Episode 41
Why Does the World Exist? Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science | Jim Holt
Episode 41
Jim Holt
Why Does the World Exist? Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Science | Jim Holt
summary
Jim Holt is on a quest to understand the fundamental nature and meaning of our universe. What is infinity? Is time real? Why does the world exist? These are the most important questions that humanity has ever pondered. When attempting to answer such large, existential questions, it’s not enough to use observational evidence alone. This is where metaphysics comes in.
Unlike the hard-nosed, falsifiable propositions that form the foundation of empirical science, metaphysics poses questions for which definitive answers are hard to come by. Aristotle famously heralded the field as “the first philosophy,” since it explores those questions which are generally accepted as being the most basic and vital.
In short, this branch of philosophy seeks to explain the nature of being, reality, and the meaning of existence. Since metaphysics is not based on falsifiable propositions, it is is not bounded by the constraints of formal logic or scientific truth. As a result, finding conclusive answers to the perennial questions that it poses may well be impossible.
Still, something about these questions jabs at us. Why? Perhaps it is in our nature to question everything, even those things for which answers do not exist. Or perhaps the act of engaging in ontological arguments is itself the goal. In either case, in our answer-based culture, exploring the philosophy of science and metaphysics is a necessarily humbling experience. It forces us to contend with the mystery of our own existence, and it presses the limits of our explanatory powers.
In his latest book, “When Einstein Walked with Gödel: Excursions to the Edge of Thought,” Jim Holt explores the nature of logic and truth. And in this episode, he joins host Demetri Kofinas for an hour-long conversation on the philosophy of science and metaphysics. Over the course of the discussion, we explore the questions that have concerned philosophers for more than two thousand years — questions that remain unanswered.
Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas
Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou
Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod
bio
Jim Holt is a longtime contributor to the New Yorker, where he has written on string theory, time, infinity, numbers, jokes, logic, truth, and bullshit. He also writes regularly for the New York Times, the New York Review of Books, and the London Review of Books, and he is a former book-columnist for the Wall Street Journal. His latest book, “When Einstein Walked with Gödel: Excursions to the Edge of Thought,” will be published in May 2018 by Farrar Straus Giroux. His 2012 book “Why Does the World Exist?: An Existential Detective Story” was a National Book Critics Circle Award finalist for general nonfiction and was named one of the ten best books of the year by the New York Times Book Review. An international bestseller, “Why Does the World Exist?” has been published worldwide in 18 languages. His 2006 book “Stop Me If You’ve Heard This: A History and Philosophy of Jokes” was published in the U.S. and the United Kingdom, and in French, Italian, and German translation. He is currently at work on a book titled “Living (Theory and Practice),” to be published in the U.S. by Farrar Straus, in the UK by Penguin, and in German by Rowohlt. Holt has taught mathematics at the University of Virginia, philosophy at Columbia University, and economics at the City University of New York. He lives in Greenwich Village.
transcript
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Si enim ad populum me vocas, eum. Atqui iste locus est, Piso, tibi etiam atque etiam confirmandus, inquam; Causa autem fuit huc veniendi ut quosdam hinc libros promerem. Scientiam pollicentur, quam non erat mirum sapientiae cupido patria esse cariorem. Qui ita affectus, beatum esse numquam probabis; Si est nihil nisi corpus, summa erunt illa: valitudo, vacuitas doloris, pulchritudo, cetera.
Qui autem de summo bono dissentit de tota philosophiae ratione dissentit. Inscite autem medicinae et gubernationis ultimum cum ultimo sapientiae comparatur. Si mala non sunt, iacet omnis ratio Peripateticorum. Ita multo sanguine profuso in laetitia et in victoria est mortuus. Dicet pro me ipsa virtus nec dubitabit isti vestro beato M. Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Cur igitur, cum de re conveniat, non malumus usitate loqui? Longum est enim ad omnia respondere, quae a te dicta sunt.
Rapior illuc, revocat autem Antiochus, nec est praeterea, quem audiamus. Piso, familiaris noster, et alia multa et hoc loco Stoicos irridebat: Quid enim? Innumerabilia dici possunt in hanc sententiam, sed non necesse est. Quae cum praeponunt, ut sit aliqua rerum selectio, naturam videntur sequi; Rem unam praeclarissimam omnium maximeque laudandam, penitus viderent, quonam gaudio complerentur, cum tantopere eius adumbrata opinione laetentur? Nonne videmus quanta perturbatio rerum omnium consequatur, quanta confusio? Cur tantas regiones barbarorum pedibus obiit, tot maria transmisit? Fortemne possumus dicere eundem illum Torquatum?
Non semper, inquam; Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed quid sentiat, non videtis. Immo istud quidem, inquam, quo loco quidque, nisi iniquum postulo, arbitratu meo. Quodsi ipsam honestatem undique pertectam atque absolutam. Ea possunt paria non esse.
Full Episode
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Huius, Lyco, oratione locuples, rebus ipsis ielunior. Sin laboramus, quis est, qui alienae modum statuat industriae? Non est ista, inquam, Piso, magna dissensio. Atqui haec patefactio quasi rerum opertarum, cum quid quidque sit aperitur, definitio est. Ita enim vivunt quidam, ut eorum vita refellatur oratio.
Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus? Quae cum essent dicta, finem fecimus et ambulandi et disputandi. Ut pulsi recurrant? Satis est tibi in te, satis in legibus, satis in mediocribus amicitiis praesidii. Sic exclusis sententiis reliquorum cum praeterea nulla esse possit, haec antiquorum valeat necesse est. Scio enim esse quosdam, qui quavis lingua philosophari possint;
Sin aliud quid voles, postea. Ego quoque, inquit, didicerim libentius si quid attuleris, quam te reprehenderim. Quae similitudo in genere etiam humano apparet. Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus? Qui bonum omne in virtute ponit, is potest dicere perfici beatam vitam perfectione virtutis; Sed non alienum est, quo facilius vis verbi intellegatur, rationem huius verbi faciendi Zenonis exponere. Suam denique cuique naturam esse ad vivendum ducem.
Qui ita affectus, beatum esse numquam probabis; Ita similis erit ei finis boni, atque antea fuerat, neque idem tamen; Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Quid ei reliquisti, nisi te, quoquo modo loqueretur, intellegere, quid diceret? Nec lapathi suavitatem acupenseri Galloni Laelius anteponebat, sed suavitatem ipsam neglegebat; Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico.
intelligence report
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quae cum ita sint, effectum est nihil esse malum, quod turpe non sit. Quicquid porro animo cernimus, id omne oritur a sensibus; Proclivi currit oratio. Rhetorice igitur, inquam, nos mavis quam dialectice disputare? Duo Reges: constructio interrete.
Tecum optime, deinde etiam cum mediocri amico. Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Sit ista in Graecorum levitate perversitas, qui maledictis insectantur eos, a quibus de veritate dissentiunt. Verum esto: verbum ipsum voluptatis non habet dignitatem, nec nos fortasse intellegimus. Scrupulum, inquam, abeunti; Sin autem est in ea, quod quidam volunt, nihil impedit hanc nostram comprehensionem summi boni. Fortitudinis quaedam praecepta sunt ac paene leges, quae effeminari virum vetant in dolore. Quid enim me prohiberet Epicureum esse, si probarem, quae ille diceret?
Ac ne plura complectar-sunt enim innumerabilia-, bene laudata virtus voluptatis aditus intercludat necesse est. An hoc usque quaque, aliter in vita? Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Solum praeterea formosum, solum liberum, solum civem, stultost; Ipse Epicurus fortasse redderet, ut Sextus Peducaeus, Sex. Non risu potius quam oratione eiciendum? An est aliquid, quod te sua sponte delectet? Sed tamen est aliquid, quod nobis non liceat, liceat illis.
A primo, ut opinor, animantium ortu petitur origo summi boni. Dici enim nihil potest verius. At hoc in eo M. Idemne, quod iucunde? Ita relinquet duas, de quibus etiam atque etiam consideret. Huius, Lyco, oratione locuples, rebus ipsis ielunior. Facile est hoc cernere in primis puerorum aetatulis. Qua tu etiam inprudens utebare non numquam.
related episodes
Video
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Polemoni et iam ante Aristoteli ea prima visa sunt, quae paulo ante dixi. Tertium autem omnibus aut maximis rebus iis, quae secundum naturam sint, fruentem vivere. Quamvis enim depravatae non sint, pravae tamen esse possunt. Et hercule-fatendum est enim, quod sentio -mirabilis est apud illos contextus rerum.
In quo etsi est magnus, tamen nova pleraque et perpauca de moribus. Sed ad bona praeterita redeamus. Quis autem honesta in familia institutus et educatus ingenue non ipsa turpitudine, etiamsi eum laesura non sit, offenditur? At modo dixeras nihil in istis rebus esse, quod interesset.
Hoc enim identidem dicitis, non intellegere nos quam dicatis voluptatem. Huic mori optimum esse propter desperationem sapientiae, illi propter spem vivere. Nunc haec primum fortasse audientis servire debemus.
Qui-vere falsone, quaerere mittimus-dicitur oculis se privasse; Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Callipho ad virtutem nihil adiunxit nisi voluptatem, Diodorus vacuitatem doloris. Iam id ipsum absurdum, maximum malum neglegi. Intellegi quidem, ut propter aliam quampiam rem, verbi gratia propter voluptatem, nos amemus; Paulum, cum regem Persem captum adduceret, eodem flumine invectio? Haec dicuntur inconstantissime. Quid, quod res alia tota est?