That’s the charmingly grandiose title of a talk I gave at The Amazing Meeting this past July, now available online. I hope that the basic message comes through, although the YouTube comments indicate that the nitpicking has already begun in earnest. There’s a rather lot of material to squeeze into half an hour, so some parts are going to be sketchy.
There are actually three points I try to hit here. The first is that the laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely understood. There is an enormous amount that we don’t know about how the world works, but we actually do know the basic rules underlying atoms and their interactions — enough to rule out telekinesis, life after death, and so on. The second point is that those laws are dysteleological — they describe a universe without intrinsic meaning or purpose, just one that moves from moment to moment.
The third point — the important one, and the most subtle — is that the absence of meaning “out there in the universe” does not mean that people can’t live meaningful lives. Far from it. It simply means that whatever meaning our lives might have must be created by us, not given to us by the natural or supernatural world. There is one world that exists, but many ways to talk about; many stories we can imagine telling about that world and our place within it, without succumbing to the temptation to ignore the laws of nature. That’s the hard part of living life in a natural world, and we need to summon the courage to face up to the challenge.
Or at least, so you will hear me opine if you click on the link. Curious as to what people think.
Good job, Sean.
We need more people driving these points home. I am not sure why so many people take issue with them. It seems to me that people who believe in telekinesis, for example, must be identifying with that belief for reasons that have nothing to do with what they think about the physical world. The Maharishi “flyers” who bounce around in the lotus position and claim that they are somehow experiencing “human levitation” are a perfect example of this. For them, the “meaning” they create is wholly detached from the fact that they are launching themselves on parabolic trajectories in a gravitational field. I find this kind of spiritualism to be fatuous indeed, but if it is our place to create our own meaning, who are we to say that it is irresponsible to create a meaning that is so profoundly opposed physical reality.
In other words, what do you tell the passionate believer who creates their own meaning on the basis of myth and lies?
I think the first point is important too. I don’t believe the amount of time and money wasted on e.g. pseudoscientific parapsychology ideas (and cargo cult experimental ‘tests’ of them) is either very much or intrinsically very harmful, but I think the situation in medicine and medical science is more worrying.
Sean, that was a truly fantastic lecture. One of the reasons I’ve come to love physics (as a non-scientist) is that these concepts always seemed logical to me, but I had no way to explain them in an objective, evidentiary manner without learning about particle physics and relative size, etc. Philosophy alone simply didn’t cut it. It’s you, and people like you, who have given me the joy of understanding (some small part of) what we know, and what meaning we choose to give it. Thank you.
A foundational idea in Existentialism is “existence preceeds essence”- that is, there is no supernatural framework that gives our lives meaning. From that perspective, our lives gain meaning only though the decisions (the good, the bad, and the roads not taken) we make.
Carol– thanks! Glad you enjoyed it.
Sean your lectures are absolutely great. I don’t understand physics particularly well, but I do enjoy your lectures.
I was just rereading Bertrand Russell’s, “A Free Man’s Workshop” on this very topic. We know quite a bit more physics since it was written, but the argument is still a good one.
Thanks, Sean – I can’t wait to check out the lecture when I get home.
Well, the first point is wrong (speaking with the my professional particle theorist head on).
For it to be correct, we would have to know and understand physics in the infrared. We don’t.
We don’t understand the properties of neutrons (particularly, why they have no electric dipole moment). The best solution is an *infrared* modification of the Standard Model, via the axion.
We don’t understand the properties of the vacuum, and the energy associated to it, and we don’t know whether the unknown solution to this problem – which is a problem defined at energy scales much smaller than those of the hydrogenic atom – could play around with any other aspects of infrared physics.
What we understand extremely well is the behaviour of small numbers of particle or quasiparticles. Life involves O(10^23) particles, and we don’t have great sensitivity to any small modification of quantum mechanics or the Standard Model that is enhanced by a number of species factor.
More importantly, we have an experiental datum (`consciousness’) that doesn’t look like anything that is in the fundamental equations. Furthermore, unlike something like turbulence it looks really different in kind to what is in the laws of physics. One can yadda yadda about neuronal epiphenomena, but this is just an attempt to define away the problem: consciousness reduces to the known laws of physics, because everything reduces to the laws of physics, because even consciousness reduces to the known laws of physics, because everything reduces to the known laws of physics!
The second point is also wrong, because its very easy to frame the deep, purposeful teleological aim of the laws of physics as the universe striving continually and constantly to minimise its action.
The third point: well, it relies on the first two.
i’ve argued about point 1 before, i predict the
response: redefine the terms so that it fits these answers.
ie everyday life becomes non scientists, despite the fact that
even non scientists use technology based on edge knowledge
piscator, if English is your first language, then I’m inclined to believe that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
You can tell that “piscater” is a professional
Is physics as it is practiced capable of uncovering a teleological law????
@piscator,
“We don’t understand the properties of the vacuum, and the energy associated to it”
See my answer to that at comment 39 in the previous post of Sean’s. It stymies and confuses me how professionals in physics say we don’t know something when what they are really saying is “I refuse to admit new information because it will lead to conclusions that will go against what I was taught.” Sure, every little thing is not close to being known about the vacuum energy. But the broad outlines of how it works and how it changes energy levels over time is now understood. The real problem is that it simply repudiates what many particle physicists have been saying for years. Get with it!
One cannot know what was before the universe began, by extrapolating from its present condition, nor what will happen when it has ended. Sean is completely wrong when he talks about the moral life, he does not know good from evil, because in his view evil has the same rights as good. If rape in my view is a good, than it is so, because I have the right to choose my own morality.
I think it is hilarious how we try to delude ourselves that life can have any sense of meaning. It takes a certain detached framed of mind to think life is meaningful because it isn’t. Atheists are right about the facts, but no amount of philosophical hand waving can change the fact that it is all utterly meaningless, we cannot inject meaning to our lives any more we can cure cancer by thinking happy thoughts. We can certainly delude ourselves, but the meaning delusion is not different from the god delusion, they are just happy lies we tell ourselves to protect us from the pointlessly of it all. Scientists, please stop trying to inject cheerfulness into existence, you only preach to the choir and look ridiculous in the process.
Wow, science cannot prove or imagine what God is or could be made of therefore there is no God. I can tell you what a world without God would be like, try Germany with Hitler with nothing to stop it, no moral authority anywhere that says no you cannot kill wantonly, by the way I had a grandmother who was Jewish, and I with a disability as well, so if I had been there I would have been on a freight train. Simply human suffering without reason, the strong over the weak, raw nature, the law of the wild, without end.
With regard to point #2, the apparent dysteleology of the universe, if instead of teleology as commonly interpreted as planned or intentional purposefulness, we instead view it in terms of teleonomy which preserves aspects of goal-directedness in nature without recourse to intelligent design, why couldn’t this view be plausible? Of course there are purely contingent facts based on the particular history of the evolution of the universe and life on this planet, but it can be argued that the way the physical laws play out overall, if rerun over and over again, would indeed create complex life and intelligent societies given enough time and chance (the reverse of Stephen J. Gould’s assumption). Wouldn’t this perspective, though still remaining secular and naturalistic, support the argument that there is purpose in the universe, to produce complexity in the form of life and consciousness (at least so far, with further future emergent states remaining unpredictable)? I’m not claiming any special status for humans or individuals, the universe still seems indifferent to each of us, but I can’t help but see an overall pattern to the way the universe unfolds. Is this such a wrong-headed point of view?
Sean is an impressive speaker, which I do admire, it’s good to have well-trained physicists who can do this (I couldn’t)
However at least 50% of the stuff he says I don’t agree with, and in fact I’m pretty sure is wrong.
Previous posts make it obvious where I disagree, but the fact that I don’t believe in determinism and am agnostic wrt god doesn’t mean I wouldn’t reach similar conclusions to him regarding same sex marriages (for example) However, for balance, and to make it really clear what he’s saying, Sean should also apply his argument to 40-year old man in love with 15-year old girl and explain how that situation is different. (I’d just argue that situations which don’t help society function well over-all should be prevented if possible)
I’m afraid that Tom Campbell, Bernard Haisch, Brian Greene, Dean Radin, Bohm, Wheeler, and Einstein all disagree with you. Physics can only describe gross realm phenomenon and nothing of subtle realm modalities. It can’t. It is of a more intuitive logic that “reads” the subtle realm communications. However, physics does, very well, describe how gross realm modalities behave.
Tony at 16. I think you are making a mistake. I agree with you on the implications of a purely materialistic universe; however, truth is not contingent to meaning. I am sure that the experience of the holocaust was too horrible to contemplate, but that didn’t stop it for been true. Yes, a purely materialistic universe, reducible to nothing but its constituents particles does present a bleak and meaningless picture, but it is the truth nonetheless. My problem is the complete inability, and unwillingness, of the modern atheist to concede that point. They still persist that everything can be wonderful and happy if we just entertain the right thoughts. They deny the very probability of an existential crisis on a social scale. They may even attribute said sentiments to medical depression, rather than the nihilism intrinsic in their world view.
The idea of us giving meaning to our own existence is as stupid as it is counterproductive. It is hard to comprehend how people so well versed in the patterns of the universe are at the same time so clueless about the human psyche.
Sean
Another excellent lecture from you. There are many good points made. I especially like the part where you said our meaningful lives have to be created by us, and not given to us by some supernatural power. Life is itself an accident and has no real meaning, but we can still live a meaningful life and we have to make it for ourselves. Very well done, Sean. As you know, there is no way to please the whole world no matter how excellent your presentation was. There are always comments and disagreements, but I know you don’t take them too personal, for you are a professional presenter. I posted the lecture on my FB.
David Lau
POINT #1 MR. CARROLL! YOU DID NOT OVERCOME THE FORCE OF GRAVITY! Henceforth hitherto tallyho, you were in fact pulled back down to earth. You only beat gravity for a very short moment in time, but it caught up, like a panther in the night!
POINT #2! I agree with your thoughts on fields.
Point #3! (insert argument over the fine structure constant)
Sean,
at 10:00 there is a slide with two Feynman diagrams — the bottom diagram is incorrect. You might want to get the arrows right, at least on the proton side. It’s a minor point, but it is not very good advertisement to have something so obviously wrong about the physics in the presentation.
About the talk itself — I agree on some points, mildly disagree on the others, but the morality part is where I feel I need to comment. Simply put, it’s not just our own choices that make up moral laws. Biologically speaking, a human lives (or used to live) in a harsh and unfriendly environment, and evolution taught him some morality, with the purpose of self-preservation in the wilderness. The purpose of morality is not to uphold some arbitrary set of self-imposed rules, but to help humans survive as a group.
If you argue that basic laws of physics are all there is to define our world, I can use the very same argument to conclude that those laws of physics induce the laws of morality (in a complicated way, but still…). For example, I can argue that same-sex marriage provides the society with a family having a dysfunctional procreation ability, which is not favored by evolution, and can be ultimately a waste of resources for the local society (think cavemen at the brink of extinction), since there will be fewer young people in 50 years time. This is dictated by biology, which is ultimately a consequence of the laws of physics. A similar example is incest, which provides the society with offspring of problematic health. Yet another example is a “Thou shalt not kill”. And so on… A lot of these “traditional morality” rules have their origin in the optimal behavior of a self-preserving prehistoric society (societies behaving differently can not survive for too long). So a lot of that stuff is being imposed on the human culture by the harsh environment, i.e. ultimately the basic laws of physics.
Of course, you could argue that same-sex marriages are ok today, since there is no danger of extinction, the world is overpopulated anyway. In the same sense, I could then argue that randomly killing other people can be considered ok as well.
My point is that relativization of morality can be abused very easily. Claiming that there is no morality besides what we make up for ourselves (aside from being false) is short-sighted, and can likely lead to self-destruction of the society that thinks in such a way. You don’t have to accept that morality was given to us by God or otherwise, probably most of it was likely self-taught through evolutionary mechanisms. But it is plain wrong to say that morality is purely a human construct and that it has no basis in objective reality of our environment. And since the environment is defined by the laws of physics, morality is somehow encoded in there. My suggestion is to better think of morality as an emergent property of laws of physics. 😉 At least some of it.
Best, 🙂
Marko
Hi, I’m glad you gave an interesting lecture, but I’m unhappy with its “purpose.” (that was a joke…your lecture is partially about purpose in life and so…it’s a pun, sort of) It seems to serve as a sword stabbing everything that conflicts with science–and then talking about a world without purpose.
I disagree with your first point. I have read about widely supported evidence of phenomena that violate the laws of physics (yes, I’m rational and yes, I carefully sifted through all the BS and non-reproduceable experiments) and I know you would too if you searched more carefully. Skeptics are in for a big surprise in the coming years, but until this evidence is widely known, well, we will just have to wait.
Your second point doesn’t make sense to me, but honestly, I didn’t watch the video. Isn’t moving from “moment to moment” a purpose? What defines purpose? Religion? Be specific.
Your third point seems to be a logical fallacy. If there is no purpose in the world, then how can one live a meaningful life, when meaning itself implies that something, whether in your life or the world, has value? You know what, it’s probably best to ignore this, because I didn’t watch the lecture. I’m sure you explained this question sufficiently.
In conclusion, I’m not a religious zealot attempting to burn the house of science. That’s a darn good house. I’m only asking questions, presenting arguments and trying to be honest, as all scientists do, about the points you seem to hold on so tightly to.
“The second point is that those laws are dysteleological — they describe a universe without intrinsic meaning or purpose, just one that moves from moment to moment.”
I don’t see the logical connection here. Why can a universe “that moves from moment to moment” not have intrinsic meaning or purpose ?
In fact, if we buy this bit of non-argument, then as parts of the universe, we humans also “just move from moment to moment” and hence have no intrinsic meaning or purpose.
In addition, the last bit about “trying to create meaning for ourselves” also falls flat because any purpose or meaning you try to “create” is actually pre-determined by the laws which move you from moment to moment.
It all seems like a very desperate attempt to have your (nonexistent) cake and eat it too.