中英文稿

宇宙為何會存在？?為什么有宇宙？——好吧，好吧。（笑聲）?這是個宇宙的謎題，所以請嚴肅些。?為何會存在世界，為何我們會在這個世界里，?為什么有物存在，而不是一切皆空？?要我說，這是最終極的“為何”。

我會談一談“存在”的奧秘?和“存在”的困惑所在，?我們在這個問題上進展到什么程度，?以及你們?yōu)楹我诤踹@些，?我希望你們確實是在乎的。?哲學(xué)家阿瑟?叔本華曾說，?那些不關(guān)心自身存在的偶然性、?以及這個世界存在的偶然性的人，?是心智不健全的。?聽起來有些刺耳，但這是事實。（笑聲）?因此，這個謎題被稱為是最崇高、?最令人敬畏、?最深刻的，也是人們可以提出的最深遠?的問題。?它吸引了很多偉大的思想家。?路德維希?維特根斯坦，也許是?二十世紀最偉大的哲學(xué)家，?震驚于“世界竟然會存在”這個最基本的問題。?他在《邏輯哲學(xué)論》第4章66節(jié)中寫到：?“神秘的不是世界上?物質(zhì)的存在，?而是這個世界本身?！?如果你不喜歡聽哲學(xué)家的言論，?那我舉一個科學(xué)家的例子吧。?約翰?阿奇博爾德?惠勒，二十世紀?最杰出的物理學(xué)家之一，?也是理查德?費曼的老師，?“黑洞”一詞的創(chuàng)作者，?他說：“我想知道?量子從何而來，?宇宙從何而來，一切的存在從何而來？”?我的朋友馬丁?艾米斯——?請原諒我會一直列舉很多人名，?所以，盡快習(xí)慣吧——?我的好朋友馬丁?艾米斯曾說，?要回答宇宙從何而來這個問題，?我們還需要五個愛因斯坦的智慧。?我確信今晚這兒的觀眾里?有五位愛因斯坦，?有嗎？是的請舉手？沒有？沒有？沒有？?沒有愛因斯坦？好吧。

所以，為何有物存在，而不是一切皆空，?這個崇高的問題，在人類思想史相對?后期才被提出來，?是在十七世紀末，?由哲學(xué)家萊布尼茲提出，?萊布尼茲是個聰明絕頂?shù)募一铮?跟艾薩克?牛頓?幾乎在同一時期獨立地創(chuàng)造微積分。?但對于萊布尼茲， “為何有物存在，而不是一切皆空”的問題，?他不感覺有多神秘。?在形而上的外衣下，他要么真的是，?要么假裝是正統(tǒng)的基督教徒，?聲稱世界存在的理由再明顯不過：?造物主創(chuàng)造了世界。?沒錯，造物主從無到有地創(chuàng)造了世界。?造物主就是這么強大。?它不需要任何基礎(chǔ)，憑空就能創(chuàng)造世界。?它能從無到有地開天辟地，?所謂“創(chuàng)世論”。?順便說一下，?這正是今天大部分美國人相信的。?對于他們而言，“存在”沒有奧妙可言。?造物主造出來的。

我們把它表達成等式，?我沒有任何演示文稿， 所以我會模擬地演示一下。?開動你們的想象力。?造物主+空=世界?沒問題吧？這就是剛才提到的等式。?也許你不信造物主，?也許你是個信奉科學(xué)的無神論者，?或是個不信奉科學(xué)的無神論者， 你就不信造物主，?你就不能接受那個等式了。?順便提一下，即便等式成立，?造物主+空=世界，?這本身就有問題：?為何造物主會存在？?造物主不能只存在于邏輯中，?除非你相信本體論。?我希望你不要信， 因為本體論不是很嚴謹。?設(shè)想一下，如果造物主存在，?它會想，我是永恒的，我是無所不能的，?但我從何而來呢？?（笑聲）?吾源自何處？?如果造物主說更正式些的英語。?（笑聲）?有種理論說造物主考慮自身存在的問題，?考慮地實在太無聊了，?就創(chuàng)造了世界來分散注意力。?無論如何，我們先不談造物主。?把造物主從這個等式中拿走，就是?________ + 空=世界?如果你是個佛教徒，?你會覺得等式已經(jīng)成立了，?因為等式是：?空=世界，?等式左右互換，?世界=空。對吧？?對于佛教徒而言， 空即是色，色即是空。?萬物皆空。?如果我們覺得世間有物，?那是我們被欲望困住了，?放空欲望，?我們就會看到世界的本真，?空無一物，?這樣我們就能到達涅磐的境界，?涅磐的意思是?看透生死，通往極樂。（笑）

以上就是佛教的思想。?我是西方人，所以我仍然關(guān)心?“存在”的謎題，所以?________ + —?接下來我們要嚴肅一些了，?________ + 空= 世界?空白處該填些什么呢？?“科學(xué)”怎么樣？?科學(xué)最適合用來解讀現(xiàn)實的本質(zhì)，?最基礎(chǔ)的科學(xué)是物理學(xué)。?物理學(xué)會告訴我們事實到底是什么，?即我所謂的“TAUFOTU”?“宇宙的真實而根本的解釋”。?所以，物理學(xué)或許能填入上述等式的空白，?事實上，自從上世紀六十年代末七十年代初，?物理學(xué)家們聲稱，?已能夠用純科學(xué)的理論?來解釋像我們這樣的宇宙的起源，?如何從無到有地產(chǎn)生，?即量子波動，源于空。?斯蒂芬?霍金就是這些物理學(xué)家之一，?還有最近的亞歷克斯?維蘭金，?這整套理論由勞倫斯?克勞斯發(fā)揚廣大，?他是另一位很有名的物理學(xué)家，也是我的朋友，?他寫過一本書，叫?《無中生有的宇宙》?勞倫斯認為——?他自己是激進的無神論者，順便說一下，?因而他不將造物主列入考慮范圍。?量子場論，?這個最頂尖的物理學(xué)理論，?可以揭示在空無一物、?沒有空間、時間、物質(zhì)，什么都沒有的情況下，?微小的假真空是如何?波動形成物質(zhì)，?然后，通過宇宙大爆炸，?不斷膨脹，成為我們看到的巨大而斑斕的?宇宙。

這真是一個天才的理論，?讓人眼前一亮，心馳神往。?但我對其有個巨大的疑問，?問題是這樣的：?這是一個偽宗教主義的看法。?勞倫斯認為他是個無神論者，?但他還是被宗教主義的觀點束縛著。?他將物理定律看作神的旨意。?量子場論對他而言就如同?圣經(jīng)里那句“要有光”。?量子場論具有某種本體論的性質(zhì)，?它揭示物質(zhì)可以?從無到有地產(chǎn)生。?這些理論可以說世界從無到有，?但這和對物理定律的?最基本的認識是矛盾的，不是嗎？?我們知道，物理定律事實上?是對世界上物體形態(tài)與規(guī)則?的基本描述，?物理定律在世界之外不存在。?它們沒有本體性質(zhì)。?它們不能讓世界?從無到有地產(chǎn)生。?這是對科學(xué)法則的?最基礎(chǔ)的認識。?如果你不相信，?聽聽斯蒂芬?霍金怎么說的吧，?霍金自己創(chuàng)造了一個能自圓其說的?宇宙模型，?它不需要任何外界的因素。?在公布這個模型后，?霍金承認他自己仍然很困惑。?他說，這個模型只是些等式。?是什么激活了這個等式，?創(chuàng)造了這個由等式描述的世界？?對此他很困惑，?等式自身不能產(chǎn)生這樣的魔力，?不能解決“存在”的謎題。?另外，即便物理學(xué)定律能解釋，?為什么是這一套定律？?為什么是以一定數(shù)量的?力和粒子等等來描繪宇宙的?量子場理論？?為什么不是一套完全不同的定律？?這些定律包含那么多完整的數(shù)學(xué)公式，?為什么不能根本沒有定律？為什么不是空無一物？

這個問題，信不信，?讓很多物理學(xué)家冥思苦想，?現(xiàn)在他們傾向于形而上的思想，?那么，也許是這一套定律?解釋了宇宙，?但它只是眾多套定律之一，?它只解釋了部分現(xiàn)實，?但也許每一套完整的定律?都可以解釋另一部分現(xiàn)實。?事實上所有可能的現(xiàn)實世界?都存在，它們都在那。?我們只是看到了非常小的一部分現(xiàn)實，?這部分現(xiàn)實是由量子場理論描述的。?但有很多很多其他的世界?和其他部分的現(xiàn)實，是由?無數(shù)的不同的理論描述的，?這些理論跟我們的世界里的理論不同，?無法想象，無法理解。?史蒂文?溫伯格，?粒子物理學(xué)的標準模型提出者，?以自娛自樂的態(tài)度看待這個問題，?他說所有可能的現(xiàn)實都存在。?另外，一個更年輕的物理學(xué)家，馬克斯?泰格馬克，?相信所有的數(shù)學(xué)理論架構(gòu)都存在，?數(shù)學(xué)的存在跟物理的存在?是一回事，?因此，那么多多元宇宙的存在?包含了所有邏輯可能性。

現(xiàn)在，暫不考慮形而上的哲學(xué)，?有些物理學(xué)家和哲學(xué)家?的思想在靠近古老的?柏拉圖的思想，?這就是“豐饒原則”，?或稱“存在之鏈”，?即有“無限可能”的現(xiàn)實。?這是“空無一物”的?絕對對立面。

現(xiàn)在就有兩個極端了。?一邊是絕對的“空”；?而另一個極端認為世界的實相?包含每一種可能的世界：?“無限可能”的現(xiàn)實，?對應(yīng)“空無一物”，“最簡可能”的現(xiàn)實。?那這兩個極端之間是什么呢？?這之間有無數(shù)現(xiàn)實，?它們包含某些可能，又不完全。?這之間的現(xiàn)實中，有一個?從數(shù)學(xué)的角度來看是最優(yōu)雅的，?不含不和諧的曲調(diào)、?不完美的對稱等。?有些物理學(xué)家會告訴你，?事實上我們正生活在最優(yōu)雅的這個現(xiàn)實中。?我想布賴恩?格林就在觀眾席里，?他寫的書叫《宇宙的琴弦》，?他說我們的宇宙在數(shù)學(xué)的角度上是?非常優(yōu)雅的。?不要信他。（笑聲）?這是個不切實際的希望，我倒希望他說的是真的，?我想，那天他向我承認過，?這個宇宙實際上是丑陋的，?有著拙劣的架構(gòu)，?有太多隨意的耦合常數(shù)、?質(zhì)量比，?以及多余的基本粒子族，?還有見鬼的暗能量到底是什么？?這個宇宙是個“泡泡糖裝置”，?不是一個優(yōu)雅的宇宙。（笑聲）?從倫理學(xué)層面看，所有可能存在的世界中，?存在最完美的。?你們要嚴肅一些了，?在那個世界里，眾生不會?無緣由地受苦受難，?沒有像?兒童癌癥、大屠殺一類的事情。?這是在倫理學(xué)層面上看。?總之，在“空無一物”與?“無限可能”的現(xiàn)實之間，?存在不同的、特殊的現(xiàn)實。?“空無一物”是特殊的，是最簡單的。?最優(yōu)雅的那個現(xiàn)實，?同樣是特殊的。?“無限可能”的現(xiàn)實，也是特殊的。

還有什么呢？?也有一些微不足道的、?一般的現(xiàn)實，?沒有任何特殊之處，?只是一些隨機的組合。?它們絕非“空無一物”，?但也遠遠不是“無限可能”，?它們是混沌和秩序的結(jié)合，?數(shù)學(xué)角度來看，是優(yōu)雅和丑陋的結(jié)合。?因此我會將它們描述為?無限而平凡的、不完整的混沌，?一種一般的現(xiàn)實，一種“廢物”宇宙。?這些現(xiàn)實，?這所有的現(xiàn)實中，哪一個有神的概念？?也許有，但這個神不像?猶太和基督教的神那么完美。?這個神不善良，不無所不能。?它或許徹頭徹尾地邪惡，?但最多發(fā)揮80%的能力，?我想這就描繪了我們眼前的世界。（笑聲）?因此，我想提出這樣一個看法，?“存在”謎題的答案是：?我們所在的這個世界?是這些一般的現(xiàn)實之一。?現(xiàn)實總會以某種方式顯現(xiàn)，?或是“空無一物”，?或是“無限可能”，或是介于兩者之間。?所以，如果它有某種特質(zhì)，?像完美無缺、“無限可能”，?或絕對的簡單、“空無一物”，?就需要一個解釋。?但如果它只是隨機的、一般的現(xiàn)實之一，?就不需要任何的解釋了。?說實在的，我認為?這正是我們眼前的世界，?這正是科學(xué)所解釋的世界。?這周初，?我們獲悉了一則令人激動的消息，?宇宙膨脹理論，這個理論設(shè)想了廣袤的、?無限的、混沌的、任意的、空洞的現(xiàn)實，?它假想宇宙像充滿泡沫的香檳?永不停歇地從瓶口洶涌而出，?廣袤無垠，如荒地般，?不那么優(yōu)雅，缺少秩序和寧靜。?這個宇宙膨脹理論，?通過位于南極洲的電波望遠鏡?的觀測結(jié)果被證實，?這個電波望遠鏡觀測了宇宙大爆炸前的?引力波的痕跡。?我相信你們都知道這個消息了。?總之我想，已有證據(jù)證明，?這個現(xiàn)實正是我們所生活的世界。

那么，你為什么要在乎？?好吧 —（笑聲）—?“世界為何會存在”這個問題，?是個宇宙層面的問題，它微妙地聯(lián)系著?一個更私人的問題：?我為何會存在？你為何會存在？?你懂的，我們看起來 都是以極低的概率來到這個世界，?因為基因組合可形成的人有無數(shù)多種，?如果你以基因的數(shù)量?和等位基因的數(shù)量來計算，?很快就可以算出，?大概有10的10000次方?個可能的人。?介于googol與googolplex之間。 （譯者注：這兩個數(shù)分別是10的100次方，和10的googol次方）?而來到過這個地球上的人，?實際上有1000億，或是500億，?是個無窮小的比例，所以，我們?所有的人都贏得了這個神奇的“彩票”，?來到了這個世界。

那么，我們想生活在哪一種現(xiàn)實中呢？?我們想不想生活在一種特殊的現(xiàn)實中？?如果我們生活在最優(yōu)雅的現(xiàn)實中怎么樣？?設(shè)想這個假定存在的壓力?施加在我們身上，要優(yōu)雅，?不要做不優(yōu)雅的事情。?或者，如果我們生活在有 “無限可能”的現(xiàn)實中呢？?那么我們的生存就有保障了，?因為所有可能的事情?都存在，?但我們的選擇就變得沒有意義。?如果我千辛萬苦地維持正派，?并下決心做正確的事，?但這么做又會有什么不同呢？?因為有?無數(shù)個我，?都在做正確的事情，?也有無數(shù)個我在做錯誤的事情。?因此我的選擇就沒意義了。?所以，我們并不想生活在那種特殊的現(xiàn)實中。?如果是在“空無一物”的現(xiàn)實中，?我們不會在這里彼此交流。?所以我想，生活在一個平凡的現(xiàn)實中，?這個現(xiàn)實中優(yōu)雅和丑陋的事實并存，?我們能讓優(yōu)雅的事實變多，?讓丑陋的事實變少，?這會帶給我們一種人生的意義。?在這個“荒謬”的宇宙中，?我們?nèi)匀豢梢詫ふ业饺松囊饬x，?還是個相當好的意義。?現(xiàn)實的平凡?與我們內(nèi)心深處體會到平凡?和諧地“共鳴”，?我知道你們能感受到。?我知道你們都是獨特的，?但你們終究是某種“不為人知”的平凡，?不是嗎？?（笑聲）（掌聲）

總之，或許你會說， 這個謎題，這個“存在”的謎題，?是個愚蠢的故作玄虛的問題。?你不因宇宙的存在感到驚訝，?你覺得“歲月靜好”。?伯特蘭?羅素說：?“要我說，宇宙就是那樣，沒別的了?！?這是個殘酷的現(xiàn)實。?我的哥倫比亞大學(xué)的教授，西德尼?摩根貝沙，?一位偉大又幽默的哲學(xué)家，?我問他：“摩根貝沙教授，?為什么有物存在，而不是一切皆空？”?他回答說：”哦，即便是一切皆空，?你還是不會滿意。“

所以—（笑聲）—好吧。?所以，如果你不驚訝（于宇宙的存在）， 我也不在乎。?但我即將要做的結(jié)論，?保證會讓你驚訝，?因為它曾讓我在TED大會上遇到的?所有聰明的、不可思議的人驚訝，?那就是：?我這一生中從沒用過手機。?謝謝。?（笑聲）（掌聲）

?

?

?

?

?

Why does the universe exist??Why is there — Okay. Okay. (Laughter)?This is a cosmic mystery. Be solemn.?Why is there a world, why are we in it,?and why is there something rather than nothing at all??I mean, this is the super ultimate "why" question?

So I'm going to talk about the mystery of existence,?the puzzle of existence,?where we are now in addressing it,?and why you should care,?and I hope you do care.?The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said that?those who don't wonder about the contingency of their existence,?of the contingency of the world's existence,?are mentally deficient.?That's a little harsh, but still. (Laughter)?So this has been called the most sublime?and awesome mystery,?the deepest and most far-reaching question?man can pose.?It's obsessed great thinkers.?Ludwig Wittgenstein, perhaps the greatest?philosopher of the 20th century,?was astonished that there should be a world at all.?He wrote in his "Tractatus," Proposition 4.66,?"It is not how things are in the world?that is the mystical,?it's that the world exists."?And if you don't like taking your epigrams?from a philosopher, try a scientist.?John Archibald Wheeler, one of the great physicists?of the 20th century,?the teacher of Richard Feynman,?the coiner of the term "black hole,"?he said, "I want to know?how come the quantum,?how come the universe, how come existence?"?And my friend Martin Amis —?sorry that I'll be doing a lot of name-dropping in this talk,?so get used to it —?my dear friend Martin Amis once said?that we're about five Einsteins away from answering?the mystery of where the universe came from.?And I've no doubt there are five Einsteins?in the audience tonight.?Any Einsteins? Show of hands? No? No? No??No Einsteins? Okay.

So this question, why is there something rather than nothing,?this sublime question, was posed rather late?in intellectual history.?It was towards the end of the 17th century,?the philosopher Leibniz who asked it,?a very smart guy, Leibniz,?who invented the calculus?independently of Isaac Newton, at about the same time,?but for Leibniz, who asked why is there something rather than nothing,?this was not a great mystery.?He either was or pretended to be?an Orthodox Christian in his metaphysical outlook,?and he said it's obvious why the world exists:?because God created it.?And God created, indeed, out of nothing at all.?That's how powerful God is.?He doesn't need any preexisting materials to fashion a world out of.?He can make it out of sheer nothingness,?creation ex nihilo.?And by the way, this is what?most Americans today believe.?There is no mystery of existence for them.?God made it.

So let's put this in an equation.?I don't have any slides so I'm going to mime my visuals,?so use your imaginations.?So it's God + nothing = the world.?Okay? Now that's the equation.?And so maybe you don't believe in God.?Maybe you're a scientific atheist?or an unscientific atheist, and you don't believe in God,?and you're not happy with it.?By the way, even if we have this equation,?God + nothing = the world,?there's already a problem:?Why does God exist??God doesn't exist by logic alone?unless you believe the ontological argument,?and I hope you don't, because it's not a good argument.?So it's conceivable, if God were to exist,?he might wonder, I'm eternal, I'm all-powerful,?but where did I come from??(Laughter)?Whence then am I??God speaks in a more formal English.?(Laughter)?And so one theory is that God was so bored with?pondering the puzzle of His own existence?that He created the world just to distract himself.?But anyway, let's forget about God.?Take God out of the equation: We have?________ + nothing = the world.?Now, if you're a Buddhist,?you might want to stop right there,?because essentially what you've got is?nothing = the world,?and by symmetry of identity, that means?the world = nothing. Okay??And to a Buddhist, the world is just a whole lot of nothing.?It's just a big cosmic vacuity.?And we think there's a lot of something out there?but that's because we're enslaved by our desires.?If we let our desires melt away,?we'll see the world for what it truly is,?a vacuity, nothingness,?and we'll slip into this happy state of nirvana?which has been defined as having?just enough life to enjoy being dead. (Laughter)

So that's the Buddhist thinking.?But I'm a Westerner, and I'm still concerned?with the puzzle of existence, so I've got?________ + —?this is going to get serious in a minute, so —?________ + nothing = the world.?What are we going to put in that blank??Well, how about science??Science is our best guide to the nature of reality,?and the most fundamental science is physics.?That tells us what naked reality really is,?that reveals what I call TAUFOTU,?the True And Ultimate Furniture Of The Universe.?So maybe physics can fill this blank,?and indeed, since about the late 1960s or around 1970,?physicists have purported to give?a purely scientific explanation of how?a universe like ours could have popped into existence?out of sheer nothingness,?a quantum fluctuation out of the void.?Stephen Hawking is one of these physicists,?more recently Alex Vilenkin,?and the whole thing has been popularized?by another very fine physicist and friend of mine,?Lawrence Krauss, who wrote a book called?"A Universe from Nothing,"?and Lawrence thinks that he's given —?he's a militant atheist, by the way,?so he's gotten God out of the picture.?The laws of quantum field theory,?the state-of-the-art physics, can show how?out of sheer nothingness,?no space, no time, no matter, nothing,?a little nugget of false vacuum?can fluctuate into existence,?and then, by the miracle of inflation,?blow up into this huge and variegated cosmos?we see around us.

Okay, this is a really ingenious scenario.?It's very speculative. It's fascinating.?But I've got a big problem with it,?and the problem is this:?It's a pseudo-religious point of view.?Now, Lawrence thinks he's an atheist,?but he's still in thrall to a religious worldview.?He sees physical laws as being like divine commands.?The laws of quantum field theory for him?are like fiat lux, "Let there be light."?The laws have some sort of ontological power or clout?that they can form the abyss,?that it's pregnant with being.?They can call a world into existence out of nothing.?But that's a very primitive view of what?a physical law is, right??We know that physical laws are actually?generalized descriptions of patterns and regularities?in the world.?They don't exist outside the world.?They don't have any ontic cloud of their own.?They can't call a world into existence?out of nothingness.?That's a very primitive view?of what a scientific law is.?And if you don't believe me on this,?listen to Stephen Hawking,?who himself put forward a model of the cosmos?that was self-contained,?didn't require any outside cause, any creator,?and after proposing this,?Hawking admitted that he was still puzzled.?He said, this model is just equations.?What breathes fire into the equations?and creates a world for them to describe??He was puzzled by this,?so equations themselves can't do the magic,?can't resolve the puzzle of existence.?And besides, even if the laws could do that,?why this set of laws??Why quantum field theory that describes?a universe with a certain number of forces?and particles and so forth??Why not a completely different set of laws??There are many, many mathematically consistent sets of laws.?Why not no laws at all? Why not sheer nothingness?

So this is a problem, believe it or not,?that reflective physicists really think a lot about,?and at this point they tend to go metaphysical,?say, well, maybe the set of laws?that describes our universe,?it's just one set of laws?and it describes one part of reality,?but maybe every consistent set of laws?describes another part of reality,?and in fact all possible physical worlds?really exist, they're all out there.?We just see a little tiny part of reality?that's described by the laws of quantum field theory,?but there are many, many other worlds,?parts of reality that are described?by vastly different theories?that are different from ours in ways we can't imagine,?that are inconceivably exotic.?Steven Weinberg, the father?of the standard model of particle physics,?has actually flirted with this idea himself,?that all possible realities actually exist.?Also, a younger physicist, Max Tegmark,?who believes that all mathematical structures exist,?and mathematical existence is the same thing?as physical existence,?so we have this vastly rich multiverse?that encompasses every logical possibility.

Now, in taking this metaphysical way out,?these physicists and also philosophers are actually?reaching back to a very old idea?that goes back to Plato.?It's the principle of plenitude or fecundity,?or the great chain of being,?that reality is actually as full as possible.?It's as far removed from nothingness?as it could possibly be.

So we have these two extremes now.?We have sheer nothingness on one side,?and we have this vision of a reality?that encompasses every conceivable world?at the other extreme: the fullest possible reality,?nothingness, the simplest possible reality.?Now what's in between these two extremes??There are all kinds of intermediate realities?that include some things and leave out others.?So one of these intermediate realities?is, say, the most mathematically elegant reality,?that leaves out the inelegant bits,?the ugly asymmetries and so forth.?Now, there are some physicists who will tell you?that we're actually living in the most elegant reality.?I think that Brian Greene is in the audience,?and he has written a book called "The Elegant Universe."?He claims that the universe we live in mathematically?is very elegant.?Don't believe him. (Laughter)?It's a pious hope, I wish it were true,?but I think the other day he admitted to me?it's really an ugly universe.?It's stupidly constructed,?it's got way too many arbitrary coupling constants?and mass ratios?and superfluous families of elementary particles,?and what the hell is dark energy??It's a stick and bubble gum contraption.?It's not an elegant universe. (Laughter)?And then there's the best of all possible worlds?in an ethical sense.?You should get solemn now,?because a world in which sentient beings?don't suffer needlessly,?in which there aren't things like?childhood cancer or the Holocaust.?This is an ethical conception.?Anyway, so between nothingness?and the fullest possible reality,?various special realities.?Nothingness is special. It's the simplest.?Then there's the most elegant possible reality.?That's special.?The fullest possible reality, that's special.

But what are we leaving out here??There's also just the crummy,?generic realities?that aren't special in any way,?that are sort of random.?They're infinitely removed from nothingness,?but they fall infinitely short of complete fullness.?They're a mixture of chaos and order,?of mathematical elegance and ugliness.?So I would describe these realities?as an infinite, mediocre, incomplete mess,?a generic reality, a kind of cosmic junk shot.?And these realities,?is there a deity in any of these realities??Maybe, but the deity isn't perfect?like the Judeo-Christian deity.?The deity isn't all-good and all-powerful.?It might be instead 100 percent malevolent?but only 80 percent effective,?which pretty much describes the world we see around us, I think. (Laughter)?So I would like to propose that the resolution?to the mystery of existence?is that the reality we exist in?is one of these generic realities.?Reality has to turn out some way.?It can either turn out to be nothing?or everything or something in between.?So if it has some special feature,?like being really elegant or really full?or really simple, like nothingness,?that would require an explanation.?But if it's just one of these random, generic realities,?there's no further explanation for it.?And indeed, I would say?that's the reality we live in.?That's what science is telling us.?At the beginning of the week,?we got the exciting information that?the theory of inflation, which predicts a big,?infinite, messy, arbitrary, pointless reality,?it's like a big frothing champagne?coming out of a bottle endlessly,?a vast universe, mostly a wasteland?with little pockets of charm and order and peace,?this has been confirmed,?this inflationary scenario, by the observations?made by radio telescopes in Antarctica?that looked at the signature of the gravitational waves?from just before the Big Bang.?I'm sure you all know about this.?So anyway, I think there's some evidence?that this really is the reality that we're stuck with.

Now, why should you care??Well — (Laughter) —?the question, "Why does the world exist?"?that's the cosmic question, it sort of rhymes?with a more intimate question:?Why do I exist? Why do you exist??you know, our existence would seem to be amazingly improbable,?because there's an enormous number of genetically possible humans,?if you can compute it by looking at?the number of the genes and the number of alleles and so forth,?and a back-of-the-envelope calculation will tell you?there are about 10 to the 10,000th?possible humans, genetically.?That's between a googol and a googolplex.?And the number of the actual humans that have existed?is 100 billion, maybe 50 billion,?an infinitesimal fraction, so all of us,?we've won this amazing cosmic lottery.?We're here. Okay.