Yuma 4×4

Media and Communications

Consciousness is a mathematical pattern: Max Tegmark at TEDxCambridge 2014

Consciousness is a mathematical pattern: Max Tegmark at TEDxCambridge 2014

Translator: Maria K.
Reviewer: Denise RQ Consciousness – we’ve all wondered about
the mystery of consciousness. But there are really
two separate mysteries, as the famous philosopher
David Chalmers has emphasized. First, there is the mystery
of how our brain processes information, which David calls, “the easy
problems of consciousness,” and even though they’re
actually very hard, we’ve made huge progress in recent years
building computers that can play chess, that can process natural language,
that can answer quiz show questions, that can drive cars, and so on. But then, there is a second
mystery of consciousness that David calls,
“the hard problem of consciousness.” Why do we have subjective experience? If I’m driving a car, I’m having a subjective experience
of colors, of sounds, emotions, thoughts. But why? Does a self-driving car
have any subjective experience? Does it feel like anything at all
to be a self-driving car? Raise your hand if you have
any sort of background in physics. Uh, some wolves
in sheep’s clothes here tonight. I am a physicist, too. from my physics perspective, a conscious person
is simply food rearranged. So, why is one arrangement conscious
and not the other? Moreover, from my physics perspective, food is just a bunch
of quarks and electrons arranged in a certain way, so why is one arrangement,
like your brain, conscious while another arrangement,
like a bunch of carrots, not? This physics perspective
goes against the idea that philosophers like to call dualism, that conscience is explained
by adding something beyond physics, some extra ingredient,
a life forest, elan vital, or a soul. This idea of dualism has gradually
lost popularity among scientists, because if you were to measure what all the particles
in your brain are doing and find that they perfectly obey
the laws of physics, then that would mean that this purported soul is having
absolutely no effect on what you’re doing. Whereas, if you were to measure instead that these particles in your brain
are not obeying the laws of physics, because they’re being pushed
around somehow by the soul, then that brings the soul
into the domain of physics. Because you can now just measure
all these new forces the soul is exerting and study the properties physically of it
just as you would study the properties of a new field or a new particle
like a Higgs boson. From my physics perspective, a bunch of moving quarks
and electrons are nothing but a mathematical pattern in space-time. A bunch of numbers specifying positions,
and motions, and various properties of these particles like electric charge, and other numbers
you can see in this table here. From this physics perspective,
that hard question of consciousness that David Chalmers posed gets transformed
into a form I like much better. Because we can now start, instead of starting
by asking the hard question of why some arrangements
of particles feel conscious, we can start with a hard fact. That some arrangement of particles
like your brains, are conscious; and not others. We can ask, “What are
these special physical properties these arrangements
have to have to be conscious?” Neuroscientists have had a lot of progress
recently, including right here, in figuring out what subjective
experiences correspond to different neuron firing patterns
in your brain, which they call
neural correlates of consciousness. I want to generalize this idea and ask what subjective experiences correspond
to different kind of particle motions, which you might call
physical correlates of consciousness. But before that, this whole physics perspective
really begs the question: how can something
as complicated as consciousness possibly be explained
by something as simple as particles? I think it’s because consciousness
is a phenomenon that has properties above and beyond
the properties of its particles. We physicists call phenomena that have properties
above and beyond those over their parts: emergent phenomena. Let me explain this with an example
that’s simpler than consciousness: wetness. A water droplet is wet, but an ice crystal
or a gas cloud is not wet even though they are made
of the exact same kind of water molecules. So, it’s not the molecules, it’s not the particles
that make the difference; it’s the pattern
into which they are arranged. So it makes no sense whatsoever to argue about whether
a single water molecule is wet or not, because the phenomenon
of wetness only emerges when you take
a vast number of water molecules and you arrange them
in this special pattern we call liquid. So solids, liquids, and gases
are all emergent phenomena in that they have properties
above and beyond those that are particles, they have properties
that the particles don’t have. I think that just like solids,
liquids, and gases, consciousness too
is an emergent phenomenon, because, if I drift off into sleep,
and my consciousness goes away, I’m still made out
of the exact same particles. The only thing that changed is the pattern
into which my particles were arranged. And if I were to freeze to death, then, my consciousness
would definitely go away, but I would still consist
of exactly the same particles. It’s just that they were now rearranged
to make me rather an unfortunate pattern. (Laughter) So we physicists love studying what happens when you take
a lot of particles, and you put them together
in different patterns. We love to study what properties emerge; and often, these properties are numbers
that we can just go out and measure like how viscous something is,
how compressible it is, and so on. We can use these to classify stuff. For example, if some stuff is very viscous
so it’s rigid, we call it a solid. Otherwise, we call it a fluid. If the fluid comes really hard
to compress, we call it a liquid. Otherwise, we call it a gas or a plasma
depending on how it conducts electricity. So, could there be
some other number like this that quantifies consciousness? That’s exactly what
the neuroscientist Giulio Tononi thinks. He’s defined such a quantity
that he calls integrated information, Phi, which is basically a measure of how much different parts of a system
know about each other. He and his colleagues have managed to measure a simplified version
of this quantity using EEG after magnetic stimulation, and it’s worked really, really well
this consciousness detector of theirs, managing to identify consciousness in patients that are awake
or who are dreaming, but not patients who are anesthetized
Or who are in deep sleep. They even correctly identify consciousness
in two patients with Locked-in syndrome, paralyzed, and totally unable
to communicate in any way. So this is potentially very useful
for doctors in the future. But I want to generalize this now
to non-biological systems, as well. For example, we can ask the question
of some future super-intelligent computer: is it conscious or not? To do this let’s look at systems, let’s look at states of matter
with emergent phenomena that have something to do
with information. To store information
has to have the physical properties that have some states
that are just very long-lived. Most solids will do for this,
like my wedding ring, for example; if I engrave my wife’s name in this medal, this information
will still be there years from now, but if I instead engraved it
in a puddle of water, the information
will be lost within seconds. For a more fun example, let’s look at computronium,
which is the name given to the most general substance
that can compute. There is not enough for it
to be able to store information, but it also has to be able
to process information. The laws of physics have
to make a computronium change over time in a sufficiently complicated way that it can implement
arbitrary information processing schemes. Let’s define perceptronium also
as the most general substance that’s conscious,
that has a subjective experience. And let’s ask what properties does
this perceptronium have to have? I think that it has to have, first of all,
the same properties as computronium, but at least one more property
that I want to get back to. But first, we just have to ask ourselves how can something as physical
as a bunch of moving particles possibly feel as non-physical,
as our consciousness? I think it’s because our consciousness
is a phenomenon that doesn’t only have properties
above and beyond those of its parts, but also has properties
that are rather independent of its parts, independent of its substrate, independent of the stuff
that it’s made of. We actually have
other phenomena in physics that are also substrate-
independent in this sense. For example, waves. Waves have properties like wavelength,
and frequency, and speed, and we can describe them
really, really accurately with equations, even without knowing
what kind of substance are waves in. So these waves take
their life on their own above and beyond the substrate. For example, a wave can cross a lake
even though the individual water molecules are just going around
in tiny little circles. Computation is also
rather substrate-independent, because Alan Turing famously proved that any computation
can be performed by any substance as long as it has a certain minimum set
of abilities to compute. So this means that if you were
a self-aware computer game character trapped in your game-world in some game
in a future super-intelligent computer, you will have no way of knowing
whether you are running on Windows, a macOS
or some other platform, because you would be
substrate-independent. I think consciousness is the same way. I think consciousness
is a physical phenomenon that feels non-physical, because it’s just like waves
and computations. More specifically, I think that consciousness
is the way information feels when it’s been processed
in certain complex ways. So this means
that it’s substrate-independent, and this also means
that is only the structure of the information processing
that matters, not the structure of the matter
that’s doing the information processing. In other words,
we have the laws of physics. They govern these motions of stuff. If the motions obey certain principles, we can get these emergent phenomena
of computation: information processing. But now we can take this idea
to another level. We can say, “Suppose this information processing
obeys certain principles, then we can get higher level
emergent phenomena: consciousness. What would these principles be? We, of course, don’t know what sufficient conditions are
for a physical system to be conscious, but let me tell you
about four necessary conditions that I have explored in my work. I’ve already argued
that consciousness is the way that information feels
when it’s being processed, so for a physical system to be conscious, then, first of all, it has to be able
to store information like a computer, and it has to be able
to process information like a computer. But also, I think, it needs to be relatively independent
of the rest of the world, because otherwise,
this conscious entity would not feel like it had any sort
of independent existence at all. And finally, like Giulio Tenoni argued,
I think that this system has to be relatively integrated
into a unified whole, because otherwise,
if you have two independent systems, then this is going to feel
like two separate conscious entities rather than one. What do we make of this idea then, that consciousness is the way information
feels when being processed by particles moving around
in certain ways? Is it good news or is it bad news? I think it’s good news. If someone argues that it’s bad news because they don’t like the idea
of being just a bunch of particles, then I object to their use
of the word ‘just, ‘ because let’s face it: you guys are not just
a bunch of particles. Your brains are the most
beautifully complex space-time patterns in our entire known universe. And moreover, as I’ve argued, your consciousness has properties
above and beyond those of your particles that are in fact rather independent
of your particles. So it’s not the particles,
but the patterns that really matter. I also think this is good news because it means that in our quest
to understand consciousness, we are not stuck waiting
for some missing ingredient. This is really about asking
the right question. And instead of asking,
“Ah, we’re stuck, you know? So what missing thing
can we blame our failure on?” Let’s instead ask the question,
“Might it be, despite how it all seems, that we already have all the ingredients
we need to solve our problem?” I think this question is actually
a very powerful one, both in science
and in our every day lives, and I hope you’ll try it out yourselves. For example, people used to ask, “What new undiscovered force
prevents the Moon from falling down?” “Nothing,” Isaac Newton came along and said. “The Moon obeys the same laws of physics,”
he said, “as everything else,” and this bold idea, of course
revolutionized modern science. Then you can ask, “What is it that breathes life
into a clump of atoms and makes it alive?” Again, scientists have discovered
that the answer is, “Nothing,” because the difference
between a dead bug and a living bug isn’t that you add
some sort of secret life sauce to it. It’s simply the pattern into which
the particles are arranged that matters. Then you could ask, “What breathes fire
into an information processing system and makes it conscious?” I’ve already argued here tonight
that again, the answer is, “Nothing,” because what matters is simply the structure
of the information processing. And finally, if our entire cosmos
turns out to be perfectly described by physical laws
like modern physics suggests, then we can ask
Stephen Hawking’s famous question, “What is it that breathes fire
into a mathematical structure and makes a universe for it to describe?” I’ve argued the consciousness
is a mathematical pattern which means
that some mathematical patterns simply are conscious, which means that the answer
to this question is also, “Nothing,” because the only difference then between a structure
that exists only mathematically and one that also exists physically is not the presence of some sort of
physical existence, magical, angel dust. It’s simply its structure. So here is the idea that I would like you
all to take with you tonight: instead of asking what do we need to add to physics
to explain consciousness, consider the idea that maybe
we don’t need to add anything at all; that because consciousness
is simply the way information feels when it is being processed
and turn in complex ways by particles moving around
in very special patterns. And let us instead ask, “What are these patterns?
What are their physical properties?” Because it’s not the particles,
but the patterns that really matter. Thank you. (Applause)

100 thoughts on “Consciousness is a mathematical pattern: Max Tegmark at TEDxCambridge 2014

  1. i would include the soul, and the realm of the soul and other dimensions and densities and universes as emergent phenomenon. maybe every thing is like the source if their or there is one. i would include both the matter that is doing the information processing and the infomation as concious to defferent degrees. counciousness could be split intomany independent parts across deferent densities like minerals could be 1st density conciousness, we could be on our way to becoming unified and wholy integrated. maybe theres infinite information.

  2. There was a study that discovered a "Jennifer Aniston neuron" in the human brain. Scientists claimed that the same neuron fired in many subjects' brains when they were shown a photo of the former Friends star.

  3. So he's used an aspect of his consciousness to describe consciousness. Can consciousness describe itself? Can you bite your own teeth?

  4. I think the presumption that a consciousness cannot contain other consciousnesses, needs to be thought through a little more deeply. A person who is an employee of a company loses a lot of individuality. The company is all powerful. I don't know how things are across the water, but in England, the first priority of an employee is expected to be the company, above themselves, in so many different respects. Through the working day, they don't want to employ you; they want to own you, and absorb your life essence.

  5. But if the difference between living and death is only the organization of atoms then you should be able to make a cow just by sticking cells in the right order
    Can you do that?

  6. Info, Dynamic,Independent, Integrated ….sounds like the soul theologians have been propounding for centuries. Gears are not aware they are turning because the are just gears with no inherent property to beget awareness. Interacting waves then would simply be another way for gears and linkages interact and yet they are still waves – to be able to extrapolate oneself from the self itself implies that the you part of you is not beholden to the gears of the mechanism.

  7. I have a sneaking feeling that ,when, quantum computers drop in on this post, that Max will be getting a visit from HAL 9000.
    He better be ready for some serious algorithm counciling!

  8. Then according to what he is saying a super computer would have consciousness, but in reality super computers no matter how complex will never trully have a consciousness since they would still be machines and so I tend to believe that for an entity to have consciousness it must also be biological as well.

  9. Also, imagine a super computer running a full copy simulation of a human brain….there would be that very same pattern we have in our brains right…so according to his idea there would emerge consciousness…but that's wrong since it would not be a true consciousness but a fake one since after all its just a machine performing a great show of mimicking these patterns and nothing more, so it means that for it to really be conscious it would have to be biological as well.

  10. Julio Tonomi is a Guru who wants to sell his books! None of his statements is scientific, very similar to yours.

  11. This dude here looks like he is an rom-com actor from an 80's, that used time machine to travel to 2014…evidently so that he didn't even have time to change is wardrobe…
    Its almost if Back To The Future idea of time travel was real deal and Michael Jay Fox used Christopher Lloyd's Delorian to set coordinates to 2014!

  12. Consciousness is observation beyond what we otherwise know and can discover. Explaining properties of consciousness in physical ways is fine as far as it goes, but it doesn't get to the fundamental explanation. Good luck with that.

  13. Also, I'm not about to exchange my consciousness for a set of equations. I wonder if the speaker would?

  14. Isn't consiousness just the sum of the information being processed, like a 5 megabit chip would be less concoius than a million gigabit? And wouldn't the way to processes the information be perception?

  15. Shar Pei trutra- the abandonment of some of the ordinary comforts of being a shar pei in order to scan for some karmic truths

  16. Quantum Information is the next big thing in Physics.

    Probably that opens up a new area in Physics called, 'Physics of Consciousness'…

  17. I think this pretty much explains what we call the soul: It is a projection of the information processing in our body. When we're awake it is how we perceive ourselves and our environment, it is our consciousness. When we are asleep this projection is our dreams. When we are in anesthesia or near-death experience, it is/might be projected as an out-of-body experience, floating above oneself body, etc. Now my question is: this logic pretty much gives answers for what happens after death: the processing of information still projects a self-aware experience, white light at the end of the tunnel, or whatever, you know what I mean. I think even after death as long as our molecules exist we might have some kind of experience of ourselves. And this is scary. What if this experience lasts until the last existing atom of our body?

  18. Can we know or describe the the quality of beauty of certain flower by dissecting its parts into the most fundamental level?

  19. Max, those patterns are tetrahedrons. I read in the Seth books that the ideas for our being here start as a point of light, which then turns into a triangle with 3 points of light one at each corner. We are conscious light. Particles are made of patterns. But it is all light no matter what shape.

  20. Very entertaining but still inaccurate theory. Consciousness can exist without a body. Does not need particles to exist. Here goes your theory… It’s all about energy and vibrational frequencies, not about the actual arrangement of physical particles. Also the great Tesla pointed to this, already a century ago… It’s probably more consciousness that creates matter ultimately. It’s a pity those top scientist totally neglect 1000’s years of spiritual practices an don’t talk to each other across fields. Micheal Newton’s “Journey of souls” shade some light on the spiritual world and he is a psychiatrist who uses hypnosis for regression sessions. That’s also science…

  21. For the sake of argument let's accept it's nothing but emergent patterns but these patterns are useful actionable information i.e knowledge where they came from with matter/energy and where they are
    going are the more relevant and important questions for us.

  22. He says "Consciousness is how information feels as it is being processed". Why is information being processed? First you must have life, in order to have anything being processed. Inanimate things like Rocks don't process information, nor does a vacuum. What makes an information processing system "conscious"? It doesn't work at all without electricity being input to make it "go". Does it work on it's own? An outside force is required to animate it. So, to use it as an example is funny, since he is saying he doesn't believe there is an outside force involved in consciousness.

  23. Without consciousness there is no world. It’s not an an emergence from form but the reverse. So it’s not a particular arrangement of particles or wave that creates consciousness but rather it allows consciousness to demonstrate to itself from a temporary centre with in it. Like throwing rocks into a flowing river creates small eddies. The rocks don’t make the water but rather demonstrate within it. Ultimately it’s all one substance.

  24. Pattern or no pattern he still cannot explain a little thing I like to call free will or love that stuff is no mathematical equation I don't care who you are LMAO

  25. Whats the purpose of the particles aligning in our form though????🤔 AI or a dude sittin in the clouds with a white beard lol

  26. Max Tegmark has some real intelligent theories that make a whole lotta sense.. I follow most of his work.. if I had a team, he'd be on it

  27. That was really interesting. I loved it
    I also learned what to answer those who ask me "Where's your dad?"
    I'm gonna tell them "his particles got rearranged"

  28. Hahahaha…trying to prove truth is without knowing it…these idiots have grown more and more nowadays…throwing funny mathematical expression.

  29. I agree with Tegmark about emergent properties of increasingly complex systems. But I do not agree that a proton or an electron is simply mathematics. Mathematics does not power my computer. Electricity does. But Max has a long history asserting that math is truly everything. No different here. And I do not agree. I think Max is a mathematical pattern.

  30. Why is he trying to change the identification of the hard problem? The hard problem has classically been known as the phenomena where conscious observation transforms the fundamental nature of subatomic material from waves to particles.

  31. He is somehow explaining how conciousness can co exist with the physical world, without it having to be a "paralel" reality… amazing and revealing!

  32. I could just as well say that everything can be described using language so the universe must be linguistic

  33. This is what I have always suspected and if you think about it, it also explains how you can have multiple universes, because in the end, our consciousness is just the result of a certain pattern.

  34. Well my view is this:
    As long as we try to find how consciousness emerges OUT OF stuff, is going to be a loop, because you cant even prove this stuff exists…
    Also when there are 2 photos of a person beeing awake and asleep, and signed conscious and unconscious,
    Well only time you would be unconscious is when when you dead, as far as im concerned you still conscious while sleeping after all you dream, and sometimes remember you dreams, sometimes they so real you wake up! All it happens is that you sensory input is not processed same way, is turned down. Just my 2 cents. Have a good daynight 🙂

  35. Consciousness will never be figured out and is simply beyond the realm of human understanding. We are arrogant enough, however, that we will convince ourselves that we do actually understand it sometime and will offer some explanation that will be convenient and will fit whatever we have already established. Quantum physics has shown that particles act differently when observed than they do when not observed. This certainly points to the idea that this is all an illusion created by our brains and matter likely does not exist at all. The ancient Vedic priests knew this long ago but the western mind always takes forever to catch up.

  36. First, consciousness is ill-defined and thus subject all sorts of woo woo.

    Second if consciousness is just a mathematical pattern then consciousness doesn't include feelings of regret, love, desire, happiness or any thing else we call emotions. Long ago science found hormones are essential to emotions, no emotion has ever been found in the absence of hormones. Emotions are certains states of biological systems. They aren't a number or vector or some eigenvalue, they are chemicals, molecules.

    Third mathematical patterns aren't real, they can be used to describe reality but they are not reality. I know Max Tegmark disagrees with me, he is a Platonist. Platonist believe ideals are real and matter is secondary. It's an odd position for someone whose profession is physicists. But I am a naturalist, I believe in nature. Mathematics is the best tool we have for describing nature but it only a description. English can also be used to describe nature, that doesn't mean language is real and what it describes is secondary. We should mistake the description for thing or the map for the territory.

  37. Interesting theory. Yet, it feels very similar to the materialism argument, just with a twist. Pun intended….

    Furthermore, what "law" decides which of these patterns are conscious? Or, is it all about information processing? PC's compute certain information millions of times faster than the human-brain, yet my PC is anything but conscious. Is this because the "pattern" of my transistors/electrical-storage isn't intricate (in pattern)?

    Lastly, his theory could quite easily just be describing an effect of consciousness, and not the cause. Cause and effect is notoriously difficult to prove.

  38. So what? Nice to know but anything can be mathematical. Math is a language. Believe in God, in Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I support the sciences totally, btw.

  39. I'd just call this talk like all the others: "speculation on science and on consciousness @ once". Just dedicate 4-5 hours exploring KABBALA and get answers on your very based consciouses questions. MaYbe You can even prove it wrong in 4-5 hours… You can't have a"FACT" if you have loose ends on the subject. Just intend to Learn prior of your exploration.
    Break the word Con sci o u s ness and get: CONS the SCIence On U! shadai, will make the ness (SHADAI~god, NESS~mirical). Prove it wrong I'll bet that It'll make a nice topic. Haha look at how many 'll. Sorry for the grammar mistakes but sometimes it was on deliberate. It's Wonderful and kind creations, You deserve to
    K now (know now) your creator! It's Simple too. Everything is a live but basically, it's a Frequency! Check me and prove me wrong. Good bye and sorry if I sound arrogant.

  40. Consciousness arises from selfishness and attitude. All particles obey physics laws, but consciousness resists natural environment. The purpose of selfishness is to satisfy it's needs, yielding subjective experiences. Selfishness is kind of proactive property and attitude is self related property which gets active only by action, as its reaction, such that it may not be consistent with the environment and laws.
    If we find a particle which resists laws of physics and appear to change behaviour, we can say it has conscious properties.
    A particle with attitude and/or resistive property can use other particles in it's fevour for building intelligence and capabilities, we call emergence intelligence.
    Genes is a way to consistently use the same arrangement, or sharing the basics of useful arrangements.
    Pure resistance is life. But keeping resisting will harm selfishness and attitude. So consciousness arises in resistive life.
    We keep doing selfish things, but attitude arises due to interaction or under attack.

  41. Mostly people get killed in Madurai Tamil Nadu India because there is a huge conspiracy theories around the area. Mostly people from Bangalore were killed first order. Second mostly cotton mills owner. Third railroad department people. Etc etc.. mostly PRC. State government policies. Macchhan Peru Madurai.

  42. Brains are necessary for consciousness, but not sufficient. I have somewhat reluctantly come to believe that consciousness comes from elsewhere, from an aleph-one (at least) universe, into our aleph-null universe. Could beings exist in what Tegmark has called category 4 universes? Is the better question, how could they not?

  43. We crushing dualism everyday, get these physics wonks on the Heidegger train, we riding to involvement/process station

  44. for me personally consciousness comes from a higher power ( divinity ) i know many in the scientific community will disagree with my stance but i refuse to believe we are here by chance or that we just came about through some random mathematical process

  45. Get alive ! What you said about your wedding-ring… Angel dust to your woman. What are you feeding here with ? Your contentiousness given to you by your mother and father ? Primate x Cambridge.

  46. You are what you believe. Everything you do is based on what you believe so it is truth or error that determines what you choose to do. Truth and error don't weigh anything except for the consequences.

  47. Humans have the capacity to believe lies and to continue to exist at least until their lies get them into trouble. Some people believe lies selectively so that they can get by without hurting themselves so much. They believe they should look both ways before crossing the street and they don't do the same thing when they are told that evolution writes instruction that is not there. They just believe anything they are told because they trust what the majority of people are saying whether it is true or not. God, on the other hand, warns us never to trust what people are saying.

  48. You are (proved to be) "just a bunch of particles" that believe lies or you are (proved to be) "just a bunch of particles" that believe the truth. There are no lies in reality so what is the fate of the "bunch of particles" that believe lies? The particles will go away in either case and the truth is forever. The entities who believe the truth will live forever because the truth never goes away. Only your Maker can perfectly cover for you Himself and remake you again from the inside out by the power of His true word as no one else can.

  49. What makes a dead bug different from a live one is apoptosis and necrosis. The arrangement of the chemicals is NOT the same because there is no more directed working function as before. When computers make a single critical error, they no longer function. Humans make all kinds of errors all the time (not necessarily in their biology) and they will eventually die because of it indirectly rather than directly as a result of their errors. The great potter in the sky just happens to reject the lump of clay that He is working with. Those who believe the truth, on the other hand, are a beautiful piece of art that He will remember. There is nothing special about "a bunch of particles" that believe in their own misguided imagination and fantasy rather than what is real and true. There is nothing special about someone who believes and tells lies. (Evolution is all lies.)

  50. It is the "pattern" of truth (or lies) that matter. The truth is that energy cannot make or order itself. The truth is that biology cannot write it's own instruction. The truth is that matter cannot make our existence and matter cannot even make itself. Both matter and biology came from the infinite potential that made everything we see in finite limited time and space. Nothing can make itself. Nothing doesn't make anything. Everything takes energy. There are powers and all power is from the infinite potential that is what God is described as being thousands of years ago by "goat herders".

Leave comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *.