ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN:
Does the cosmos have a reason?
For almost 60 years I've been
asking that question.
I seek a definitive answer.
I seek but do not find.
Well, I'm hardly surprised,
and hardly alone.
We all seek a definitive answer,
reason or no reason,
one way or the other.
Maybe "definitive answer"
is my problem.
Maybe I come at the question
too directly.
Maybe I need to lower
my expectations,
dial down my objective.
Not ask, "Does the cosmos
have a reason?"
which, if yes, might require
knowing the real reason.
But is it possible for
the cosmos to have a reason?
Can the cosmos have a reason?
I'm Robert Lawrence Kuhn,
and Closer to Truth is
my journey to find out.
How to pursue
this lesser question,
can the cosmos have a reason?
Does deflating the question
enable an easier answer?
I will not try to discern
or dismiss
specific reasons for the cosmos.
Rather, I will try to discern
the more general question
of whether any reason
for the cosmos is even possible.
I begin with a cosmologist
who postulates creating
universes from nothing,
Alex Vilenkin.
Alex, if you take a step back
and look at the whole thing
that you've done,
what kind of feeling do you get
about meaning or purpose
or lack thereof?
ALEX VILENKIN: This picture of
the universe that has emerged
for modern cosmology,
it suddenly removes us from
the center of the universe.
Not only the Earth is not
the center of the solar system,
our solar system
is a little thing
on the periphery of our galaxy,
and there are billions
of galaxies,
and now we are told that
there are billions of other,
unlimited number of other
bubble universes in the cosmos.
If the theory of eternal
inflation is correct,
then you can say that even
identical Earths exist
in this enormous multiverse.
Simply because
the quantum mechanics tells us
the number of possibilities
is finite, even though huge.
So things are bound to repeat.
And when this picture emerged,
tell you the truth,
I was depressed by it.
Because I found it depressing
that this loss of uniqueness
that I thought that,
okay, our civilization,
regardless of how
good or bad it is,
at least it is unique,
and we should treasure it
as a precious work of art,
is treasured.
So now we are robbed of this.
Nevertheless, another way
to think about it is that,
okay, we have this huge universe
in front of us.
We don't know if there is
any life in there.
From what we understand
the origin of life requires
the highly unlikely fluctuation,
and it could be that
we are the only life
in the visible part
of the universe.
So we are responsible for
a huge region of real estate,
and we can either screw it
and self-destruct,
or maybe we can colonize
the galaxy and beyond.
So I think we can find meaning
in this way,
but this meaning
has to be attached
to our local environment.
I don't think we have
any central role to play
in the universe as a whole.
ROBERT: To think that in,
what, 400 years of science
and barely 100 years, maybe a
little more, of modern cosmology
that we understand so much
in this extremely small amount
of time on a cosmic scale.
ALEX: It is truly amazing,
because 100 years ago,
we still didn't know that
there are other galaxies.
ROBERT: Yeah,
that's unbelievable.
The immensity of it all
is astounding.
I'm feeling nudged that
the cosmos can have a reason.
But my feelings are bipolar,
oscillating between depression
due to humanity's insignificance
and elation due to
humanity's comprehension.
Why, I wonder, can insignificant
human beings
know so very much
about so very much?
And in a fleeting moment
of universe time
that contains
all human history.
John Polkinghorne
does not wonder--
he believes he knows why.
A quantum physicist who became
an Anglican priest,
John has advanced interactions
between science and religion.
John, as a mathematical
physicist, as a theologian,
if you sum it altogether,
how do you see the cosmos?
Why is there a cosmos?
JOHN POLKINGHORNE:
I think it's inevitable
that if you ask a question
of meaning and purpose,
either if you--and you answer it
either by saying
the universe ultimately is
pointless or meaningless,
or you say to bring into being
creatures who can know God.
I grew up in a Christian home,
I've always be part of the
worshipping, believing community
of the church.
Of course, I wasn't always
a scientist,
and I came into science
from mathematics,
because I was interested
in the way
that mathematics
explains the world.
And I want to hold
those things together,
and I want to be two-eyed
in that sense to look through
the eye of science
and the eye of religious insight
onto the world.
ROBERT: Some would argue that
trying to do that
distorts both sides.
JOHN: I think the distortion
only comes
if the wrong side
tries to answer
the other side's questions.
I mean, I think we have
every reason to think
that scientifically
stateable questions
will receive scientifically
stateable answers.
And similarly that theologically
stateable questions will receive
theologically stateable answers
and for theological reasons.
In that sense, there is
a degree of separation
between the disciplines.
But nevertheless, the answers
given to the questions
have to fit together
in some consonant way.
I mean, we're very familiar that
you can ask the question
how and why about
the same event.
The kettle's boiling because the
gas burns and heats the water.
The kettle's boiling because
I want to make a cup of tea.
Would you like to have one?
I don't have to choose
between those two.
But equally if
I were to say to you
I'm going to make a cup of tea
and I've just put the kettle
in the refrigerator,
you would doubt the genuineness
of my offer.
So it seems to me that there
has to be a consonance,
and in that consonance
we get that synthesis,
that deeper, wider
view of reality
than we will with either
perspective simply on its own.
I think that theology
has to take seriously
what science has to say.
If the world is God's creation
and science is telling us
at least about some aspects
of that creation,
then we should accept that.
In fact, there's an argument
which says that modern science
got going precisely
partly through
seeing the world as a creation,
and it was a world
worthy of study,
because it was God's world.
The influence that theology
has among science
is not answering
science's questions,
but setting the science
within a deeper context
in intelligibility.
So that the fact that the world
is comprehensible,
the fact that the world
is finely tuned
and fruitful in its character--
these things which seem to be
sort of happy accidents
or brute facts
from a purely scientific,
purely scientific point of view
now become intelligible
in the context of the world
as God's creation.
I want science's insight into
the processes of the world.
I want the intuitions
and insights that come to us
through religious experience.
I want to integrate those two
as far as I'm able to.
Of course I can't do that
completely--
there are puzzles and gaps
in the account.
But I passionately believe
in the unity of knowledge,
and I believe that
is underwritten
by the unity of a God
who is the creator of the world
in which we are seeking
that knowledge.
ROBERT: No voice is more elegant
than John's
in making the case for
the reality of religion
in a world where science
is certain.
Because of his absolute belief
in God,
John sets a sharp dichotomy
where either the world can
and does have a reason--
and that reason is
God's reason--
or the world is pointless
and cannot have a reason.
I'd want John to be right,
but I'm not convinced
the dichotomy holds.
The world can have a reason
that is not God's reason.
Now as science solves more of
the mysteries of the universe,
appealing to the supernatural
to explain the natural
does not carry its old force.
So with God in the picture,
the distinction between
"does" and "can" the cosmos
have a reason
is blurred or lost.
In contrast, without God,
the distinction between
"does" and "can"
is defined clearly.
So can the universe have meaning
or purpose without religion?
I ask philosopher of science
Michael Shermer,
publisher of Skeptic Magazine.
Michael, I can't think
of a more profound question
than asking does everything
that exists,
all there is, the cosmos,
have a reason,
is it about something?
MICHAEL SHERMER:
I think the question
does the universe have a reason
or a purpose or whatever
is too broad a question.
I think if we specify
what we're talking about,
like, do stars have a reason?
Yeah, their purpose,
their reason
is to convert hydrogen
to helium.
They can't help it.
They do it because the laws
of nature insist that they do.
Humans have a reason
or a purpose.
Our reason and purpose is
to survive and reproduce
and take care of our offspring
and our family and so on.
But on top of that
we can build other things.
Like one of the purposes of life
is to have some kind of goal
in mind,
and maybe that goal
is a higher goal
that has to do with
my wanting to impress
my fellow tribe members,
impress my, my girl and so on.
Even though the basic biology
of just reproducing,
because that's like a star
converting hydrogen to helium.
Reproduce our DNA, okay.
But we can add onto it
personal meaning and purpose.
So in a way,
the answer is, yeah,
the universe has a purpose
or a reason.
It's what we make of it,
but nothing more than that.
ROBERT: But if you look
at the universe as a whole,
it's just there?
There's no reason for it.
I mean, you are saying
that question itself
is a meaningless question.
MICHAEL: I would say
the universe is just there.
And there's nothing more
we can say.
As far as we know,
there's nothing outside of it
to give it meaning.
But even if there was,
why would that give it meaning?
It's still up to me and you
to create our own meaning.
ROBERT: And if we create
our meaning
in a universe that
doesn't have meaning,
does that make our meaning
artificial?
MICHAEL: It makes it personal.
I don't even--I don't like
the word artificial.
It's personal.
It's real, it's real as far as
I got to get up tomorrow
and do something.
ROBERT: Right.
MICHAEL:
That's as real as it gets.
ROBERT: And the universe,
the fact that that was built in
to the structure
at the Big Bang,
the initial conditions
plus the laws of physics
created that situation
where you're going to get up
tomorrow morning
and have a purpose
to do something.
Is that an accident?
MICHAEL: No, I think the laws
of nature being set up
such that stars burn
hydrogen into helium
and humans get up and
go to work tomorrow,
I think it's all subsumed
under laws of nature.
ROBERT: Right. It has to be.
MICHAEL: It has to be, right.
So is that an accident?
I don't know.
It's the property
of our universe.
ROBERT: Right. Everybody will
agree with that.
MICHAEL: Yeah, but what more
could we say about that?
Maybe there's multiple universes
and others don't have that.
Maybe, but who knows?
I don't know, you don't know.
ROBERT: Is that possible to have
an answer even in principle?
MICHAEL: That's hard to say,
Robert, I don't know.
I think in principle we can
maybe refine the answer
a little bit better,
but not ultimately say
what it all means.
I don't think that's possible.
ROBERT: To Michael,
things in the universe
have natural proclivities,
conforming to
the laws of nature.
But the universe itself
is just there
with nothing outside of it
to give it purpose.
So that even in principle,
the cosmos cannot have a reason.
Michael's answer to my question,
"Can the cosmos have a reason?"
is clear.
No, it cannot.
Not only does the cosmos
not have a reason,
the cosmos cannot have a reason.
I'd be disappointed,
and perhaps surprised,
because too much
about our universe
is needed for us to exist.
Too much seems too perfect.
Naturalists respond
with multiple universes,
perhaps an infinite number
of universes.
Only where we do exist
can we wonder why we can exist.
But multiple universes seem an
extreme and untestable solution.
Is there another kind
of naturalistic mechanism
to assess a reason?
Stephen Wolfram offers one,
and I must hear it.
Because if his naturalistic
mechanism works,
might it suggest a reason
for the cosmos
or leave the door open
for a reason to enter?
A quantum physicist,
Stephen is the author
of "A New Kind of Science."
Stephen, we'll always come back
to the "why" question.
What are the kinds of questions,
the kinds of data
that we can look at
to address that question, why?
Why the cosmos?
STEPHEN WOLFRAM: So the thing
that I have been
very curious about,
kind of whether there might be
a simple rule that corresponds
that can reproduce all
of the richness of physics
as we see it and so on.
And what I have realized is
that traditional intuition
about the fact that that rule
must be something
very complicated
to reproduce everything that
we see probably isn't correct,
and that it's perfectly likely
that there could be
a very simple rule that can
reproduce all of the richness
that we see in
the physical universe.
And I have been interested
in sort of the space of
all possible such rules
and in the apparently quite
bizarre-seeming project
of just searching through
that space of possible rules
and trying to find
our particular universe
in the sort of universe
of all possible universes.
So this rule,
if it's a simple rule,
it's something that is sort of
beneath space, beneath time,
beneath all of the things
that we normally think of
as being obvious aspects
of our physical universe.
So, you go through
sort of looking at,
is there, you know,
here's a possible universe.
Does it satisfy sort of
the basic criteria or not?
And often it's a long way away
from satisfying
even the most basic criteria.
And so as you kind of
look through sampling
the possible rules
for the universe,
it will tend to be the case
that most of the time,
they are very obviously wrong.
But I guess one of the things
that I sometimes wonder about
is, you know, one day I suspect
we will actually find
the rule for our universe.
I don't know how simple
it will be.
But let's say we have this rule,
then we can start asking,
"Why is it this rule
and not some other rule?"
And I try to think about
how would we think about
that question?
And I don't know.
But I kind of look to
sort of history of things
about the ways that questions
like that might get addressed.
So, for example, you know,
when Newton was first studying
celestial mechanics, the motion
of planets and so on,
he was saying, well,
once you start the planets in
their motions, then, you know,
the law of gravitation
and the laws of mechanics
will govern how
the planets move.
But, he said, we don't know
how they started.
You know, for that we must,
you know,
look to God or whatever else
to originally set the planets
in their motions.
If we ask the question
about planets,
we now know that
it used to be the case,
you know, in philosophy
and so on,
people would talk about,
you know,
whether things were
necessarily true or not,
and people would say
that the fact
that there are 9 planets,
or now it may be 8 or 11
or whatever it is,
you know, was an example
of something
which was not necessarily true.
It was just something that
happened to be the case.
But in fact, now we know
that if you have a star
of about the size of the sun
and you have some accretion disc
forming and so on,
that actually you probably have,
you know, 5, 10, 15, 20,
about that number of planets.
It is actually something
which we can derive
from further principles.
But in Newton's time, it would
have been quite inconceivable
to see how that would
possibly work.
And so this is kind of a,
for me, now,
as I think about kind of how
would we answer this question
of why is it our
particular universe,
I don't yet see
a way to do that.
ROBERT: I think there are
two questions here.
One, I think that
you're asking,
is, if it's this rule,
why is it this rule rather than
a host of other rules?
There is another question
that says,
if it's this rule,
why is there a rule at all?
And where did that rule
come from?
Which is the much harder
question.
STEPHEN: One thing that's
interesting to say is
when we found the ultimate rule
for our universe,
I'm sure we will find
a way to say,
this is the only rule
that could possibly be.
This is the rule, you know,
A equals 0.
This is rule number one.
And there will be some way
of formulating things
that makes it rule number one.
But does that really answer
what's going on?
No, it doesn't.
The most fundamental fact
about theoretical science,
is that there is at least
some order in the universe.
It could be the case
that the universe
was utterly orderless and
ruleless, but it is not.
Given that there is some order
in the universe,
can that turn into
a very simple rule
that will be sort of
the explanation
for our whole universe,
or will it be a more
complicated rule?
If it turns into a simple rule,
why that rule
and not another rule?
We're a couple of hundred
years away
from being able to answer that,
at least based on the course
of scientific history to date.
ROBERT: Stephen does have a new
kind of naturalistic mechanism--
that the deepest drivers
of the laws of nature
are simple rules--
which, remarkably, can generate
all the complexities
of the atom and the cosmos.
And that if such simple rules
are discovered,
it will be apparent that this is
the only way the world could be.
But from such an only way,
what would follow about
a reason for the cosmos?
Would both questions, "Can or
does the cosmos have a reason?"
become moot or meaningless?
Even so, prevailing opinion is
that only way will not happen.
Perhaps more radical thinking
is needed.
I turn to a pioneer
of complex systems,
a theoretical biologist
and author of
"Reinventing the Sacred,"
Stuart Kauffman.
Stu, when I look at the cosmos,
I want to say
is there a reason?
Now, maybe there's no reason,
but I want to know that.
Can we even ask that question,
does the cosmos have a reason?
STUART KAUFFMAN:
Strangely, I think we can.
And I have a wacky idea that
I have to get to, to tell you.
I need to define the notion
of the adjacent possible,
which makes clear sense
in chemistry,
it makes clear sense in
the evolution of the biosphere,
it does not make clear sense in
the evolution of the universe,
but it could conceivably.
And then the wacky idea is
that the biosphere,
the economy and the universe
grow in such a way
that they maximize the growth
of the adjacent possible.
And I love it.
Let me start with a liter flask
with a thousand kinds of
organic molecules in it.
In a very technical sense,
call that the actual.
Now, let them react
by a single reaction step,
and you may get some new
kinds of molecules.
Let me call that
the adjacent possible.
Now, fact--almost certainly,
when the Earth was young,
four and a half billion
years ago,
the diversity of organic
molecules in the biosphere,
or on Earth, was low.
There's hundreds of billions
or trillions
of kinds of
organic molecules now.
The organic molecular world
has exploded into
its adjacent possible.
Now, let's look at
the biosphere.
Presumably, there was
a last common ancestor.
If you look over the past
600 million years,
called the Phanerozoic,
there are big extinction events,
like the Permian
and the Jurassic,
that, as an average trend,
the number of species
and the number of genuses,
the one backs on up,
has gone up.
Suppose we can find two things,
that there are grounds to
believe--maybe, maybe, maybe--
that the adjacent possible
grows as fast as it can.
Because, as organisms
or businesses
make worlds with one another,
they make new adjacent
possible worlds,
which are new ways to make
livings in the world,
whether you're an organism
or a company.
You're increasing diversity,
and you're increasing
the possible ways
of becoming even more diverse.
ROBERT: Right.
STUART: So, there is this thing
that I call
the adjacent possible,
and it's, it's clear that
we're expanding into it.
We just haven't
thought about it.
ROBERT: Okay, we see it
on this level,
so tell me how that can apply
to the universe.
STUART: I can think of
at least one pathway,
that I steal from
my friend Lee Smolin.
Lee has done
loop quantum gravity.
In loop quantum gravity,
you think of space
as little tetrahedra
on the Planck scale.
A tetrahedron clones itself and
makes a second tetrahedron
in what's called a Pachner move.
And then you've got two,
and then they can make four,
then they can make eight,
then they can make 16,
then they make 32;
so space is cloning itself.
Now, think the following
rough thought,
that the ways that
these tetrahedra
can grow more tetrahedra
constitute the adjacent possible
of the universe.
Well, do I know that's right?
Of course not;
I don't know that it's right.
But once you've postulated
tetrahedra,
you're stuck with
an adjacent possible.
Then, what we need is
something that says
that that means
by which the universe grows
its adjacent possible
the fastest,
yields the winning universe.
ROBERT: A selection effect.
STUART: It's a selection effect,
which only need, you need
a notion of competing universes,
but in a tiny sense.
So, not only do you have
standard quantum mechanics,
you have fluctuations
in the laws themselves.
And then you need
a selection process.
And the selection process is
those variations in the laws
that give you the fastest growth
of the adjacent possible
grow the universe the fastest,
it becomes the winning universe.
And we only need one universe,
and it picks out the laws.
Now, this is totally wacky.
But it sure is different
than the multiverse,
and it's different,
it's different than, you know,
10 to the 500 string theories.
So, do I think it's possible?
Yeah.
Do I think it's likely?
Of course not.
ROBERT: But would that mean
that, therefore,
the reason or the purpose,
if you wanted some simple
sense of the universe,
is the creation of diversity.
STUART: Yes. It's the creation
of diversity.
It doesn't get us to
the complexity of the universe;
it just gives us space
right now.
Here's what the physicists
tell you.
Great, we've got 25 constants
tuned just right.
Otherwise we'd have
a crummy universe.
Therefore, we need a multiverse,
and lucked out
into the current one
on the weak anthropic principle.
I hate it.
It may be right,
but I just hate it, okay?
The other part that we have
is that because the universe
is expanding,
the physicists will tell you
that the current entropy of the
universe, in an expanding space,
has plenty of ways to increase.
Therefore,
there's a driving force
in the increase of entropy
of the universe
that could drive the increase
of complexity.
That's wonderful, and I love it.
I don't believe it, but I don't
think it's impossible.
ROBERT: Stuart offers a reason
for the cosmos--
the adjacent possible--
diversity expanding
majestically.
He is almost certainly wrong.
He says so himself.
But credit him
with thinking boldly.
And the adjacent possible,
come to think of it,
is not a bad reason.
Yet, whatever the reason,
there'd follow
an even deeper question:
Why that reason and not another?
So, can the cosmos
have a reason?
Yes, I think it can.
But my reason is that something
or other must have no reason.
Take your no-reason choice:
laws of physics,
simple rules, God.
But the "whys" still do not end.
Why would whatever it is
have no reason?
Two possibilities:
Either 1) It's an accident,
contingent,
a second-order brute fact.
There's no reason why
whatever it is has no reason.
Or 2) It's a necessity.
It could not be otherwise.
It'd be impossible
not to be this way.
Like 1 and 1 equals 2.
I'd bet that whatever it is
that has no reason
does not have no reason
by accident.
The ultimate no reason
must be a necessity.
That would be better than...
closer to truth.
