All Episodes
Previous Next
July 24, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
06:30
On the Existence of the Universe...
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, with regards to the question of the existence of the universe, that which exists and that which doesn't, you have a realm, and I'm trying to speak for you, so correct me if I go astray.
You have a realm which we know exists because it impacts upon our sense data.
It's consistent, it's objective, it's rational.
You know, I look at a tree, you look at a tree, we say, hey, that's a tree.
We climb the tree, we cut it down for firewood, we make little swords out of its limbs and go play fencing games in the backyard.
So that is existence in that it impacts consistently on all evidence of the senses.
It exists independently of our consciousness.
We can't will it to be something different.
So that is existence in the material sense that it is objective, accords with the evidence of the senses, is not contradictory, and is consistent, which is how we know that waking life is real and a dream is not, right?
Because dreams are inconsistent and subjective.
And of course, if we film ourself, you know, we have a dream that we're riding on the back of an elephant over a lava forest, you know, we're actually in bed asleep.
We can sort of film that and view it the next day.
So we know that that's a subjective experience and also it's self-contradictory and so on.
It comes and goes and there's no causality.
You jump from one thing to the next, from one place to the next with no transition or no movement between.
So if we have something that's consistent with the evidence of the senses and is objective and we share it and so on and it's not self-contradictory, then we can say that that exists in the material sense.
Do we sort of agree on that?
Oh, yeah, for sure.
100%.
So when you say something exists outside the universe, that is in contradiction to that which exists within the universe, because if it existed within the universe, we would have some evidence of it, right?
Yes.
Yes.
Go ahead.
So the point I am making is that what we say to exist as a contradiction in the universe, I am trying to more fully define.
Like, what does it mean to be to have a contradiction in the universe?
So let's talk about a contradiction in the universe, which would be a square circle.
That's a contradictory property, right?
Something can't be both a square and a circle, no matter how much my daughter used to try and draw one to disprove me.
So a square circle is a contradiction in terms.
We agree on that, right?
Yes, yeah.
Okay.
Yes.
I guess, yeah.
And I don't need to argue what I'm going to argue anyway.
Okay.
So if a square circle is a contradiction in terms, then we do not need to scour the universe from top to bottom and back to end to find out if there's a square circle.
We don't need to look under the couch.
We don't need to look in the attic, right?
There is no such thing as a square circle by definition because it's a self-contradictory entity.
We agreed on that?
Yes, yeah.
Okay.
So logic.
Sorry.
No, go ahead, please.
I don't want this to be a monster.
If you've got a really good objection, please tell me.
Yeah, the distinction that I suppose I'm making is that in certain systems of logic, there is the concept of computability, sort of that you have to go along some procedure in order to determine the truth at the end.
And I was making a comparison, I guess, at the start to the way in which people conceptualize quantum physics, which is that things can be in two states.
They can either be in two states.
And so that my point being that if you agree, I don't know.
Sorry, I'm jumping way ahead.
I'll try to get back in track to the point you were making about square circles and contradictions existing.
So just infra for a moment, because quantum physics is to some degree the new mysticism wherein people put things that are not empirical.
That's not how quantum physics works.
Quantum physics, certainly you have things that look pretty freaky down at the subatomic level, and that's partly because of measurement issues and so on.
Like you can know the position, but not the direction of the electron, because the moment you try and measure it, you change it.
So there's a lot of freaky stuff that's going on down there.
However, all of that resolves to perfect consistency by the time you scale up to anything that our senses can detect, right?
So when logic comes from the consistent objective and rational behavior of matter and energy.
In other words, if matter did not behave in a perfectly consistent way, a perfectly consistent way.
I mean, you never let go of a ball and it floats for no reason or goes up or goes up for a split second and then goes down.
The behavior of matter is perfectly consistent and not self-contradictory.
And that's where we get logic from.
Or to put it another way, if matter did not behave in a perfectly consistent way, we never would have had the stability necessary to develop over 4 billion years the human brain.
The human brain is sort of the tip of the iceberg of the absolute consistency of matter.
Sorry, go ahead.
Yeah, I suppose the thing that eats away at me for a definition like that is it seems somewhat disallowing of there being a contradiction in the so that I would argue like if it is sort of this practical definition of truth in which we are sort of evolved and our sense of truth arises out of what is practical and
the logic we deduce.
Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by practical.
Sorry, sorry.
Practical meaning distinct from so objective, subjective, I should say.
Empirical and objective.
Practical, you could say animals that don't correctly process reality don't survive, but I'm not sure.
I'm not sure we want to bring evolution in at this point.
So I'm just trying to understand.
Yeah, you're just being objective and empirical?
Yes, I do mean objective and empirical.
And again, none of this is an opposition.
I just want to understand your thinking.
Sure.
So that you can have an empirical definition of truth, which is distinct from the objective definition of truth.
And that in a system of empirical truth, it disallows objective truth.
It does, or rather.
Hang on.
What's the difference between empirical and objective?
▲
Export Selection