Can we understand the universe? | Sheldrake & Hossenfelder go head to head on dark matter IN FULL

foreigner thank you and welcome back um not only is the

universe

Stranger than we think, it is Stranger than we can think, as argued by Niels Bohr, one of the founders of quantum theory, we imagine that our theories discover what they are like things, from quantum particles to

dark

matter

. It kills on fundamental levels the closer we get to what we imagine reality to be. The strange and more incomprehensible seems to become. We might find some philosophy someday. Stretching out to meet the

universe

is strange or the universe is not so strange after all. Or should we? abandon the idea that we can discover the essential character of the world and conclude with a bang that the strangeness of the universe and the quantum world transcends the limits of the human mind Bjorn Eggburg is a philosopher of science who investigates the limits of scientific knowledge. is the author of metaphysical experiments physics and the invention of the universe Sabina hostfelder is a theoretical physicist who specializes in the foundations of physics husfelder has a popular YouTube channel called science without gibberish Rupert

sheldrake

is a biologist author and researcher Rupert is the author of books like scientific deception and ways to go beyond that and why they work, so that's the topic of the debate and our speakers today and what we're going to do is, first of all, have each of the speakers respond to a question that we are going to ask you and then we will move on to a more fluid debate on other topics, so the first question that I am going to ask all of our speakers to address is: could science and philosophy one day meet? ?

The strangeness of the universe and to address this question first let's ask Beyond, it's not okay or let me update to use a little more time. I certainly hope not, what do we mean by strange? In this context, I

understand

it. Strangeness is that which challenges our minds or that which we cannot

understand

or which we cannot control with our own rules of logic and reason. Certainly, if you look at this historically, there is no shortage of things that challenge our minds or that challenge our understanding and This certainly also persists in an era of increasing science and technology.

We have this general idea that science is always progressing and that we know things better and better. However, this is not always the case. Science can also get stuck in certain patterns of thinking and does not always necessarily progress, this is a topic that I will return to in another talk later and I am sure also in this panel, but if we look at history and it shows us two things about strangeness, one is that we will continue to fail. understand things and the second thing is that we will continue to try to understand things because I don't think we have a choice, so I would like to think about the strangeness for this debate and not about the antagonists that we have to overcome.

I think strangeness is the source of inspiration the inexhaustible source of inspiration for our efforts in science and philosophy, that's why I say I hope they never stretch themselves because how fun would it be if they did, thank you Bjorn and the next step might sound like something of philosophy someday extended to Get to know college strangeness with Sabina, yes, so I have to start quite similarly to you by asking what we mean by strangeness, so if we're talking about the kind of strangeness we're currently dealing with, like Quantum mechanics or

dark

ness. So personally, I'm pretty sure we'll be able to solve it with the methods we currently have.

It's just a

matter

of trying a little harder, but there are other oddities that I'm not as sure about as I am when it comes to this. to question what consciousness is so personally on that topic, I think we'll figure it out eventually, but maybe I'm wrong and then there are other questions that I think I'm not even exactly sure what the question is. Like, why is the universe understandable at all, is a question that we can even formalize, we'll ever be able to address, but I think what we should focus on is very much like what you just said: how we progress.

So historically we have progressed by gradually developing our knowledge, we have learned a little more than we did some new experiments and we learned a little more, so I think we have to try to continue this progress to learn more, but it is very possible. that at some point we fail and then we get stuck there and in that case something strange will remain for us forever. Thanks Sabina and now to Rupert, my science and my philosophy will one day be stretched to properly confront the strangeness of the universe. I would say that sounds and floss were already very widespread in relation to the universe until the 1920s, no one knew there were galaxies outside our own until the 1960s, most scientists did not think that the Universe had evolved over time since The Big.

Bang, which is now an orthodox theory and so there has been an enormous expansion in our view of the universe, but all of this has happened within the framework of mechanistic materialism, the doctrine that matter is unconscious and that everything is mechanically caused in a certain way. way or another, um. governed by purposeless laws I think one of the biggest challenges for science as a whole right now is the existence of consciousness and most mechanistic materialists think that consciousness is absent in the entire universe, all stars and galaxies However, a small fraction of matter, namely human brains and possibly also animal brains, leads to the so-called hard problem of Consciousness.

Panpsychism, which is surprisingly in vogue right now and what Pansakis is saying is that, well, if there is a little bit of Consciousness in electrons and atoms, then the effect that arises in the human brain is just a difference of degree, not of type. Well, I think that argument is right. As far as it goes, but I'm quite interested in what happens if we take it further instead of stopping at human brains. We continue into the universe and I myself have been thinking for quite some time about the question: can the Sun be conscious? sun to be conscious.

Does Consciousness have to be limited to the brain? The cerebrocentric view of Consciousness we are very accustomed to, but traditional people have always assumed that Consciousness is much more extensive. Plato called the stars and planets the visible Gods because he thought. they had intelligence, they were the bodies of which they also had intelligence and, um, I published a paper last year in the Journal of Consciousness Studies called is the sun conscious in which I argue that the interface between the sun's activity and consciousness is its electromagnetic field. This may sound strange, but sitting next to me in the form of John Joe McFadden is one of the leading exponents of the electromagnetic field of Consciousness.

His theory is largely limited to brains. You may be horrified by this extension, but I think it's you. I can make a perfectly coherent case that the sun has a conscious interface, a Consciousness that interacts with your body through the electromagnetic field within and beyond the sun throughout the solar system, and if the sun is conscious, what about other stars, if they are conscious, what about entire galaxies? that they can have Galactic Minds much greater than those of the stars that are like cells in the body of the Galaxy and then, what about the entire universe, the cosmos?

So by leaving out Consciousness we get contemporary cosmology and physics, by bringing in Consciousness we get a whole new way of thinking about the universe can make it less strange because our own Consciousness seems less anomalous in a universe imbued with Consciousness, so they arise many other questions if the consciousness of the sun what does it do with its Consciousness what decisions does it make except for me It's almost been three minutes, so I'm not going to be able to tell you my speculations on that topic or anyone else's speculations, but more may arise forward in our discussion, but we actually have a few minutes left because our first speakers were very concise in their answers, so let's go on a little further to press you on some questions.

The question was whether physics, as a science and philosophy, can be extended. Now we've mostly talked about science, but it is. It is one of the problems that science in general, since the days of Descartes, has moved away from philosophy. Do we need more philosophy in science to try to make sense of the world? Are we missing something? Further, I mean at about the same time that physics became professionalized and when cosmology began to form also philosophy went through its own division into two fields, so to speak, its philosophy also became professionalized, a part that sought to be useful and subordinated to science to clarify analytical terms and another part.

That started to get into completely different questions, some of them tying together what Rupert is talking about, but it strikes me that in the last century we've had physics has tended to be the only one that sets the terms and conditions for how to understand the universe and That philosophy has been useless or has been left aside more or less would be my perspective. What do you think, Sabina? Do you need philosophy? Well, I think physicists should pay a little more attention to philosophy because there are a lot of questions where philosophy becomes really important when we get a little lost in the moment, for example, questions about the origin of the universe is a of them, but also when it comes to the question of whether a scientific hypothesis has to be testable, um physicists, I think not.

They don't understand it quite well, yes, they insist on this notion of testability, but then they often think that only because it's testable it's also good science, which doesn't really work in your favor. There are plenty of other examples where it would have been nice if physicists had paid a little more attention to philosophy, which is quite interesting, since dark matter is one of the examples of strangeness that emerged here. One of the best books I know about making sense of Dark Matter comes. from a physicist and philosopher David Merritt who tried to analyze the different research programs in terms of how much progress they have made according to certain philosophical approaches okay, thank you Sabrina um and now I would like to move forward with the debate and we are I'm going to look at three questions and the topic of the first question is whether there are limits to what humans can understand and first I'm going to turn it over to Rupert to address this question.

Well, obviously, our limited Minds that revolved greatly throughout the Stone Age. It is rather surprising that we can think about galaxies, stars, physical forces, biological evolution, etc., that our minds are limited in the way they work and, as the philosopher Emmanuel Kant pointed out long ago, the way we think the categories of time, space and causality were their main focus, determining what we can think, our minds work in a particular way and we can only think in particular ways and those may not correspond to the rest of the universe, however, the traditional view and for example, in medieval theology, say something like Thomas Aquinas, is that our minds have a unique capacity to map and understand the universe because they and the universe have a common source, namely God, and that consciousness human is like a scale that we would make. now let's say fractile version of the divine Consciousness um The Divine Consciousness contains forms patterns structures understandings meanings and um that our minds are adapted to that because they have a common source with Nature in fact, this is implicit in modern science even though many modern scientists are atheists, the founding fathers of modern science generally were interested in theology Newton Descartes Galileo Kepler and others um and thought that God's mind worked mathematically mathematicians love the idea that God is a mathematician because of all people it makes them closest to God and um they thought God was a mathematician the mind of God determined the structure of the universe through mathematical laws and human minds through the gift of reason given by God as he taught Descartes can understand mathematics and understand the universe through mathematics both have their source in the Divine mind, so Descartes in a sense was following a traditional view, but when people in the 19th century, when materialism became the Esau dominant of science, people simply said: well, there is no God or angels and human minds are nothing more than the product of physical activity in the brain then they destroyed this deep connection between the universe and human Minds Minds Humans then became something that had evolved by hunting William Amherst with stone implements and things. um, it's a much more limited view of human minds, but I think if we cover this much bigger. view of Consciousness in the universe and a broader view of the nature of Consciousness, then it is less mysterious than it might otherwise be.Yes, can I ask you a question because you outlined here a kind of panpsychist vision that introduces Consciousness into the mix and then An additional extension or an extreme version, as you say, of that, going even further with the Sun, with this eliminates the feeling of strangeness if we understood that Consciousness is everywhere, because with Consciousness, when we talk about understanding, we are generally confined to the irrationality of reason, which is only a small part of Consciousness to a certain extent, if we allow Consciousness is everywhere along the lines you describe, would there still be strangeness?

Well, it certainly would be strangeness in the sense that there would be large amounts of the universe that are completely unknown to us, such as distant galaxies and other planets, and there are many strange things here on Earth if we think about the different life forms that exist in the depths. of the ocean or in the bacterial or fungal world, so there's just a wide variety of animals and how they live and plants, I mean there's a lot of strange things here on Earth if you think about it, so I think there would be a lot of things that They are not familiar to our minds, I mean, even if a star is conscious, it would be very difficult for us to understand what it is to be a star.

Can I interrupt you talking about stars? I'll ask Sabine what you think a star can be conscious about. Well, it depends on what you mean by conscious, so I mean, like this, like this. The question was: are there limits to what humans can understand? And I think the answer is obviously yes, because I don't understand what the point is of saying that stars are conscious, but more generally, so our brains are so big that there is a limited amount. inner space and from this it follows that there are some things that we simply will not be able to understand and I think we are actually reaching these limits at the moment, not so much in neurobiology, I think there is still a There are many things that we can learn with science and also not with physics, as I just said.

I'm pretty sure that the problems and strangeness we see there right now we can ultimately explain, but we have big problems understanding how to do it. managing complex ecosystems is just something that doesn't fit in our

head

s like there are 80 billion of us on the planet what effect we have on the environment we don't really understand and that's why we have such big problems uh with our environment, but to For me it always comes back to the point of how to move forward, what do we do, what is the next step we can take, how can we go beyond the limits of human cognition and well, for one, it is a good idea if we try not to become extinct, but also we can try to expand our own minds by drawing on computers for example, what we do with artificial intelligence, so I think there's a lot of potential in this, thank you and that's a great point to move on to. our second topic, um, which is, should we take the mysteries of quantum mechanics and dark matter as evidence that the universe is incomprehensible and go back to Sabina to present this topic?

Yeah, um, so like I said, I think the answers, uh no, um, but maybe I should back up a little bit and explain why I think people sometimes have trouble understanding me, so people often You ask me what gravity is or what quantum mechanics means or do you really understand quantum mechanics and I don't really understand the question like if I have a mathematical framework and I can calculate something that agrees with observations, that's what it means to me. understand something and so I think what people ask when they ask these questions is like is there something, a metaphor or an analogy that you can tell me that I can assign to something that I already know and that there are limits to this and I think the most obvious place where We reach those limits is quantum mechanics, there are just things happening in quantum mechanics, like uncertainty. principle or particles that are in two places at the same time that have no analogy in our daily life and in that sense, we will never be able to understand them intuitively, but we can still understand them in mathematical terms, thank you. and I'll move on to Bjorn like I want to ask a question after Sabinas, if Sabrina I understand you correctly, spectator science is that if you can make all the predictions work, you can use your equations to predict everything if you could do that. on a fundamental level and you knew all the equations, was it that or is there more?

Is there understanding that goes beyond predictions because ultimately a prediction is that you know the electron moves this way or the electron moves that way? That gives you understanding is the prediction. The same as understanding or we are looking at: Is there a philosophy? Is there a philosophy that goes further and asks something? Beyond making predictions, well I would say there are limitations or limits around which we are circling, there is the obvious sense in which we are limited. As far as we know, we have a limited scope. If we talk about the universe, we are making projections about the great Cosmos based on the smallest specifications that we inhabit, so we have a lack of information.

We have limits in this way, but there is I think a different sense in which the limitation is crucial to scientific work and that is how we frame the problem in the first place, because the way in which we arrive at certain scientific conclusions, whether the Whether you call it hypotheses or truths or whatever, it's not just uh. as Rupert called it, the naked truth of reality as revealed by mathematics, is a product of our history and how we come to understand the terms, how we name them, how we frame them, etc., so that in itself itself poses limitations on how we interpret them.

I can understand things, so for me the answer would be that fundamentally we cannot get past a certain point, once we choose to frame the problem in a certain way, there is something that then becomes a blind spot, if you will, and produces its own blind spot. problem set, but in quantum mechanics, if I understand it correctly, what we can't measure isn't really there and I'm going to bring in Ruperty to see how you respond to that. Well, I prefer Focus on Dark Matter actually because here's a case where physicists discovered that galaxies don't behave as they should according to the equations of gravitation, so a possibility that it's governed by something more than just the gravitation, another is that they can make it fit. their equations and give the satisfactory answer by valuing in an unknown form of matter called Dark Matter, so the balance of the equation is what it is, well, you just make it up to fit the equations and of course there is still no independent evidence for it, so this would be satisfactory from the point of view of the equation, but unsatisfactory if you say well, getting an answer by inventing five times as much matter as we know and simply putting it in to balance the equation could possibly just be a falsification now it happens that there is an Alternative Theory that there are several alternative theories of galaxies.

The one I like is by Greg Matloff, who is a professor of physics at the City College of New York, an astrophysicist who has what he calls the volitional star hypothesis and believes that stars can actually adjust one's own theory of he. position within galaxies by firing jets, we know that the sun has flares and jets propelled by its jets and that they can, in fact, move to occupy the correct place in the galaxy in the same way that cells occupy the correct place in an embryo and you don't Dark Matter is not required to explain embryology and he believes it is not needed to explain galactic structure because stars have a type of autonomy and motion that you would never get there if you said we have the equations that we have.

Putting in the dark matter that makes everything balanced and that's understanding, so I think it's actually been a challenge to think about how it actually works rather than just getting the right answer like that. Do you want to try something as cool as dark matter? has going for it and I should probably add that I'm not the biggest fan of Dark Matter, but one thing it has going for it is that it's a simple explanation and in that sense it's good science, very few assumptions needed for the dark . matter um is matter as the name says it does not interact with light it has an average energy density and from that you can calculate many of the things that we actually observe that is stereo is a stereotypical example for a good hypothesis now about the idea of that stars can move in a galaxy to take some position.

I don't know what observations that would really explain, can you really predict anything with that? Have you tried it? Yeah, I was hoping you'd say I actually don't. I don't really want to know, I mean, I mean, this is something that science is really good at, so correctly select which hypothesis has the most explanatory power and I'm a little skeptical that this is going to convince astrophysics. To prove something else, can I ask Rupert? Do you claim or at least propose that the stars of Consciousness where we have, as you know, we have many people have thought about how to test whether, for example, artificial intelligence agents are? conscious, has anyone seen the movie Ai and um uh, there's something called the Turing test, you can converse with a computer and if a computer passes the Turing test, Turing claims that you can converse with the computer and not know that it's a computer? then you have to claim it, you have to accept that that computer is conscious, no computer.

I think it's generally accepted that no computer has passed the tour test. That is the test we can really apply. Could you do it with a star? Chat with a star and find out if you'll pass the Turing test. Well, obviously, I just have to speculate, but let's take the idea that he can now communicate with the sun. Obviously Sabine will not agree, but millions of Hindus. I do not disagree they say prayers they do prostrations to the sun every morning it is part of yoga they are central mantras the Gayatri Mantra a prayer to the sun to illuminate our meditation many people around the world think that daze is conscious they offer prayers and now they try to communicate with the.

I would suggest an experiment in this regard, try to bring together a large number of people who believe that this is possible and in India it would not be difficult to bring them together. Many of them discuss with them what kind of things they could do and then, for example, ask them to say the usual prayers and mantras and then, if you are conscious, please give us a sign like three solar flares in a row or something. thus, some unlikely solar flare activity. and if the sun returns with the requested signal and if this can be done repeatedly, this would in principle be a way to test it now, this is very far away, but I must also add that it is very far away for any test of dark matter or dark energy, all these other things that physicists believe in or multiverses, so physics is

full

of improbable and untestable speculations.

Actually, I think this is more testable if someone wants to fund an experiment in India where we take thousands of our sun worshipers. and look at this. I think we'd love to know that in the next step. How does the lighter get to me? Could you tell them not to send solar flares our way? Keep them in India and we have a little more. Once in this debate, again we have talked about um um, a dark matter and I know you prefer to talk about astronomical things, but the other thing is the quantum mechanism which has some very strange aspects like randomness now.

Randomness means that things happen at the quantum level whether a particle decays or not and in principle it is completely random it cannot be predicted now, we talked before, that being said, how you understand things is that you can make predictions, these are fundamentally unpredictable , there is no way for it to be generally accepted. We can predict how this happens now, do we understand something like quantum mechanics at a fundamental level? We cannot predict why a particle decays because it is an entity of quantum mechanics. Random variables are a well-defined mathematical structure. I don't have a big problem with that, of course, there is the question: is this fundamentally what really happens?

What you said is completely yes, what you said is completely correct, this is what the currently widely accepted standard interpretation says. of quantum mechanics, is that this randomness is actually fundamental, that's the way the world is, but it may not be the last word. Maybe there is a theory underlying quantum mechanics where we can explain what is happening and that is certainly a respectable theory. One of his most famous pronouncements was Einstein. God doesn't play dice and that was because he didn't believe this randomness was real, there must be some explanation for it and I'm sure Rupert would probably have an explanation, well no I don't think randomness is inherent in the structure of the whole universe, I think it's the only waythat you can have conscious causality or other types of causality operating if there is indeterminacy at all levels, as there is at the quantum level, at the kind of chemical level, at the neurophysiology level, there is an enormous amount of randomness at the level. of climate as in chaos theory at all levels of nature there is a randomness in which things could go one way or another if you have a higher level of causality that can impose a pattern on that randomness then you have a universe in which higher levels of causality through what I would call, I mean, I think of it through what I call Morphic Fields, but there are many other ways that you could have field theories or top-down causality. below or conscious causality where a pattern is imposed. in otherwise random events, and unless there was true randomness, freedom, or indeterminism at all levels of nature, we would have a universe that was completely deterministic and random, but without the possibility of top-down causality, so which I think is actually intrinsic in the nature of things and an isolated electron can behave randomly, but an electron in one of the molecules in your body does not behave randomly, it behaves in a highly coordinated way as part of that molecule, so as soon as things come into structures, the randomness is replaced by an order that they take and if they break down then they are released back to a more random state.

Okay, thanks Rupert. Now we will move on to our third and final thematic question before we have a question and answer session, what would be the consequences for us? If we gave up the idea that we could discover the essential character of the world, then I know it's been like, for example, saying we can and we will and that's your conviction, but what if we can't? Are there consequences? conclusion if that eventually becomes a conclusion in science and I'll ask Beyond to address that first, yeah, well, I think if we ever abandoned it, it would be because then we would have figured it out, I think the reason we're.

Not giving up is because we can't understand it, it's a driving force, what we can't understand drives us to do more science and philosophy, but I think that's part of the problem with this question and what some of these questions are like. are framed has to do with the word discover or reveal this idea that is intrinsic to modern science and the history of modern science that emerged along with Christianity we often have this opinion that it was in which science and Christianity are opposed to each other, like the pioneering scientist Galileo versus the Pope, etc., but in reality historically they developed side by side and were highly complementary.

This idea of ​​the Apocalypse was central to both the natural philosophy of science and religion at the time and this is basically the idea. That God writes the book of Nature and that the job of scientists is to try to decipher it and that this code exists, there is a pervasive thread in modern Western thought that still exists in parts of theoretical physics and that you think you can discover. Mathematical laws are the real blueprint of the universe as it is, so I would suggest that that gets us into trouble, uh, uh, because it suggests that somehow we can reveal things and that there is a way to get to a total view.

I think what we're seeing. and especially in the last century it's more that science is a highly creative force, science invents things, science builds things and I don't mean that it's just a social construction, but it's literally creating a reality and creating a vocabulary . for reality as we move forward, so I would go back to the original as the first position that I think science will be more like we all have a solid review of how to do science better if we can think about taking science off the pedestal. from the big picture and instead think about how we solve problems constructively.

Well, thank you and Sabina, do you want to address this quote? So, yeah, so what would be the consequences if we gave up trying to resolve the strangeness? I fear that ultimately progress will stall completely because what has driven progress for the last 2000 years or so is that we have understood more and more about the universe and if we let it rest we will reap the benefits for a little more. of what we already know, but eventually we will run out of new things and this will not only affect scientific and technological progress but also, in general, all creative processes.

I always find it amazing, so I have a soft spot for reading fantasy novels and it's quite surprising how often it's really obvious that authors are inspired by reading popular science articles about physics, like I'm currently reading one about wizards. , don't judge me where they have a force field and how well the force field works. They slightly change some of nature's constants, like the speed of light and the mass of the exposure, so you'll immediately see where they get their ideas from. It comes from science and I think Stuart Brandt said it very well when he said what science is.

The only news that may be overstating the point a little bit, but I think it's right in principle that we get these really new big ideas from science. May I also ask you to answer the reverse question? What would happen if science made a Sabina project? will and explained everything all that can be predicted is the place for God there is a place for philosophy if you can do it all with equations where then and I will ask because you suspect I will ask Rupert to address that first so let's imagine that Sabina is right and that we can predict everything up to the absolute limits of quantum mechanics.

Is there room for anything else? Metaphysical philosophy well, I mean, it takes us right to the philosophy of mathematics, doesn't it? and traditionally um in Western philosophy of mathematics emerged from the Pythagorean and Platonic traditions that mathematics is in the mind of God, it is in an ideal world that transcends the physical universe and that is why the laws of nature are present everywhere at all times, immutable, omnipotent, they have all qualities. of God because they are part of the Divine mind, that's how the founders of modern science saw it too, um, and what's happened in modern physics is that people have eliminated God, but they're left with these floating laws. free. nature and many mathematicians, whether they admit it or not, are secret platonists and Roger Penrose is a real explicit place, um and uh, in other words, they believe that there is a mathematical realm that is totally Transcendent upon which this world depends and which reflects now . a form of theology and I personally think it is a very limited form of theology because I believe that the mind of God contains much more than mathematics, so I think that if we have the idea of ​​a divine mind that contains potentially all forms and potentially all creativity . through ongoing creative action in the Christian tradition of the Holy Spirit Tomorrow is the Whitson Festival of the Holy Spirit or Pentecost.

We have a creative action working through nature that is of Divine origin and I believe it is very possible to integrate it. both Hindu Christian theology and other forms of theology with the scientific worldview in a way that enriches both, that is my personal vision and perhaps not shared by many, but I think these things make more sense and if we do not have something like that we are left with floating mathematical laws without any ontological basis as the basis of our description of the universe, which I think is incoherent, what do you think we need if mathematics explains everything?

Do we need to explain the mathematics? There has to be a metaphysical space that provides the power of mathematics. I think it's impossible to do math without having established some kind of fundamental limitation or assumption before you start. There isn't if you look at Einstein's book on relativity. he starts by describing that there are some assumptions, like the principles of special relativity and the equivalence of principles, etc., and then you get into a bunch of math. Typically, I think physicists who are more trained on the mathematical side skip the assumptions and say. Okay, how can I make this work and then you start calculating in my mind?

It is an illusion that you can ever understand purely mathematical things. I also think, like Rupert, that it is a central theological idea of ​​Sabina, so I'm not entirely sure I agree. It's theological, but it may surprise some of you, but I partially agree with what they said: many physicists are platonists and don't really understand that this is not a scientific position and that it is not a good thing. if they combine their beliefs with science, but going back to the question of whether we have to explain mathematics, I actually think we reach our limits before even talking about where mathematics comes from if we only look at what we can explain with physics.

So you made it sound like I think that at some point we can explain everything that I don't believe, so I think that as long as we have some theory that explains our observations, we will always be left with questions about the theory, like why this. Theory, why not some other theory, and I think some of those questions will ultimately be impossible to answer because part of the answer will always be simply because it explains what we observed according to our panel, so in that panel of notes.