What is Ultimate Reality? | Episode 1301 | Closer To Truth

I know who I am, where I am, what I'm doing. I look around and see a world. But then I stop. What's a world? Why is it here? What we so obviously see is not what it so obviously seems. Dig down, way down, dig around, way around. What's to see? What's to know? How to find ultimate reality? Deep explanations of our world vary greatly, from hardcore physicalism to true believer theism to fantastic metaphysics. What is ultimate reality? I'm Robert Lawrence Kuhn, and Closer to Truth is my journey to find out. I seek bedrock reality. What's fundamental? What are the most general features of the world? What's the essence of all that is? I'm of two minds here, two ways of thinking, scientific and philosophical. I explore both, oscillate between them, try to keep balance. Philosophy comes first, organizes the issues, maps the terrain. I go to England, to the University of Birmingham. I visit Yujin Nagasawa, a philosopher of religion, but no traditional believer. For Yujin, no question is too big. Yujin, what are the things that exist that we know we're absolutely sure of? What's bedrock? What is ultimate reality? Actually, that's the question that philosophers have been working on for thousands of years. That's not a good sign. So, for example, physicalists, they claim that everything is ultimately physical. So they think that if you look at the fundamental level of reality, you can find only physical objects and physical properties. So, therefore, we can say that everything is ultimately physical. So there are a lot of objects like tables and chairs and books and so on. And also there is consciousness, but even consciousness is ultimately physical, because if you look at the bottom level of reality, you can only find physical entities. And dualists think that there is something special about consciousness or mental properties. So they think that if you look at the bottom level of reality, you can find both physical entities and mental entities or non-physical entities. So if you are a dualist and you have mental properties being special and independent and irreducible, that at least would give you some space for the potential of a god to exist, because a god is disembodied mental consciousness. Right, so theists tend to say that god is incorporeal and spiritual and non-physical. So if dualism is true, then possibly theism is true. And god is a non-physical mental being. But if physicalism is true, then god, certainly in any traditional sense, is impossible. That is correct. But the worry that I have is that maybe there is no such thing as the bottom level of reality. Maybe reality is infinitely reducible. Perhaps we can analyze your consciousness and we can reduce your consciousness into proto-conscious properties. But maybe proto-conscious properties are reduced to further proto-conscious properties and so on. Maybe we never reach the bottom level of reality, and that could be really devastating. I think it's a genuine possibility. There is nothing logically contradictory about thinking that everything is infinitely decomposable. I agree there's nothing logically contradictory in it, but it just sounds so wildly implausible because there are certain physical constraints at the so-called Planck length. At that level, our sense of space and time fall apart. So it seems to be some bottom level. If you formulate this problem in terms of decomposition, that might be true. But we can run a similar problem in terms of explanation or causation. So maybe there is no infinite level of decomposition, but there might be an infinite level, infinite continuity of explanation or causation. So what would be the implications of that? My suggestion is that perhaps we shouldn't try to find a bottom level of reality. Maybe we should just look at the top level of reality. Maybe the whole is more fundamental than its components. That means that the universe as a whole is most fundamental, and we are just derivatives of the whole universe, which is most fundamental and prior to our existence. This is a very strange view because I don't know if we can call this view a form of physicalism or dualism or idealism. You might think that this is a form of physicalism because the universe is what exists, and the universe contains a lot of physical objects and properties. But that's exactly the wrong way of looking at the problem because here we have agreed that the universe is most fundamental. So if we want to determine the ultimate nature of reality, we have to look at the nature of the whole rather than its components. So we cannot say that the universe is ultimately physical because it contains a lot of physical entities. You cannot do that. Infinite levels of decomposition. Infinite continuity of explanation or causation. Down and down, ever lower, never ending. Eugene's disruptive point is that the universe as a whole may be fundamental, not the stuff in the universe. For this reason, he says, everything is up for grabs. Because if the universe as a whole is fundamental, reality could be physicalism, dualism, or even idealism where only the mental is real. I like disruption. It forces a radical re-look at reality. I shouldn't get carried away. I should talk to a scientist. I go to Oxford, England, to meet a quantum physicist, the author of The Fabric of Reality, David Deutsch. David, what are the elements of the fabric of reality? It's about what's fundamental, and more specifically, about the most fundamental things that we know. What I call fundamental, a fundamental idea, is one that is needed in the explanation of many other ideas or many other phenomena and so on. The most fundamental ones we know are basically the ones that are needed in the explanation of practically everything. There are four that I picked out as being the most fundamental. Formed a sort of unified fabric of reality, a conception of the world, where none of them could be understood without the other three. They were the quantum physics, which is my actual field, and then the theory of evolution, the theory of computation, and the theory of knowledge, which is usually not even considered part of science, but those were the four strands. Give me a quick synopsis of each of the four. Quantum theory is the language that all other theories in physics are expressed in, and it sort of constrains the kinds of ideas that one can express within physics. It's the deepest and most successful theory. Good. Evolution? And then, so the theory of evolution is the basic theory of emergent properties. It's how large objects can have properties, can be understood in terms that do not follow from their low-level definitions in terms of atoms. Darwin solved one of the fundamental mysteries of nature, but it cannot be expressed in terms of atoms. Computation. And then the theory of computation is the theory of what processes in nature are independent of or transcend the material substance that they are embodied in. So, for example, I can say I had an idea last year and now I'm telling it to you, and that idea is an abstract entity that is instantiated in, first of all, it's instantiated in the brain, then it's instantiated in movements of my mouth, then in the vibrations of air molecules and so on, and it can be instantiated in ink on paper and an enormous variety of things. But in order to understand any of those transitions, you have to understand that what is affecting things, what is moving things here, is the information itself, not its instantiations. And the general theory of how information is processed in the world is the theory of computation. And that immediately leads to knowledge, which is the kind of information that can do things. So, or solve problems, as we would say at the human level. But in these terms, adaptations in living things are also a form of knowledge. So DNA embodies knowledge. Human brains embody knowledge. Books and computers embody, and the internet all embody knowledge. And the thing about the knowledge that makes it fundamental is that if you think of any kind of transformation of a physical system, you know, from hot to cold or from a block of marble into a statue and so on, if you think about all possible transformations that are permitted by the laws of physics, the overwhelming majority of those only happen if the right knowledge is present. So from the point of view of what can be transformed into what, it's practically all the theory of what knowledge can do. And that is why knowledge is a fundamental thing in the physical world. Quantum physics, evolution, information, knowledge. Each its own category, each its own way of viewing reality, as if each were a special filter, enabling its own kind of special insight. Yes, strands of the fabric of reality. But the whole cloth? Ultimate reality? But is ultimate reality limited to physical reality? If not, could information and knowledge be keys? Could they lead to consciousness? Because if reality were a kingdom, consciousness could be king. I go to Caltech to consult a leading brain scientist, Christoph Koch. Christoph, do you think the fact that consciousness is existent is something that we need to consider in discerning what ultimate reality is? Completely. Absolutely. Well, the only way I know about the world is from my conscious experience. But that doesn't mean consciousness is fundamental to reality. How else do I know about reality? No, no, I accept that. That's your way of knowing about reality. But that could be a total random accident. It just happened to be that way. It just happened to be. Yes, so I find myself in a universe where I happen to have consciousness, but it's such a central fact that if that gets left out, then I've almost explained nothing really relevant about the universe. And so what I want to explain is everything physical, but also this most central aspect that I have and that you have and that dogs have and lots of other creatures have. And so how can we leave that out? I think the more relevant question is, is that like another phenomenon like wetness? People don't seem to understand why water is wet, why it clings to walls. You need to introduce a new thing called wetness, right? It just emerges out of, you have a bunch of systems, there's lots of physics and chemistry that tell you ultimately what wetness is. Most biologists think consciousness is of that ilk. So therefore, you don't need to add anything special. Consciousness is just another emergent property like wetness or like representative democracy. It's inherent in physics. But the other attitude is that because consciousness is so radically different from anything else, conscious experience is not at all identical with the substrate, with the brain that gives rise to fundamentally two different things. There's this explanatory gap between the two. And to really satisfactorily explain that, we need to postulate there's something in addition to, you know, space and time and matter and energy, and that's conscious experience. And what does that imply about ultimate reality? Well, it implies there's more to the universe than just what's today accepted physics. So just like today people think, oh, we have to enlarge physics, oh, there's this dark energy. So I think in the fullness of time, we'll also realize, yeah, consciousness has to be also part of that, and so we have to enlarge physics further. I'm not sure it's fair to equate dark matter and dark energy with consciousness. No. You can explain dark energy by physical principles that we've known before. Except that no physicists have done so. But they are, at least in principle, able to think about how the physics of empty space can generate energy. Yeah, and I can think how the physics or how the mathematics, more precise, of complex systems generates consciousness. What more do you want of it? It's a predictive theory, and you can measure it. That's what science is about. Why should it have been the case that consciousness, this wonderful experience to see a red table and green pants, if that's right, why should it have been the case that that is what this universe is? We don't know. Fair enough. Nobody knows why consciousness is part of our universe. But Christoph argues that there's more to our universe than just what is known by today's physics, and that to explain consciousness, physics will have to be enlarged. There is another possibility, some kind of overarching principle that transcends the physical. I go back to Birmingham, England, to meet the distinguished philosopher of religion, John Hick. John, I love talking about ultimate reality. You've talked about something called the real. I'd like to understand what that is. The real is something that we have to postulate in order to understand a certain data. The data include the experience of a transcendent reality of some kind in religious experience or transcendental experience. It includes the fact of a plurality of religions and the fact that in their belief systems they contradict one another very often. From a point of view that accepts religious experience as authentic, as an experience of something, we have to explain why it takes such different forms. And the reason, I think, is fairly clear, namely that it occurs within different human cultures which have grown up over the centuries, which provide us with different vocabularies, different concepts, and concepts go to create and to form our experience. So the actual experience is of a god, a personal god, or of the universal principle of the Tao in Taoism, or of another personal god, the Allah of Islam, or Vishnu, Shiva, etc., within the Hindu faiths. All of these are joint creations of the impact upon us of the transcendent real and human sets of concepts. Some would say that the human constellation of concepts that developed out of culture entirely explain religion and the experiences that people have are biologically based. Something in the brain shoots here and there and they have an experience, and we really can't trust that. But what we can trust are the laws of science. If there is something beyond the physical universe, the physical sciences have nothing to do with it. They're never going to discover it. And so they're going to say, if they exist in our modern culture, they're going to say it doesn't exist. Seems a little flimsy to tether all of these conflicting religions to some real. Well, the experience as it's formed within the religions is very, very powerful. I mean, the Christian worshipping the Holy Trinity can have a very powerful sense of the reality of God. And likewise, the Muslim at the Friday prayers in the mosque can have a very powerful sense of being in the presence of the holy Allah. I understand that we learn that the real exists by seeing its expression in diverse religions. But what can we say about the real as it exists in itself? As it exists in itself, we can't say anything in human language about it because it is transcategorial, beyond the categories of the human mind. Some would say that's a rationalisation. Because it doesn't exist, you put it in a transcategorial mode, so we're prevented from asking any questions. You put a moat around it so I can't attack it. Well, I can see that point of view, yes. But, you see, I come back always to the starting point of experience, religious experience. If you ignore religious experience, religion can simply consist in human institutions, which are not only human but all too human. John's real is attractive, the benefits of reality beyond the physical, without the costs of religious doctrines oblivious to common sense. And, to keep it safe from hounding critics, John's real is transcategorical, beyond categories. I find myself attracted. The real can be comforting. It's certainly not offensive. But, too easy, too soft? I fear the fool's gold of immersing myself in this mystical real. Perhaps there's a different route to ultimate reality. Not the kinds of stuff of which the world is made, but the reasons or purposes for which the world is made. I go to London to meet atheistic philosopher Julian Baghini. It's no secret that Julian rejects God and dismisses ultimate purpose, wherefore, then, the meaning of life. Julian, what's ultimate reality? What's it all about? When people ask that question, there are two different ways of answering it, standardly. One is to sort of go back and say, well, if you want to know the meaning of life, you look to its cause, you know, what made us. The other way is you say, well, you look to the future. Where's it all going? Where are we going to end up? What's the purpose in the end? And, of course, the two things could be connected, because you might think that if you look to causes, it's a God, for example, and God created us in the past, and we have a future destiny, which is to be reunited with him and so forth. Actually, though, I think that neither of those ways of looking at it really explain this, because I don't think there is a destiny we're heading towards. There isn't an ultimate purpose in the future. And if you look to the past, it's just evolution, big bangs. There's no purpose there. If you want to find meaning, you have to forget past and future. You have to look in the present. It's what makes life worth living now. A lot of people say, well, that ain't enough. You know, I want there to be more. I want there to be something transcendent, something in the future, some destiny. I think we have to accept the fact there's nothing out there. We have to find what makes life living now. For me, that's a cop-out. If that's true, if there's no real... I don't care to make meaning today. It's meaningless. You don't care? Well, I think that's interesting people have that assumption. I don't know why that assumption holds, because certainly there are plenty of people who come to believe that there is no pre-existing meaning who have no problem living their lives from day to day. Oh, I have no problem living my life from day to day. I just don't think if there isn't any overarching purpose that I don't want to artificially create some superficial purpose and try to fool myself into thinking that there's something real today when there isn't. Oh, but I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Create some artificial purpose or meaning or pretend there's something real. There is something real. There's life. There's experience. There's relationships. There's beauty. There's love. There's pleasure. There's pain. There's struggle. That's the only meaning we have. So a lot of people think, that's just so inadequate. But it's because they've kind of become accustomed to the idea there must be something really deep and important. It doesn't matter if it's inadequate. If that's the true answer, then I don't want to fool myself into thinking there's all this wonderful being. Sure, I'll enjoy life. To say that I find meaning in my life is not to claim that it has any enduring value or anything. The meaning I find in my life is something that is going to go with me. There's no significance for me from the point of view of the universe. So as long as you don't imagine that the meaning you find in life, the significance you find in life, is more permanent than it is, there's no problem in accepting that it's sufficient to get by. Look, I've had some atheists talk about some kind of transcendence in order to give people a hope that when they eliminate the religious transcendence, they've still got something left. If by transcendence we mean participating or have a sense of something greater than ourselves, then you can have a sense of transcendence in a secular sense. You can have it through an artistic experience or experience of nature. But I think we have to be honest as atheists and say that this is a lesser transcendence. It's one thing to participate in something which is perhaps a little bit greater than ourselves. It's quite different, though, to feel like participating in the divine and the eternal. So I just think we have to be honest. There are losses if you give up the religious life. There are some kinds of experience of transcendence and so forth which are not accessible to you. That is the price of truth as an atheist would see it. We have to be honest. It is a price. What's ultimate reality? There are really five possibilities. One, the physical universe governed by the laws of physics. Two, an extended physical universe with deep meta-laws, perhaps deeper than we can imagine. Three, information as a foundation of the universe. Four, little consciousness as a basic addition to today's physics. Five, big consciousness, whether the real or something like God as the ultimate ground of being, the cause of all physical reality. To me, the default description of ultimate reality is the physical universe. But is the physical universe, even in its deepest truths, sufficient? The test, I think, is consciousness, not religion. Am I progressing toward ultimate reality? Here's how the philosopher Stephen Law admonished me. It's a myth. You're on a wild goose chase if you're asking for the ultimate, you know, what is ultimate reality. I suspect you need some linguistic therapy. Thanks, Stephen. I know you mean well, and you may well be correct. But I trudge along, striving for ultimate reality. What other way to get closer to truth? For complete interviews and for further information, please visit closertotruth.com