>WHAT IS THE BIGGEST OF ALL
QUESTIONS?
DOES GOD EXIST?
HOW DID THE UNIVERSE BEGIN?
WHAT IS CONSCIOUSNESS?
IS THERE LIFE AFTER DEATH?
BIG QUESTIONS, SURELY, BUT
NONE OF THEM THE BIGGEST.
HERE'S THE BIGGEST: WHY IS
THERE ANYTHING AT ALL?
ROLL EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS
INTO ONE WORD, AND CALL IT
ALL, SOMETHING.
WHY IS THERE SOMETHING,
RATHER THAN NOTHING?
THIS QUESTION NEVER STOPS
HAUNTING ME.
THIS IS THE MYSTERY
OF EXISTENCE.
I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN, AND
CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY
TO SOLVE THIS MYSTERY; SOLVE --
NO, NOT REALLY.
I'M NOT DELUDED.
I'M JUST OBSESSED.
WHY IS THERE SOMETHING, RATHER
THAN NOTHING?
THIS IS NO ORDINARY QUESTION.
TRUST ME.
THE MORE YOU PONDER THIS,
THE MORE WOBBLY YOU FEEL.
I KNOW.
I TEETER.
SO, TO STEADY MYSELF, I START
WITH A PHYSICIST WHO EXPLORES
RADICAL QUESTIONS, BUT WHO
CENTERS HIS EXPLORATIONS
IN SCIENCE.
MICHIO KAKU.
MICHIO, THROUGHOUT MY LIFE,
I HAVE BEEN OBSESSED WITH
THE QUESTION: WHY IS THERE
SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING,
WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL?
ANY LAWS OF PHYSICS, ANYTHING
WHATSOEVER.
IN FACT, WELL KNOWN
PHILOSOPHERS SAID, IF THIS
QUESTION DOESN'T TOTALLY DRIVE
YOU NUTS, YOU JUST DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION.
>>WELL, I, AS A PHYSICIST, TRY
TO FIND MEANING, ULTIMATELY,
THROUGH EQUATIONS,
OBSERVATIONS, AND THEN, AFTER
THE OBSERVATIONS AND EQUATIONS
ARE DONE, THEN WE CAN LOOK
BACK AND SEE, WHERE ARE WE
GOING WITH ALL THIS?
AND WHAT WE SEE IS A PATTERN.
WE SEE A PATTERN THAT THE LAWS
OF PHYSICS SEEM SO STRANGE
AND DISCONNECTED AND NUTTY,
IN FACT, BUT THEY ARE
CONVERGING -- CONVERGING
TO A HARMONIOUS END.
SO THE TREND OF UNIFICATION,
THE TREND OF HARMONY, IS
SOMETHING YOU SEE THROUGHOUT
THIS WHOLE PROCESS.
THEN YOU ASK THE QUESTION,
WELL, WHAT'S BEYOND THAT?
IS THERE AN EQUATION, LIKE
E=MC?, THAT WILL GIVE US THE
WHOLE SHOOTING MATCH?
AND I TEND TO BELIEVE THE
ANSWER IS YES, THAT THERE IS
AN EQUATION, PERHAPS NO MORE
THAN HALF AN INCH LONG, WHICH
WILL GIVE US THE ENTIRE THEORY
OF CREATION ITSELF.
YOU REALIZE THAT, ON A SHEET
OF PAPER THIS BIG, WE CAN
ALREADY WRITE DOWN ALL THE
KNOWN LAWS OF PHYSICS,
EXTENDING FROM THE HEART OF AN
ATOM ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE
NATURE OF THE BIG BANG AND THE
GALAXIES THEMSELVES.
THEN, THE QUESTION IS, WELL,
WHERE DID THAT SHEET OF PAPER
COME FROM?
WHERE DID THAT ONE INCH
EQUATION COME FROM?
WHEN EINSTEIN WOULD WORK, HE
WOULD SAY TO HIMSELF, IN THE
MORNING -- AND HE WROTE ABOUT
THIS IN HIS MEMOIRS --
IF I'M GOD, TODAY, HOW WOULD
I CREATE A UNIVERSE?
WHAT WOULD I START WITH?
WHAT PRINCIPLES WOULD I NEED?
AND, YOU CAN SAY TO YOURSELF,
WELL, FIRST, I NEED AN ARENA.
FIRST, I NEED A PLACE FOR
THINGS TO HAPPEN.
THEN, I NEED STUFF TO MAKE
THINGS HAPPEN.
SO WHEN YOU START WITH AN
ARENA, IMMEDIATELY, YOU'RE LED
TO AN IDEA THAT THE MINIMAL
UNIVERSE YOU CAN CREATE IS
A UNIVERSE WITH SOME KIND
OF SPACE AND TIME FOR STUFF
TO HAPPEN.
THEN, YOU HAVE TO HAVE STUFF
HAPPENING.
BUT IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE THIS
BIZARRE QUANTUM THEORY, BUT IT
DOES HAVE TO BE THIS BIZARRE
QUANTUM THEORY.
YOU SEE, THE SIMPLEST STUFF
THAT YOU COULD HAVE IS
NEWTONIAN, THINGS GOING AROUND
OTHER THINGS, EARTH GOING
AROUND STARS.
THAT'S THE SIMPLEST STUFF YOU
CAN HAVE.
BUT, IT'S UNSTABLE.
IF I HAVE TWO SOLAR SYSTEMS
COLLIDE, WHAT HAPPENS?
I GET MUSH.
IF I HAVE SOLAR SYSTEMS
BUMPING INTO EACH OTHER,
I HAVE PLANETS BEING FLUNG OUT,
STARS COLLIDING WITH STARS;
IT'S A MESS.
SO THEREFORE, ATOMS, MADE OUT
OF GRAVITY, ARE NOT STABLE.
THEREFORE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE
A GLUE THAT CAN HOLD STUFF
TOGETHER.
THINGS HAVE TO BE IN MORE
PLACES AT THE SAME TIME IN
ORDER TO MAKE TWO THINGS
STICK.
THAT'S WHERE THE QUANTUM
THEORY COMES IN.
>SO, YOU HAVE BOTH OF THESE
MAJOR WAYS OF THINKING.
YOU HAVE THE ARENA, SPACE IN
TIME IN WHICH THINGS HAPPEN,
AND THEN YOU HAVE THE KINDS OF
LAWS WHICH CREATE THE MATTER,
THE STUFF OR THE EVENTS, TO
HAPPEN WITHIN THAT ARENA.
AND THAT ALL COHERENTLY MAKES
SENSE.
BUT THE QUESTION PUSHES US
BACK ONE STEP FURTHER.
WHERE DID THOSE LAWS COME
FROM?
HOW DO YOU GET THEM NOW,
SO BEAUTIFULLY, THAT WORK
TOGETHER?
>>THE ANSWER, I THINK, IS
MATHEMATICAL SELF-CONSISTENCY.
WHEN YOU START TO CREATE
A THEORY OF AN ARENA, AND
A THEORY OF STUFF THAT STICKS
TOGETHER, ALMOST IMMEDIATELY,
YOU FIND THE MATHEMATICS
IS UNSTABLE.
THINGS FALL APART.
THINGS DON'T STICK TOGETHER.
NEWTONIAN ATOMS DON'T STICK
TOGETHER.
WHEN YOU START TO PUT IN
CONSISTENCY, MATHEMATICAL
CONSISTENCY, THEN YOU REALIZE,
IT COULD BE UNIQUE.
THERE COULD BE ONLY ONE THEORY
WHERE STUFF STICKS TOGETHER
AND IS STABLE, AND EXISTS IN
AN ARENA.
SO, IN SOME SENSE, GOD IS A
MATHEMATICIAN; GOD IS A
GEOMETER, CREATING ALL THE
UNIVERSES WHICH ARE
MATHEMATICALLY
SELF-CONSISTENT.
AND ONCE YOU HAVE AN ARENA,
AND ONCE YOU HAVE STUFF THAT'S
STABLE, IT COULD BE UNIQUE.
THERE COULD BE ONLY ONE THEORY
OF STUFF IN AN ARENA.
>WHEN YOU'RE USING THE TERM,
GOD, YOU'RE USING THE TERM IN
EINSTEIN'S SENSE, IN THE SENSE
OF UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES OF
THE UNIVERSE, AS OPPOSED TO
A RELIGIOUS SENSE OF A PERSONAL
GOD, I ASSUME.
>>THAT'S RIGHT.
THE GOD OF SPINOZA IS WHAT
EINSTEIN BELIEVED IN.
HE CALLED HIM THE OLD MAN,
THAT IS, THE LAW GIVER THAT
EXISTED, IN SOME SENSE, BEFORE
THE UNIVERSE WAS CREATED.
>YEAH, THE OLD ONE, OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>>THE OLD ONE, RIGHT.
AND, THE OLD ONE WAS NOT
A PERSON, AS MUCH AS THIS
UBIQUITOUS PRINCIPLE
OF HARMONY, OF ORDER,
OF CONSISTENCY.
>>RIGHT, AND SO, MATHEMATICAL
CONSISTENCY IS SO STRINGENT --
SO STRINGENT THAT EINSTEIN
SAID, MAYBE GOD DIDN'T HAVE
A CHOICE.
HE ASKED HIMSELF THE KEY
QUESTION: DID GOD HAVE A
CHOICE IN MAKING THE UNIVERSE?
AND HE REALIZED THAT, MAYBE,
THE UNIVERSE WAS UNIQUE; IT
HAD TO BE THE WAY IT IS,
BECAUSE THERE'S NO OTHER
POSSIBILITY.
>BUT MICHIO, EVEN IF THERE
COULD BE ONLY ONE
SELF-CONSISTENT AND STABLE
UNIVERSE, WHICH MANY
PHYSICISTS NOW RELUCTANTLY
REJECT, WHY SHOULD THAT
UNIVERSE EXIST RATHER THAN NO
UNIVERSE AT ALL?
GRANTED, SELF-CONSISTENCY AND
STABILITY ARE NEEDED FOR THE
UNIVERSE TO EXIST, BUT DO
THESE QUALITIES HAVE
ORIGINATING, CREATING POWER,
TO CAUSE THE UNIVERSE TO
EXIST?
BUT MAYBE, THE UNIVERSE
DOESN'T NEED A CAUSE.
WITHOUT INVOKING ANYTHING
SUPERNATURAL, NO GODS ALLOWED,
COULD A UNIVERSE EMERGE FROM
NOTHING?
SCIENTISTS SAY, YES, AND THEY
START WITH THE LAWS OF
PHYSICS.
BUT THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE
NOT 'NOTHING'.
MY 'NOTHING', THANK YOU, IS
MORE 'NOTHING' THAN THEIR
'NOTHING'.
TO CONTINUE WITH MY 'NOTHING',
I TURN TO PHILOSOPHY.
I GO TO OXFORD, TO MEET THE
AUTHOR OF THE BOOK, WHY THERE
IS SOMETHING RATHER THAN
NOTHING , BEDE RUNDLE.
>>WHEN COSMOLOGISTS TALK ABOUT
THE BEGINNING TO THE UNIVERSE,
STEMMING, ORIGINATING FROM
NOTHING, THEY NEARLY ALWAYS,
IF NOT ALWAYS, THINK OF
NOTHING IN THE NON-LITERAL
SENSE, WHERE IT MEANS EMPTY
SPACE.
AND SO - 
>SO THEIR COSMOLOGIST
NOTHING IS FILLED WITH STUFF.
>>WELL, THAT'S RIGHT.
>ALL THIS QUANTUM FOAM, AND
THINGS GOING ON.
SO, THE NOTHING OF THE
COSMOLOGIST IS, TO ME,
NOT NOTHING.
>>THAT'S RIGHT.
IT'S SEETHING WITH ACTIVITY.
>SEETHING, RIGHT.
>>IF THERE'S A PRESUPPOSITION
THAT YOU HAVE AT LEAST A SPACE
-- EVEN IF IT'S AN EMPTY SPACE,
THEN THAT IS SOMETHING THAT
HAS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR.
YOU CAN SAY THINGS LIKE, OH,
NOTHING MIGHT HAVE EXISTED.
BUT, IF YOU SAY THAT, YOU ARE
IN EFFECT SAYING, WELL, THIS
MIGHT NOT HAVE EXISTED, THIS
MIGHT NOT HAVE EXISTED, AND SO
ON; AND YOU DON'T NEED THAT.
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING?
LOOK, NOT, THERE'S A THING
CALLED 'NOTHING' THAT MIGHT
HAVE BEEN IN PLACE OF
SOMETHING.
HERE, WE HAVE A PROBLEM OF
THINKING OF NOTHING AS SORT OF
BOUNDING THE UNIVERSE IN ANY
SENSE.
AND MY FEELING IS THAT, PEOPLE
WHO TALK CONFIDENTLY ABOUT
NOTHING DO SO BECAUSE OF THE
ANALOGY WITH AN EMPTY SPACE.
SO, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE
CUPBOARD.
RIGHT -- MAKES PERFECTLY GOOD
SENSE, BUT THERE'S STILL A
CUPBOARD.
SO, IF THAT'S OUR MODEL, THEN
WE IMAGINE GETTING RID OF THE
CUPBOARD, AND ANY OTHER
CONTAINER, AND HERE, WE HAVE
JUST EMPTY SPACE.
AS I SAY, EMPTY SPACE IS NOT
GOOD ENOUGH.
>NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
>>AND, IT'S VERY HARD TO GIVE
ANY SUBSTANCE TO THE NOTION OF
THERE BEING NOTHING THAT WILL
GIVE YOU A GENUINE ALTERNATIVE
TO OUR INITIAL QUEST.
>BUT THEN, TAKE AWAY ALL THE
SPACE AND TIME, AND SO THAT
REALLY IS NOTHING ; THERE'S NO
SPACE.
>>WELL - 
>YOU JUST HAVE TO MAKE
THE STEP THAT SAYS, OKAY, THAT
ONE MICRO-MICRO, VERY HOT
ESSENCE THAT BEGAN THE BIG
BANG NEVER CAME, NEVER
HAPPENED.
AND SO, THEN, YOU REALLY DO
HAVE NOTHING, BECAUSE YOU
DON'T HAVE SPACE.
>>OR TIME.
>OR TIME.
>>THAT'S RIGHT, YEAH.
BUT THEN, CAN YOU SAY THAT YOU
HAVE NOTHING, IN THE SENSE
THAT THAT'S AN ACTUAL STATE OF
AFFAIRS THAT OBTAINED, AT
THIS POINT.
AND THAT'S THE THING THAT
I HAVE MOST TROUBLE WITH MAKING
SENSE, BECAUSE, LOOK - 
>NOTHING MAKES SENSE.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
>>NOW, THAT'S A GOOD WAY
OF SHOWING THE SLIPPERY
CHARACTERS OF THE WORLD.
>RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.
>>YOU JUST SAY, THINGS GOING
OUT OF EXISTENCE, ONE BY ONE,
JUST LIKE ALL THE STARS GOING
OUT, LIKE LIGHTS.
YOU IMAGINE THEM, YEAH.
AND THEN, WE'RE LEFT WITH
NOTHING.
THAT'S JUST THE CULMINATION
OF THIS.
BUT THEN, YOU NOTICE, IF A
PERSON THINKS IN THOSE TERMS,
YOU COULD, BY REVERSING THE
PROCESS, REPOPULATE THE WORLD.
>YES.
>>AND THAT'S BECAUSE, AS I
SAY, HE'S LEFT WITH A SETTING,
A FRAMEWORK INTO WHICH
THINGS COME AND GO.
WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS, WE
ONLY THINK WE CAN MAKE SENSE
OF THE EMPTY SPACE.
BUT THAT'S, UNFORTUNATELY,
NOT NOTHING.
AND, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS
THERE BEING NOTHING.
>TO BEDE, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR
THERE TO HAVE BEEN NOTHING.
THERE MUST ALWAYS HAVE BEEN
SOMETHING OR OTHER.
I DO NOT AGREE.
MY INTUITION CRIES OUT THAT
THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NOTHING,
THAT NOTHING WOULD HAVE BEEN
EASIER, SIMPLER,
THAN ANYTHING.
BUT, NOTHING DOES NOT OBTAIN.
WHY?
I GO TO A PHILOSOPHER WHO,
FOR HIS ENTIRE CAREER, HAS
WRESTLED WITH, WELL, NOTHING.
THE CO-EDITOR OF THE BOOK, THE
MYSTERY OF EXISTENCE: WHY IS
THERE ANYTHING AT ALL,
JOHN LESLIE.
JOHN, THE QUESTION, WHY IS
THERE SOMETHING, RATHER THAN
NOTHING?
ISN'T THIS, AT THE END OF
EVERYTHING, THE MOST
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION THAT
HUMAN BEINGS CAN ASK?
HOWEVER FAR BACK YOU WANT TO
GO IN THE CREATION OF THE
UNIVERSE TO THE COSMIC FOAM
ERUPTING IN UNIVERSES, THAT
SOMETHING COMES OUT OF THAT
NOTHING -- WELL, THAT'S NOT
A NOTHING.
THAT COSMIC FOAM HAS LAWS, IT
HAS PARTICLES, ANTI-PARTICLES,
FORCES, ALL DIFFERENT KINDS
OF THINGS IN THAT KIND OF
NOTHING; YOU HAVE TO ASK WHY
THERE WAS THAT SOMETHING.
SO, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE
STILL HAVE THAT QUESTION: WHY
IS THERE SOMETHING EXISTING,
RATHER THAN NOTHING?
>>I THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE
POSSIBLE TO SAY, FOR EXAMPLE,
QUANTUM PHYSICS TELLS US THAT
IT'S LIKELY THAT A BLANK WOULD
FLUCTUATE INTO A REAL WORLD,
AND THAT'S YOUR FINAL ANSWER
BECAUSE THE QUESTION WOULD BE:
WHY DOES THIS QUANTUM PHYSICS
APPLY TO REALITY?
BECAUSE, THE BASIC QUESTION
IS: WHY WOULD THAT SET
OF QUANTUM-PHYSICAL LAWS
BE RIGHT?
>IT WOULD SEEM THAT NOTHING IS
SIMPLER, AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN
THERE, RATHER THAN SOMETHING.
SOMETHING, YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN
IN DIFFERENT WAYS.
NOTHING, IN ESSENCE, YOU DON'T
HAVE TO EXPLAIN.
>>I THINK THAT'S CORRECT, BUT
EVEN IN A BLANK, THERE WOULD
BE ALL SORTS OF FACTS.
SO, IF YOU TRY TO IMAGINE,
OUT OF EXISTENCE, ALL ACTUAL
THINGS, AND SAY, THAT'S
NOTHING, IN A SENSE THAT'S
RIGHT; BUT ALSO, YOU'VE
OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT
THERE'S AN INFINITE RICHNESS
OF TRUTHS ABOUT POSSIBILITIES
WHICH IS BOUND TO EXIST,
EVEN IF NO ACTUAL THINGS EXIST.
>SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE
PURELY NOTHING, BECAUSE YOU
ALWAYS HAVE POSSIBILITIES?
>>YOU ALWAYS HAVE
POSSIBILITIES.
YOU HAVE FACTS ABOUT
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
POSSIBILITIES, AND YOU HAVE
THE FACT THAT CERTAIN
POSSIBILITIES ARE GOOD AND
OTHER POSSIBILITIES ARE BAD.
THESE ARE FACTS WHICH YOU
CAN'T GET AWAY FROM.
>SO NOW, IN OUR NOTHING, WHICH
MAYBE NAïVELY, I THOUGHT WAS
VERY SIMPLE, WE NOW HAVE
TRUTHS THAT EXIST --
MATHEMATICAL TRUTHS, LOGICAL
TRUTHS -- AND NOW, AN INFINITE
SERIES OF POSSIBILITIES WHICH,
EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT
ACTUALIZED, THE POSSIBILITIES
EXIST.
SO MY 'NOTHING' SUDDENLY
BECOMES VERY RICH.
>>IT BECOMES VERY RICH AND IT
BECOMES EVEN RICHER IF YOU
ACCEPT THE VIEW WHICH HAS BEEN
PRESSED BY ONE OR TWO
PHILOSOPHERS THAT THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN SOMETHING
BEING MERELY POSSIBLE AND
SOMETHING BEING ACTUAL
IS JUST LIKE THE DISTINCTION
OF BEING OVER THERE
AND BEING HERE, THAT ALL THE
POSSIBILITIES ARE ACTUAL
SOMEWHERE.
>THAT'S SAID AS METAPHOR
OR AS JOKE?
>>NO.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE TAKEN THAT
COMPLETELY SERIOUSLY.
THEY'VE SAID, FOR EXAMPLE,
THAT ALL THE GREEK GODS, SO
LONG AS THEY DON'T COMMIT
CONTRADICTIONS IN THEIR
EXISTENCE, THEY ARE SOMEWHERE.
THIS HAS BEEN HELD.
IT'S A BIT OF AN ODD VIEW.
>I KNOW JOHN, AND HE HAS ODD
VIEWS OF HIS OWN.
I SAY THAT WITH RESPECT AND
AWE.
JOHN FAMOUSLY CLAIMS THAT
VALUE -- INTRINSIC ETHICAL
VALUE -- IS THE FOUNDATION
OF EXISTENCE.
CAN THIS MAKE SENSE?
>>I THINK YOU CAN'T HAVE
INTRINSIC VALUE ACTUALLY
BROUGHT INTO THE WORLD.
I THINK YOU CAN HAVE FACTS
ABOUT INTRINSIC VALUE, WHICH
WOULD BE THERE IN THE ABSENCE
OF ANY CONSCIOUSNESS.
FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK IF YOU
HAD A COMPLETE BLANK, NOTHING
AT ALL EXISTING, NO
CONSCIOUSNESS, THEN IT WOULD
BE TRUE, IN THAT BLANK, THAT
IT WAS A VERY FORTUNATE THING
THAT A WORLD, TERRIBLE WORLD
OF SUFFERING, IN WHICH
ABSOLUTELY EVERYBODY WAS IN
AGONIZING PAIN ALL THE TIME,
WASN'T IN EXISTENCE.
NOW, THAT FACT WOULD BE A FACT
ABOUT INTRINSIC VALUE; THAT IS
TO SAY THAT A WORLD OF THIS
SORT WOULD HAVE TERRIBLE
NEGATIVE VALUE.
AND THAT SORT OF FACT DOESN'T
DEPEND ON ANYONE'S
CONSCIOUSNESS.
>SURE.
BUT, THE TYPICAL SCIENCE
APPROACH TODAY IS THAT THE
SUBSTANCE OF REALITY HAS NO --
IS NEUTRAL ON VALUE.
IT'S NOT POSITIVE.
IT'S NOT NEGATIVE.
IT JUST IS, AND IT'S HUMAN
BEINGS WHO IMPOSE THEIR OWN
SENSE OF WHAT VALUE IS,
IS NOTHING INTRINSIC.
THAT'S RIDICULOUS.
>>WELL, I THINK THAT'S A WRONG
VIEW.
I THINK IT'S A PITIABLE VIEW.
BUT I HAVE TO BEAR IN MIND
THAT SOME OF MY FRIENDS ACCEPT
THIS.
BUT I THINK THEY JUST HAVEN'T
THOUGHT THINGS OUT PROPERLY.
ARE THEY REALLY THINKING THAT
IT WOULDN'T BE TRUE UNTIL
WE'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT, THAT
ANIMALS SUFFERING IN FOREST
FIRES BEFORE THE EVOLUTION OF
HUMAN BEINGS WERE HAVING
A TERRIBLE TIME, THAT THEIR
LIVES COULD, AT THOSE MOMENTS,
AT ANY RATE, HAVE NEGATIVE
INTRINSIC VALUE?
BUT THAT -- THAT HAS NOTHING
TO DO WITH THE STRUCTURE
OF REALITY.
THAT'S JUST THE FORTUNATE OR
UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT BEINGS ARE IN.
NOTHING FOLLOWS FROM IT IN
TERMS OF WHAT REALITY IS ALL
ABOUT.
>OKAY.
I THINK IN ONE WAY THAT'S
QUITE RIGHT.
IT COULD WELL BE THAT REALITY
WAS A PRODUCT OF CHANCE, THAT
THE UNIVERSE JUST HAPPENS TO
EXIST, THAT THE UNIVERSE IS
NOT INTERESTED IN PRODUCING
VALUES.
THAT'S ONE THING.
I TEND TO THINK THAT, IF THERE
ARE DECENT PEOPLE, THEN, IN
THEIR HEART OF HEARTS, THEY
WILL THINK THAT IT REALLY WAS
UNFORTUNATE IN ITSELF THAT THE
ANIMALS WERE SUFFERING IN THE
FOREST FIRES.
>I THINK THEY WOULD SAY THAT.
BUT, AT THE END OF THE DAY,
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?
>>AT THE END OF THE DAY, I
BELIEVES SOME THINGS ARE
BETTER THAN OTHER THINGS.
I BELIEVE, ALSO, THAT IF YOU
WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE
UNIVERSE EXISTS, YOU OUGHT TO
TAKE SERIOUSLY PLATO'S NOTION
THAT IT EXISTS BECAUSE IT'S
BETTER THAT IT EXISTS THAN
NOT, THAT THERE WAS AN ETHICAL
REQUIREMENT THAT A GOOD WORLD
EXISTS, AND THAT OUR WORLD,
FOR ALL ITS BAD SIDES,
IS SOMETHING GOOD.
THE SUPREME GOOD WOULD ITSELF
BE THE EXISTENCE OF SOMETHING
WHICH WAS INFINITELY WIDE
RANGING IN ITS CONSCIOUSNESS,
WHICH WOULD KNOW, AMONG OTHER
THINGS, THE STRUCTURE OF OUR
WORLD.
>BUT IN THAT COSMOLOGY,
IF YOU WILL, IS: WHICH IS
THE MORE FUNDAMENTAL -- THE
PURE CONSCIOUSNESS OR THE, IN
YOUR TERM, ETHICAL REQUIREMENT
OF THE SUPREME GOOD?
>>NEITHER COMES FIRST, BECAUSE
IT'S LIKE THIS, THAT WHAT'S
ETHICALLY REQUIRED IS A GOOD
SITUATION, AND THE GOOD
SITUATION IS A SITUATION IN
WHICH THERE'S GOING TO BE
CONSCIOUSNESS, IF YOU TAKE MY
POINT THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS
THE ONLY THING WHICH, IN THE
END, HAS ANY VALUE, EITHER
POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.
SO, IT'S THE FACT THAT THERE'S
THIS POSSIBILITY OF HAVING A
GOOD SITUATION OF
CONSCIOUSNESS, WHICH LEADS TO
THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT SHOULD
ACTUALLY EXIST, AND THE
REQUIREMENT JUST WOULDN'T BE
THERE UNLESS -- UNLESS IT WERE
TRUE THAT THERE'S A
POSSIBILITY OF THE GOOD OF THE
CONSCIOUSNESS EXISTING.
>TO JOHN, THE REASON THERE IS
SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING
IS THAT IT IS GOOD SOMETHING
EXISTS.
THAT'S CLEVER, I THINK.
BUT SORRY, JOHN, THAT'S ALSO
ABSURD.
HOW COULD VALUE AND ETHICAL
REQUIREMENT BE A CREATING
FORCE WHICH ENGENDERS
SOMETHING FROM NOTHING?
THEN, CALMLY, I FOLLOW JOHN'S
ARGUMENT, THAT EVEN IF THERE
WERE NOTHING, THERE WOULD
ALWAYS BE POSSIBILITIES,
TRUTHS OF LOGIC, MATHEMATICS
AND VALUE.
I WAVER.
JOHN'S INSIGHT IS NOT ABSURD.
BUT, NO -- I SNAP BACK.
VALUE JUST CANNOT CAUSE
EXISTENCE.
I RECALL WHAT RICHARD
SWINBURNE, THE EMINENT
PHILOSOPHER OF RELIGION,
TOLD ME.
>>I THINK A LOT OF
PHILOSOPHERS, PARTICULAR A
NUMBER OF RECENT PHILOSOPHERS
HAVE GIVEN A STATUS TO THESE
THINGS THAT THEY DON'T REALLY
HAVE, AS IT WERE.
PHILOSOPHERS HAVE SAID, WELL,
AS WELL AS OUR WORLD, THERE'S
REALLY A POSSIBLE WORLD WHICH
IS ALMOST A REAL WORLD,
SOMEWHERE ELSE,
IN WHICH THINGS HAPPEN.
NOT SO.
PRINCIPLES OF LOGIC ARE, IN MY
VIEW, RULES FOR WHICH HUMAN
SENTENCES MAKE SENSE.
THEY ARE NOT ETERNAL TRUTHS,
AND THEREFORE, TALK OF
POSSIBLE WORLDS IS JUST TALK
ABOUT WHICH COMBINATIONS OF
SENTENCES ARE CONSISTENT WITH
EACH OTHER.
SO, THEY'RE ALL TRUTHS ABOUT
HUMAN LANGUAGE THAT DON'T
EXIST APART FROM HUMANS.
>AS FOR NOTHING, SOME CLAIM
THAT THE IDEA ITSELF IS NOT
LEGITIMATE, THAT EVEN TO ASK
THE QUESTION IS ALREADY
A MISTAKE.
AND ALTHOUGH I SENSE I WILL
REJECT THIS CONCLUSION, I KNOW
I MUST CONSIDER THE ARGUMENTS.
SO, I GOT TO BERKELEY, TO MEET
HUBERT DREYFUS, A SCHOLAR OF
THE GERMAN PHILOSOPHER,
MARTIN HEIDEGGER.
BERT, IF WE HAD TO COME UP
WITH THE ULTIMATE QUESTION,
IT'S THAT FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT:
WHY IS THERE ANYTHING AT ALL?
WHY IS THERE SOMETHING RATHER
THAN NOTHING?
>>HEIDEGGER THOUGHT THAT WAS
THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION, TOO,
BUT HE THOUGHT THAT, THAT WAY
OF PUTTING THE QUESTION WAS
WRONG.
HEIDEGGER'S GOT A WHOLE BOOK
ABOUT THE PRINCIPLE OF
SUFFICIENT REASON, WHICH IS
ABOUT WHY THERE MUST BE A
REASON WHY THERE'S SOMETHING
RATHER THAN NOTHING.
AND HE SAYS, IT'S PART OF
METAPHYSICS.
IT'S A WRONG-HEADED QUESTION.
YOU CAN'T ASK THAT QUESTION,
EXPECTING A KIND OF RATIONAL
ANSWER TO IT.
WHAT HEIDEGGER'S THINKING IS
THAT WE'RE ALWAYS ALREADY IN
IT, THE MEANING, THE UNIVERSE,
THE WORLD, THINGS THAT ARE.
AND, IT'S ONLY FROM WITHIN IT
THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH IT AND
SO FORTH; INSTEAD OF GETTING
AN ANSWER, YOU SORT OF SWITCH
THE POSITION, AND INSTEAD OF
LOOKING LIKE A PHILOSOPHER AND
A METAPHYSICIAN, STANDING
OUTSIDE AND LOOKING AT BEING,
AND SAYING, WELL, WHY IS THERE
BEING RATHER THAN NOTHING, YOU
SEE THAT YOU COULD NEVER BE IN
THAT POSITION.
AND THEN, YOU CAN HAVE A KIND
OF MYSTICAL AWE IN THERE BEING
SOMETHING RATHER THAN NOTHING,
A FEELING SOMEHOW ABOUT IT,
THAT HEIDEGGER SEEMS TO HAVE.
BUT YOU CAN'T ASK THIS KIND OF
TRADITIONAL PHILOSOPHICAL
QUESTION.
>BECAUSE, I FEEL -- I FEEL THAT
EMOTION ABOUT THAT QUESTION.
>>WELL, AND HEIDEGGER DOES,
TOO.
HE THINKS THAT THAT'S - 
>SO, THAT'S LEGITIMATE.
>>POETS AND PAINTERS SENSE THIS
QUESTION.
>AND, THE CORE REASON WE CAN'T
MAKE PROGRESS IS BECAUSE WE'RE
IN IT AND WE CAN'T GET OUT OF
IT, TO LOOK AT IT AS A THIRD
PERSON?
>THAT'S RIGHT.
THAT WOULD BE THE
PHILOSOPHICAL MISTAKE;
PHILOSOPHERS HAVE ALWAYS
THOUGHT THAT THEY COULD BE, AS
PLATO PUT IT, FRIENDS OF GOD,
STANDING ON THE OUTSIDE,
LOOKING IN, THAT IF YOU DON'T
DO THAT, THEN YOU HAVE
HEIDEGGER.
>WHY IS THERE SOMETHING, RATHER
THAN NOTHING?
THE ANSWER MUST BE ON THIS
LIST.
ONE -- A 'NOTHING' IS ABSURD.
TWO -- NO EXPLANATION IS
NEEDED.
THREE -- CHANCE.
FOUR -- VALUE OR PERFECTION IS
ULTIMATE.
FIVE -- MIND OR CONSCIOUSNESS
IS ULTIMATE.
I, MYSELF, REJECT ONE AND TWO.
NOTHING IS NOT ABSURD, AND AN
EXPLANATION IS NEEDED.
CHANCE, THREE, CAN EXPLAIN WHY
WE ARE HERE, BUT NOT WHY THERE
IS ANYTHING AT ALL.
VALUE OR PERFECTION, FOUR, IS
INTRIGUING, BUT WHERE, PRAY
TELL, IS ITS CREATING POWER?
AS FOR MIND, OR CONSCIOUSNESS,
FIVE, WHY SHOULD AN ETHEREAL
GOD, OR COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS,
HAVE SELF-EXISTENCE?
HERE'S MY TAKE: BECAUSE
SOMETHING DOES EXIST, THERE
MUST BE SOMETHING THAT IS
SELF-EXISTING, IN THAT ITS
ESSENCE IS ITS EXISTENCE.
THIS HAS BEEN A TRADITIONAL
DESCRIPTION OF GOD.
BUT IT COULD ALSO APPLY TO
ULTIMATE LAWS OF PHYSICS,
OR TO CONSCIOUSNESS.
IF IT WERE POSSIBLE TO KNOW
THIS SELF-EXISTING SUBSTANCE,
AS IT REALLY IS, OUR
ASTONISHMENT, I SUSPECT,
WOULD NOT BE THAT IT IS
SELF-EXISTING, BUT RATHER,
THAT IT COULD GENERATE STUFF --
US -- THAT IS NOT
SELF-EXISTING.
OH, THAT BOOK ON WHY ANYTHING
AT ALL?: THE MYSTERY OF
EXISTENCE, WHICH JOHN LESLIE
IS CO-EDITOR?
-- I AM THE OTHER CO-EDITOR,
WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT I AM
ANY CLOSER TO TRUTH.
