ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN: I stare
at that awesome photo,
the Hubble eXtreme Deep Field--
an almost empty patch
of dark night sky,
less than one ten-millionth
of the total sky,
reveals more than
10,000 galaxies.
Each galaxy with billions
of stars and planets,
some with hundreds of billions.
How breathtakingly vast
the universe.
Yet in each cubic meter
of space, on average,
the universe as
a whole has only one atom.
Still, over billions of years,
gravity has gathered
those atoms together
forming galaxies,
stars, planets,
such that life and mind,
human beings, we could emerge.
I am compelled to ask why.
Why is the universe like this?
I am compelled to seek meaning,
purpose, a reason.
But does the cosmos
have a reason?
I'm Robert Lawrence Kuhn,
and Closer to Truth
is my quest to find out.
It is human nature to seek
meaning, purpose, or reason.
We cannot do otherwise.
This does not mean, of course,
that there is meaning,
purpose, or reason.
But it's a place to start.
Traditionally,
religion gives reason,
whether the purpose
of a personal god
in Western religions
or the meaning of
cosmic consciousness
in Eastern religions.
But science has a different test
for truth,
and neither a personal god
nor cosmic consciousness
can pass it.
Can science even deal
with questions of meaning,
purpose, reason?
I begin with a physicist
who thinks hard
about the deep implications
of science.
The author of books about
frontiers of knowledge
and the future of science,
Michio Kaku.
Michio, here we are,
scientists, human beings,
who seem to have our hands
on the fundamental nature
of reality.
Quantum physics
at the smallest area,
general relativity,
and all the remarkable
discoveries of cosmology,
seeking a final theory,
we're getting very close
to really understanding it.
Is there any meaning
to all of this?
Is there any reason?
Can we ask the "why" question?
MICHIO KAKU: Well, I think
it is legitimate
to ask the "why" questions,
because in some sense,
our role in the universe,
where do we fit in this larger
scheme of things,
that's the ultimate goal
of science itself.
Now, remember that
there is conflicts.
When Galileo, for example,
turned his telescope
to the heavens,
people immediately asked him,
where's heaven?
The purpose of life is to live
a good life to go to heaven.
That's why we are here.
That gives us meaning,
to go to heaven.
And they asked Galileo,
where is heaven?
And Galileo looked, and he
looked, and we're still looking.
And we see no heaven out there.
And so science forces us
to push back the boundaries
of what we know, where we are
in the scheme of things.
And I think it's a good thing.
Because I think we know
where we stand
with regards to
the much larger universe.
Some people say, well,
if you're so smart,
you physicists know so much,
is there a unified theory
of happiness?
Is there a unified theory
of meaning to it all?
Well, I personally don't believe
that there is an equation
out there written in the sky
which says, this is it, folks.
This is the meaning
of the universe.
This is what you've been
struggling for.
I don't see that.
However, I do see the search
for a theory of everything
illuminating how we fit into
the larger scheme of things,
our role in the universe.
But then people say, but that's
not what I want to know.
I want to know what's in it
for Numero Uno.
What's my meaning in life?
And I tell people the following:
It's too easy to have meaning
just plopped down from
the heavens onto our lap.
We have to work for it.
We have to create
our own meaning.
It's a process
of self discovery.
Now, for me, example,
I tend to think that all of us
are born with certain talents,
certain abilities,
and we have to reach the maximum
of our capabilities
and potential.
Why? To make the world
a better place.
That doesn't mean that
the trumpets are blaring
when I make that statement.
But for me, this is
my purpose in life.
ROBERT: Well, certainly,
whatever your purpose is,
it now must conform to the laws
of physics--that's a given.
Beyond that is the question,
is there some larger purpose,
or is the only purpose
that which we derive?
And maybe some would say
artificially.
Maybe the meaning that
you're talking about
is sort of a trying to tack on
artificially a meaning
to where no meaning exists.
Why don't you come clean
and say, as a scientist,
here are the laws,
you have to conform to it,
I don't see meaning in it,
and that's it?
MICHIO: Well, I think there's a
spectrum of answers that you get
when you interview cosmologists
and theoretical physicists.
On one hand, you have
the people who say
the universe is pointless.
There is no point, dummy!
You're trying to put
human values on something
that has no human values.
On the other hand,
you will get physicists,
mainly old-fashioned ones,
but they say that the purpose
of life is to glorify God.
That's why they discover
the laws of physics.
That's the purpose
of the universe.
Well, I don't think that
this scale is the proper way
in which to look at
the full dimension of things.
I personally don't think that
you're going to find meaning
in a unified field theory.
An equation which explains
electrons and neutrons
and protons is not going to
make you happy, okay?
ROBERT: Okay.
We're putting that
off the table,
that there's not going to be
some ultimate guideline,
some ultimate equation,
some ultimate...
MICHIO: No email from heaven.
ROBERT:
No email from heaven,
but something that you infer,
that you create yourself.
But is that, that just sounds
like a rationalization to me.
It's trying to impose something,
that nothing's--
maybe it'll make us feel better,
and I'm all for that--
take care of the Earth,
take care of our families,
that's fine.
But at the end of the day,
it is really kind of irrelevant.
MICHIO: I don't think so,
because it gives structure
and meaning to life.
Freud, for example, was asked
what is the meaning of life,
right?
And he said, well,
what gives us structure,
what gives us meaning in life,
is two things, okay.
To work and to love.
And if you think about it,
we as human beings need to work,
we need to love,
or else we go insane.
We live a pointless life,
of a pointless existence.
And I think that's a very
foundational question.
That any theory of meaning
has to embrace
the very foundations
of who we are--
that we have to work
and we have to love.
Now, what does theoretical
physics say about this?
Well, it may talk
about creation,
it may talk about the harmony
of the universe,
the glories of equations
and so on and so forth,
but it's not going to tell you
how to be a better person.
It's not going to fulfill that
yawning gap inside your soul
that says why am I here
to begin with?
And that's why I say the process
of self-discovery
is the way to do it.
To some people, they say,
well, it's a cop-out.
I want that email from heaven.
Hey, it's not coming.
ROBERT: No email from heaven?
No surprise.
I can imagine myself creating my
own meaning, purpose, or reason.
I find myself doing it.
But satisfying, it is not.
Big meaning, with a capital M
needs some deep or
ultimate sense.
Meaning, purpose, or reason
that is self-created
is, to me, self-defeating.
So can meaning, purpose, or
reason be anchored in reality?
I look to the only reality
we really know--
the physical universe.
I meet a cosmologist who
revolutionized understanding
of how the universe began
and how stunningly vast multiple
universes may actually be--
Alan Guth.
Alan, when I think of
what inflation means
and what happens in such
a small period of time
that generates universes
beyond belief,
and then when we think
of the multiverse,
I can't decide whether
I should be depressed
because there's no meaning
or purpose,
or be absolutely elated
that we human beings
can understand this.
It's a bizarre,
schizophrenic view.
Do you find yourself with
some of those same things?
ALAN GUTH: Yeah, I think I do.
I think we are in
a schizophrenic situation here.
But I would add
that's not all my fault.
Even before inflation
we lived in a visible universe
where there were ten to
the ten stars in our own galaxy
and ten to the ten galaxies
in our visible universe.
And the possibility at least
that some substantial fraction
of those stars have planets
around them.
And that means that
even without inflation
there is the obvious situation
that we're very small
compared to the size
of the universe.
ROBERT: Well, you certainly made
the problem worse.
ALAN: Maybe so, but it's already
10 to the 22 stars,
doesn't really matter if
it gets much bigger,
I would say, philosophically.
So I won't accept
much of the blame.
Just a little.
So I think what it means is that
we should accept the fact
that we're responsible for
the meaning of our own lives,
that cosmically we're presumably
not important.
Our Earth will live and die,
and if you are looking at
the cosmos as a whole,
you would never notice that
the Earth even existed.
So I think we have to accept the
idea that it's the human race
that creates the importance
of the human race.
ROBERT: The fact that
the human race can see
so far beyond itself
is really
a remarkable thing.
Cosmology as a science
is measured in decades.
ALAN: That's right,
and from my point of view,
the successes are
almost miraculous.
I mean, the fact that
we can predict
what the fluctuations
would look like
in the cosmic
background radiation
on the basis of pure theory,
and then people can go out
and measure it
and find exactly
what was predicted,
to me is just fantastic.
I think it's a remarkable
achievement for the human race
that we've reached this point,
and I think it is something that
we should feel very proud about.
And I do.
ROBERT: To Alan,
the universe is so big
and we humans are so small,
the cosmos, he says, sets for us
no meaning and no purpose.
But we can make our own meaning
and our own purpose
in our own lives.
But made-up meaning
feels like fantasy.
I like to read fiction,
not believe it.
Perhaps human capacity
is too limited.
What could possibly enhance it?
What could be smarter
or more aware than humans?
Extraterrestrial intelligences?
Could sentient aliens
help us find meaning?
I ask two scientists
who lead the search
for extraterrestrial
intelligences,
Jill Tarter and Doug Vakoch.
Jill, Doug, I have this sense
the work that you do
with the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence
can reflect in a way different
than everyone else I'm talking
to on this question
about the potential of reason
or purpose of the cosmos.
Does that make any sense?
JILL TARTER: I might prefer
to answer the question
what might the universe maximize
as a way of dealing
with purpose?
And the thing that the SETI,
the search for
extraterrestrial intelligence,
brings to the table that's quite
different than other views
is we might be able to find
that the universe maximizes
the number of
biological life-forms,
intelligent life-forms.
That might be that
all of the laws
of physics and chemistry
interact in this universe,
so that that's the end product.
ROBERT: That's a very
significant statement
if that were the case.
JILL: And I don't know how else
you might conclude that.
It also might be that
the universe operates
to maximize the number of
black holes or some other thing.
But this is one particular
small cut
at what it might, the universe
might be all about,
what it's the best at making.
DOUG VAKOCH: And we can
potentially say something
about purpose or rationality
or meaning
in a broader sense, too,
you know.
The ideal would be
if we receive a signal
from another civilization--
there's a message
embedded in it.
And then the question becomes
what is universal?
We often think of mathematics
as being potentially universal.
You know, I would love it
if a series of prime numbers
is the first thing we get.
But we have to ask are there
certain mathematical principles
that any technologically
sophisticated civilization
would know?
So that gets into a question
about whether
there is some inherent reality
to mathematical concept,
whether that's somehow tied in
to the physical structure
of the universe.
If we can get just the knowledge
that another civilization
has intended to send us
a message,
that that gives us
a sense of purpose,
which is that there are
beings out there
who have a purpose
and intent on making contact.
ROBERT: Yeah, and that's
a good thing.
Purpose can just mean intent.
DOUG: Purpose could be something
that may not be inherent
in the physical structure
of the cosmos,
but may be something that
arises in the same way
that we human beings have
individual purposes.
Maybe there are purposes
and intents
of other intelligent beings
as well.
ROBERT: The possibility
of the existence
of extraterrestrial intelligence
or over generations
after generations,
the lack of finding it,
how would either of those
answers reflect
on our understanding of purpose
in the universe?
JILL: Let's take the lack
of other intelligent species.
I think it would be
a very intriguing problem
to understand how chemistry,
which seems to be
a deterministic process...
ROBERT: Yes.
JILL: ...and biology which arose
from chemistry,
did not happen anywhere else.
How is the universe constituted
so that it could have happened
only once or only now?
ROBERT: If we are indeed
so alone,
does that put extra
responsibility on humanity
to do more things in the cosmos?
DOUG: Some have actually
argued that.
That if we search for hundreds
or thousands of years
and don't detect any
intelligence out there,
that that makes life
all the more precious on Earth.
JILL: Well, I think if
we were to find ourselves
in that position,
I think I would be more inclined
than I am now to ask why
and then to entertain
this idea of purpose,
if indeed there is only
a singular intelligent species
within the cosmos.
ROBERT: And on the other hand,
if there are other
intelligent civilizations,
is there something about that
that naturally
brings this forth?
And is there something built
into the universe about that?
I mean, the exciting thing
of what you do
is that any answer reflects
deeply on this question.
JILL: Oh, I wouldn't disagree
with you at all, no.
ROBERT: To me, whether we humans
are alone or not alone
in this vast cosmos
speaks to questions
of meaning and purpose.
How so?
Intelligent, self-aware life
seems such an odd thing.
What would a universe
teeming with intelligent,
self-aware life mean?
But if human intelligent,
self-aware life were unique,
what would that say
about the universe,
and about human existence?
Religion lays claim
to these kinds of questions,
as if it's
its sovereign territory.
Scientists of the Christian
religion voice no vacillation
in finding meaning and purpose
in cosmology.
I go to London to meet
physicist Russell Stannard.
Russell, I, like you,
was trained in the sciences,
but I, unlike you, have wrestled
my entire life
with the existence of God.
So I am fascinated why you,
as a high energy physicist,
have a strong conviction
in the existence of God.
RUSSELL STANNARD: I don't adopt
a religious point of view
as a result of looking
at the world.
It's not a question of looking
at the world for evidence
of God's existence out there.
I am religious because I have a
personal relationship with God.
I am never alone.
Nobody might be with me,
no human beings,
but I am never alone,
and I have this deep sense
of the presence of God.
And that is why I am religious.
But then having said that, okay,
as a scientist I do have to say,
well, how does this conviction,
that there is a God,
how does it dovetail in
with what I see, okay?
And when I look at the world,
well, first of all,
I see that there is a world.
Something exists.
Now, if nothing existed, would
that require explanation?
The answer is no,
why should something exist?
As soon as something exists,
a world exists,
then it's a big question,
why does it exist?
What is keeping it in existence?
Why is it this world
rather than some other?
All sorts of questions come up.
And so intellectually
I then say, okay, well,
what is the ground of all being,
and that is, that is God.
And as such, it's a very
different sort of mindset
to what most people have.
As you probably know, our
current view of the universe
is that it started
with the Big Bang,
and many people think of God as
being the cause of the Big Bang.
That doesn't work, because
we think of the Big Bang
as being the beginning of time,
and a cause would have to happen
before the effect,
which would be the Big Bang.
ROBERT: So your God did not
cause the Big Bang?
RUSSELL: No, there wasn't
a cause of the Big Bang.
The whole question of what
caused the Big Bang
is a non-question.
It's, it's meaningless.
God comes into the picture as
being the ground of all being.
His creativity is, is part
of all instants of time,
not just the first instant
of the Big Bang.
That's why theologians talk
about God the sustainer,
as well as God the creator.
So that's how I see God
coming into it.
ROBERT: Your argument
that the question
of what caused the Big Bang
is a meaningless one
is a very legitimate question
that many analytical
philosophers and others
have pointed to
as a reason for eliminating the
totality of the need for God.
Because if you don't have
a cause of the Big Bang
or if there's a self-causation
or something there,
then God is unnecessary.
RUSSELL: It certainly gets rid
of a naive understanding of God,
namely that God existed
on his own for eternity,
and then at some point in time
decided to create a Big Bang,
and we're on our way.
Yes, it gets rid
of that kind of God,
but that is an Aunt Sally.
You know, you're just putting up
an Aunt Sally
and knocking it down.
So then how do I, as a religious
believer, explain the cosmos?
I would say that
I differ somewhat
from my fellow scientists.
Fellow scientists seem to simply
accept the world as a given,
you know, their job is just
simply to explain it.
But for me, the world
is not a given,
there's a reason behind it,
and that reason is, is God.
God is the underlying ground
of all being.
I am part of that cosmos.
So I owe my existence to God,
and therefore I have to find out
what the purpose,
what purpose God had
for creating the world,
and for, for creating me.
ROBERT: Russell does not
try to read God
into Big Bang cosmology.
I appreciate that.
He starts with his personal
relationship with God,
then has God as the reason
for the existence of everything.
And only then does he see God
as consistent
with scientific cosmology.
The argument works, but depends
entirely on its first premise.
And what if I do not have such a
personal relationship with God?
I can rely only
on the universe itself.
I'm escorted by a physicist
who won the Nobel Prize,
Frank Wilczek.
FRANK WILCZEK: I think cosmology
doesn't necessarily
supply meaning, but it
definitely supplies insight.
You might have thought--
and people did think--
that the universe was
the unfolding of some narrative,
that it had maybe even
a moral to the story.
But that's not the way
it seems to work.
What we see in cosmology is
the unfolding of magnificent
but cold, abstract equations.
You might have also thought--
and people did think--
that mankind occupied a very
central place in the universe.
But it doesn't seem
to be that way.
The universe is very, very big,
and we seem to be on
a rather small planet
around a rather average star
in just another galaxy
out of many billions of galaxies
that have been
discovered so far,
and more are coming into
the horizon all the time.
What still might be special
about us that cosmology suggests
is that maybe intelligence
is very rare in the universe,
so in that sense, we're special.
That's not ruled out.
Personally, I think based on
the history of life on Earth
that probably life
is very common
but intelligence is quite rare.
That means that from
the human perspective,
the universe is
quite extravagant.
You have to create
all this stuff,
most of which is barren, empty,
so that in a very rare corner,
you could find intelligence
capable of understanding it all
and appreciating it
at some level.
ROBERT: The fact that
the universe is based
upon these cold equations,
these equations do have
a simplicity,
they have a beauty,
they have a symmetry.
The universe has
very simple equations
when you think about it.
FRANK: The basic underlying
equations are simple,
but because they have
various instabilities,
they can form structures
that can eventually
evolve complexity.
ROBERT: But does that simplicity
of the underlying equations
give some special insight
into what it's all about?
FRANK: If so, I don't know
what it is.
It seems to be more negative.
The different hypotheses
about the meaning of life
that have seemed very plausible
to people in the past
come to seem much less plausible
when you realize
that the underlying structure
is mathematical.
ROBERT: Most scientists see
no reason for the cosmos.
Many would dismiss
"why" questions
when applied
to the entire cosmos
as irrelevant
and perhaps meaningless.
But, they say, we can make up
our own meaning.
It's nice to make up
our own meaning--
invent satisfying, stimulating
reasons for life and living.
But isn't making up meaning
like a kind of drug?
You feel good for a moment,
but because it does not
reflect reality,
it may, in fact,
distort reality.
Some see reflections
of their religious beliefs.
Just a hunch,
but the ET question
might provide insight
whether intelligent life in
the universe is plentiful, rare,
or wondrously unique to us--
each its own clue of what
the universe is all about.
Some scientists look
to mathematics, not meaning,
as the foundations
of the cosmos.
Here's what nags me.
Even if the underlying structure
of the cosmos is mathematical,
is it a lucky coincidence that
the deep way the world works
is so comprehensible?
It takes more than luck to get
Closer to Truth.
