Phillip Goff

So Russell's great insight was, as you say, that physics is purely mathematical and And so in a sense, physics doesn't really care what fundamental reality is like. That sounds like weird. I remember when I first heard that and I thought, what are you talking about? Physics gives you this rich story of space and time and matter. But...

So Russell's great insight was, as you say, that physics is purely mathematical and And so in a sense, physics doesn't really care what fundamental reality is like. That sounds like weird. I remember when I first heard that and I thought, what are you talking about? Physics gives you this rich story of space and time and matter. But...

Because physics is purely mathematical, all physics cares about, whatever's down there, all that matters is that it has the right mathematical structure, right? Whatever's at the base of reality, if it has the right mathematical patterns, you get physics out of that.

Because physics is purely mathematical, all physics cares about, whatever's down there, all that matters is that it has the right mathematical structure, right? Whatever's at the base of reality, if it has the right mathematical patterns, you get physics out of that.

Because physics is purely mathematical, all physics cares about, whatever's down there, all that matters is that it has the right mathematical structure, right? Whatever's at the base of reality, if it has the right mathematical patterns, you get physics out of that.

This is what Stephen Hawking famously summed up by saying, even final physics won't tell us what breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe. So panpsychists exploit this. So they hypothesize that at the fundamental level of reality, we have very simple forms of consciousness interacting in simple, predictable ways.

This is what Stephen Hawking famously summed up by saying, even final physics won't tell us what breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe. So panpsychists exploit this. So they hypothesize that at the fundamental level of reality, we have very simple forms of consciousness interacting in simple, predictable ways.

This is what Stephen Hawking famously summed up by saying, even final physics won't tell us what breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe. So panpsychists exploit this. So they hypothesize that at the fundamental level of reality, we have very simple forms of consciousness interacting in simple, predictable ways.

Through their interactions, they realize certain patterns, certain mathematical structures. And then the thought is, those mathematical structures just are what we call physics. It's consciousness that breathes fire into the equations. So we get physics out of this more fundamental story about consciousness. We can't get consciousness out of mathematics.

Through their interactions, they realize certain patterns, certain mathematical structures. And then the thought is, those mathematical structures just are what we call physics. It's consciousness that breathes fire into the equations. So we get physics out of this more fundamental story about consciousness. We can't get consciousness out of mathematics.

Through their interactions, they realize certain patterns, certain mathematical structures. And then the thought is, those mathematical structures just are what we call physics. It's consciousness that breathes fire into the equations. So we get physics out of this more fundamental story about consciousness. We can't get consciousness out of mathematics.

At least no one's ever managed to even have the beginnings of an explanation of how we could do that. And I think Galileo was right that it's not really a coherent project. But we can do it the other way around. We know that can be done. The mystery has been solved. And so I think, you know, the only reason we're not embracing this more successful explanatory project is just cultural reasons.

At least no one's ever managed to even have the beginnings of an explanation of how we could do that. And I think Galileo was right that it's not really a coherent project. But we can do it the other way around. We know that can be done. The mystery has been solved. And so I think, you know, the only reason we're not embracing this more successful explanatory project is just cultural reasons.

At least no one's ever managed to even have the beginnings of an explanation of how we could do that. And I think Galileo was right that it's not really a coherent project. But we can do it the other way around. We know that can be done. The mystery has been solved. And so I think, you know, the only reason we're not embracing this more successful explanatory project is just cultural reasons.

You know, it feels a bit weird. It feels a bit mystical or magical or something. But, you know, I think it delivers the goods.

You know, it feels a bit weird. It feels a bit mystical or magical or something. But, you know, I think it delivers the goods.

You know, it feels a bit weird. It feels a bit mystical or magical or something. But, you know, I think it delivers the goods.

What we need to distinguish here, I think, is the question of correlation from the question of explanation. This is what I struggled talking to Joe Rogan a few years ago with, right? And I should have put it this way, I think. Take two. I'll put another shot at this, see if this works better.

What we need to distinguish here, I think, is the question of correlation from the question of explanation. This is what I struggled talking to Joe Rogan a few years ago with, right? And I should have put it this way, I think. Take two. I'll put another shot at this, see if this works better.

What we need to distinguish here, I think, is the question of correlation from the question of explanation. This is what I struggled talking to Joe Rogan a few years ago with, right? And I should have put it this way, I think. Take two. I'll put another shot at this, see if this works better.