoms in the observable
universe is only 25 to the powerof 57, or 25. multiplied by
itself 57 times this library isa great treasure. For in this
library we can find every book,article, poem, and novel ever
written or that could bewritten. We will find

(28:05):
descriptions of every scientifictheory from Newton's Principia
to Einstein's relativity to thepresently unknown theory of
quantum gravity, we will findblueprints to world changing
technology is not yet inventedbased on principles not yet
discovered. This librarypossesses the greatest works of
literature, the complete worksof Shakespeare, Dickens and

(28:28):
Tolstoy. It also has every workyet to be written, the completed
Game of Thrones series, as wellas the unfinished works of
talking Hemingway, and Twain.
The library has the untoldhistories of every civilization,
including civilizations now lasttime, it has the contents of

(28:50):
every scroll burned in the fireof Alexandria. The library has
biographies of every personwho's ever lived, and even
biographies of those yet to beborn. What could be more
valuable than this boundlesstrove of information with its
complete knowledge, its answersto every mystery, and its
articulated solutions to everyproblem. This is where the

(29:13):
equivalence between allinformation and no information
rears its ugly head. it rendersthe library worthless. There are
issues with this library tostart for every valid theory,
technology, history, andautobiography in the library,
there are countless others thatare subtly wrong, inaccurate, or

(29:34):
utterly bogus. Worse, findingany book with more than a few
grammatically sensible words isnext to impossible. Most books
are pure gibberish, or babbleindistinguishable from random
sequences of characters. Atypical page from a book in the
library of Babel containsEnglish sounding words, but

(29:56):
these are no more frequent thanrandom chance predicts.
Perhaps all hope is not lost.
Since this library containsevery possible book. Surely this
library contains books thatserve as indexes to find all the
other meaningful and sensiblebooks in the library. But this
dream is also impossible. Giventhe number of books, it's

(30:18):
impossible to uniquely referenceany other book with a descriptor
shorter than the length of thebook. Thus, it takes all 410
pages to reference a specificbook in this library. Due to its
completeness, the library itselfis the most compact catalog of
all the books in the library. Inother words, a card catalog of

(30:39):
the library would be the libraryitself. What if we organize the
books somehow, such as bysorting them in alphabetical
order, then finding anyparticular book would be easy.
This too suffers from apathological breakdown. While
this makes it easy to find anyparticular book, The difficulty

(31:01):
shifts from finding the book todeciding which book we want to
find. This is a consequence ofthe library having every
possible book. As one seeks abook of interest. One is faced
with 25 choices to choose whichof the 25 characters is next in
the content of the book we seek.

(31:22):
During the search, the seekermust choose each next letter,
and must do this for all1,350,000 characters in the
book. Thus, finding a book inthis library is as difficult as
writing the book in the firstplace. In a way, we already have
access to this library, as weare already free to put down any

(31:44):
sequence of characters we want,and thus find a book that is
already present somewhere inthis total library. Thus, this
library provides no newknowledge or information. Its
set of all books is as helpfulto us as if it had no books. And
so a total library offersnothing. It's equivalent to

(32:05):
having no information at all.
You can explore this frustratingenigma of the library of Babel,
Jonathan bazille, created anonline version of library of
Babel dot info. Everything fromnothing. information theory
reveals the equivalence betweenthe totality of all information
and the nothingness of zeroinformation. Both lack any

(32:27):
specification. Both arecompletely uninformative, both
contained within them thecomplete and infinite set of
every possibility. We've seenthis equivalence firsthand. We
saw it in the ns sculpted blockof marble, in the unsent email,
and in the library of baybel. Sois nothing of no specification,

(32:51):
or nothing or an everything.
less information more reality.
How much information is in thelibrary of baybel. To determine
this, we need only consider whatis the shortest description that
can generate the content of thelibrary. For instance, a library
containing one of each possible410 page book with 3200

(33:15):
characters per page and a fixedalphabet of 25 characters. The
proceeding description for thelibrary is 125 characters long,
there could be shorterdescriptions, but this sets an
upper bound for the informationcontent of the library of
baybel. It takes next to noinformation to describe the vast

(33:39):
library of baybel.
Paradoxically, there's moreinformation in a single page
from a single book in thelibrary than in the entire
library itself. How could thisbe? How can there be less
information in the library as awhole than there is in a single
book or page from the library.
This is a consequence ofalgorithmic information theory,

(34:02):
which includes the science ofdata compression. It reveals
that it is simpler in terms ofneeding a shorter description to
generate every book in thelibrary than it is to generate
only a single book or a singlepage of a book in the library. A
shorter, less specific and moregeneral description casts a

(34:22):
wider net. A single bookrequires 1,312,000 characters.
The Library of Babel requires125 characters. all possible
books requires 18 characters.
The description or possiblebooks needs fewer characters

(34:45):
than the description of thelibrary of Babel, but it defines
a much larger set of books. Infact, it defines an infinite set
of books of all possible lengthsand character sets. The Library
of baybel though vast was stillfinite, Mike the same apply to
our universe and reality. Todescribe one universe like ours

(35:05):
requires a vast amount ofinformation. It requires
specifying not only the physicallaws, but also the position,
direction and speed of everyparticle in the universe. This
is estimated to require on theorder of 10 to the power of 90
bits. Yet to specify everypossible universe of our kind, a

(35:26):
multiverse of every possiblearrangement of particles ruled
by our laws of physics needsmuch less information. Such a
multiverse requires only theinformation to define the
physical laws, particle types,fundamental forces and constants
of nature. This can be done injust a few pages of equations.

(35:47):
describing our specificuniverses like describing a
specific book from the libraryof baybel. It needs more
information than the libraryitself. In theories, such as the
string theory landscape, theconstants of nature are not
specified by the theory leadingto an even greater multiverse

(36:07):
consisting of every possibleuniverse having every set of
possible values for theconstants of nature, for
example, different values forthings like the electron mass
and the strength ofelectromagnetism. There are
reasons to suspect this forsomething like it is true. For
one, it explains why laws ofphysics and constants of nature

(36:27):
appear fine tuned for theemergence of life. See, was the
universe made for life. Thisdescription of a string theory
landscape needs lessinformation, it might save a
page by not having to includethe 30 some odd constants of
nature, and yet, it describes avastly larger multiverse. the

(36:48):
observable universe withparticle velocities, physical
constants and physical equationsrequires 10 to the 90 bits or
about 10 to the 85 pages tospecify the quantum multiverse
with physical constants andphysical equations requires
approximately 144,000 bits orabout six pages to specify. The

(37:10):
string theory landscape with itsphysical equations requires
approximately 120,000 bits orabout five pages to specify all
physical possibility requireszero bits. What happens when the
length of reality's descriptiongoes to zero? This would leave
the equations themselvesunspecified, implying an even

(37:34):
greater multiverse. Thismultiverse includes universes
not just of every arrangement ofmatter, nor universes of every
set of constants, but universeis ruled by every kind of
physical equations. Quote, ifall possible string vacuolar
spacetime geometries, masses ofelementary particles and

(37:55):
interaction strengths and lawsand by laws of physics are
realized, then all possibledescriptions are satisfied. This
is equivalent to zeroinformation. And quote, David
Pearson, why does anythingexist? 1995.

(38:16):
Thus, to specify all possiblephysical laws, all possible
physical constants for allpossible universes, needs no
information at all. Might weinhabit such a nothing. This is
the thesis of Russell Standish,his 2006 book theory of nothing.
Standish believes our universewith its seemingly vast quantity

(38:39):
of information is something likea book in the library of baybel.
We will then be denizens ofnothing, occupying a place
within a total reality whichaltogether amounts to zero
information. Such a reality oneof zero information is the
simplest state of existence.
It's simpler than an emptyvacuum or a geometrical point.
As these both need a nonzeroamount of information to

(39:04):
describe necessary existence.
We've attempted butfrustratingly failed to define a
true nothing. When we tried tospecify a nothing, whether as a
vacuum, a point or an empty set,we inevitably invoke properties,
abstract entities, the numberszero and the infinitude of

(39:25):
numbers and their relationships.
Furthermore, this specificationis not an absolute nothing as it
requires reality to have anonzero amount of information to
specify it. Alternatively, if weattempt to nothing of zero
information and zerospecification, we get a total
reality containing allpossibility. Neither approach
succeeds in bringing aboutabsolute nothingness. Moreover,

(39:49):
these approaches rely upon andassume the validity of logical
principles and consistency. Noreality.
Not even and nothing appearspossible without laws and
principles of logic. And so thegoal of the philosophers nothing
the neither structure nor law,nor plan kind of true nothing at

(40:12):
all seems an impossible dream.
The nothings we attempt to breakdown and lead to some things.
With no structure, there arezero structures. This introduces
zero, and with it the structureof all numbers and their
interrelations.
With no law, there are norestrictions on what can or

(40:33):
cannot exist nor any law toprevent things spontaneously
popping into existence.
With no plan, there is noinformation which is equivalent
to a totality. Inspired by hisdiscovery of binary numbers,
libraries wrote to the Duke ofBrunswick in 1679, suggesting a
design for a coin. He titled itimago creation is all the image

(40:58):
of creation. Its motto reads,quote, Omnibus x nihill, do send
these sufficeth, Unum forproducing everything out of
nothing, one principle isenough. And quote, Gottfried
Wilhelm Leibniz in letter toDuke 1679.

(41:21):
If a true and absolute Nothingis impossible, or unstable, does
this mean there must be selfcreating or self existent
things? kind of thing exist outof logical necessity? Because
its absence is impossible? Whatmight the nature of such things
be a self existence thing? Ifsomething did not emerge out of

(41:42):
nothing, then there's only oneother possibility that there is
something that has alwaysexisted. In other words,
nothingness is not the defaultstate of reality. Quote, it is
extraordinary that there shouldexist anything at all. Surely,
the most natural state ofaffairs is simply nothing, no

(42:03):
universe, no God, nothing. Butthere is something Richard
Swinburne in Is there a god1996.
Given that something exists, iteither came from nothing or else
something has existed from thebeginning, the existence of this
thing is somehow necessary, itexisted without any proceeding

(42:27):
cause. This, we also findcontrary to intuition. It's
strange because everything weare familiar with can trace its
existence to some earlier cause.
Manufactured things are made bypeople, or by machines that were
made by people. Life comes fromother life. Things not created
by humans or other life, likerivers and mountains are created

(42:51):
by natural forces acting onmatter. It seems to defy reason
for a thing to exist without acause. And yet, we know the
universe exists. The universeeither came from some proceeding
cause or else the universe hasalways existed is self existent
or self creating, there is nothird option. If the universe is

(43:14):
not the end of this causalchain, then something else is
therefore we must accept somethings are self creating come
out of nothing, or are selfexistent. Let's call such a
thing causeless. Existingwithout cause, take anything
that exists the chair, you'resitting in your conscious

(43:37):
thoughts, the Eiffel Tower. Forthe purposes of the reasoning,
it doesn't matter what thing westart with. Given that this
thing exists, there are twopossibilities either that thing
was caused or it was not caused.
If a thing has no cause, then itis causeless. Otherwise, the

(43:59):
thing has a cause and itsexistence is owed to some other
thing. If we follow the chain ofcausality back towards an
ultimate root cause there arethree possibilities. One, first
cause the chain of causalitycomes to an end in a first
cause. to infinite regression,the chain of causality continues

(44:22):
forever. Three, causal loop, thechain of causality forms a
closed cycle, or a loop. Theserepresent all possibilities. The
trace either ends or first causeor it continues forever. If it
continues forever, it forms aninfinite chain that's either

(44:42):
open an infinite regression, orclosed a causal loop. In all
three cases, we find somethingthat has always existed, either
the first cause the infinitechain itself, or the causal loop
itself, this thing which hasalways exists
Did we can describe as causelessfirst Cause if when tracing back

(45:06):
through the series of causes, wehappen upon something causeless
then our existence results froma first cause. Leading
cosmological theories such asthe Big Bang and cosmic
inflation posits that theuniverse is not infinitely old,
but rather underwent an abruptevent where it came into
existence that our universe hasappoints that maybe marketers

(45:28):
are beginning leaves open thepossibility that there is a
proceeding cause for ouruniverse. Another possibility is
that the universe has its owncause emerging as a random
quantum fluctuation allowed bylaws of physics. many religions
speak of the first cause as adivine act of creation. In such

(45:48):
a case, God would be the firstcause. Yet some other non
theistic objects could as wellbe responsible for our
existence. If the universe isnot eternal, we should look for
some reason for the suddenappearance of the universe to
explain how it could arise byitself be self existent, or be
the product of some prior cause.
Infinite regression. If ouruniverse has an eternal history,

(46:13):
or if it belongs to a realityhaving an eternal history, then
we exist due to an infiniteregression. A number of
scientific theories propose thatour universe is eternal. Prior
to wide acceptance of the BigBang, the steady state model was
popular. It proposed that theuniverse is eternally expanding

(46:34):
with new matter perpetuallycreated to fill the void in the
newly made space. Since theacceptance of the Big Bang,
various new models suppose thatthe Big Bang is itself part of
an eternal succession of bigbangs. Roger Penrose is
conformal. cyclic cosmologysupposes that the heat death of
our universe could appear as anew big bang in the next year

(46:58):
and Lee Smolin proposedcosmological natural selection
where in a new universe spawnsevery time a black hole forms.
Accordingly, if the laws mutate,he suggests that universes might
even evolve towards having lawsthat maximize the production of
black holes. Sean Carroll notesthat the equations of quantum

(47:20):
mechanics unlike those ofgeneral relativity, permit
physicists to calculateeternally into the past or
future. With a theory of quantumgravity, we could in principle
predict backwards to timesproceeding the Big Bang, quote,
the Schrodinger equation has animmediate, profound consequence.
Almost all quantum states evolveeternally toward both the past

(47:44):
and the future. Unlike classicalmodels, such as spacetime in
general relativity, which canhit singularities beyond which
evolution cannot be extended,quantum evolution is very
simple. If this setup describesthe real world, there is no
beginning nor end to time. ShownCarolyn, why is there something

(48:06):
rather than nothing? 2018.
According to ancient legends,the world rests on the back of a
cosmic turtle. When asked whatthe cosmic turtle rests on a
common responses, it is turtlesall the way down an infinite
regression. If an infiniteregression is true, there is no

(48:30):
ultimate cause. However, wemight still look for an ultimate
explanation for the chain ofcauses. causal.
It might be that our existenceis part of an infinite series,
but one that repeats forever. Iftrue, we are stuck in a never
ending causal loop. Thehypothesized big bounce is an

(48:52):
example of a cyclic cosmology.
In 1922, Alexander Freedmanapplied Einstein's equations of
general relativity to theuniverse as a whole. He found
that for certain values of thedensity of the universe and the
cosmological constant, theuniverse will expand for a
period of time, slow down, andeventually re collapse. In his

(49:13):
1923 book, the world of spaceand time, Friedman speculates
that the collapse or Big Crunchcould rebound in a big bounce,
causing a new Big Bang. Theprocess could repeat forever.
The idea of cyclic cosmology hasappealed to many scientists,
including Georges Lemaitre,Richard Tolman, George gameau,

(49:36):
William Bonnell, Herman Sangsterand Robert Dick, among others.
Quote, we can now ask ourselvestwo important questions. Why was
our universe in such a highlycompressed state? And why did it
start expanding? The simplestand mathematically most

(50:00):
a consistent way of answeringthese questions would be to say
that the big squeeze which tookplace in the early history of
our universe was the result of acollapse which took place at a
still earlier era. And that thepresent expansion is simply an
elastic rebound which started assoon as the maximum permissible
squeezing density was reached.
And quote, George gameau in thecreation of the universe, 1952

(50:28):
cyclical cosmologies can befound in many religions. For
example, there is the concept ofthe Wheel of Time in the dharmic
religions. Quote, the mostelegant and sublime of these is
a representation of the creationof the universe at the beginning
of each cosmic cycle, a motifknown as the cosmic dance of

(50:48):
Shiva. The God called in thismanifestation netta Raja, the
dance King has four hands. Inthe upper right hand is a drum
whose sound is the sound ofcreation. In the upper left hand
is a tongue of flame, a reminderthat the universe now newly
created will billions of yearsfrom now be utterly destroyed,

(51:12):
and quote, Carl Sagan in Cosmos1980.
But cyclic models lackingobservational evidence and
theoretical support remained onthe periphery of cosmology. In
1998, observations revealed theexpansion of the universe was
not slowing but accelerating.
This seems to rule out a futurecollapse. The driver of this

(51:36):
acceleration, dark energyremains little understood. If it
is constant, the expansion willcontinue forever, but in some
theories, it varies with timeand so a later collapse may be
possible. cyclic models haveseen a revival. In 2001, Justin
Horry vert offered Paul Steinerthe Neil terrick proposed the

(52:02):
EAC pi erotic universe. Thisidea marries string theory and
cosmology to give a model whereperiodic brain collisions
trigger cycles of big bangs andbig crunches. If our universe is
part of a causal loop, nobeginning or end is
identifiable. But what got itstarted? Did one of the

(52:22):
succession of states springforth out of nothing? Or might
the loop have always existed?
The nature of uncaused thingsgiven that reality exists, we
know there must be an entitythat is causeless. What is it
about causeless entities thatmakes them existent? If a first

(52:45):
cause, how did it bring itselfinto existence? If an infinite
regression or causal loop? Howdid it come into being? Might it
exist out of logical necessity?
Or is it a result of chance?
Almighty it exists simplybecause it can exist, and
nothing forbids it. tracingcauses backwards can tell us

(53:08):
where the previous state camefrom, but it won't answer where
the chain or loop itself camefrom. Quote, some believe that
if all events were caused byearlier events, everything would
be explained. That however, isnot so even an infinite series
of events cannot explain itself.
We could ask why this seriesoccurred rather than some other

(53:31):
series or no series? Derekparfit in why anything? Why this
2008what we are looking for is not a
cause, but a reason andexplanation. For in the cases of
the loops or infiniteregression, we can always find
an earlier cause, but may neverreach a satisfactory reason.

(53:55):
Quote, for the question to beproperly fully answered, we need
a sufficient reason that has noneed of any further reason. Or
because that doesn't throw up afurther why and this must lie
outside the series of contingentthings and must be found in a
substance which is the cause ofthe entire series. It must be
something that existsnecessarily carrying the reason

(54:18):
for its existence within itself.
Only that can give us asufficient reason at which we
can stop having no further why.
Question taking us from thisbeing to something else. And
quote Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnizin the principles of nature and
grace based on reason 1714.

(54:41):
If we seek a final because thatputs an end to any further wise,
we must find something that wecan show must exist. Not only
must this thing exist, but wemust also show how this thing
can account for the reality weexperience. Only then will we
have succeeded in our quest canIt's for self existence.
Throughout history,philosophers, scientists and

(55:04):
religions have suggestedcandidates for self existence.
These causeless entitiesgenerally fall into one of seven
categories. One, logic to truth,three, numbers, four,
possibility, five, the universe,six, the higher plane, and seven

(55:31):
consciousness. Let's review eachcandidate and its merits for
self existence. Afterwards, wewill consider whether that
entity could further serve as anultimate explanation or self
existence starting point fromwhich the rest of reality
emerges as a direct consequenceof that thing. Logic. Some

(55:54):
suppose rational principles,like the laws of logic, are self
existent. Unlike physical laws,logical laws have an air of
inevitability to them. These arelaws such as
the law of identity, things areidentical to themselves. For

(56:17):
example, a equals Athe law of the excluded middle
statements are either true ornot true.
The law of non contradiction, nostatement is both true and
false. These are laws that seeminevitable and necessary in any
reality, as it's hard to imagineany reality where logical laws

(56:39):
would not hold. If logical lawsapply in all universes and all
possible realities, theyrepresent universal laws,
applying everywhere and toeverything. If we can say laws
of physics exist, because allmatter a university is to
physical laws, then could we saylaws of logic exist? Because all

(57:00):
things in all possible realitiesadhere to these logical laws? If
so, then laws of logic are selfexistent. They are necessary
even in a reality of no thingsas logical laws ensure nothing
equals nothing. Quote, if Iasked myself why bodies or minds
exist, rather than nothing, Ifind no answer. But that a

(57:23):
logical principle, such as aequals A should have the power
of creating itself triumphingover the Lord throughout
eternity seems to be natural,and quote, on rebirths and in
creative evolution 1907this idea that logical law and
rational principles haveeternally existed predates

(57:44):
modern philosophers. It's acornerstone belief in Taoism.
Quote, there was somethingformless and perfect before the
universe was born. It is serene,empty, solitary, unchanging,
infinite, eternally present. Itis the mother of the universe,

(58:07):
for lack of a better name, Icall it the Tao Lao Jain,
Chapter 25, of Tao teaching,circa 600 BC.
Towel translates as the wayprinciples and natural order. A
similar sentiment is expressedin Christianity. The Gospel of

(58:30):
john begins, quote, In thebeginning was the Word and the
Word was with God, and the Wordwas God. gospel of john chapter
one verse, one 100 ad,the term word is a translation
of verbal in Latin, which is atranslation of logos in Greek.
Logos has a deep and richmeaning. Aside from word logos

(58:54):
also means reason, principles,and rational law. Logos is the
root from which we get the wordlogic. It is also the origin of
the suffix ology, as in biology,geology and psychology, where it
means the principles explanationand story they're off. quote,

(59:16):
If, however, he be admitted toexist apart from matter in
virtue of his character as aprinciple and a rational law,
logos, God will be bottlelessthe creative power bottleless
plotinus in the NT ad,six to 70 ad.

(59:38):
In Chinese Bibles, logos hasbeen translated as Tao. In this
way, both Taoist and Christianideas. Suppose that the Tao
slash logos, order reason,principles, logic, rational law
exists prior to the materialuniverse. Truth Some believe

(59:58):
that truth is causedPlus, there seems to be some
essential difference betweenzero is even and zero is odd.
Only one of them is true. Didanything make it so? When did
this statement become true? Didit require a human mind to
conceive of it as being true? Orhas it always been true? Mike
this property of truth have anindependent and necessary

(01:00:21):
existence. If logical laws applyuniversally, then any well
formed statement is either trueor false. The law of non
contradiction says a statementcan't be both true and false.
The law of excluded middle saysa statement must be either true
or false, there is no middleground. Thus, if logical laws

(01:00:42):
apply to everything, they applyto all statements, forcing on
them the objective property ofbeing either true or false. As
Derek parfit said, some truth islogically necessary when it's
denial leads to a contradiction.
Accordingly, the truth that zerois even would exist before

(01:01:05):
humans proved it. It would betrue before it was first spoken.
Presumably, it would be trueappcenter universal things, for
even in the case zero thingsexist, it remains true that an
even number of things exist.
Quote, when we imagine howthings would have been if
nothing had ever existed, whatwe should imagine away are such

(01:01:25):
things as living beings, starsand atoms, there would still
have been various truths, suchas the truth that there were no
stars or atoms, or that nine isdivisible by three, we can ask
why these things would have beentrue. And such questions may
have answers. Thus, we canexplain why, even if nothing had

(01:01:47):
ever existed, nine would stillhave been divisible by three,
there is no conceivablealternative. End quote, Derek
parfit, in why anything? Whythis 2008.
Ultimately, nothing isresponsible for creating this

(01:02:10):
truth. Truth exists out of itsown necessity. It has always
existed and could never notexist. The idea of the primacy
of truth is very old. It can befound in many religions, some of
which draw an equivalencebetween God and truth. In the
3000 year old religion ofZoroastrianism, it is said that

(01:02:34):
assha, meaning truth and orderis the Divine Law behind all
things. Quote, Iran, as Indiapresents us with a term which
has had to signify, first ofall, true statement, that this
statement, because it was true,had to correspond to an
objective material reality. Andthat, as the discourse did, this

(01:02:56):
reality must embrace all things.
And finally, that one recognizedin it a great cosmic principle
since all things happenaccording to it, and quote, jack
dushane, demon, inherit cleitusand Iran 1963.
In the book of Psalms, Chapter31, verse five, God is called

(01:03:17):
the God of truth. In the Quran,Allah hoc, meaning the truth is
one of the 99 names of God.
similar ideas are found indharmic religions. The moolman
ta, or route mantra is the mostimportant verse of the Sikh
religion. It begins there is onecreator whose name is truth and
is described as timeless beyondbirth or death, and self

(01:03:41):
existent in the Brahma Samhita,a Hindu prayer book, the
primeval Lord give India isdescribed as the indivisible,
infinite, limitless truth.
Quote, if it is possible for thehuman tongue to give the fullest
description of God by have cometo the conclusion that God is

(01:04:02):
truth. End quote. Mahatma Gandhiin all men are brothers 1953
numbers. Some speculate thatnumbers or their relationships
are self existent. If truth hasan independent existence, this
truth includes the infinitetruths describing all true

(01:04:24):
relationships between thenumbers. These include
arithmetical statements such astwo is even. Seven is prime. One
is greater than 02 plus twoequals four, and times zero
equals zero. And that the squareroot of nine is three truths

(01:04:49):
concerning the numbers areboundless. Might this infinite
truth provide a scaffolding andstructure to all the numbers and
if there is nothing more tonumbers than their properties
and relations, then Mike numbersin some sense really exist. It's
been said, math is the sciencewe could still do if we woke up
tomorrow and there was nouniverse. The idea that math

(01:05:12):
holds some claim to reality isknown as mathematical realism,
or platonism. It's believed bymany, if not most
mathematicians. Quote, it is anidea that many mathematicians
are comfortable with. In thisscheme, the truths that
mathematicians seek are in aclear sense already there. And

(01:05:34):
mathematical research can becompared with archaeology. The
mathematicians job is to seekout these truths as a task of
discovery rather than one ofinvention. Roger Penrose in the
big questions, what is reality?
2006.

(01:05:56):
But can number relations haveany reality in the absence of
things? If zero things exist, itwould have to be true that zero
not equal one, and also thatzero not equal to and true that
zero not equal any other number.
So even with no things, aninfinite number of arithmetical
relations are needed to avoidcontradiction and preserve

(01:06:17):
nothing of zero things. Quote,if all things were absent, would
too and to make fobian nonreality remaining like that
until at least four things thatcome to exist? Presumably, the
answer must be no. JOHN a Leslieand Robert Lawrence Kuhn in the
mystery of existence 2013.

(01:06:42):
This idea that numbers have anindependent existence is
ancient. It can be traced tosome of the earliest records of
human thought. It was taught byancient philosophers, and is
found in the oldest religioustexts. Taoism, for instance,
sets the existence of numbers asprior to things. Quote, the Tao

(01:07:06):
gives birth to one, one givesbirth to two, two gives birth to
three, three gives birth to allthings, larger and chapter 42 of
Tao Te Ching, circa 600 BC,the Greek mathematician
Pythagoras taught all things arenumber. Quote, Pythagoras

(01:07:26):
applied themselves tomathematics, and were the first
to develop this science. Andthrough studying it, they came
to believe that its principlesare the principles of
everything. Aristotle inmetaphysics circa 350 BC.
Pythagoras was the first topropose that the motions of the

(01:07:49):
planets are governed bymathematical equations, which he
called the harmony of thespheres. When Newton discovered
his law of universalgravitation, some 2000 years
later, he credited Pythagorasfor the discovery. Across times,
mathematicians have described aseemingly divine connection
between mathematics and reality,quote, geometry, which before

(01:08:14):
the origin of things was coeternal, with the divine mind
and is God himself for whatcould they be in God which would
not be God Himself supplied Godwith patterns for the creation
of the world and passed over toman along with the image of God
yohannes Kepler in the harmonyof the world 1619
quotes from these considerationsit is now wonderfully evident

(01:08:38):
how a certain divine mathematicsor metaphysical mechanics is
employed in the very originationof things. Gottfried Wilhelm
Leibniz in on the ultimateorigination of things 1697.
Quote, to all of us who hold theChristian belief that God is
truth, anything that is true isa fact about God. And

(01:08:59):
mathematics is a branch oftheology. An old Greek, a French
child, and a self taught Indianeach finds for himself the same
theory of geometrical conics.
The simplest and therefore, themost scientific way of
describing this is that theyhave discovered not created a
geometry that exists by itselfeternally the same for all the

(01:09:20):
same for teacher as for taughtthe same for manners for God.
The truth that is the same formanners for God is pure
mathematics. Hilda P. Hudson inmathematics and eternity 1925
possibility. Some speculate thatsimply not being impossible is

(01:09:43):
sufficient for being actual. Iftrue, then every possible object
structure and entity exists.
What then is impossible. At aminimum, we can say self
contradictory things. Forexample,
pole square circles, marriedbachelors, triangles with five

(01:10:04):
sides and so on. We might alsoinclude things proven to not
exist. odd numbers easilydivisible by two, a largest
prime number, a sixth platonicside. If consistency and
provability are the requirementsfor possibility, then possible
existence is mathematicalexistence. As David Hilbert

(01:10:25):
said, mathematical existence ismerely freedom from
contradiction. The idea that allpossible things exist has
enjoyed many names. In 1936,Arthur Lovejoy dubbed it the
principle of plenitude. In 1981Robert nozick named it the
principle of fecundity, DavidLewis, in 1986, developed it as

(01:10:50):
a theory he called modal realismin Max Tegmark 1998 model of
multiverses he called it themathematical universe
hypothesis. Most recently, in2008, Derek parfit, coined the
all worlds hypothesis, if allpossible objects are actual,
then our universe is just onesuch possible structure and an

(01:11:13):
infinite and total set of allpossible structures. Anything
that could happen happenssomewhere, quote, there are so
many other worlds, in fact thatabsolutely every way that a
world could possibly be is a waythat some world is. And as with
worlds, so it is with parts ofworlds, there are ever so many

(01:11:37):
ways that a part of a worldcould be and so many and so
varied are the other worlds thatabsolutely every way that a part
of a world could possibly be asa way that some part of some
world is, end quote, David Lewisin on the plurality of worlds
1986.

(01:11:57):
Quote, if the universe isinherently mathematical, then
why was only one of the manymathematical structures singled
out to describe the universe, afundamental asymmetry appears to
be built into the heart ofreality. As a way out of this
conundrum, I have suggested thatcomplete mathematical symmetry

(01:12:18):
holds that all mathematicalstructures exist physically as
well. Every mathematicalstructure corresponds to a
parallel universe. And quote,Max Tegmark in parallel
universes 2003the idea that possibility is
sufficient for actuality is notnew. Arthur Lovejoy, who wrote

(01:12:39):
about the history of this idea,traced it to 360 bc beginning
with Plato's theory of forms,Plato hypothesized the realm
containing all possible formseternal, perfect idealizations.
We find this idea expressed in avariety of ways throughout

(01:12:59):
history, quote, the one is allthings and not a single one of
them. It is because there isnothing in it that all things
come from it in order that beingmay exist, the one who is not
being but the generator of beingplotinus in the ads five, to one
to 70 ad,quote, but to explain more

(01:13:23):
distinctly how from eternal oressential metaphysical truths
there arise temporal contingentor physical truths, we must
first observe that, from thevery fact that there exists
something rather than nothing,it follows that impossible
things or in possibility oressence itself. There is a
certain need of existence, or soto speak, a claim to exist in a

(01:13:48):
word that essence of itselftends to existence. Gottfried
Wilhelm Leibniz in on theultimate origination of things
1697.
Others have linked God'sinfinite nature to an infinite
creation. Quote, from God'ssupreme power, or infinite

(01:14:10):
nature, an infinite number ofthings, that is, all things have
necessarily flowed forth in aninfinite number of ways, or
always flow from the samenecessity. In the same way as
from the nature of a triangle,it follows from eternity and for
eternity, that it's threeinterior angles are equal to two
right angles, Baruch Spinoza, inethics, 1677.

(01:14:36):
Quotes now thou have a truththat the worlds of God are
countless in their number, andinfinite in their range. None
can reckon or comprehend themexcept God, the all knowing the
all wise baja Allah in tablet tooffer circa 1885
quotes. It makes sense that aninfinitely creative

(01:15:00):
deity will create otheruniverses, not just our own. For
the theist, the existence ofmultiple universes would simply
support the view that creationreflects the infinite creativity
of the Creator. Robin a Collinsin spiritual information 2005

(01:15:20):
the universe. Some say that theuniverse or the physical law
that enabled it to come intoexistence has always existed and
so is self existent. Thereasoning is simple. If we know
at least one thing is causeless.
Why not just presume thiscauseless thing is the universe
itself. Quote, I should say thatthe universe is just there. And

(01:15:43):
that's all and quote BertrandRussell in Russell copplestone
debate 1948.
Perhaps there is no reason itsimply is and has no
explanation. Given the universeexists, we know the universe is

(01:16:04):
possible. Perhaps it existsbecause it is possible, and
nothing forbade it fromexisting. But there are other
tracks to follow. Perhaps we candemonstrate that the universe is
self creating, or that it existsdue to some higher law. Modern
cosmology made progress alongthese directions. The theory of

(01:16:28):
cosmic inflation uses generalrelativity to explain how a tiny
quantum fluctuation can inflateinto the huge universe we now
see, quote, inflation isradically at odds with the old
dictum of democritus andlucretius. Nothing can be
created from nothing. Ifinflation is right, everything

(01:16:49):
can be created from nothing, orat least from very little. If
inflation is right, the universecan properly be called the
ultimate free lunch and quote,by Alan Guth and inflation and
the new era of high precisioncosmology 2002.
According to the laws of quantummechanics, the quantum

(01:17:11):
fluctuation that seeded ouruniverse appeared because it was
possible emerging out of nothingbut the physical laws
themselves. Quote, is there anybound to how small the initial
universe could be? For mysurprise, I found that the
tunneling probability did notvanish as the initial size
approached zero. I also noticedthat my calculations were

(01:17:35):
greatly simplified when Iallowed the initial radius of
the universe to vanish. This wasreally crazy. What I had was a
mathematical description of auniverse tunneling from a zero
size from nothing. And yet, thestate of nothing cannot be
identified with absolutenothingness. The tunneling is
described by the laws of quantummechanics, and thus nothing

(01:17:58):
should be subjected to theselaws. The laws of physics must
have existed even though therewas no universe and quote,
Alexander the Lincoln in manyworlds in one 2006.
General relativity and quantummechanics are the two
Cornerstone theories of modernphysics. from them alone, we can

(01:18:22):
explain a self emerginguniverse. Quantum Mechanics
shows how possible fluctuationsspontaneously pop into
existence. General Relativityexplains how such a fluctuation
could expand exponentially toreach an unfathomable size. See
what caused the Big Bang? But wemust wonder why these laws?

(01:18:46):
What, if anything, is specialabout them? Who or what anointed
these equations with existence?
quote? What is it that breathesfire into the equations and
makes a universe for them todescribe? The usual approach of
science of constructing amathematical model cannot answer
the questions of why thereshould be a universe for the

(01:19:08):
model to describe. Why does theuniverse go to all the bother of
existing Stephen Hawking in abrief history of time 1988.
The idea that the universe isuncreated or exists due to some
laws predates the successes ofmodern physics and cosmology.

(01:19:30):
The ancient Greeks and Romansbelieved that the material of
the universe has always existed,since nothing comes from
nothing. Quote, the firstprinciple is that nothing can be
created from the non existentfor otherwise anything would be
formed from anything without theneed of seed. And quote,

(01:19:51):
Epicurus in letter to Herodotuscirca 300 bc
this matter was originally in astate of disarray.
Order or chaos. Quotes beforethe ocean and the earth appeared
before the skies had over spreadthem all. The face of nature in
a vast expanse was not but chaosuniformly waste of it in

(01:20:14):
metamorphosis, ad.
It was not until a divineCraftsman imposed mathematical
order on this chaos that theordered universe the cosmos,
appeared in religions with pasteternal cosmologies. The
universe is believed to becauseless. Jainism explicitly

(01:20:34):
says the universe was notcreated, quote, The doctrine
that the world was created isill advised and should be
rejected. If God created theworld, where was he before the
creation? If you say he wastranscendent, then and needed no
support? Where is he now? Howcould God have made this world

(01:20:56):
without any raw material? If yousay that he made this first and
then the world you are facedwith an endless regression, if
you declare that this rawmaterial arose, naturally you
fall into another fallacy forthe whole universe might have
been its own creator, and havearisen quite naturally. And

(01:21:17):
quote, Jean rcnn ma piano 898ad,
a higher plane. Some suppose ouruniverse exists on account of a
higher plane and that thishigher plane rather than the
universe is self existent. Thereare many conceptions of what
this higher plane of reality is.
Some describe this plane as acause of being, be it God, a

(01:21:41):
creator, Divine Will, a firstcause or an unmoved mover.
Others describe it as a sourceof being the mind of God, the
one or the towel. Still othersdescribe it as a ground of being
the absolute the all or whatHindus call Brahman. Not all
theories of higher planes ofexistence need the supernatural.

(01:22:05):
There are also naturalisticdescriptions of higher
realities. In multiversetheories, a higher reality
contains our universe amongothers. In brain cosmology, our
universe is caused by collisionsin a literal, higher dimension.
In the simulation hypothesis,our universe is the result of

(01:22:27):
computations occurring in a morefundamental reality. See, are we
living in a computer simulation?
Though these theories deal withphenomena that are beyond the
nature of our universe, andhence supernatural evidence is
accumulating for some of thesehigher realms. Quote, every

(01:22:49):
experiment that brings bettercredence to inflationary theory
brings us much closer to hintsthat the multiverse is real.
Andrei Linde in interview 2014quotes quote, various theories
imply that various types ofparallel universes exist so that
by modus ponens if we take anyof these theories seriously,

(01:23:10):
we're forced to take seriouslyalso some parallel universes.
Parallel Universes aren't atheory, but predictions of
certain theories. Max Tegmark inour parallel universes
unscientific nonsense 2014.
The idea of a pre existentcause, source or ground of being

(01:23:34):
one that's external to endbeyond our universe is as old as
religion itself. Quote, by meansof the higher knowledge the wise
behold, everywhere, Brahman,which otherwise cannot be seen,
or seized, which has no root orattributes, no eyes or ears, no
hands or feet, which is eternaland omnipresent, all pervading

(01:23:57):
and extremely subtle, which isimperishable, and the source of
all beings mundaka Upanishad,chapter one, verse six, circa
800 BC,quote, In the beginning, God
created the heavens and theearth. Genesis chapter one verse
one circuit 600 BC.

(01:24:21):
Consciousness, some posits thatconsciousness is self existent,
if true consciousness could bethe cause of a universe that
exists only in appearance. Theidea seems strange, but we must
admit all knowledge of existencecomes to us through experiences
that exist in our consciousminds. This fact hasn't escaped

(01:24:44):
the attention of scientists.
Quote, it is difficult for thematter of fact physicist to
accept the view that thesubstratum of everything is of
mental character, but no one candeny that mind is the first and
mostDirect thing in our experience
and all else is remoteinference. And quote, Arthur
Eddington in the nature of thephysical world 1927.

(01:25:12):
Quote, I regard consciousness asfundamental. I regard matter as
derivative from consciousness.
We cannot get behindconsciousness, everything that
we talk about everything that weregard as existing postulates
consciousness. And quote, MaxPlanck in interviews with great

(01:25:33):
scientists 1931the relation between Mind and
Matter perplexes scientists tothis day, it leads to
philosophical conundrums likebrains in a vat Boltzmann brains
and the simulation argument, allof which suppose that perceived
reality is an illusion, abyproduct of a deluded mind.

(01:25:55):
It's also led physicists topropose theories where conscious
minds play a fundamental role inshaping reality as we see it.
Physics, after all, isfundamentally about experiences.
Physics is the science ofpredicting future observations
from prior observations. In1970, Heinz dtsa proposed the

(01:26:18):
many minds interpretation ofquantum mechanics, which
proposes that differentiation ofan infinity of observer mind
states explains quantumphenomena. Quote, a many minds
theory, like a many worldstheory, suppose is that
associated with a sentient beingat any given time, there is a

(01:26:39):
multiplicity of distinctconscious points of view. But a
many minds theory holds that itis these conscious points of
view all minds, rather thanworlds that are to be conceived
as literally dividing ordifferentiating over time.
Michael Lockwood in many minds,interpretations of quantum
mechanics 1995the mysterious link between

(01:27:04):
consciousness and realityinspired john wheelers idea of a
participatory universe, asMartin Redfern described, many
don't agree with john Wheeler.
But if he's right then we andpresumably other conscious
observers throughout theuniverse are the creators, or at
least the minds that make theuniverse manifest. The idea that

(01:27:26):
consciousness proceeds thematerial world has a rich
history. It is found acrossphilosophies and religious
traditions, where physicalreality is seen as a dream or
construct of a mind or soul.
Quote, for it is the same thingthat can be thought and that can
be permanent is in fragmentthree circa 475 BC.

(01:27:53):
A few millennia later, thephilosopher George Berkeley
echoed poem and it is concludingthat to be is to be perceived.
Quote, it is indeed widelybelieved that all perceptible
objects, houses, mountains,rivers, and so on, really exist
independently of being perceivedby the understanding. But

(01:28:14):
however widely and confidently,this belief may be held, anyone
who has the courage to challengeit will, if I'm not mistaken,
see that it involves an obviouscontradiction for what our
houses, mountains, rivers, etc,but things we perceive by sense,
and quote, George Berkeley inthe principles of human

(01:28:36):
knowledge 1710.
Hindus believe the universalmind or world soul Atman became
the universe. Accordingly, theuniverse is not real, but the
dream of a god under the spellof Maya, a temporary ignorance
of the true reality. Buddhistsbelieve that the mind underlies

(01:28:57):
and forms everything. Quote, allthe phenomena of existence of
mind as their precursor mind astheir Supreme Leader, and of
mind are they made, end quote,Gautama Buddha in the dhammapada
circa 500 BC,the Taoist philosopher Zhu ang
Jo said the world is a dream,quote, while he is dreaming, he

(01:29:20):
does not know it is a dream. Andin his dream, he may even try to
interpret a dream. Only after hewakes does he know it was a
dream. And someday there will bea great awakening when we know
that this is all a great dream.
And quote, Zhu ng Joe and join zcirca 300 BC.

(01:29:46):
Reviewing answers, we'veconsidered seven proposals for
self existence things, logic,truth, numbers, possibility
The universe, a higher plane,and consciousness. yet so far,

(01:30:07):
none of these is satisfactory asan ultimate explanation. None
stands out as a final becausethat doesn't throw up a further
Why? abstract entities, logic,truth numbers. First, we have
abstract entities, logic, truthand numbers. But though these

(01:30:28):
things are plausibly causeless,how could they cause anything?
These things are eternal andunchanging, not to mention
abstract, how can they causeanything like the huge dynamic
universe we see, quote, so thecause of the universe must at
least causally prior to theuniverse's existence transcends

(01:30:50):
space and time and thereforecannot be physical or material.
But there are only two kinds ofthings that could fall under
such a description, either anabstract object, like a number,
or else a mind, a soul, a self.
But abstract objects don't standin causal relations. This is
part of what it means to beabstract. The number seven, for

(01:31:12):
example, doesn't cause anything.
And quote, William Lane Craig inreasonable faith, 1994.
possibility, mathematicalconsistency. What about all
possibility? If all possiblethings exist, then our universe

(01:31:35):
would be counted among thosepossible things? But why should
possible things be actual, asJJC smart remarked that anything
should exist at all does seem tome a matter for the deepest or
existence is what we seek toexplain. And there is another
issue, why is our universe sosimple and ordered compared to

(01:31:58):
all else that exists in thespace of all possibility? quote,
Tegmark proposal, however, facesa formidable problem. The number
of mathematical structuresincreases with increasing
complexity, suggesting thetypical structures should be
horrendously large andcumbersome. This seems to be in

(01:32:19):
conflict with the simplicity andbeauty of the theories
describing our world. Alexanderthe Lincoln in many worlds in
one 2006,the physical, the universe,
physical law, if the universealone exists, it explains
exactly what we see. But therewould be lingering questions.

(01:32:41):
Why does consciousness exist?
are abstract entities real? Andperhaps the biggest mystery of
all? Why should this universe orits laws be the only real ones?
As Lee Smolin asked, Why dothese laws and not others hold

(01:33:01):
in our universe? Does theexistence of laws require some
higher principle? quote,although science may solve the
problem of how the universebegan, it cannot answer the
question. Why does the universebother to exist? Maybe only God
can answer that. Stephen Hawkingin interview 1988

(01:33:26):
hyperplanes God multiversesimulation, we might appeal to a
higher cause to explain theuniverse we see. But as JJC
smart reminds us if we postulateGod, in addition to the created
universe, we increase thecomplexity of our hypothesis. We
have all the complexity of theuniverse itself. And we have In

(01:33:49):
addition, the at least equalcomplexity of God. This seems
true for any higher principle.
For example, if we presume ouruniverse is the result of a
simulation in a higher reality,what's responsible for that
higher reality? quote, whateverour final theory of physics, we
will be left facing anirreducible mystery. For perhaps

(01:34:11):
there could have been nothing atall. Not even empty space, but
just absolutely nothing. If youbelieve God is the Creator,
well, why is God that way? Thereligious person is left with a
mystery which is no less thanthe mystery with which science
leaves us. End quote. StevenWeinberg in closer to truth,

(01:34:35):
cosmos, consciousness, God 2008and 2009.
The mental mind soulconsciousness. If consciousness
is causeless, it could explainwhy perceptions exist. But if
reality is only a dream orillusion, why do our perceptions

(01:34:59):
appear to followLong with the universe adhering
to physical laws, if it's all anillusion, what's the source of
this illusion? quote, even ifeverything in this universe were
an illusion, there would stillhave to be something outside
this universe that generates theillusion. End quote. JOHN a
Leslie and Robert Lawrence Kuhnin the mystery of existence 2013

(01:35:27):
causeless cause what we seek andhave so far have failed to
identify is a causeless cause.
This is something that not onlyhas a plausibly self existence
and causeless nature, but alsoplausibly accounts for the
reality we see. We find thingsthat appear to be causeless,
logic, truth, and numbers, butthese things also appear in

(01:35:50):
capable of being a cause.
Conversely, we found things thatcould be a cause the universe, a
higher plane and consciousness,but they don't seem causeless
then there is possibility forwhich we have reason to question
whether it is causeless andwhether it causes what we see,

(01:36:11):
we find an almost inverserelation, the more plausibly
something is causeless, the lessplausible it seems to be the
cause for what we see. causelesscause would provide us with a
complete explanation. It willexplain both itself and the
properties of observed reality.
It will describe the relationbetween the mental and material.
It will tell us why the universeexists and why it has simple

(01:36:36):
ordered laws. to progress weneed to find the connecting glue
the missing piece of the puzzlethat shows either how a
causeless thing accounts for thereality we see or alternatively,
why the reality we see iscauseless three modes of
existence. In reviewing theseven categories of possibly

(01:36:56):
costless things, we encounteredthree modes of existence,
loosely speaking they aremathematical existence,
material existence, and mentalexistence. Mathematical
existence includes abstractentities, logic, truth, numbers,

(01:37:20):
math, properties, forms,equations, relations,
possibility, structures, laws,and principles. This mode might
include religious concepts ofdivine law will order, Tao, or
logos, the infinite indivisibletruth, Ashoka vendor and divine
mathematics. material existenceincludes matter, energy, the

(01:37:45):
vacuum, spacetime, physical law,the universe, the multiverse
particles, forces, fields, andphysical systems. This mode
might include what religionsrefer to as creation, cosmos,
the material plane, and Maya orillusion. Mental existence
includes mind consciousness,observations, perceptions,

(01:38:09):
ideas, and dreams. This modemight include religious concepts
of the mind of God, world, soul,art man, and souls or spirits.
What is the relation between thethree modes of existence, math,
matter and mind? quote, myviewpoint allows for three

(01:38:30):
different kinds of reality, thephysical, the mental, and the
platonic mathematical withsomething as yet profoundly
mysterious in the relationsbetween the three. Roger Penrose
in the big questions, what isreality? 2006
math matter, mind, of the threemodes of existence does any

(01:38:55):
stand out as being morefundamental than any of the
others? What is their relation?
If one of these modes ofexistence can be shown as
primary while the others arederivative, then we might close
in on a causeless cause. Acommon view of physicists is
that matter produces mind andmind produces math. But even
among physicists, this viewisn't universal. Quote. The

(01:39:19):
triangle suggests thecircularity of the widespread
view that math arises from themind the mind that arises out of
matter, and that matter can beexplained in terms of math. Non
physicists should be wary of anyclaim that modern physics leads
us to any particular resolutionof this circularity. Since even

(01:39:40):
the sample of three theoreticalphysicists writing this paper
hold three divergent views. Andquote, Pizza Hut, Mark Alford
and Max Tegmark in on mathmatter and mind 2006
what is the reality ofThese modes of existence are all
on equal footing, or is one morefundamental while the others are

(01:40:05):
derivative. materialism matteris primary. materialism is the
view that matter is fundamental.
It assumes mental states are thebyproduct of particular material
arrangements, for example,brains, and that mathematical
objects, if they exist at alloutside of minds have no bearing

(01:40:29):
on the material world.
materialism is a popular if notconventional view among
physicists. materialism canexplain why our perceptions
follow the patterns of physicallaw, but it has difficulty
explaining why matter gives riseto mental states. This is the so
called hard problem ofconsciousness. materialism also

(01:40:49):
hits an explanatory dead endtrying to answer why matter
exists and why it follows simplephysical laws. Quote, if he gets
to know the worlds structure,asked the scientists, science,
however, seems unable to answersome key questions concerning

(01:41:09):
the structure. For start, why isthe structure an orderly one?
Why do events so often developin fairly simple and familiar
ways leading us to talk ofcausal laws? Then there is what
can seem the biggest question ofall, science investigates the
world's structure, but why isthere anything at all to be

(01:41:32):
structured? Why is there aCosmos? Not a blank? Why is
there something rather thannothing? Science cannot answer
this. JOHN Leslie and a Cosmosexisting through ethical
necessity 2000 that Ben's nineidealism mind his primary
idealism is the view that mindis fundamental. It assumes

(01:41:57):
mental states are the basis ofreality, and that the matter
that seems to exist exists onlyas thoughts and perceptions in
minds, idealism as expressed byEastern religions, theologians,
and mystics, but increasingly,physicists recognize they can't
so easily do away with theobserver. It seems the observer

(01:42:19):
plays a necessary if notfundamental role in any
description of reality, quote,consciousness cannot be
accounted for in physical termsfor consciousness is absolutely
fundamental. It cannot beaccounted for in terms of
anything else. And quote, ErwinSchrodinger in interview 1931.

(01:42:47):
But idealism doesn't answereverything. He doesn't explain
why minds are bound up with thepatterns of matter in a material
world. Quote, we find that ourperceptions obey some laws,
which can be most convenientlyformulated if we assume that
there is some underlying realitybeyond our perceptions. This

(01:43:09):
model of a material worldobeying laws of physics is so
successful that soon we forgetabout our starting point and say
that matter is the only realityand perceptions are nothing but
a useful tool for thedescription of matter. This
assumption is almost as naturaland maybe as false as our
previous assumption that spaceis only a mathematical tool for

(01:43:31):
the description of matter. Weare substituting reality of our
feelings by the successfullyworking theory of an
independently existing materialworld. And the theory is so
successful that we almost neverthink about its possible
limitations. And quote, AndreiLinde in inflation, quantum

(01:43:51):
cosmology and the anthropicprinciple 2002
platonism. Math is primaryplatonism is the idea that math
is fundamental. It assumesabstract objects are the most
real, and that everything we seeand perceive is somehow
derivative from this higherexistence. platonism is popular

(01:44:15):
among philosophers andmathematicians whose job is to
study the objective propertiesof abstract things. If
mathematical objects form thebasis of reality, it might
explain why the material worldis so mathematical in its form.
Quote, in a famous 1959 lecture,physicist Eugene p Wigner,

(01:44:36):
argued that the enormoususefulness of mathematics in the
natural sciences is somethingbordering on the mysterious
conversely, mathematicalstructures have an eerily real
feel to them. They satisfy acentral criterion of objective
existence, they are the same nomatter who studies them. A

(01:44:56):
theorem is true regardless ofwhether it is proved by a human
A computer or an intelligentdolphin, contemplative alien
civilizations would find thesame mathematical structures as
we have. Accordingly,mathematicians commonly say that
they discover mathematicalstructures rather than create
them. Max Tegmark in paralleluniverses 2003

(01:45:23):
where platonism falls short isin explaining how abstract
objects lead to material ormental existence. According to
lightness, the difficulty isexplaining how from eternal or
essential metaphysical truthsthere arise temporal contingent
or physical truths. What camefirst, for each of the three

(01:45:44):
modes of existence, there is anancient school of thought
holding that mode of existenceas most fundamental. The
mathematical, Plato believedthat abstract entities were the
most real, and that the materialworld was derivative. The
material Plato's foremoststudent, Aristotle, disagreed,

(01:46:05):
saying material substances weremore real than abstract forms.
The mental several centurieslater, plotinus argued that mind
was more real than the materialreality it perceives. Today's
scientists, mathematicians, andphilosophers seem no closer to
an answer on whether math matteror mind came first.

(01:46:29):
Does mind give rise to math? Ordoes math give rise to mind?
does matter give rise to mind?
Or does mind give rise tomatter?
Does math give rise to matter?
Or does matter give rise tomath? to unravel? The mystery of
existence requires that weunderstand the relationship
between these modes ofexistence. Only then do we have

(01:46:50):
any hope of identifying anultimate explanation or
causeless cause, quote, toaddress the nature of reality,
we need to understand itsconnection to consciousness and
mathematics. And, quote, RogerPenrose in the big questions,
what is reality? 2006are they one, various thinkers

(01:47:17):
have suspected the three modesof existence to be connected and
perhaps are all aspects of oneultimate reality, Mind and
Matter as one. Modern physicalexperiments have revealed
something inseparable betweenthe mind and the observed
physical reality. Quote, as wepenetrate into matter, nature

(01:47:39):
does not show as any isolatedbasic building blocks, but
rather appears as a complicatedweb of relations between the
various parts of the hole. Theserelations always include the
observer in an essential way,the human observer constitutes
the final link in the chain ofobservational processes, and the
properties of any atomic objectcan only be understood in terms

(01:48:03):
of interaction with theobserver. This means that the
classical ideal of an objectivedescription of nature is no
longer valid. The Cartesianpartition between the eye and
the world between the observerand the observed cannot be made
when dealing with atomic matter.
In atomic physics, we can neverspeak about nature without at

(01:48:26):
the same time speaking aboutourselves fritjof Capra and the
Tao of physics 1975.
Quote, aren't we mistaken inmaking this separation between
the universe and life and themind? Sugar we seek ways to
think of them as one. JOHNArchibald Wheeler quoted in

(01:48:48):
trespassing on Einsteins lawn2014.
Math and matter as one.
Likewise, mathematicians andscientists cannot help but
notice a mysterious linkconnecting mathematics and the
physical world. Quote, thereexists unless I am mistaken, an
entire world consisting of thetotality of mathematical truths,

(01:49:11):
which is accessible to us onlythrough our intelligence, just
as there exists the world ofphysical realities. Each one is
independent of us, both of themdivinely created and appear
different only because of theweakness of our mind. But for a
more powerful intelligence, theyare one and the same thing whose

(01:49:32):
synthesis is partially revealedin that marvelous correspondence
between abstract mathematics onthe one hand, and astronomy and
all branches of physics on theother. End quote, Charles a
meeting in loges, academies atthe school translation, page
323 1912.

(01:49:54):
quotes, maybe the relationshipsare all that exist. Maybe the
wordis made of math. At first that
sounded nuts. But when I thoughtabout it, I have to wonder what
exactly is the other option thatthe world is made of things?
What the hell is a thing? It wasone of those concepts that fold

(01:50:14):
under the slightestinterrogation looked closely at
any object and you find it's anamalgamation of particles. But
look closely at the particlesand you find that they are
irreducible representations ofthe Poincare, a symmetry group,
whatever that meant. The pointis, particles at bottom look a
lot like math. And quote, Amandagifter, in trespassing on

(01:50:41):
Einsteins lawn 2014.
Or is one, if matter and mindare two aspects of one reality.
And if math and matter arelikewise two aspects of one
reality, then all three must beconnected, all will be
reflections of one underlyingreality, quote. So how do the

(01:51:04):
elements of the Trinity fittogether the phenomenological
world, the physical world andthe mathematical world? On the
unarguable assumption that theprinciple underlying Ultimate
Reality is radically simple? Itwill here be conjectured that
these three realms are one andthe same under different
descriptions. David psny, doesanything exist in 1995?

(01:51:29):
a path to reality. Formillennia, philosophers have
debated the relation betweenmath matter and mind. For
millennia, they've sought acauseless cause. Despite this,
philosophy has not yielded anydefinitive answers. Perhaps
science can shed new light onthis question. Science allows us

(01:51:53):
to test and decide amongcompeting theories, science
provides opportunities todiscover the missing piece of
the puzzle and explain how andwhy a causeless thing gives rise
to the reality we see. As ithappens, discoveries in the
field of mathematics in the 20thcentury found this missing
puzzle piece. We now know aviable link between eternal or

(01:52:15):
essential metaphysical truthsand temporal contingent or
physical truths. We can explainhow reality can emerge from self
existent causeless truthconcerning numbers and their
relations. But without hardscience and observational
evidence to back it up, how canwe ever know if this explanation
is right? How can we ever escapefrom the morass of inconclusive

(01:52:39):
philosophy? Fortunately,discoveries in the fields of
physics and cosmology, alsooccurring in the 20th century
provide exactly this support. Wenot only have found a plausible
path to reality, we haveevidence for it. 20th century
mathematics many consider thefield of mathematics to be

(01:53:01):
mostly uneventful unchanged,since you could define the laws
of geometry 2300 years ago, butat the turn of the 20th century,
the field of mathematics was ina state of crisis. The field was
shaken to its foundation. Mathwas broken, and it had to be
rebuilt from scratch. Duringthis reformation, monumental

(01:53:24):
discoveries shocked and dismayedmathematicians. In the first
half of the 20th century,logicians and mathematicians
discovered a provably selfexistence thing. In the second
half of the 20th century, theyshowed how, under certain
assumptions, this self existencething could account for the
reality we see. Mike this thingthe causeless cause. Let's see

(01:53:51):
what mathematicians found andhow they came to find it. The
foundational crisis. At the turnof the 20th century, math was in
trouble. It was undergoing whatcame to be called the
foundational crisis ofmathematics. At the time, set
theory had come to serve as thefoundation of mathematics. All

(01:54:13):
mathematical proofs ultimatelyrelied on it. But in 1899, Ernst
sumela noticed this set theoryhad a fatal flaw. The Melo told
other math professors at theUniversity of getting in about
it, including David Hilbert, buttumelo didn't publish it. In
1901 Bertrand Russell alsonoticed this flaw, but Russell

(01:54:37):
didn't stay quiet. He wrote aletter in 1902 to gottlob frager
just as his second volume on settheory was going off to the
publisher frager had spentdecades laying the foundation of
set theory. It was his life'swork, but one letter showing one
flaw brought it all down.
Russell showed fragerSet Theory allows two

(01:55:00):
contradictory statements to bothbe proved. This flaw is known as
Russell's paradox. one flawmight not sound so bad, but in
math it is fatal. For if inmath, just one false hood can be
proved, then any false hood canbe proved. This is known as the
principle of explosion. Forexample, assume mathematics had

(01:55:23):
a flaw that allowed you to provethat two plus two equals five.
You could use this false proofto prove anything, you could
prove that the $1 in your bankaccount equals $1 million.
Starting with two plus twoequals five, subtract four from

(01:55:44):
both sides, then you get zeroequals one. Now multiply both
sides by 999,999. Then you getzero equals 999,999. Now add one
to both sides. You have nowproven one equals 1 million. If

(01:56:08):
mathematic proofs have falsestatements, then contracts,
commerce, even society as weknow it couldn't function. This
was the state of mathematics in1900. It's no wonder it was
considered a crisis. Math wasbroken. It had to be fixed. It
needed a rallying cry, a call toaction. In 1900, mathematicians

(01:56:34):
from around the world gatheredin Paris for the International
Congress of Mathematicians,David Hilbert considered the
greatest mathematician of histime was invited to speak, he
used the opportunity to presentwhat he considered to be the 23
most significant open problemsin mathematics. The second of

(01:56:55):
Hilbert problems call for aproof that the foundational
rules of mathematics were freeof contradictions. This would
once and for all, put math on asolid foundation. Never again
would mathematicians need worrythat a new contradiction might
one day surface and torpedo thewhole of mathematics, new

(01:57:16):
foundations, the collapse offraters set theory and Hilbert
score for a provably solidfoundation for math served as an
inspiration. Under Hilbertdirection as a mellow began work
on fixing set theory. Similarly,Bertrand Russell began work with
his supervisor, Alfred NorthWhitehead on a solution. Their

(01:57:40):
aim was to lay a new foundationfor mathematics based on a
precise logic and produce a settheory rid of paradoxes and
contradictions. It was a massiveundertaking that took over a
decade. It culminated in thethree volume tome Principia
Mathematica, published in1910 1912, and 1913. It was so

(01:58:03):
detailed that it famouslyrequired several 100 pages to
work up to the point where itproved one plus one equals two.
Owing to its complexity andunique notation, Principia
Mathematica never gained muchpopularity with mathematicians.
It also had a competitor. By1908, sumela developed a new set

(01:58:25):
theory consisting of just eightrules, and in 1921, it was
further improved by AbrahamFrankel. Their combined result
is called a mellow Fraenkel settheory. It became the default
foundation of mathematics andremains so to this day Hilbert

(01:58:45):
program. Although no one haddiscovered contradictions in
either Russell's also melos newfoundational systems, no one had
been able to prove they werefree of contradictions either.
Mathematics still rested on afoundation of uncertain
stability. This led Hilbert in1921, to push for finding a

(01:59:06):
mathematical theory that wasprovably consistent. And not
only did he want this theory tobe provably consistent, he
wanted it to be provablycomplete. A complete system of
mathematics means any truestatement can be proven within
that theory. There would neverbe a need to add to this
complete theory, as it wouldcover everything that

(01:59:28):
mathematicians might think up inthe future. It would be a final
theory and the last theory anymathematician would ever need.
It was the mathematiciansequivalent of a theory of
everything, where all ofmathematics is derived from one
rock solid foundation. Theeffort to find this theory
became known as Hilbert program.
It was a noble goal. but lessthan a decade after launching

(01:59:53):
his program, Hilbert stream of afinal theory was shattered
In 1930, at a conference in Kernexpec, Hilbert remained
confident in the eventualsuccess of his program
proclaiming the moves and visonvia Verdun vison, we must know
we will know. The phrase wouldlater be Hilbert epitaph girdles

(02:00:19):
incompleteness theorems. Unknownto Hilbert, his dream had
already been crushed the daybefore. At the very same
conference, the 24 year old Kurtgirdle presented his PhD thesis,
it proved Hilbert stream isimpossible. at the conference
girdle presented his firstincompleteness theorem. It

(02:00:42):
showed that in any finitemathematical Foundation, there
will be true statements thatcan't be proved in that theory.
Thus Hilbert stream ofcompleteness is impossible.
Quote, the most comprehensivecurrent formal systems are the
system of Principia Mathematicapm on the one hand, there's a

(02:01:03):
mellow Frank Elian AXIOM systemof set theory. On the other
hand, these two systems are sofar developed that you can
formalize in them all proofmethods that are currently in
use in mathematics, ie you canreduce these proof methods to a
few axioms and deduction rules.
Therefore, the conclusion seemsplausible that these deduction
rules are sufficient to decideall mathematical questions

(02:01:26):
expressible in those systems, wewill show that this is not true.
And quote, Kurt girdle in onformerly undecidable
propositions of PrincipiaMathematica and related systems.
119 31.
girdles first incompletenesstheorem showed there could never

(02:01:48):
be a final theory that wouldserve mathematicians for all
time, girdle wasn't finished.
Shortly thereafter, he publishedhis second incompleteness
theorem. This proved that noconsistent theory of mathematics
can ever prove itself to beconsistent. The second of
Hilbert 23 problems wasimpossible. This explained the

(02:02:08):
failure of the Melo improvingthe consistency of his set
theory. It was actually a goodsign that he was unable to had
he been able to prove itconsistent, it would imply that
it was not. So now, not only wascompleteness impossible, but it
was also impossible for a theoryto prove its own consistency.

(02:02:29):
This was a double whammy toHilbert. Hilbert lived another
12 years but he never publiclyacknowledged girdles result.
privately, he was crushed. Hedidn't want mathematics to be
this way. But others greatlyadmired girdle and his
achievement. When Harvard gavegirdle an honorary degree, he

(02:02:51):
was introduced as the discovererof the most significant
mathematical truth in thecentury. Some are called girdle
the greatest logician sinceAristotle. Edward Nelson called
Aristotle the greatest logicianbefore girdle. JOHN von Neumann
said girdle is absolutelyirreplaceable. He is the only

(02:03:11):
mathematician alive about whom Iwould dare make this statement.
Einstein and girdle both workedat the Institute for Advanced
Study. Near the end of his life,Einstein confided to Oskar
Morgenstern that his own work nolonger meant much that he came
to the institute merely to havethe privilege of walking home

(02:03:31):
with girdle undecidability. In1673, libraries invented and
later built the first digitalcalculator, he declared, it is
beneath the dignity of excellentmen to waste their time in
calculation when any peasantcould do the work just as
accurately with the aid of amachine. After he built the

(02:03:52):
device likeness began to wonderabout the limits of what
machines can calculate. Was itpossible to build a machine that
could answer any mathematicalquestion? several centuries
later, David Hilbert togetherwith Wilhelm Ackerman, redefined
blindnesses question. At aconference in Berlin in 1928,
they defined the chairman'sproblem or decision problem. The

(02:04:16):
decision problem asks, Is itpossible to build a machine that
can decide whether or not anymathematical question can be
proved in some mathematicalsystem? girdle showed that not
every true statement wasprovable. But was there a way to
decide whether or not astatement was provable? It was
an important question. Such amethod would be most useful to

(02:04:40):
mathematicians. It would tellthem when they ought to give up
and thereby save them fromwasting their lives searching
for proofs that don't exist.
Alonzo church got the firstresults on the on shadings
problem. He defined aprogramming language and proved
so Questions about it areundecidable quote, it follows

(02:05:05):
that the unshaded problem isunsolvable in the case of any
system of Symbolic Logic whichis consistent in the sense of
girdle, Alonzo church in anunsolvable problem of elementary
number theory 1935.
The next year churches' studentAlan Turing published another

(02:05:25):
example of an undecidableproblem, the halting problem,
quote, girdle has shown thatthere are propositions you such
that neither you nor not you isprovable. On the other hand, I
shall show that there is nogeneral method which tells
whether a given formula U isprovable. Alan cheering it on

(02:05:47):
computable numbers with anapplication to the unshaded
problem 1936.
It was in this paper that Turingintroduced the concept of a
general purpose programmablecomputer birthing the digital
age. Hilbert never got theanswers he hoped for. We can't
prove the consistency of ourmathematical foundation. We

(02:06:10):
can't prove everything that istrue and given undecidability we
can't even be sure whether astatement has approved for not.
And yet, despite not getting theanswers he hoped for. Hilbert
knew the right questions to askthe answers produced great
discoveries. Quote, I'd like tomake the outrageous claim that

(02:06:32):
has a little bit of truth. Thatactually all of this that's
happening now with the computertaking over the world, the
digitalization of our society ofinformation in human society.
You could say in a way is theresult of a philosophical
question that was raised byDavid Hilbert at the beginning
of the century. Gregory chayton.
In a century of controversy overthe foundations of mathematics

(02:06:56):
2000Hilbert 10th problem of Hilbert
23 problems, his 10th problemasked for a general method to
solve Daya fantine equations.
These are equations that allowonly whole numbers, no decimals
or fractions, which are namedafter die or fantas, who studied

(02:07:18):
them in the third century.
Quote, given a diaphragm tinyequation with any number of
unknown quantities and withrational integral numerical
coefficients to devise a processaccording to which it can be
determined in a finite number ofoperations whether the equation
is solvable in Rationalintegers, and quote, David
Hilbert in mathematical problems1902.

(02:07:46):
deceptively simple Daya. fantineequations were often notoriously
difficult. A famous example isthe dire fontein equation, a to
the power of n equals b to thepower of n plus c to the power
of n. This equation is easy whenn equals one, or when n equals
two millennia ago, Pythagorasproved there were infinite

(02:08:10):
solutions when n equals two. Andyet, no one had found even one
solution for n greater than orequal to three. No one knew of a
cube number A to the power ofthree. That was the sum of two
other cube numbers in 1673.
Pierre de firma wrote in hisnotes that he had a proof that
there were no solutions when ngreater than or equal to three,

(02:08:32):
but no one had ever found it.
Nor was anyone able torediscover a proof. The missing
proof became known as firmersLast Theorem. The problem went
unsolved for 321 years, until in1994, after seven years of work,

(02:08:54):
Andrew Wiles completed a 129page proof that no whole number
solutions exist when n isgreater than or equal to three.
If mathematicians had aprocedure to solve diaphram tiny
equations, Andrew Wiles wouldn'thave had to spend seven years
working on this problem.
Instead, he could program acomputer to follow the procedure
and the computer would crank outa solution. In 1970, Hilbert

(02:09:17):
10th problem was solved. solvingit required 21 years of work by
four mathematicians MartinDavis, Julia Robinson, Hilary
Putnam, and Yuri mais j civic.
They're proof called the mrtptheorem, after their initials

(02:09:38):
gave a negative result, theyproved there is no general
procedure for solving diffonteinequations. And they proved it in
a shocking way. They showed anequivalence between solutions to
Daya fantine equations and whatis computable In other words,
for any imaginable computerprogram, there is a dire fantana

(02:09:59):
question.
Whose solutions equal all theoutputs of that computer
program? This was so surprisingthat many mathematicians had
difficulty believing it. Itmeant there is a dire fantine
equation that picks chess moveslike deep blue, and there's a
dire fantine equation does yourtaxes like TurboTax, and there's
yet another die of fantineequation that does spell

(02:10:22):
checking like Microsoft Word.
For anything a computer cancompute. There's a dire fontein
equation that gives the exactsame answers. But despite how
surprising their result was, itwas true. And this is why there
can be no general method forsolving dire fontein equations,
because the question of whetheror not a program finishes

(02:10:42):
Turing's halting problem isequivalent to asking whether or
not some diffontein equation hassolutions. Since the halting
problem is not generallysolvable, the equivalence
between diffontein equations andcomputers mentai fantine
equations weren't generallysolvable either. Yet again, what
Hilbert asked for couldn't beprovided Hilbert questions

(02:11:05):
probed at the heart ofconsistency provability,
decidability and computability.
They didn't leave where heexpected, but they did reveal
deep truths about the nature ofmathematics, universal
equations. In 1978, themathematician James P. Jones

(02:11:27):
went a step further, just as itis possible to make a computer
program that runs all othercomputer programs. It is also
possible to make a Daya fantineequation that includes all other
Daya fantine equations. Quote,makes j civics theorem implies
also the existence of particularundecidable di fantine

(02:11:48):
equations. In fact, there mustexist universal diaphragm tiny
equations, polynomial analoguesof the universal Turing machine,
and quote, James P. Jones andundecidable diophantine
equations 1980.
Such diffontein equations aregeneral purpose computers plug

(02:12:10):
in the programmer has one of thevariables to the equation, and
the solutions to the equationwill be the outputs of that
program. Jones provided anexample of such an equation. It
is complex, but the truthsconcerning this single equation
include all truths concerningthe executions and outputs of
all computer programs. Quote, asV varies through the positive

(02:12:36):
integers, the equation definesevery recursively enumerable
set. This is to our mind theattraction of the universal
equations at once. This equationdefines primes, Fibonacci
numbers, Lucas numbers, perfectnumbers, theorems of Zed F, or
indeed theorems of any other xamortizable theory. James P.

(02:13:00):
Jones in three universalrepresentations of recursively
enumerable sets 1978.
We might consider such universalequations as got equations,
equations whose solutionscontain and include all the
others. In his 1987 bookalgorithmic information theory,
Gregory chayton describes onesuch equation, the exponential

(02:13:23):
Daya fantine equation computer.
It has 20,000 variables and is200 pages long. This equation
perfectly replicates thebehavior of the Lisp programming
language, he describes theequation as follows. Quote, if
the Lisp expression k has novalue, then this equation will

(02:13:43):
have no solution. If the Lispexpression k has a value, then
this equation will have exactlyone solution. In this unique
solution, n equals the value ofthe expression K. And quote,
Gregory chayton in metamath, thequest for omega 2004

(02:14:08):
chattin showed that even modernday computers and programming
languages have counterparts inthe form of Daya fantine
equations. Universal Dayafantine equations are
remarkable. They exist in purearithmetic. The arithmetical
relations they encode representevery program that can be
computed along with all of theiroutputs. Among these solutions,

(02:14:32):
we can find the valid proofs ofevery theorem in every
mathematical system, every wayof playing every computer game
that has all will ever beinvented, and simulations of
every galaxy in the observableuniverse down to the atomic
level. Universal die fantineequations contain in their
solutions everything computablesince known physical laws are

(02:14:54):
computable quantum detailedhistories of every particle
interaction in the observableuniverse
counted among these solutions.
Jones's discovery of universalDaya fantine equations inspired
him to quote chapter 11, verseseven of the Bhagavad Gita,
whatever you wish can be seenall at once right here. This
universal form can show you allthat you now desire. Everything

(02:15:16):
is here completely. Given thatsuch equations include
everything computable, includingall physical laws and systems as
well as simulations of anyobservers, mind and brain. Could
these equations be the glueconnecting eternal mathematical
truth with contingent physicaltruths? The Universal Deaf
Taylor in 1991, Bruno Marshallwrote a program he called the

(02:15:42):
universal Deaf tailor, a programthat generates and runs all
programs. In order to run everyprogram without getting stuck on
a program that never ends. TheUniversal dovetail into leaves,
or dovetails on the processing,doing a little bit of work on
each program at a time. Theprogram is simple. The full

(02:16:03):
program is quite short,consisting of about 300 lines of
Lisp code. It's pseudocode iseven simpler for K from zero to
infinity, for j from zero to k,for I from zero to J, compute k
steps of program I on input J.

(02:16:28):
This program sequentiallygenerates every program and runs
it for every input. The longerthe universal dovetail runs, the
more programs it generates, andthe more steps of each program
it performs. If allowed to runforever, it runs every program
there is the universal DuffTaylor, like a fractal is itself

(02:16:50):
simple and yet it generatesinfinite complexity. In the
words of plotinus for that whichgenerates is always simpler than
that which is generated to 70ad. This program like universal
diaphragm tiny equationscontains all. While studying the
consequences of the existence ofall computations, Marshall made

(02:17:15):
an incredible discovery what hedescribes as the many histories
interpretation of elementaryarithmetic. The discovery served
as the basis of his 1998 PhDthesis computability physics and
cognition. This paper explainshow we can explain the
appearance of a multiverse giventwo assumptions. One, all

(02:17:38):
computations exist and two,computation supports cognition.
Quote, we will explain that oncewe adopt the computation list
hypothesis, which is a form ofmechanistic assumption, we have
to derive from it how our beliefin the physical laws can emerge
from only arithmetic andclassical computer science.

(02:18:00):
Bruno Mars shall in thecomputation list reformulation
of the mind body problem 2013given there exists universal
Daya fantine equations, allcomputations exist as a
consequence of arithmeticaltruth concerning them. While
there is no physical realizationof the perpetual execution of
the universal Duff Taylor, it'scomplete execution exists in

(02:18:22):
number theory as a consequenceof arithmetical truth. There are
for instance, diaphragm tinyequations whose solutions
exactly equal all thesequentially generated states
reached by the universal DuffTaylor. So if we accept the self
existence truth of two plus twoequals four, we must also accept
truths concerning universal Dayafantine equations, truths that

(02:18:46):
concern all computationalhistories and all simulated
realities. Quote, to be sure,the existence of the UD is a
logical consequence ofelementary arithmetic with
Church's thesis or Turing'sthesis and quote, Bruno ma shall
in discussion list 2019.

(02:19:11):
It therefore becomes a purelymathematical question to prove
whether some diaphragm tinyequation contains in its
solutions a computational stateequivalent to some person's
physical brain state. We wouldthen exist for the same reason
that two plus two equals four asan inevitable consequence of
mathematical truth. The questionWhy is there anything at all is

(02:19:34):
reduced to why does two plus twoequals four, a story of creation
We have arrived at a plausiblestory of creation. We can now
connect the causeless abstractentities, logic, truth and
numbers with a viable cause forour perceptions of a physical
reality. Why does anything existbecause necessity requires

(02:20:00):
As logical laws, logical lawsimply incontrovertibly truth
such truth includes mathematicaltruth. Mathematical truth
defines numbers, numbers possessnumber relations, number
relations imply equations.
equations define computablerelations computable relations

(02:20:22):
define all computations, allcomputations including
algorithmically generatedobservers. And these observers
experience apparent physicalrealities ancient anticipations
this account of how eternalmathematical truths could give

(02:20:43):
rise to contingent physicaltruths depended on recent
discoveries. If required a deepunderstanding of modern ideas,
universal equations, computers,computation, virtual reality and
simulation only a century ago,we didn't even have words for
these concepts. Despite this, afew ancient thinkers gave

(02:21:06):
theories for existence that areeerily similar to this modern
creation story. They postulatedsomething primal and simple that
gave rise to the numbers andfrom numbers arose beings
consciousness and matter. 2600years ago, Lowry jr wrote that
numbers proceed from the towerand that from numbers that all

(02:21:27):
things are born, quote, The Taogives birth to one, one gives
birth to two, two gives birth tothree, three gives birth to all
things. Large die in chapter 42of Tao Te Ching circa 600 bC

(02:21:50):
dioxygenase layer to use was abiographer of eminent
philosophers, the following ishis account of 2500 year old
Python agree and beliefs, quote,that the mon ad, one was the
beginning of everything, fromthe monad proceeds an indefinite
D word to which is subordinateto the monitors to its cause,

(02:22:14):
that from the monad and theindefinite do of proceed numbers
and from numbers signs, and fromthese last lines of which plane
figures consist, and from planefigures are derived solid
bodies, and from solid bodiessensible bodies, and, quote,

(02:22:36):
nitrogen is leg air to use inthe lives and opinions of
eminent philosophers circa 225ad 1750 years ago, plotinus
developed neoplatonism a richtheory concerning the relations
between various levels of beingWikipedia describes plotinus,
his chain of being as a seriesof emanations the first

(02:22:57):
emanation his new divine mind,logos order, fought reason, from
New proceeds the world soul,from the world soul proceeds
individual human souls, andfinally, matter, at the lowest
level of being and thus theleast perfected level of the
cosmos. Quote, the one is not abeing but the generator of

(02:23:21):
being, the greatest later thanthe one must be the intellectual
principle and it must be thesecond of all existence, for
what emanates from theintellectual principle is a
reason principle or logos. Andas soon as there is
differentiation, number exists.

(02:23:42):
Thus number the primal and trueis principle and source of
actuality to the beings. Thesouls substantial existence
comes from the intellectualprinciple, the soul itself a
divine thought, and possessingthe divine thoughts, or ideas,
of all things, contains allthings consented within it. This

(02:24:05):
gives the degree in which thecosmos is then sold not by a
soul belonging to it, but by onepresent to it, it is mastered,
not Master, not possessive, butpossessed. This one universe is
all bound together in sharedexperience. So matter is
actually a Phantasm plotinus. Inthe end, he adds to 70 ad

(02:24:29):
1570 years ago, propolis wrotethat mathematical existence
occupies a middle ground. Hesaid, mathematical being sits
between the simple realitythat's grounded in itself and
the things that move about inmatter, quote, mathematical
being necessarily belongsneither among the first nor

(02:24:49):
among the last and least simpleof the kinds of being but
occupies the middle groundbetween the populace realities.
Simple in composite andindivisible and divisible
characterized by every varietyof composition and
differentiation, theunchangeable, stable and
incontrovertible character ofthe propositions about it shows

(02:25:11):
that it is superior to the kindsof things that move about in
matter, but the discursive pneusof mathematical procedure in
dealing with its subjects asextended, and it's setting up of
different prior principles fordifferent objects. These gift a
mathematical being a rank belowthat indivisible nature that is
completely grounded in itself.
propolis in a commentary on thefirst book of Euclid elements

(02:25:35):
circa 450 ad,the causeless cause found? Could
this be the answer? Could thingsbe so simple, in order for this
explanation of existence, to becorrect, mathematical truth must
be causeless mathematicalexistence must depend on neither

(02:25:55):
human minds nor on physical ormaterial things. In addition,
mathematical truth must besomething capable of generating
observers, observers whoconsciously perceive their
environment, and which theyconsider as existing physically.
Ideally, this causeless causewill illuminate the relation

(02:26:15):
between the mental and materialand explain why the universe
obeys simple laws. Can thetheory achieve this? Is it
causeless for mathematical truthto serve as a causeless? Cause
it must exist cause lessly mathmust depend on neither minds no
matter independent of minds. Donumbers and their properties

(02:26:41):
exist beyond the minds ofmathematicians and their
scribblings on blackboards? HadHilbert program succeeded and
given a mathematical theorycapable of proving all true
statements, then arguably,mathematics might only be that
which follows from this theory.
Math would then be an inventionof the human mind. But the

(02:27:04):
failure of Hilbert program andgirdles proof of the
impossibility for any finitetheory to define all
mathematical truth meant thatmathematical truth is infinite
and beyond description, andtherefore cannot be a product of
human minds. Quote, theexistence of absolutely
undecidable mathematicalpropositions seems to disprove

(02:27:26):
the view that mathematics isonly our own creation, for the
creator necessarily knows allproperties of his creatures
because they can't have anyothers except those he has given
to them. So this alternativeseems to imply that mathematical
objects and facts or at leastsomething in them, exist
objectively and independently ofour mental acts and decisions.

(02:27:49):
That is to say, it seems toimply some form or other of
platonism, or realism as to themathematical objects. That
girdle in some basic theorems onthe foundations of mathematics
and their implications, page311 1951.
c is math invented ordiscovered, independent of

(02:28:13):
matter. The infinite nature ofmathematical truth also implies
an independence from matter areobservable universe has an
information capacity of 10 tothe power of 120 bits. This
number is large, but finite.
Nowhere in physics is there roomto store represent or hold the
infinite true statements ofmathematics. If there are

(02:28:37):
infinite primes, infinitefactors of zero, infinite digits
of pi, they don't existphysically. If these infinite
properties don't and can'tdepend on physical processes
operating within a materialuniverse, it follows that
mathematical properties mustexist independently of matter.
Quote, it is our firm beliefthat the Pythagorean Theorem

(02:29:01):
needs not be created, nor thefact that the circumference of a
circle is 3.14 and so on, timesthe diameter. The laws of nature
and the collection of truths,values and their interrelations
are primordial and have alwaysexisted. CW varieties in four
dimensional reality continued2018

(02:29:26):
Is it the cause? For this storyto work, abstract objects,
truth, numbers, equations, andso on must play a causal role in
generating reality andperceptions. The default
position of philosophers hasbeen that abstract objects have
no effects they cause and donothing. But we must admit that

(02:29:48):
this has always been anassumption it's never been
proven. Quote, althoughphilosophers deny that abstract
objects can have causal effectson concrete objects.
abstract objects are oftendefined as causally inert their
potential say as a collective tobe an explanatory source of
ultimate reality cannot belogically excluded. And quote,

(02:30:12):
john a Leslie and RobertLawrence Kuhn in the mystery of
existence 2013recently, recent advances in
mathematics give us pause. Thediscovery that all computations
exist as a consequence ofmathematical truth makes us
wonder whether abstractmathematics is really so in
effectual, but can mind ormatter really be created by

(02:30:34):
math? The cause of minds?
consciousness remains one ofhumanity's last great mysteries.
While science has not settledthe question of what
consciousness is, it hasprogressed by developing a
testable theory ofconsciousness. In the 1600s
thinkers such as Rene Descartesand Thomas Hobbes advanced the

(02:30:57):
idea of mechanism, the theorythat our brains and bodies are
machines that operate accordingto mechanical rules. In 1936,
the discovery of universalmachines or computers led to the
church cheering thesis, whichsays the behavior of any finite
machine can be perfectlyreplicated by an appropriately
programmed computer. This istheir special power. It is what

(02:31:22):
makes computers so useful.
Without changing your computer'shardware, it is able to run any
one of the millions ofapplications available to it,
including applications not yetdeveloped or conceived off. Each
new application provides thecomputer with new functionality
and behaviors. Some were quickto recognize the implications of

(02:31:42):
the church cheering thesis fortheories of minds, brains and
consciousness. The two fathersof computing, Alan Turing and
john von Neumann noticedparallels between computers and
the mind. In 1948, Turing wrotethe first chess playing program
with an in his 1950 paperComputing Machinery and

(02:32:04):
intelligence cheering asked Canmachines think the last work of
john von Neumann was a lectureseries, the computer and the
brain, published posthumously in1958. In it one normal explains
that it is not that the brainacts like a computer, but that
computers are so varied in whatthey can do that they can be set

(02:32:25):
up to imitate any machine,presumably even the human brain.
Quote. The important result ofTuring's is that in this way,
the first universal machine canbe caused to imitate the
behavior of any other machine,john von Neumann in the computer
and the brain 1958.

(02:32:48):
In the 1960s, and 1970s,philosophers of mind, including
Hilary Putnam, and his studentJerry Fodor developed what they
call functionalism. In itsdigital form, functionalism is
known as the computationaltheory of mind or computational
ism. This is the idea thatfunction or computation is the

(02:33:09):
foundation of consciousness. Thecomputational theory of mind
remains as the most populartheory for consciousness among
scientists and philosophers,quote, computational ism or
digital mechanism or simplymechanism is a hypothesis in the
cognitive science according towhich we can be emulated by a

(02:33:30):
computer without changing ourprivate subjective feeling.
Bruno ma shall in thecomputational history
formulation of the mind bodyproblem 2013.
If the computational theory ofmind is true, then mathematics
can explain where observers comefrom observers would be found

(02:33:50):
among the infinite computationalhistories within arithmetical
truth. See, what isconsciousness? And can a machine
Be conscious recent discoveriesin physics lend support to
computational ism. In 1981,Jacob Beck and Stein discovered
a physical limit now known asthe back end Stein bound. This

(02:34:14):
bound says that a physicalsystem of finite mass and volume
can contain at most a finiteamount of information. This
applies to any finite physicalsystem or brain, the earth, the
solar system, our galaxy, or theobservable universe. Given that
the observable universe has afinite mass and volume, it

(02:34:36):
follows by the back and Steinbound that it has a finite
description. Given that it is afinite description. It follows
by the church Turing thesis thatthe evolution of the observable
universe is something that isperfectly replicated by a
certain computer program. Thisprogram contains a version of
You, me, the earth and everyoneand everything present in our

(02:34:59):
universe.
Our shared histories andmemories would be identical. But
the question remains are thesecomputational doppelgangers
conscious like we are, if weinspected the contents of this
computer program, we would findanalogs of all the objects of
our own universe, we will findthe same books, articles, and

(02:35:21):
movies. Among these, we willeven find many works on the
mysterious nature ofconsciousness. These same books
will also appear in a purelycomputational version of our
universe written bycomputational authors, who
apparently are just as baffledby their conscious experiences
as we are, if these purelycomputational versions of us are

(02:35:43):
not conscious, what drives themto write and read books about
consciousness. If on the otherhand, they are just as conscious
as we are, then the idea of aseparately existing physical
reality becomes redundant. Inthat case, for all we know, we
are these computationalversions, we would then exist as

(02:36:04):
pure computations, we wouldinhabit the computational
histories of simulated realitiesthat exist only as a consequence
of mathematical truth concerninguniversal equations. every
imaginable computation isrealized in arithmetic has true
relations about these universalequations. This includes the

(02:36:25):
computations that describe you,your environment, and even the
evolving state of your brain asit processes this very sentence.
If computational ism is right,this is who we are, quote, will
explore the fascinatingrelations between computation,
mathematics, physics and mindand explore a crazy sounding

(02:36:47):
belief of mine that our physicalworld not only is described by
mathematics, but that it ismathematics, making yourself
aware parts of a giantmathematical object. Max Tegmark
in our mathematical universe2014 the cause of matter can
mathematical truth with itsinherent infinite collection of

(02:37:07):
computational histories,explained matter, physical laws
and universes. How can abstractthings like truth numbers,
computations give rise toconcrete things like chairs,
bricks, and houses? What's thedifference between abstract
existence versus concreteexistence? Some say the

(02:37:29):
difference is only a matter ofperspective. To a being who
inhabits an abstract object, beit an abstract mathematical
object or abstractly existingcomputation, it seems concrete
to them. Quote, this equivalencebetween physical and
mathematical existence meansthat if a mathematical structure

(02:37:50):
contains a self aware substructure, it will perceive
itself as existing in aphysically real world just as we
do. And quote, Max Tegmark inthe mathematical universe 2007
the relative aspect of concreteexistence is explicit in Marcus

(02:38:11):
molars definition of physicalexistence. Quote, given two
objects A and B, we say thatthey physically exist for each
other if and only if, undercertain auxiliary conditions,
modifying the state of a willaffect the state of B and vice
versa. Marcus Miller in couldthe physical world be emergent

(02:38:32):
instead of fundamental, and whyshould we ask 2017.
Whenever conscious observerexperiences or interacts with
another object, that objectappears concrete to that
observer, even if, from anotherpoint of view, both that
observer and objects seemabstract of the modes of

(02:38:53):
existence, this understandingimplies mind over matter. Math
produces an infinity ofconscious minds. And the
perceptions of these mindsinclude experiences of material
realities. Computational ism,together with the mathematical
existence of all computations,leads to a causal reversal
between Mind and Matter. Quote,what results is not a primitive

(02:39:18):
matter with consciousnessemerging from its organization,
but the reverse consciousness isnow the more primitive and
matter more rather, theappearance of material
organization emerges from allthe possible experiences of all
the possible consciousnesses endquote. Bruno ma shall in the
amoebas secret 2014matter is then as plotinus

(02:39:42):
supposed a Phantasm is thistestable? This is a big pill to
swallow, are we to take asserious the idea that we live
inside an equation and thisequation somehow produces all
computations byThat you have it solutions, and
that the whole physical universeis just some kind of shared

(02:40:04):
hallucination. extraordinaryclaims require extraordinary
evidence. Unless there is a wayto test or neither confirm or
falsify this theory, we are notoperating in the realm of
science, but fantasy.
Fortunately, there is a way totest this theory. Due to the

(02:40:26):
fact that not all programsappear with equal frequency, a
particular bias should appear inthe resulting computational
histories. We can then check forthis bias by comparing our
observations of the character ofphysical law and the properties
of our universe against thepredictions made by the theory.
Not all predictions of a theoryare necessarily testable. But

(02:40:49):
the more predictions of a theorywe test and confirm, the more
our confidence in that theorygrows. If our observations match
the predictions, we gainevidence in support of the
theory. If they don't match, werule the theory out. This is how
all theories are tested.
algorithmic information theory,the reason not all programs

(02:41:11):
occur with equal frequency isdue to a consequence of
algorithmic information theoryor a IIT. This field was
developed by Ray Solomonoff,Andrei Kolmogorov, and Gregory
chayton. Starting in the 1960s.
chayton says a IIT is the resultof putting Shannon's information

(02:41:33):
theory and Turing'scomputability theory into a
cocktail shaker and shakingvigorously. The basic idea is to
measure the complexity of anobject by the size in bits of
the smallest program forcomputing it. Across the
infinite programs executed byUniversal equations, some
programs exhibit identicalbehavior. This is because the

(02:41:55):
program's code may instruct itto read only a fraction of its
total available code. Considerall possible bit strings
representing programs executedby Universal equations. programs
that complete are naturally selfdelimiting. They define their
own length by virtue of readingonly a finite number of bits.

(02:42:18):
When the bits that are red arethe same, the program behavior
is the same even when the restof the unread part of the bits
strings differ. If, for example,a program length is nine bits,
we can calculate that thisprogram should appear once every
two to the power of nine or 512bit strings. Self delimited 10

(02:42:40):
bit programs would be half ascommon, appearing once every two
to the power of 10, or 1024.
programs. Conversely, eight PIDprograms are twice as common as
nine bit ones. We can use thisconsequence of algorithmic
information theory to makeseveral predictions about the
character of physical law.

(02:43:02):
Quote, the main point is thatthe derivation is constructive
and it provides the technicalmeans to derive physics from
arithmetic. And this will makethe computation list hypothesis
empirically testable and thusscientific in the property
analysis of science. Bruno Marsshall in the computation list

(02:43:23):
reformulation of the mind bodyproblem 2013,
confirming evidence could such abowl theory be true? For now,
let's neither accepted norreject this theory to do either
before weighing the evidencewould be premature. So let us

(02:43:43):
not believe anything andmaintain an open mind. For the
time we will only play with theidea and see where it leads. As
with any theory, the only pathforward is to see what this
theory predicts and then tocompare the predictions with our
observations. If we find itleads in a fruitful direction by

(02:44:04):
making predictions we canconfirm and by not making
predictions we can refute thenwe will have cause to
tentatively accept this theory.
predictions of the theory doesthe reality we see fit
predictions of a realitygenerated by the infinite
computations inherent tocauseless arithmetical truth for
that matter? What are thepredictions? at first blush, it

(02:44:26):
seems impossible to get anyuseful predictions from a theory
that includes all computationsand all observations for if they
all exist, any observation iscompatible with the theory as
Victor Stanger noted theoriesthat explain everything
explained nothing. Fortunately,there is a catch, not all

(02:44:49):
observations are equally likely.
If our conscious states resultfrom the existence of all
computations, then they aresubject to the rules of our
algorithmic information theory.
This enables us to make testablepredictions and thereby tied
back to hard science,observation and measurement.
Some of the predictions of thistheory provide clues to

(02:45:12):
otherwise unsolvable questionsin physics and cosmology money.
These predictions offer answersto such fundamental mysteries as
why the universe obeys simplemathematical, life friendly
laws.
Why empiricism by experimentalreproducibility works.

(02:45:36):
Why auctions razor works?
Why the laws appear fine tunedfor life.
Why the laws are quantummechanical?
Why uncertainty and randomnessexist in physics?
Why infinite descriptions areneeded to explain any
occurrence?

(02:45:58):
Why observation and informationare fundamental in physics and
why the universe has time andthe beginning. For example, The
Big Bang these results are thework of pioneers in the theory,
who include Bruno Mars shell,Max Tegmark, Russell Standish,
and Marcus Moeller. using thetools of computer science, math,

(02:46:21):
information theory andalgorithmic information theory,
they revealed how these traitsof the universe result from our
mind states beingcomputationally generated,
quote, the appearance of auniverse or even universes must
be explained by the geometry ofpossible computations. Bruno ma

(02:46:42):
shall in the amoebas secret2014.
Let's review the evidence forthis most speculative of
theories, which is presently atthe forefront of mathematics and
physics. Why laws? We take forgranted that our universe obeys
laws. But why should it? What'sthe source of these laws? Why

(02:47:06):
are they so simple? Why aren'tthey ever violated? Why these
laws and not others? All thesequestions are mysteries left
unaddressed by science. Quote,in the Orthodox view, the laws
of physics are floating in anexplanatory void. Ironically,

(02:47:26):
the essence of the scientificmethod is rationality and logic.
We suppose that things are theway they are for a reason. Yet
when it comes to the laws ofphysics themselves, well, we are
asked to accept that they existreason lessly and quote, Paul
Davis in the Flexi laws ofphysics 2007.

(02:47:49):
Quote, with the equations whenthey are not too complicated, we
can predict phenomena. But intruth, the equation doesn't
explain anything. it compresses,certainly, in a very ingenious
way, the description of thephysical world, but it does not
explain the nature of bodies norwhy these bodies have a laws nor

(02:48:13):
from where these laws come. And,quote, Bruno ma shall in the
amoebas, secret 2014that laws are never violated on
its face seems highlyimprobable. For in the space of
possibility for each way thereis for the universe to obey the
laws, there are infinite ways itmight deviate from them. Quote,

(02:48:35):
for each law govern world thereare countless variants that
would fail in different ways tobe wholly law governed. Derek
parfit in why anything? Why this2008
why the laws hold is unknown toscience. And yet this feature of

(02:48:59):
reality is the very basis thatallows us to do science. A
lawful universe is the basis ofempiricism. It is why we can
repeat experiments and makepredictions about the future
based on past observations. Butwhy does this work and why
should it work? Marshallexplains the emergence of laws

(02:49:21):
as a consequence of thecomputational reality. He says
the laws are the consistentextensions of programs that
produce the observers mindstate, quote, arithmetic
contains or executes allcomputations. Your first person
is distributed on allcomputations going through your

(02:49:42):
current first person state. Tomake any prediction on the
future of your possible inputs,you need to take all the
computations into account andthe laws of physics is what is
invariant in all consistentextensions. Bruno ma shall in
discussion list 2019Muller goes further and gives a
mathematical proof that showswhy given algorithmic

(02:50:05):
information theory, observerswill with high probability,
observer persistence ofregularities, ie laws, quote,
that is computable regularitiesthat were holding in the past
tend to persist in the future.
Intuitively, highly compressiblehistories are those that contain

(02:50:27):
regularities, which can be usedto generate shorter
descriptions. Market smaller inlaw without law, from observer
states to physics viaalgorithmic information theory
2020.
Because most programs aresimple, and simple programs tend
to keep doing what they havebeen doing. This gives the

(02:50:47):
appearance of a fixed set oflaws that holds into the future
as the program unfolds. So in asense, the laws of physics are
the rules of the programs thatinstantiate us, as seen by those
of us inside those programs. Whythe laws are mathematical. It
has long been recognized thatmathematics is unreasonably

(02:51:09):
effective in describing thephysical laws. In 1623, Galileo
wrote the universe is written inthe language of mathematics.
This connection between math andphysics so puzzles scientists,
quote, The miracle of theappropriateness of the language

(02:51:29):
of mathematics for theformulation of the laws of
physics is a wonderful giftwhich we neither understand nor
deserve. We should be gratefulfor it and hope that it will
remain valid in future researchand that it will extend for
better or for worse to ourpleasure, even though perhaps
also to our bafflement to widebranches of learning. And quote,

(02:51:55):
Eugene Wigner in theunreasonable effectiveness of
mathematics in the naturalsciences 1960
mathematical patterns appeareverywhere in nature. But why
should physics be somathematical? Tegmark offers a
simple explanation becausephysical theories result from
our perceptions of what areultimately mathematical

(02:52:17):
structures. Quote, the variousapproximations that constitute
our current physics theories aresuccessful because simple
mathematical structures canprovide good approximations of
how a self aware sub structurewill perceive more complex
mathematical structures. Inother words, our successful

(02:52:38):
theories are not mathematicsapproximating physics, but
mathematics approximatingmathematics. And quote, Max
Tegmark in his the theory ofeverything really the ultimate
ensemble theory 1998why the laws are simple. In the
second century, Ptolemy wrote,we consider it a good principle

(02:53:00):
to explain the phenomena by thesimplest hypothesis possible.
This rule of thumb is called thelaw of parsimony or Occam's
razor. It is the idea that inscience, the simplest answer
that fits the facts is usuallyright. Occam's razor is no doubt
a useful and effective rule. Butuntil recently, no one

(02:53:21):
understood why it works. What isstriking about the great
questions of physics is theirsimplicity. Deep truths of
nature can be expressed by shortformulas, like F equals MA and
the equals mc squared. Physicalequations rarely involve more
than a few terms, rather thandozens or hundreds. physicists

(02:53:43):
are all struck by thissimplicity. Einstein remarked,
the eternal mystery of the worldis its comprehensibility. Given,
there are far more ways forthese formulas to be more
complex. It's especially oddthat they should be so simple
quote. Compared with simplelaws, there is a far greater

(02:54:05):
range of complicated laws. Wewill have some reason to believe
that there are at least twopartial selectors being law
governed and having simple laws.
Derek parfit in why anything?
Why this 2008.

(02:54:26):
Quote, but the lesson is that,at present, the idea that the
ultimate laws are as simple aspossible is a hope not something
suggested by the evidence.
Moreover, the prospect stillfaces the challenge of
explanatory regression, as onewould be left to explain why the
underlying laws should be sosimple. Sean Carroll in Why is
there something rather thannothing? 2018

(02:54:54):
the mystery of simplecomprehensible laws can now be
answered. We haveFound the selector that
preferentially selects universeswith simple laws. algorithmic
information theory tells us thatfor each bit saved in a
program's description, itsoccurrences double. This adds up
fast, a program that's 30 bitsshorter, say 120 bits versus 150

(02:55:16):
bits occurs two to the power of30, or over 1 billion times more
often. Ray Solomonoff, thefather of algorithmic
information theory was the firstto draw a connection between AI
tea and Occam's razor quotes. Ona direct intuitive level, the

(02:55:38):
higher priority probabilityassigned to a sequence with a
short description corresponds toone possible interpretation of
Occam's razor. And quote, RaySolomonoff in a formal theory of
inductive inference 1964when Muller applied algorithmic
information theory to observerstates, he found that it led to

(02:56:00):
the prediction of simplephysical laws, quote, observers
Well, with high probability, seean external world that is
governed by simple computableprobabilistic laws. And quote,
Marcus Miller in law withoutlaw, from observer states to
physics via algorithmicinformation theory 2020

(02:56:27):
why the laws are life friendly.
One of the most surprisingdiscoveries in physics of the
past 50 years was the discoverythat the laws of physics and
constants of nature appearspecially selected to allow
complexity in life to arise. Wewrote, a life giving factor lies
at the center of the wholemachinery and design of the
world. That the constants ofnature, the strengths of the

(02:56:50):
forces, the particle masses,etc, are just right to permit
complex structures to arise ismysterious. Why are the laws
this way? Why are they lifefriendly? physicists ask, why
does the universe appear finetuned. Quote, as we look out
into the universe and identifythe many accidents of physics

(02:57:14):
and astronomy that have workedtogether to our benefit, it
almost seems as if the universemust in some sense have known we
were coming. Freeman Dyson inenergy in the universe 1971.
Quote, the fine tunings, howfine tuned are they? Most of

(02:57:36):
them are 1% sort of things. Inother words, if things are 1%,
different, everything gets bad.
And the physicist could saymaybe those are just luck. On
the other hand, thiscosmological constant is tuned
to one part in 10 to the powerof 120 120 decimal places.
Nobody thinks that's accidental.

(02:58:02):
That is not a reasonable ideathat something is tunes to 120
decimal places just by accident.
That's the most extreme exampleof fine tuning. And quote,
Leonard Susskind in what westill don't know, are we real
2004.

(02:58:23):
The first step in explainingfine tuning is to recognize that
for any universe, to beperceived, requires that it be
populated with consciousobservers. This reasoning is
known as the anthropicprinciple. The next step is to
explain why any universe existsthat supports conscious
observers. Typical answers arethat the universe was either

(02:58:45):
designed or it is just one amonga vast set of mostly dead
universes. Quote, we imaginedour universe to be unique, but
it is one of an immense number,perhaps an infinite number of
equally valid, equallyindependent, equally isolated
universes. There will be life insome and not in others. Carl

(02:59:08):
Sagan in pale blue dot 1994the existence of infinite
computational historiesguarantees that some will be of
a type that can support life.
Moreover, algorithmicinformation theory tells us the
resulting physics should bemaximally simple while
respecting the constraint ofbeing life friendly. Quote, in

(02:59:32):
this paper, I show why, in anensemble theory of the universe,
we should be inhabiting one ofthe elements of that ensemble
with least information contentthat satisfies the anthropic
principle. This explains theeffectiveness of aesthetic
principles such as outcomesraiza in predicting usefulness
of scientific theories, andquote, Russell Standish in why

(02:59:56):
Occam's razor 2004And indeed, this is what we find
when we examine our physics.
Quote, a very interestingquestion to me is, is the
universe more complicated thanit needs to be to have us here?
In other words, is thereanything in the universe which

(03:00:17):
is just here to amusephysicists? It's happened again
and again that there wassomething which seemed like it
was just a frivolity like that.
Were later we've realized that,in fact, no, if it weren't for
that little thing, we wouldn'tbe here. I'm not convinced,
actually, that we have anythingin this universe, which is
completely unnecessary to life.

(03:00:41):
Max Tegmark in what we stilldon't know, why are we here?
2004.
See, is the universe fine tuned?
Why quantum mechanics quantummechanics is a cornerstone
theory of modern physics. It'samong the most thoroughly tested
of all theories in science, andit's given us the most accurate

(03:01:03):
predictions in all of physics.
But quantum mechanics isincredibly strange. It suggests
the existence of many infinitehistories, ie many worlds or
many minds, observation ormeasurement appears to cause the
infinite set of possibilities tocollapse to just one of the

(03:01:24):
possibilities and the selectedresult is absolutely
unpredictable. According toquantum mechanics, no one can
predict whether a photon will bereflected by or transmitted
through a piece of glass, noteven in principle. It's
fundamentally random. QuantumMechanics includes apparent
absurdities, like unobservedcats being simultaneously alive

(03:01:47):
and dead, non local faster thanlight influences and unlimited
computation underlying physicalreality. Quote, I have never
been able to let go of questionslike How come existence? How
come the quantum and quote johnArchibald Wheeler in John's

(03:02:08):
black holes and quantum foam1998
of the mysteries in physics, howcome the quantum ranks highly?
Niels Bohr said those who arenot shocked when they first come
across quantum theory cannotpossibly have understood it.
When a Heisenberg admits, Irepeated to myself again and

(03:02:30):
again the question Can naturepossibly be so absurd as it
seemed to us in these atomicexperiments, and Richard Fineman
said, I think I can safely saythat nobody understands quantum
mechanics will have thought ifan ultimate theory could explain
quantum mechanics, it would be asure sign the theory was on the

(03:02:50):
right track. Quote, the mostimportant test is whether it
gives anything like quantummechanics. If it does, we have a
go ahead sign? If not, we haveto revise our thinking. And
quote, john Archibald Wheelerquoted in trespassing on
Einsteins lawn 2014Marshalls 1998 thesis

(03:03:13):
computability physics andcognition gave the first hints
that features of quantummechanics such as indeterminism
the many parallel histories, thenon cleanability of matter, and
quantum logic could be explainedas a consequence of
computational ism. Quote, as inquantum mechanics, computational

(03:03:35):
ism highlights a strongindeterminism as well as a form
of nonlocality. Computationalism entails the existence of a
phenomenology of many worlds orparallel states. End quote.
Bruno Mars shall translated fromcomputability physics and
cognition 1998.

(03:03:59):
Marshall writes, the quantumempirical clues happen to be
serious hints that the physicalemerges from an internally
defined statistics on thenumbers, dreams or computations
seen from inside. Standish wentfurther, in a 2004 paper and in
his 2006 book, he showed onecould derive the basic rules or

(03:04:20):
postulates of quantum mechanics,including the Schrodinger
equation purely from basicassumptions about observation
within an infinite set ofpossibilities. Quote, the
explanation of quantum mechanicsas describing the process of
observation within a plenitudeof possibilities is for me the
pinnacle of achievement of theparadigm discussed in this book,

(03:04:43):
I can now say that I understandquantum mechanics. So when I say
I understand quantum mechanics,I mean that I know that the
first three postulates aredirectly consequences of as
being observers. Quantummechanics is simply a theory of
observation and quote, RussellStandish in theory of nothing

(03:05:05):
2006irreducible randomness one of
the strangest features ofquantum mechanics is the
presence of irreduciblerandomness that creates absolute
unpredictability. Compoundingthis strangeness is the fact
that the equations of quantummechanics are entirely
deterministic. And yet, when ameasurement is made, it seems

(03:05:28):
the universe momentarily stopsfollowing these equations to
randomly select one possibilityto make real from among the many
possibilities present in theequations. This was a pill too
hard for Einstein to swallow. Hedeclared, God doesn't play dice
with the world. And in the end,he never accepted it. The single

(03:05:49):
electron double slit experimentwas voted the most beautiful
experiment in physics. In thisexperiment, an electron is put
into a superposition where theelectron exists in multiple
locations at once, then itslocation is measured. But when
we measure the electronslocation, it will appear in only

(03:06:10):
one location seemingly atrandom. Before measurement, it's
impossible, even in theory topredict where the electron will
be. If we inhabit acomputational reality, why do we
see any randomness orunpredictability computations
are perfectly predictable? Mike,this observation of randomness

(03:06:32):
give us cause to doubt or ruleout our being in a computational
reality. The opposite is true.
The existence of an infinitecomputational reality explains
why we encounter absoluteunpredictability. If only one
computational history existed,observing randomness would be

(03:06:53):
caused to dismiss the theory.
But here there are infinitecomputational histories. Some of
these histories will be similarto each other some so similar as
to be almost indistinguishable.
Since there are infinitecomputational histories each
observers mind state can befound within infinite parallel

(03:07:14):
computational histories. In a1988 conference, and in a 1991
paper mechanism and personalidentity Marshall explains how
the appearance of randomnessemerges from multiple
instantiations of a singleobservers mind. He calls the
phenomenon first personindeterminacy. Quote, to predict

(03:07:37):
the first person observableoutcome of any physical
experiment, you have to assumethat your current computational
state will not be obtained insome other part of the universe
or the multiverse with differentoutput for your experience.
Bruno ma shall in thecomputation list reformulation
of the mind body problem 2013.

(03:07:58):
In summary, no brain thatbelongs to multiple distinct
universes where computationalhistories can ever be sure what
it will see next. Multipleparallel histories contain
identical instances of the sameobservers mind, state or brain.
Fundamental unpredictability andrandomness will result from the

(03:08:19):
observers inability to determinewhich universe she's a part of,
as she exists in all of them.
Quote, it is impossible for anyobserver to deduce with
certainty on the basis of herobservations and memory which
world she is a part of. That is,there are always many different
worlds for which being containedin them is compatible with

(03:08:39):
everything she knows, but whichimply different predictions for
future observations. MarcusMiller in could the physical
world be emergent instead offundamental, and why should we
ask 2017.
So even in a fully deterministicreality, the existence of

(03:09:00):
infinite histories makes theappearance of randomness
inevitable. The physicistshining a photon at a piece of
glasses in an infinity ofhistories where the photon will
reflect and is in an infinity ofhistories where the photon will
pass through. The physicistcan't tell which until after the
experiment is performed, and shelearns the result. Ultimately,

(03:09:22):
randomness stems from ourinability to self locate within
the infinite sea ofindistinguishable computational
histories. Tegmark notes howrandomness appears in
deterministic processes. Quote,it gradually hits me that this
illusion of randomness businessreally wasn't specific to

(03:09:42):
quantum mechanics at all.
Suppose that some futuretechnology allows you to be
cloned while you're sleeping,and that your two copies are
placed in rooms numbered zeroand one. When they wake up,
they'll both feel that the roomnumber they read is completely
unpredictable and random.
End quote. Max Tegmark in ourmathematical universe 2014.

(03:10:08):
Einstein is vindicated. Goddoesn't play dice with the
world. But perhaps not even Godcan predict what universe you
will find yourself in once youperform a measurement that
splits yourself. See, doeseverything that can happen
actually happen? infinitecomplexity. In 1948 Richard

(03:10:31):
Fineman developed the pathintegral formulation, which
provided a new way to understandquantum mechanics. Fineman
showed that you get the sameresults quantum mechanics
predicts by taking into accountand adding up every one of the
infinite combinations ofpossible particle paths and
interactions. It was bizarre,but it worked. And this new

(03:10:54):
formulation provided keyinsights that helped develop
quantum electrodynamics or QE D.
in 1965. Fineman together withceniceros tomonaga and Julian
shringar shared the 1965 NobelPrize in Physics for developing
QED. But while adding up all ofthese infinite possibilities
gave the right answers presenteda great puzzle which bothered

(03:11:16):
Fineman. Quote, it alwaysbothers me that according to the
laws as we understand themtoday, it takes a computing
machine an infinite number oflogical operations to figure out
what goes on in no matter howtiny a region of space and no
matter how tiny a region oftime, how can all that be going
on in that tiny space? Whyshould it take an infinite

(03:11:41):
amount of logic to figure outwhat one tiny piece of space
slash time is going to do?
Richard Fineman in the characterof physical law 1965.
Under quantum mechanics, aninfinite number of things happen
behind the scenes, the smallerthe scales, you look, the more

(03:12:03):
seems to be happening with nobottom in sight. The appearance
of infinite happenings, infinitecomputations and infinite
logical operations underlyingphysical reality is mysterious.
perhaps the simplest answer forwhy reality appears this way is
it appears this way because thatis the way reality is infinite

(03:12:25):
computational histories form thefoundation of reality, then
infinities in physics might justbe a reflection of this reality.
Quote. In short, within eachuniverse, all observable
quantities are discrete, but themultiverse as a whole is a
continuum. When the equations ofquantum theory describe a
continuous, but not directlyobservable transition between

(03:12:48):
two values of a discretequantity, what they are telling
us is that the transition doesnot take place entirely within
one universe. So perhaps theprice of continuous motion is
not an infinity of consecutiveactions, but an infinity of
concurrent actions taking placeacross the multiverse. And
quote, David Deutsch in thediscrete and the continuous

(03:13:11):
2001.
Quote, matter is only what seemsto emerge at infinity from a
first person plural point ofview, defined by sharing the
computations which areinfinitely multiplied in the
universal Duff Taylor's workwhen persons look at themselves
and their environment belowtheir substitution level. The

(03:13:32):
non cloning results from thefact that such a matter emerges
only from an infinity ofdistinct computations. And
quote, Bruno ma shall in thecomputation list reformulation
of the mind body problem 2013quantum computers, Richard
Fineman and David Deutsch arethe two fathers of the quantum

(03:13:54):
computer. Fineman proposed theirpossibility in 1982, and in
1985, Deutsch described how tobuild one. These computers
exploit the unlimited complexityinherent in quantum mechanics to
build computers of incrediblepower. How quantum computers do
what they do is puzzling. Eachqubit added to a quantum

(03:14:17):
computer doubles its power. aquantum computer with 300 cubits
can simultaneously process twoto the power of 300 states. This
number of states exceeds the twoto the power of 265 atoms in the
observable universe. How could atabletop device process more

(03:14:38):
states than there are atoms? Howcould it solve problems that no
conventional computer couldsolve in the lifetime of the
universe even if all matter andenergy in the observable
universe were recruited for thatpurpose? Some found the
abilities of these computers soincredible, they concluded
quantum computerssimply weren't possible. After

(03:15:00):
all, where exactly would allthat computation be occurring?
Deutschen Tegmark offers someanswers. Quote, since the
universe as we see it lacks thecomputational resources to do
the calculations. Where are theybeing done, it can only be in
other universes. quantumcomputers share information with

(03:15:23):
huge numbers of versions ofthemselves throughout the
multiverse. David Deutsch andtaming the multiverse 2001.
Given engineering challenges fordecades, quantum computers
remained only theoretical.
Today, quantum computers are areality. In 2019, engineers at

(03:15:43):
Google reported that their 53qubit quantum computer solved in
200 seconds a problem that wouldtake the world's most powerful
supercomputer 10,000 years.
Today, anyone can sign up forfree to program and use IBM's
quantum computers over theinternet. What makes quantum

(03:16:06):
computers difficult to build isthat to work, they must be
completely isolated from theenvironment such that they are
not measured by anyone oranything until it finishes its
work. by isolating the quantumcomputer from the environment,
observers temporarily make theirexistence compatible with all
the possible states the quantumcomputer might simultaneously be

(03:16:28):
in. Parallel computationsperformed by quantum computers
can then be explained by thework of parallel computational
histories. Quote, if currentefforts to build quantum
computers succeed, they willprovide further evidence for the
quantum multiverse as theywould, in essence, be exploiting

(03:16:49):
the parallelism of the quantummultiverse for parallel
computation. And quote, MaxTegmark in parallel universes
2003See, how do quantum computers
work? Why time, the universe,our lives, and even our thoughts
are inextricably linked with themarch of time. Few things are as

(03:17:12):
familiar to us as time and yettime remains little understood.
See what is time 2500 years ago,Heraclitus recognized change to
be the only constant in life,saying all entities move and
nothing remains still. But itdoesn't seem logically necessary

(03:17:34):
for a universe to have time.
Quote, mathematical structuresare eternal and unchanging. They
don't exist in space and time.
Rather, space and time exist insome of them. If Cosmic History
were a movie, then themathematical structure would be
the entire DVD. Max Tegmark inour mathematical universe 2014

(03:18:02):
Why should our universe have aproperty like time, all
computers process information inan ordered sequence of steps.
This ordering defines a notionof time that exists for any
computation. Quote, a Turingmachine requires time to
separate the sequence of statesit occupies as it performs the

(03:18:24):
computation. And quote, RussellStandish in why Occam's razor
2004Muller further showed that with
algorithmic information theory,we can predict the appearance of
a universe that evolves in time.
Quote, our theory predicts thatobservers should indeed expect

(03:18:45):
to see two facts which arefeatures of our physics as we
know it. First, the fact thatthe observer seems to be part of
an external world that evolvesin time, a universe. And second,
that this external world seemsto have had an absolute
beginning in the past the BigBang, Marcus Miller in could the

(03:19:07):
physical world be emergentinstead of fundamental, and why
should we ask 2017?
Assuming we are part of anunfolding computation, then we
should expect to find ourselvesin a universe with time,
beginning in time, currentevidence suggests our universe

(03:19:27):
has a beginning. But why shouldit until the middle of the 20th
century, most scientists believethe universe was infinitely old
without a beginning. Theyconsidered theories of an abrupt
creation event to be inelegant.
Accordingly, scientists resistedthe idea of a beginning until
overwhelming evidence came outin its favor. It wasn't until we

(03:19:49):
could actually see the afterglowof the Big Bang in the form of
microwaves that scientists wereconvinced the universe began a
finitetime ago. We call this point the
beginning because in tracing thehistory of the universe
backwards, we hit a point wherepredicting earliest states
breaks down and furtherbackwards tracing becomes

(03:20:10):
impossible. The physics eitherstops providing sensible
answers, or we run into anexplosion of possibilities and
can't tell which of them isreal. The theory of cosmic
inflation gives an account ofwhat caused the hot, dense early
phase of the universe. See whatcaused the Big Bang. But

(03:20:30):
inflation makes furtherbackwards prediction or retro
diction impossible. it wipes itsfootprints with a set of
infinite pre history's quotes.
Since our own pocket universewould be equally likely to lie
anywhere on the infinite tree ofuniverses produced by eternal

(03:20:50):
inflation, we would expect tofind ourselves arbitrarily far
from the beginning. The Infiniteinflating network would
presumably approach some kind ofa steady state, losing all
memory of how it started. So thestatistical predictions for our
universe would be determined bythe properties of this steady
state configuration, independentof hypotheses about the ultimate

(03:21:13):
beginning. End quote. Alan Guthin eternal inflation
implications 2013.
Muller shows that algorithmicinformation theory predicts most
observers will find themselvesin a universe with simple
initial conditions and anabsolute beginning in time. He
explains this reasoning for ahypothetical observer named

(03:21:37):
Abby, quote, If she continuescomputing backwards to retract
earlier and earlier states ofher universe, she will typically
find simpler and more compactstates with measures of entropy
or algorithmic complexitydecreasing simply because she is
looking at earlier and earlieststages of an unfolding
computation. At some point, Abbywill necessarily arrive at the

(03:22:01):
state that corresponds to theinitial state of the graph
machines computation, wheresimplicity and compactness are
maximal. At this point, twocases are possible. Either
Abby's method of computingbackwards will cease to work, or
Avi will retronix a fictitioussequence of states before the
initial state, typically withincreasing complexity backwards

(03:22:22):
in time. And quote, MarcusMiller in law without law, from
observer states to physics viaalgorithmic information theory
2018.
This mirrors what cosmicinflation does for our universe.
In an alternate history wherehumans developed algorithmic
information theory beforemicrowave telescopes, we might

(03:22:46):
have predicted the beginning ofthe universe before telescopic
evidence came in information asfundamental. physicists are
increasingly recognizing thatinformation plays a fundamental
role in physics. Scientists havelong understood that matter and
energy can be neither creatednor destroyed. They are in all

(03:23:08):
interactions conserved, but onlyrecently of physicists realize
the same is true forinformation. Physical
information can neither becopied nor deleted. There is an
equivalent law for theconservation of information.
This discoveries stem from theblack hole information paradox.

(03:23:30):
According to general relativity,dropping something into a black
hole destroys its information,like an ultimate furnace. But
according to quantum mechanics,information can't be destroyed.
At best, a black hole can onlyrearrange information like an
ultimate Shredder. In 1981. Thisparadox sparked the black hole

(03:23:53):
war waged by two camps ofphysicists. After decades of
debates, the black hole wassettled in favor of quantum
mechanics. Information can't bedestroyed, not even by a black
hole. Physicists now understandthe kind of mass energy
information equivalence There isalso an equivalence between

(03:24:15):
entropy in thermodynamics andentropy in information theory.
And constants of nature areclosely linked to the ultimate
physical limits of computationalspeed, efficiency and storage
density. See, How good cantechnology get? Why is the link
between physics and informationso tight? Wheeler dedicated his

(03:24:38):
life to the pursuit offundamental questions.
Ultimately, he reached theconclusion that everything is
information, quotes. It from bitsymbolizes the idea that every
item of the physical world has abottom, a very deep bottom, in
most instances, an immaterialsource and explanation that

(03:24:59):
whichWe call reality arises in the
last analysis from the posing ofyes no questions and the
registering of equipment evokeresponses. In short, that all
things physical are informationtheoretic in origin. JOHN
Archibald Wheeler in informationphysics quantum, the search for
links 1989.

(03:25:22):
Quote, now I am in the grip of anew vision that everything is
information. The more I havepondered the mystery of the
quantum and our strange abilityto comprehend this world in
which we live, the more I seepossible fundamental roles for
logic and information as thebedrock of physical theory, john
Archibald Wheeler and John'sblack holes and quantum foam

(03:25:47):
1998.
Why is information fundamental?
The answer is easy if reality iscomputational information lies
at the heart of computation. Inthe end, all that computers do
is process information. So tosay computation is the
foundation of reality is anotherway of saying information

(03:26:09):
processing is the foundation ofreality. Quote, the burgeoning
field of computer science hasshifted our view of the physical
world from that of a collectionof interacting material
particles to one of receivingnetwork of information. And
quote, Paul Davis in the Flexilaws of physics 2007

(03:26:33):
quote, what we can learn fromthese reconstructions is that a
few simple and intuitiveconstraints on encoding and
processing of information willautomatically lead to aspects of
the Hilbert space formalism ofquantum theory. And quote,
Marcus Miller in law withoutlaw, from observer states to

(03:26:54):
physics via algorithmicinformation theory 2019.
observation is fundamental.
Observation also appears to havea fundamental role in reality,
quote, the universe and theobserver exists as a pair. The
moment you say that the universeexists without any observers, I

(03:27:15):
cannot make any sense out ofthat. You need an observer who
looks at the universe. In theabsence of observers, our
universe is dead. End quote.
Andre Lindh in does the universeexist if we're not looking to
1000, then toquantum mechanics revealed that

(03:27:37):
observation somehow forcesreality to choose from among
many possibilities. Morerecently, physicists have
speculated that the observerspower to false realities hand
applies not only to the here andnow, but perhaps all the way
back to the beginning of theuniverse. Quote, we are
participators in bringing intobeing not only the near and here

(03:28:00):
but the far away and long ago.
We are in this senseparticipators in bringing about
something of the universe in thedistant past, and quote, john
Archibald Wheeler in theanthropic universe 2006
quotes, the top down approach wehave described leads to a

(03:28:24):
profoundly different view ofcosmology and the relation
between cause and effect. topdown cosmology is a framework in
which one essentially traces thehistory is backwards from a
space like surface at thepresent time. The no boundary
histories of the universe thusdepend on what is being
observed, contrary to the usualidea that the universe has a

(03:28:47):
unique observer independenthistory. In some sense, no
boundary initial conditionsrepresent a sum over all
possible initial states, andquote, Stephen Hawking and
Thomas hartog in populating thelandscape, a top down approach
2006the observer might even, in some

(03:29:07):
sense, choose the laws ofphysics. Quote, it is an attempt
to explain the Goldilocks factorby appealing to cosmic self
consistency, the bio friendlyuniverse explains life even as
life explains the bio friendlyuniverse. Cosmic bio
friendliness is therefore theresult of a sort of quantum post

(03:29:29):
selection effect extended to thevery laws of physics themselves.
And quote, Paul Davis in theFlexi laws of physics 2007
Can there be a universe if thereis no one to call it home? Do
observations themselves somehowdefine the histories and laws of

(03:29:52):
the universe is containing them?
observation and its relation toobserved reality is an enigma
We believe the relation betweenthem was our best clue to
finding an answer to why thereis something rather than
nothing. quotes. Omnibus xnihill do you send these suffice
it Unum likeness told us forproducing everything out of

(03:30:15):
nothing one principle is enough.
Of all principals that mightmeet this requirement of live in
is nothing stands out morestrikingly in this era of the
quantum than the necessity todraw a line between the observer
participator and the systemunder view. The necessity for
that line of separation is themost mysterious feature of the
quantum we take that demarcationas being, if not the central

(03:30:38):
principle, the clue to thecentral principle in
constructing out of nothingeverything. JOHN Archibald
Wheeler in quantum theory andmeasurement 1983
in the view that allcomputational histories exist,
observation does play a role inselecting both histories and

(03:30:59):
physical laws. It is a tautologythat observers only find
themselves in computationalhistory is capable of producing
their observations. Since everyimaginable program exists,
implementing every imaginableset of laws, then in a very real
sense, the observer does forcereality to select both the laws

(03:31:20):
and history they observe, quote,to derive the effective laws of
physics, one needs to dostatistics over the ensemble of
identical observers. Thisinvolves performing summations
over the multiverse, but thesesummations are with a constraint
that says that some givenobserver is present. And quote,

(03:31:42):
sidebar maitra in discussionlist 2018.
It's curious that Buddhistthinkers reached similar
conclusions about observers wellahead of modern physicists.
Quote, the Buddhist does notbelieve in an independent or
separately existing externalworld into whose dynamic forces

(03:32:03):
he could insert himself. Theexternal world and his inner
world are for him only two sidesof the same fabric, in which the
threads of all forces and of allevents of all forms of
consciousness and their objectsare woven into an inseparable
net of endless mutuallyconditioned relations. And
quote, anagarika given the infoundations of Tibetan mysticism

(03:32:27):
1969.
Reviewing the evidence, we havefound evidence in support of
this theory. The existence ofinfinite computational histories
predicts many features ofreality. It predicts a universe
of inviolable, but simple,mathematical and life friendly

(03:32:48):
laws. It predicts a multiverseof parallel histories, infinite
computational complexity, and afundamental unpredictability as
we find in quantum mechanics.
The theory predicts a universethat evolves in time has simple
initial conditions, and appointsthat we can't retract beyond the
beginning. Further, it predictsinformation and observation are

(03:33:11):
fundamental. So far, all ofthese predictions are confirmed
by current physical andcosmological observations. For
the first time in history,humanity has an answer to why we
exist that is backed by physicalevidence, conclusions. Given the
observational evidence, we havereason to suspect that this

(03:33:33):
theory or something close to itis correct. It implies we live
within the total set of allcomputations. Moreover, we have
traced the existence of this setto something that's a strong
candidate for having necessaryexistence, self existent truths
concerning numbers and theirrelations. Quote, one option

(03:33:54):
following Leibniz and others isthat we reach a level at which
further explanation is notrequired, because something is
necessarily true. Shawn Carolyn,why is there something rather
than nothing? 2018this truth not only seems

(03:34:14):
causeless but because from it,we can deduce much of physics it
is also a candidate for beingthe cause. Quote, the Supreme
task of the physicist is thediscovery of the most general
elementary laws from which theworld picture can be deduced
logically. Max Planck in Whereis science going 1932.

(03:34:39):
Under this theory, the mostgeneral laws from which we can
deduce the world picture becomethe laws of arithmetic. Thus,
arithmetic as a theory ofarithmetical truth becomes a
theory of everything. Thisbrings a whole new meaning to
Leopold Kronecker is edict Godmade the integers all else's the

(03:34:59):
work ofMan, quote. This is why with
churches thesis and the quantumconfirmation of the mechanism,
intuitive arithmetic, aka numbertheory and its intentional
variants may well be thesimplest and richest theory of
everything that we can have atour disposal. Bruno Mars shell
translated from computabilityphysics and cognition 1998.

(03:35:25):
This theory, arithmetic has beenunder our noses the whole time.
Quote, behind it all is surelyan idea. So simple, so
beautiful, so compelling thatwhen, in a decade, a century or
millennium, we grasp it, we willall say to each other. How could

(03:35:46):
it have been otherwise? Howcould we have been so stupid for
so long? JOHN Archibald Wheelerin how come the Quantum 1986
the journey here, it's been along road to reach the point
where humanity canscientifically address the
question, why does anythingexist? Humans have walked the

(03:36:10):
earth for some 500,000 years,but only in the last 1% of that
time, or the past 5000 yearshave we had writing? Only in the
last 0.1% of that time? All thepast 500 years? Have we had the
scientific method? And only inthe past 0.01% of that time, all

(03:36:33):
the past 50 years has humanityknown about universal equations?
To get an answer to our questionrequire that humans discover
numbers, equations, computation,and wrestle with topics of the
foundation of mathematics,including consistency,
completeness, and decidability.
In the end, this led to ourdiscovery of universal equations

(03:36:54):
that define all computation. Tofind evidence linking this
computational reality tophysics, humans have to discover
the expanding universe andgather evidence of the Big Bang.
We also have to prove thesmallest scales and through
careful study of particlesdiscover the quantum nature of
reality. A century ago, we hadnone of this understanding. A

(03:37:18):
strange answer. We can't helpbut notice how strange this
answer is. Perhaps we shouldhave expected this. Would we
expect that the final answer tothe greatest mystery of the
cosmos would be ordinary quote.
Now, my own suspicion is thatthe universe is not only clearer

(03:37:42):
than we suppose, but clearerthan we can suppose. JBS Haldane
in possible worlds and otheressays 1927.
Quote, whatever may be the truthabout the universe, it is bound
to be astonishing. BertrandRussell,

(03:38:02):
quote, We will first understandhow simple the universe is when
we recognize how strange it is.
JOHN Archibald Wheeler andJohn's black holes and quantum
foam 1998.
Tegmark cautions againstrejecting theories just for
being weird, and admits he wouldbe disappointed if the answer

(03:38:26):
weren't a bit weird. Quote. It'svery important for us physicists
to not dismiss ideas justbecause they are weird, because
if we did, we would have alreadydismissed atoms, black holes,
and all sorts of other marvelousthings. And actually, you know,
when you ask a basic questionabout the nature of reality, you

(03:38:46):
know, don't you expect an answerwhich is a bit weird? I think
anything but weird would be abig letdown. And quote, Max
Tegmark in what we still don'tknow, are we real 2004
a triumph of human reason.
Quote, I believe when thehistory of science is written,

(03:39:08):
then what's being discoveredabout our universe in the last
decade or two will be one of themost exciting chapters and
quote, Martin Reese in what westill don't know, are we real
2004we now have viable answers to
great questions of existence.

(03:39:32):
Liabilities question, why isthere something rather than
nothing?
Einstein's question, why is theuniverse so comprehensible?
weakness question, why is theuniverse so mathematical
Wheeler's question How come thequantum

(03:39:53):
Smolensk question why these lawsand not others
fireman's question whyThere's infinite logic underlie
physics.
Hawking's question what breathesfire into the equations. It
required us to assume mathrather than matter is
fundamental. Given the evidencesupporting this view, we might

(03:40:16):
consider the 2400 year olddebate between Plato and
Aristotle is settled. Quote, ifwe do discover a complete
theory, it should in time theunderstandable in broad
principle by everyone, not justa few scientists, then we show
all philosophers, scientists,and just ordinary people be able

(03:40:40):
to take part in the discussionof the question of why it is
that we in the universe exist.
If we find the answer to that,it would be the ultimate triumph
of human reason for then weshould know the mind of God.
Stephen Hawking in a briefhistory of time 1988.
Hawking believed if coulddiscover what breathes fire into

(03:41:02):
the equations, then we shouldknow the mind of God. But do we,
by postulating infinite, eternalmathematical truth as the
ultimate explanation and thecause and source of reality?
Have we succeeded in explainingGod? Or have we explained God
away? open questions. Wirelesstheory provides answers to many

(03:41:25):
questions, it does not answereverything, and much additional
work is required. Room for God.
This theory provides a purelynatural and rational account for
why anything exists. Is thereany room for God in this
picture? We now have a view ofreality where everything emerges
from absolute truth. Thisinfinite truth embodies all

(03:41:48):
knowledge. Being a container ofall knowledge, as well as all
mines and things can we comparethis infinite set of truth to an
omniscient mind? This truth isinfinite and in comprehensible,
eternal and indestructible.
Without a beginning or end. Itis uncreated and self existent.

(03:42:10):
It is transcendent, immaterial,imminent, and indivisible. It's
the reason and cause behind allthings. It serves as the
creator, source and ground ofbeing supporting us in the
material universe. Does thisinfinite truth or omniscient
mind lead to the existence ofGod? might even be God? It's not

(03:42:35):
a simple question. But knowingwhy anything exists leaves us in
a better position to answerquestions about what exists and
what doesn't. See, Does GodExist? deriving physical law?
How much of physical law can wederive from the assumption of
all computations together withthe requirement of life

(03:42:57):
friendliness? can we predictthings like types of particles
and forces or the dimensionalityof space time? might we even be
able to predict values ofconstants like particle masses
and force strengths? quote, whatreally interests me is whether
God could have created the worldany differently. In other words,

(03:43:21):
whether the requirement oflogical simplicity admits a
margin of freedom, and quote, byAlbert Einstein,
it remains to be seen how muchof physical law is universal
applying to all observers in allcomputational histories, and how
much is geographical dependingon which histories an observer

(03:43:41):
belongs to, quote, as atheoretical physicist, I would
like to see us able to makeprecise predictions, not vague
statements that certainconstants have to be in a range
that is more or less favorableto life. I hope that string
theory really will provide abasis for a final theory and
that this theory will turn outto have enough predictive power

(03:44:04):
to be able to prescribe valuesfor all the constants of nature
including the cosmologicalconstant, we shall see. End
quote, Stephen Weinberg indreams have a final theory 1992.
But this hope of deriving everyaspect of physics is waning. Max

(03:44:26):
Tegmark recounts as recently as1997, the famous string theorist
at viton told me that he thoughtstring theory would one day
predict how many times lighteran electron is than a proton.
Yet when I last saw him atAndrei Lin's 60th birthday party
in 2008, he confessed after somewine that he'd given up on ever

(03:44:48):
predicting all the constants ofnature implications if all
computations exist, and if thosecomputations explain our
observed reality, it leads toMany surprising implications.
The universe is a dream. Thetheory lends support to the
ancient idea expressed by TaoistGreek and Christian

(03:45:09):
philosophers, and a tentativeHindu and Buddhist belief that
the material universe is a kindof dream or illusion. It implies
that the material and physicalare byproducts of mind. Quote,
collective karmic impressionsaccumulated individually are at
the origin of the creation of aworld. The outside world appears

(03:45:31):
as a result of the acts ofsentient beings who use this
world. The creator of the worldbasically is the mind the 14th
Dalai Lama in beyond dogma 1994.
quotes for the things which onethinks are most real, are the

(03:45:53):
least real plotinus in the anyads, five 511 to 70 ad.
Only recently have modernscientists began to embrace this
view, with a few even doubtingthe realness of physical
existence. Niels Bohr said,Everything we call real is made
of things that cannot beregarded as real. In an

(03:46:16):
interview, Marvin Minskyadmitted, we don't know that we
exist because maybe we adjustwhat a program will do if the
computer were turned on, andit's not even running. We live
in a simulation. The simulationhypothesis and simulation
argument raise the question ofwhether or not we inhabit a vast
computer simulation. If we existas a consequence of mathematical

(03:46:40):
truth, the simulation hypothesisis made true by default, for we
will then find ourselves livingwithin the infinite set of
computationally generatedhistories. This blurs the
distinction between virtualreality and real reality? It
remains an open question, isanyone in control of the

(03:47:01):
simulation we happen to be in?
See, are we living in a computersimulation? Our Place in
reality? With an answer to whyanything exists, we can
orientate ourselves in reality,we now understand our position
and place in it. Mathematicaltruth implies the existence of
all computations. The existenceof all computations implies the

(03:47:26):
existence of all observers. Theexistence of all observers leads
to a quantum mechanical realitypopulated with all possibilities
and ruled by simple laws. Sowhat exists, almost everything
in reality becomes so big and socomprehensive, that it includes

(03:47:46):
everything and everyone that canbe every thought that can be had
and every experience, everystory and scenario plays out,
eventually, in somewhere.
Actually, they all recur aninfinite number of times.
Indeed, in this view, reality isso large that it guarantees the

(03:48:09):
existence of an afterlife. See,is there life after death?
quote, confession. If I lovethis theory, it is because it
entails the existence of manythings not physically present,
notably those incredible deepuniversal dreamers which keep
losing themselves in anincredible labyrinth of

(03:48:31):
partially shareable dreams,meeting ladders and ladders of
surprises, self multiplying, andself fusing, and which are
partially terrestrial andpartially divine creatures. And
quote, Bruno Mars shall indiscussion list 2011
reasons study of the mysteriesof existence has brought us to a

(03:48:53):
coherent theory of why there issomething rather than nothing.
The best evidence suggests ouruniverse is one malong an
infinite number of possiblerealms with the full extent of
reality being unbounded. Thesource of this reality is
logical necessity, via infinitemathematical truths which are
independent of any materialuniverse. We can count ourselves

(03:49:17):
among the first generation ofhumans able to reason logically,
with the support ofobservational evidence to arrive
at answers for why our universehas the laws it does, why we are
here, and why there is somethingrather than nothing.

Amy (03:49:33):
This has been another episode presented by always
asking.com where we ask the bigquestions.
Thanks for listening

All Episodes

Why does anything exist? - AlwaysAsking.com

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

24/7 News: The Latest

Therapy Gecko

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Why does anything exist? - AlwaysAsking.com