杏吧原创

In Why Does the World Exist? Jim Holt spans physics, philosophy and literature to examine the mystery of why there is something rather than nothing

NOVELIST Martin Amis once said we are about five Einsteins away from explaining the universe鈥檚 existence. 鈥淗is estimate seemed about right to me,鈥� says Jim Holt at the beginning of his book Why Does the World Exist? 鈥淏ut I wondered,鈥� he continues, 鈥渃ould any of those Einsteins be around today? It was obviously not my place to aspire to be one of them. But if I could find one, or maybe two or three or even four of them, and then sort of arrange them in the right order鈥� well, that would be an excellent quest.鈥� Thus begins his humorous yet deeply profound journey to solve the great mystery: why is there something rather than nothing?

Holt鈥檚 potential Einsteins span physics, philosophy and literature, from mathematician Roger Penrose through physicist Steven Weinberg to novelist John Updike. Yet somehow the most interesting parts of the book come not from Holt鈥檚 subjects, but from his own musings. More philosophical than scientific in bent, Holt wants not only an explanation of how you get something from nothing but also how such an explanation might be possible at all.

It鈥檚 a thorny pursuit. You can鈥檛 explain existence with reference to something else, but neither can it be a causal loop, Holt argues, stating 鈥渘o truth explains itself鈥�.

When Holt visits Adolf Gr眉nbaum in Pittsburgh, the philosopher of science tries to convince him that the question is a waste of time, based as it is on the mistaken assumption that nothingness is a more natural state of affairs than the universe. There is no need to explain existence, he says, because there鈥檚 nothing astonishing about existence in the first place. 鈥淚f, as Aristotle remarked, philosophy begins with wonder, then it ends with Gr眉nbaum,鈥� Holt writes.

Luckily for us, he doesn鈥檛 get discouraged and treks on, requesting a meeting with University of Oxford physicist David Deutsch. Yet he also puts a kink in Holt鈥檚 quest, by suggesting that the laws of physics are incapable of accounting for existence. 鈥淟aws don鈥檛 do that kind of work,鈥� Deutsch says.

Mathematics, too, seems incapable of heavy existential lifting when Holt notes, somewhat unjustifiably, that mathematical structure 鈥渏ust doesn鈥檛 seem enough for genuine being鈥�. Still, he presses on.

Though Why Does the World Exist? is far more intellectually sophisticated than other recent books on the subject, it could have benefited from some deeper delving into physics. While Holt expends a great deal of effort attempting to unravel the philosophical meaning of Nothing, he hardly bothers looking for the physical meaning of Something. And that side of the coin may hold important clues to the mystery.

For instance, Holt writes that a theory of everything, uniting relativity and quantum mechanics, would be the closest science can get to an explanation for existence. 鈥淏ut the final theory of physics would still leave a residue of mystery 鈥� why this force, why this law?鈥� Holt writes. 鈥淚t would not live up to the principle that every fact must have an explanation: the Principle of Sufficient Reason. On the face of it, the only theory that does obey this principle is the Theory of Nothingness. That is why it鈥檚 surprising that the Theory of Nothingness turns out to be false, that there is a world of Something.鈥�

鈥淭he final theory of physics would still leave a residue of mystery 鈥� why this force, why this law?鈥�

When we try to understand Something in physics, though, many of our intuitions about physical reality fall away. Beyond relativity and quantum theory, the latest thinking in theoretical physics suggests that the Something all around us might be nothing more physical than a holographic projection of information on the universe鈥檚 boundary. And far from being a theory about tiny, vibrating strings, string theory 鈥� the candidate theory of everything 鈥� doesn鈥檛 seem to be about any particular objects at all. The closer we look at Something, the less we find there.