Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal - [Special] Curt reads ”Is God A Taoist?” by Raymond Smullyan (with commentary)

Episode Date: September 22, 2021

YouTube link: https://youtu.be/P-jh6tRh3JwThe late Raymond Smullyan was an American mathematician, logician, Taoist, and philosopher who's writings are beloved.Sponsors: https://brilliant.org/TOE for 20% off. http://algo.com for supply chain AI.Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal Crypto: https://tinyurl.com/cryptoTOE PayPal: https://tinyurl.com/paypalTOE Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/better-left-unsaid-with-curt-jaimungal/id1521758802 Pandora: https://pdora.co/33b9lfP Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Subreddit r/TheoriesOfEverything: https://reddit.com/r/theoriesofeverythingLINKS MENTIONED: -Raymond Smullyan's book: amazon.com/Tao-Silent-Raymond-M-Smullyan/dp/0060674695/ (not an affiliate link) -Read along with the excerpt: https://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.htmlTHANK YOU: -Jacob Smullyan (Raymond's cousin) who cheered me on and gave me the go-ahead to record this, bringing the joy of Raymond's work to more people.TIMESTAMPS: None.* * *Just wrapped (April 2021) a documentary called Better Left Unsaid http://betterleftunsaidfilm.com on the topic of "when does the left go too far?" Visit that site if you'd like to watch it.

Raymond Smullyan was a mathematician, a concert pianist, a logician, a Taoist, a magician, and a philosopher. There are two people I desperately would like to have on the show. One is Douglas Hofstadter, and the other is Raymond Smullyan. Unfortunately, Raymond is no longer with us, at least not in his corporeal form. However, his writings remain. Click on the timestamp in the description if you'd like to skip this intro. For those new to this channel, my name is Kurt Jaimungal. I'm a filmmaker with a background in mathematical physics dedicated to the explication of what are called theories of everything from a theoretical physics perspective,

but as well as delineating the possible connection consciousness has to the fundamental laws of nature, provided these laws exist at all and are even knowable to us. What Raymond Smullyan writes about that's of interest to this channel is rationality, God, and free will. Raymond's cousin, Jacob Smullyan, reached out to me to give me his blessing as the copyright holder to bring you this excerpt from The Tao is Silent, published by HarperCollins in the US. This is a conversation between a mortal, which I'm going to be calling man, and God on the burden of free will, what it means to be identified with God, and what the laws of nature mean. It evokes the same feelings of playful awe on the most profound aspects of life that Gertrude Escher-Bocke elicits. Now that's one heck of an achievement.

So I'd like to dedicate this episode to Raymond Smullyan. Thank you for what you've done, man. If you enjoy witnessing and engaging in conversation on the topics of psychology, physics, consciousness, and so on, then check the description for an invitation to the Discord and the Theories of Everything subreddit. There's also a link to the Patreon, that is patreon.com slash c-u-r-t-j-a-i-m-u-n-g-a-l, Kurt J. Mungle, if you'd like to support this podcast, as the patrons and the sponsors are the only reason I'm able to do this full-time. It would be near impossible, at least for me, to have conversations on loop quantum gravity, non-dualism, consciousness, even geometric unity, with any sort of fidelity, if not for your support. Thank you, and that link again is patreon.com slash kurtjaimungal. With regard to sponsors, there are two. Algo is an end-to-end supply chain optimization software company with software that helps

business users optimize sales and operations, planning to avoid stockouts, reduce returns and inventory write-downs, while reducing inventory investment. It's a supply chain AI that drives smart ROI, headed by a bright individual by the name of Amjad Hussain, who's been a huge supporter of this podcast since near its inception. The second sponsor is Brilliant. Brilliant illuminates the soul of mathematics, science, and engineering through bite-sized interactive learning experiences that explore the laws that shape our world.

It elevates math and science from something to be feared to a delightful experience of guided discovery. You can even learn group theory, which is what's being referenced when people say that the standard model is based upon U1 cross SU2 cross SU3, those are technically called Lie groups. Visit brilliant.org slash toe, T-O-E, for free and get 20% off the annual subscription.

I recommend that you don't stop before four lessons and I think you'll be greatly surprised at the ease at which you can now comprehend subjects that you previously had difficulty grokking. Thank you and enjoy this excerpt called God is a Taoist by Raymond Smullyan. I'll do my best to preface my commentary with the word commentary, because if you're viewing this on YouTube, it's probably obvious when I'm commenting, just based on my body language and intonation, but I realize that it's equivocal for those who are on the audio platforms. I also know that the word Taoist is pronounced Taoist, but for whatever reason that feels disingenuous to me saying it. It feels affected on my part. Let's get to it. Man says,

And therefore, O God, I pray thee, if thou hast one ounce of mercy for this thy suffering creature, Man says, I have free will, but not of my own free will, not of my own choice. I have never thus freely chosen to have free will. I have to have free will, whether I like it or not. God, why would you wish to not have free will? Man, because free will means moral responsibility, and moral responsibility is more than I can bear. Commentary. Some people are burdened by guilt. Guilt that they haven't achieved what they should.

Guilt that they've done horrible acts in the past that they think they shouldn't have. Now one solution is, and this comes from the Eastern end, the more non-dualist end, is that, well, we eradicate free will. That is, tell someone there exists no free will, and then they couldn't have done otherwise. And another route is to eradicate morality altogether, because implicit in what I've said before, or somewhat explicit, is the word should. While some of those on the more eastern end will criticize the western end by saying, you want to preserve free will because you have an ego, and your ego wants to say, for example, that you're responsible for the successful position in life that you're in.

You'll want to bolster your self-image and minimize the role of happenstance. However, there's the twin motivation on the other side of not wanting to feel the crushing weight of free will. So it's not as if one side is immune from ulterior motives. Perhaps your life is so hard, so terrible, so crushing in terms of the weight of free will and so on that you have an unconscious motivation to believe that there doesn't exist it. Back to the dialogue.

God, why do you find moral responsibility so unbearable? Man, why? I honestly can't analyze why. All I know is that I do. God, all right, in that case, I absolve you of all your moral responsibility, but leave you still with having free will. So will this be satisfactory? Man, no, I'm afraid not, he says after a pause.

God says, ah, just as I thought. So moral responsibility isn't the only aspect of free will that you object to. What else is it about free will that's bothering you? Man, with free will, I'm capable of sinning, and I don't want to sin. God, if you don't want to sin, then why do you? Man, good God, I don't know why I want to sin. I just do. Evil temptations come along and try as I can, I cannot resist them. God, okay, well, if it's true you can't resist them, then you're not sinning of your own free will and hence, according to me at least, that's not sinning at all. Man, no, no, I keep feeling that if only I tried harder, I could avoid sinning. I understand that the will is infinite.

If one wholeheartedly wills not to sin, then one won't sin. God, well now, you should know. Do you try as hard as you can to avoid sinning, or don't you? I honestly don't know. Do you try as hard as you can to avoid sinning or don't you? I honestly don't know. At the time, I feel like I'm trying as hard as I can, but in retrospect, I'm worried that I maybe didn't. God, so in other words, you don't know whether or not you've been sinning. The possibility is open that you haven't been sinning at all. Man, of course, the possibility is open. But maybe I have been sinning, and this thought is what so frightens me. God, why does the thought of sinning frighten you?

Man, I don't know why. For one, you do have a reputation for meting out rather gruesome punishments in the afterlife. God, okay, so that's what's bothering you? Why didn't you say so in the first place with all this peripheral talk of free will and responsibility? Why didn't you simply request to me first place with all this peripheral talk of free will and responsibility? Why didn't you simply request to me to not punish you for your sins man? Well, I'm realistic enough to know that you would hardly grant such a request God You don't say you have a realistic knowledge of what requests I grant a it's Canadian Well, I'll tell you what I'm going to do

I'm going to grant you a very very special dispensation to sin as much as you like. And I will give you my divine word of honor that I will never punish you in the least. Agreed? Man, in great terror. No, no, no, no, don't do that, God. Why not? Don't you trust my divine word? Man, of course I do, but don't you see I don't want to sin.

I have an utter abhorrence of sinning, quite apart from any punishments it may entail. God, in that case, I'll do you one better. I'll remove your abhorrence of sinning. Here is a magic pill. Just swallow it and you'll lose all abhorrence of sinning. You will joyfully and merrily sin away. You will have no regrets, no abhorrence, and I still promise you will never be punished by me, or yourself, or by any source whatsoever. You will be blissful for all eternity. So here it is. Here is the pill. Man, no, no. God, are you not being irrational? I am even removing your abhorrence of sin, which is your last obstacle.

Man, I still won't take it. God, why not? Man, I believe that the pill will indeed remove my future abhorrence of sinning, but my present abhorrence is enough to prevent me from being willing to take it. God, I command you to take it. Man, I refuse. God, you refuse of your own free will? Man, yes.

Ah, God says, so it seems that your free will comes in pretty handy, doesn't it? Man, I don't understand. God, aren't you glad now that you have the free will to refuse such a ghastly offer? How would you like it if I forced you to take this pill, whether you wanted it or not? Commentary. See, it's unclear what free will is defined as. Some people would say it's if you go backward in time, which we have to presume that's even possible, you could have done differently. It seems like the more you analyze the definition of free will, the more that it slips through your fingers. However, that's true of many of the most significant aspects of our lives,

and it doesn't mean that we shouldn't investigate it. Same with consciousness. The more one talks about consciousness, the more one seems to describe it in words that are synonyms with consciousness, like experience or awareness. But that to me doesn't mean that we shouldn't continue to dialogue about it. For example, for many years, the word energy, the word length, and speed, and so on, didn't have exact, precise definitions. It wasn't until physics came about, or the rudiments of physics. However, all of this preliminary conversation with these indistinct words are what led to the words becoming distinct later. It's not as if physics emerged from a vacuum. Now, you may say that, well, physics came about once rationality was applied. However, rationality didn't emerge

from a vacuum either. On a recent conversation with Jonathan Blow on this channel, he indicates that the word free will is somewhat meaningless. I don't think so. I think it may be meaningless currently, but I don't think talking about it is useless. Man, no, no, no, please don't feed me this pill. God, of course I won't. I'm just trying to illustrate a point. Alright let me put it this way, instead of forcing you to take this pill, suppose I grant your original prayer of removing your free will, but with the understanding that the moment you are no longer free, then you will take the pill.

Man, once my will is gone how can I possibly choose to take the pill? God, I didn't say you would choose it. I merely said you would take it. You would act, let us say, according to purely deterministic laws, which are such that you would, as a matter of fact, take it. Man, I still refuse. God, so you refuse my offer to remove your free will. This is rather different from your original prayer, isn't it? Man, now I see what you're up to. Your argument

is ingenious, but I'm not sure it's really correct. There are some points that we have to go over again. God, certainly. Man. There are two things you said which seem contradictory to me. First, you said that one cannot sin unless one does so of one's own free will. But then you said you can give me a pill that would deprive me of my free will, and then I could sin as much as I like. However, if I had no free will, according to your first statement, how could I possibly be capable of sinning? God, you are confusing two separate parts of our conversation. I never said the pill would deprive you of free will, but only that it would

remove your abhorrence of sinning. Man, I'm a bit confused. God, all right, then let's make a fresh start. Suppose I agree to remove your free will, but with the understanding that you will then commit an enormous number of acts which you now regard as sinful. Technically speaking, you will not then be sinning, since you will not be doing these acts of your own free will. And these acts carry no moral responsibility, no moral culpability, nor any punishment whatsoever. Nevertheless, these acts will all be of the type which you presently regard as sinful. They will all have this quality which you presently feel as abhorrent. But your abhorrence will disappear. So you will not then feel abhorrence toward the acts.

Man, no, but I have a present abhorrence toward the acts. And this present abhorrence is sufficient to prevent me from accepting your proposal, God. God says, hmm, okay, let me get this absolutely straight. I take it you no longer wish for me to remove your free will. Man reluctantly says, no, I guess not. God, all right, I agree not to, but I'm still not exactly clear as to why you no longer wish to get rid of your free will. So please tell me again, man, because as you've told me, without free will, I would sin even more than I do now. God, but I've already told you that without free will, you cannot sin. Man, but if I choose now to get rid of my free will, then all my subsequent evil actions will not be sins, not of the future, but of the present moment in which I choose not

to have free will. God, sounds like you're pretty badly trapped, doesn't it? Man, of course I'm trapped. You've placed this hideous double blind on me. Now whatever I do is wrong. If I retain free will, I will continue to sin. If I abandon my free will, with your help, of course, I will now be sinning in doing so. God, but by the same token, you place me in a double bind. I am willing to leave you with free will or to remove it as you choose, but neither alternative satisfies you. I wish to help you, but it seems like I cannot. Man, true. God, but since it's not my fault, why are you still angry with me? Man, for having placed me in such a horrible predicament in the first place.

Commentary. In the video that I have with Leo Gura, I talk about atheists and how it doesn't seem like atheists disbelieve in God necessarily. It seems like they in fact dislike God or dislike God if God were to exist. Because, in their mind, if God was to exist, what kind of God would allow the torturing of a child or animals, or the raping of mothers in front of their children, and live vivisections on thousands of people, if not tens of thousands, if not worse and worse and worse. You can see this with the problem of evil. In some ways, I analogize this to thinking that one knows better than God. Because the problem of evil, let's say to call it the problem of evil,

implies that you believe you have a better understanding of what good is than God himself. It implies that your current knowledge is sufficient enough for you to make an authoritative determination to say what is good and what is evil. All of this is to say while it may be obvious to many people, it's not obvious to me exactly what the difference is between disbelieving in God and despising God. Getting back to the conversation. God. Okay, it sounds like you're pretty badly trapped, doesn't it? Man, Getting back to the conversation. God, why? What could I have done? Man, obviously you should never have given me free will in the first place.

Now that you've given it to me, it is too late. Anything I do will be bad, but you should never have given it to me in the first place. God, why would it be better for me to have never given you free will? Man, because then I would never have been capable of sinning. God, well, I'm always glad to learn from my mistakes. Man, what? God, I know that sounds sort of self-blasphemous, doesn't it? It almost involves a logical paradox. On the one hand, as you've been taught, it is morally wrong for any sentient being to claim that I am capable of making mistakes. On the other hand, I have the

right to do anything, but I'm also a sentient being. So the question is, do I or do I not have the right to claim that I'm capable of making mistakes? Commentary. There are some philosophers who think that God is incapable of making a logical contradiction, which means that logic is imposed upon God, which implies constraints on God that are not God, unless you want to make an equivalence between God and logic, which some do. Logos is the root of logic. There's also the school of thought that it's not blasphemous to think that God can't do a logical contradiction. It's not as if this is a settled debate. Getting back to the text. Man, that is a bad joke. One of your premises is simply false. I have not been taught that it is wrong for any

sentient being to doubt your omniscience, but only for a mortal to doubt it. But since you're not mortal, then you're obviously free from this injunction. God. Good, so you realize this on a rational level. Nevertheless, you did appear shocked when I said, I'm glad to learn from my mistakes. Man, of course I was shocked. I was shocked not by your self-blasphemous behavior, as you jokingly called it, not by the fact that you had no right to say it, but just by the fact that you did say it, since I've been taught that as a matter of fact, you don't make mistakes. So, I was amazed that you claim it's possible for you to make mistakes. God, I have not claimed that it's possible. All I am saying is that if I were

to make mistakes, I will be happy to learn from them. But this says nothing about whether the if has or ever can be realized. Man, stop quibbling about this point. Do you or do you not admit that it was a mistake to have given me free will? God, well now, this is precisely what I want to propose we should investigate. Let me review your present predicament. precisely what I want to propose we should investigate. Let me review your present predicament. You don't want to have free will, because with free will you can sin, and you don't want to sin. On the other hand, if you agreed to give up free will, then you would now be responsible

for the acts of the future. Ergo, I should never have given you the free will in the first place. Man, exactly. God, I understand exactly how you feel. Many mortals, even some theologians, have complained that I've been rather unfair in that it was I, not they, who decided that they should have free will and then hold them responsible for their actions. In other words, they feel that they're expected to live up to a contract with me, which they never

agreed to in the first place. Man, exactly. God. As I said, I understand the feeling perfectly, and I can appreciate the justice of the complaint, but the complaints only arise from an unrealistic understanding of the true issues involved. I am about to enlighten you as to what these are, and I think the results will surprise you, but instead of telling you outright, I shall continue to use the Socratic method. To repeat, you regret that I've ever given you free will. I claim that when you see the true ramifications, you will no longer have this regret.

To prove my point, I'll tell you what I'm going to do. I am about to create a new universe, a new space-time continuum. In this new universe, you will be born a man, a mortal, just like you. For all practical purposes, we may say you are being reborn. Now, I can give this new mortal, this new you, free will or not. What would you like me to do? Man, in great relief, says, okay, please spare him of having the free will. God, all right, I'll do as you say, but you do realize that this new you without free will will commit all sorts of horrible acts, man, but they will not be sins since he will have no free will, God. Whether you call them sins or not,

the fact remains that they will be horrible acts, in the sense that they will cause great pain to many sentient beings. Man, after a long pause, good God, you have trapped me again. Always the same game. If I now give you the go-ahead to create this new creature with no free will, who will nevertheless commit atrocious acts, then true enough, he will not be sinning, but I will be the sinner to sanction this. God. In that case, I'll do you one better. Here, I have already decided whether to create this new you,

this reborn you, with free will or not. Now, I am writing my decision on this piece of paper. I shall not show you this paper until later. But my decision is now made, absolutely and irrevocably. There is nothing you can do, nothing you can do to alter it. You have no responsibility in this matter. Now which way do you hope, I have decided. Remember now, the responsibility for the decision

falls entirely on my shoulders, not yours. So, you can tell me, perfectly honestly, without any fear, which way do you hope I have decided? Man says, after a very long pause. I hope you have decided to give him free will. God, most interesting. I have removed your last obstacle. If I do not give him free will, there is no sin to be imputed to anybody So why do you hope that I give him free will man?

Because sin or no sin the important point is that if you do not give him free will then at least according to what you said he will go around hurting people and I don't want to see people hurt. God, with an infinite sigh of relief. At last, at last you see the real point. Man, what point is that? God, that sinning is not the real issue. The important thing is that other sentient beings do not get hurt. Man, you sound like a utilitarian. God, I am a utilitarian. Man, what?

God, what's or no what's, I am a utilitarian. Not a unitarian, mind you, but a utilitarian. Man, I just can't believe that. God, yes, I know. Your religious training has taught you otherwise. You've probably thought of me more like a Kantian, in the sense of Immanuel Kant, than a utilitarian, but your training was simply wrong. Man, you leave me speechless. God, I leave you speechless, do I?

Well, that's perhaps not too bad of a thing. You have a tendency to speak too much, as it is. Seriously, though, why do you think I ever gave you free will in the first place? Man, why did you? I never thought much about why you did it. All I've been arguing is that you shouldn't have. But why did you? I guess all I can think of is the religious explanation.

Without free will, one is not capable of meriting either salvation or damnation. So without free will, one cannot earn the right to eternal life. God says, most interesting, I have eternal life. Do you think I have done anything to merit that eternal life? Man, of course not. But with you, it's different. You're already so good and perfect, at least allegedly, that it's not necessary for with you it's different. You're already so good and perfect, at least allegedly, that it's not necessary for you to merit eternal life. God, really now? That puts me into a rather enviable position, doesn't it? Man, I don't think I understand you.

God, here I am, eternally blissful, without ever having to suffer or make sacrifices or struggle against evil temptations or anything like that. Without any of that type of merit, I enjoy a blissful, eternal existence. By contrast, you poor mortals have to sweat and suffer and have all sorts of horrible conflicts about morality. And all for what? You don't even know whether or not I exist. Or if there's any afterlife. No matter how much you try to placate me by being good, you never have any real assurance

that your best is good enough for me. And hence, no real security in obtaining salvation. Just think of it. I already have the equivalent of salvation, and I've never had to go through the infinitely lugubrious process of earning it. Don't you ever envy me for this, man. But it's blasphemous to envy you, God. Oh, come off it.

You're not talking to your Sunday school teacher. You're talking to me. Blasphemous or not, the important question is not whether or not you have a right to be envious of me, but whether or not you are. Are you, man? Of course I am. Commentary. I wonder how much of the whole debate as to whether or not God exists comes from people who are envious of God. So are atheists envious of God? By the way, I'm not an atheist, nor am I a theist. At least I wouldn't classify myself as either an atheist or a theist. I'm unsure and speculating in this regard, though

I am driven by this statement, which says that we mortals scorn what we valiantly strive for, but do not obtain. That is, we mortals scorn what we valiantly strive for, but don't obtain. Back to the text. Man, of course I'm jealous of you. God, good, under your present worldview, you should be most envious of me. But I think with a more realistic worldview, you will no longer be. So you really have swallowed this idea that's been taught to you, that your life on earth is like an examination period, and the purpose of providing you with free will is to test you, to see if you merit a blissful eternal life. But what puzzles me is this. If you really believe I am as good and benevolent as I'm cracked up to be, why should I require that people merit things like happiness

or eternal life? Why should I not just grant that to everyone, regardless of if they deserve it? Man, but I've been taught that you have a sense of morality, you have a sense of justice. It demands goodness be rewarded with happiness and evil be punished with pain. God. Then you've been taught wrong. Man. But the religious literature is so full of this idea. Take, for example, Jonathan Edwards' Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God.

How he describes you as holding your enemies like loathsome scorpions over the flaming pit of hell, preventing them from falling into the fate that they deserve only by dint of your mercy. God, fortunately I have not been exposed to the tirades of Mr. Jonathan Edwards. Few sermons have ever been preached which are more misleading. The very title, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, tells its own tale. In the first place, I am never angry. In the second place, I do not think at all in terms of sin. In the third place, I have no enemies.

Man. By that do you mean that there are no people whom you hate, or there are no people who hate you? God, I meant the former, although the latter also happens to be true. Man, oh come now, I know people who openly claim to have hated you, or at times I have even hated you. God, you mean you have hated your image of me, and that's not the same as hating what I really am. Man, are you saying that it's not wrong to hate a false conception of you, but it is wrong to hate you as you really are?

God, no, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is far more drastic. What I'm saying has absolutely nothing with right or wrong. What I'm saying is that one who knows me for what I truly am will find it psychologically impossible to hate me. Commentary. Tyler Goodstein made this point, his channel is linked in the description, that perhaps if you find no evidence of God, or perhaps even if you hate God, you should revise your definition of God. And that's extremely interesting because the way that we're taught to think as rational people is you start with a definition, then you go looking for the evidence. This says, rather than starting with your definition, then looking for evidence,

and then subsequently dismissing the idea of God, the fact that you dismiss the idea or that you don't find God indicates that you need to have a reassessment of your definition. Well, I find that extremely interesting. Back to the text. To recapitulate. God, what I am saying is that if one knows me for what I truly am, one would find it psychologically impossible to hate me. Man, tell me, since we mortals seem to have such an erroneous view about your real nature, why don't you enlighten us?

Why don't you guide us the right way? God, what makes you think I'm not? Man, I mean, why don't you appear to our very senses and simply tell us that we're wrong? God, are you really so naive as to believe that I am the sort of being which can appear to your senses? It would be more correct to say that I am your senses. Man, who's astonished, says, you are my senses? God, not quite, I am more than that. But it comes closer to the truth than that I am perceivable to your senses. I am not an object, like you, truth than that I am perceivable to your senses. I am not an object like you. I am a subject. I am a subject that can perceive, but cannot be perceived. You can no more see me than you can see your own thoughts. You can see an apple, but the event of you seeing an apple is itself not

seeable, and I am far more like the seeing of an apple than I am like the apple itself. Man, if I cannot see you, how do I know you exist? God, good question. How in fact do you know I exist? Man, well, I am talking to you, am I not? God, how do you know that you're talking to me? Let's suppose you told your psychiatrist, yesterday I talked to God, what do you think that psychiatrist would say? What do you think they would say? Man, well, that might depend on the psychiatrist. Most of them are atheistic, so I guess they would tell me I'm simply talking to myself. God, and they would be right.

Man, you mean you don't exist? God, you have the strangest faculty of drawing false conclusions. Just because you are talking to yourself, it follows that I don't exist? Man, well, if I think I'm talking to you, but I in fact am talking to myself, then in what sense do you exist, God? God, your question is based on two fallacies plus a confusion. The question of whether or not you're now talking to me, and the question of whether or not you and I are totally separate. Even if you are not now talking to me, which obviously you are, it still wouldn't mean that

I don't exist. Man, well, all right, of course. So instead of saying, if I am talking to myself, then you don't exist, I should have rather said, if I am talking to myself, then I obviously am not talking to you. God, that's a very different statement indeed, but still false. Man, oh, come on. If I'm only talking to myself, how can I be talking to you? God, your use of the word only is quite misleading. I can suggest several logical possibilities under which you talking to yourself doesn't imply that you're not talking to me. Man.

Suggest just one. God. Well, obviously one such possibility is that you and I are identical. Man, that's such a blasphemous thought. At least it would be, had I uttered it. God, yes, according to some religions, though according to others, it's plain, simple, immediately perceived as the truth. Man. So the only way out of my dilemma is to believe that you and I are identical. God, not at all. This is only one way out.

There are several others. For example, it may be that you're a part of me, in which case you may be talking to the part of me which is you. Or it may be I'm a part of you, in which case you may be talking to that part of you which is me. Or, again, you and I might partially overlap, in which case you may be talking to the intersection, and hence talking to both you and me. The only way you're talking to yourself might seem to imply that you're not talking to me is if you and I were totally disjoint, and even then, you could conceivably be talking

to both of us. Man, so you claim you do exist. God, not at all. Again, you draw false conclusions. The question of my existence has not even come up. All I have said is from the fact that you are talking to yourself, one cannot possibly infer my non-existence, let alone the weaker fact that you are not talking to me. Man, alright, I'll grant you your point, but what I really want to know is, do you exist? God, what a strange question. Man, why? Men have been asking this for countless millennia. God, I know that the question itself is not strange. What I mean is that it's strange of you to ask that of me. Man, why? God,

because I'm the very one whose existence you doubt. I perfectly well understand your anxiety, you are worried that your present experience with me is a mere hallucination, but how can you possibly expect to obtain reliable information from a being about that being's existence when you suspect the non-existence of that very same being. Man. So you won't tell me whether or not you exist. God, I am not being willful. I am merely wishing to point out to you that no one could possibly give you an answer that would satisfy you.

Alright, suppose I said, no, I don't exist. Well, what would that prove? Absolutely nothing. Or, perhaps I said, yes, I do exist. Would that convince you? Of course not. Man says, well, if you can't tell me whether or not you exist, then who possibly can? God. That is something that no one can tell you. It is something which only you can find out for yourself. Man, how do I go about finding this out for myself? God. That also no one can tell you. This is another thing you will have to find out for yourself. Commentary. About this channel, the name is Theories of Everything, which is an audacious goal to explain everything. Well firstly there are many different interpretations of what it means to be a theory of everything. One

is physics, one is a reductionist account to explain all phenomenon, which sounds like a physics term but it depends if you think physics is the be-all and end-all. But I think a better way to understand this channel is to think of it in terms of an exploration or a search for the answers to large mysteries, as well as what those mysteries are. The reason I say that last point is because it's not clear exactly what consciousness is. We still need a refined definition. It's not clear you can even define it because some people think that consciousness is the same as all. And so to define means to delimit and you can't limit all. Back to the text. Man, so there's no way you can help me find

out whether or not you exist or how to find out whether or not you exist? God, I didn't say that. I said there's no way I can tell you, but that doesn't mean there's no way I can help you. Man, in what manner then can you help me? God, I suggest you leave that to me. We've gotten sidetracked as it is, and I'd like to return to the question of what you believed my purpose to be in giving you free will. Your first idea of me giving you free will was in order to test whether or not you merit salvation or damnation, but that idea is quite hideous to me. You cannot think of any nicer reason, any more humane reason, why I gave you free will?

Man, well, I once asked this question of an Orthodox rabbi. He told me that the way we're constituted is that it's simply not impossible for us to enjoy salvation unless we've earned it, and to earn it, we of course need free will. God, that explanation is indeed much nicer than the former, but it's still far from correct. According to Orthodox Judaism, I created angels, and they have no free will. They are an actual sight of me, and so are completely attracted to my goodness, such that they never even have the slightest temptation toward evil. They really have no choice in the matter, yet they're eternally happy, even though they've never earned it. So if

your rabbi's explanation was correct, why wouldn't I have simply created angels rather than mortals? Man, beats me. Why didn't you? God, because the explanation is simply not correct. In the first place, I've never created any ready-made angels. All sentient beings ultimately approach the state that we might call angelhood. But just as the race of human beings, or the species of human beings, is in a certain stage of biological evolution, so angels are simply the end result of a process of cosmic evolution. The only difference between the so-called saint and the so-called sinner is that the former

is vastly older than the latter. Unfortunately, it takes countless life cycles to learn what is perhaps the most important fact of the universe. Evil is simply painful. All the arguments of the moralists, all the alleged reasons why people should or shouldn't commit evil acts, simply pale into insignificance in light of this one basic truth, that evil is suffering. No, my dear friend, I am not a moralist. I am wholly a utilitarian. That I'm conceived in the role of a moralist is one of the great tragedies of the human race. My role in the scheme of things, if one can use this misleading expression, is neither to punish

nor reward, but to aid the process by which all sentient beings achieve ultimate perfection. aid the process by which all sentient beings achieve ultimate perfection. Man. Why did you say your expression is misleading? God. What I said was misleading in two respects. Firstly, it's inaccurate to speak of my role in the scheme of things. I am the scheme of things. Secondly, it's equally misleading to speak of my aiding the process of sentient beings att it's equally misleading to speak of my aiding the process of sentient beings attaining enlightenment. I am the process. The ancient Taoists were quite close when they said of me, whom they called the Tao, that I do not do things, yet through me all things get done. In more modern terms, I am not the cause of a cosmic process, I am the cosmic process itself. I think the most accurate

and fruitful definition of me which man can frame, at least in his present state of evolution, is that I am the very process of enlightenment. Those who wish to think of the devil, although I wish they wouldn't, might analogously define him as the unfortunate length of time that that process takes. In this sense, the devil is necessary. The process simply does take an inordinate amount of time, and there's absolutely nothing I can do about that. But, I assure you, once that process is more correctly understood, the painful length of time will no longer be regarded as an essential limitation or an evil. It will simply be seen as the very essence of the process itself. I know this is not completely consoling to you who are now in the finite sea of suffering, but the amazing thing is that once you grasp this fundamental

attitude, your very finite suffering will begin to diminish, ultimately to the vanishing point. diminish, ultimately to the vanishing point. Man. Yes, I've been told this, and I tend to believe it. But suppose I personally succeed in seeing things through your eternal eyes. Then I will be happier. But don't I have a duty to others? God, laughing. You remind me of the Mahayana Buddhists.

Each one says, I will never enter nirvana until I see that every other sentient being does so. So each one waits until the other fellow goes first. No wonder it takes them so long. The Hinayana Buddhists err in a different direction. They believe that no one can be of the slightest help to others in obtaining salvation. Each one has to do it entirely by themselves. And so each one tries for their own salvation, but this has to do it entirely by themselves. And so each one tries for their own salvation, but this detached attitude makes salvation impossible. The truth

of the matter is that salvation is partially an individual and partly a social process. But it is a grave mistake to believe, as do many Mahayana Buddhists, that the attaining of enlightenment puts one out of commission, so to speak, for helping others. The best way of helping others is by first seeing the light oneself. Man. Razor blades are like diving boards. The longer the board, the more the wobble, the more the wobble, the more nicks, cuts,

scrapes. A bad shave isn't a blade problem, it's an extension problem. Henson is a family-owned aerospace parts manufacturer that's made parts for the International Space Station and the Mars rover. Now they're bringing that precision engineering to your shaving experience. By using aerospace-grade CNC machines, Henson makes razors that extend less than the thickness of a human hair. The razor also has built-in channels that evacuates hair and cream, which make clogging virtually impossible.

Henson Shaving wants to produce the best razors, not the best razor business. So that means no plastics, no subscriptions, no proprietary blades, and no planned obsolescence. It's also extremely affordable. The Henson razor works with the standard dual edge blades that give you that old school shave with the benefits of this new school tech. It's time to say no to subscriptions and yes to a razor that'll last you a lifetime. Visit

hensonshaving.com slash everything. If you use that code, you'll get two years worth of blades for free. Just make sure to add them to the cart. Plus 100 free blades when you head to H-e-n-s-o-n-s-h-a-v-i-n-g.com slash everything and use the code everything. There is one thing about your self-description which is somewhat disturbing. You describe yourself essentially as a process. This puts you in such an impersonal light and so many people have a need for a personal God. God. So just because they need a personal God, it follows that I am one? Man, of course not.

But to be acceptable to a mortal, a religion must satisfy his needs. God. I realize that. But this so-called personality of a being is really more in the eyes of the beholder than in the being itself. The controversies which have raged about whether or not I am a personal or an impersonal being are rather silly because neither side is right or wrong. From one point of view, I'm personal.

From another, I'm not. It's the same with a human being. A creature from another planet may look at that human purely impersonally, as a mere collection of particles according to which they act strictly to prescribed physical law. That alien may have no more feeling for the personality of the human than the average human does for an ant, yet the ant has just as much an individual personality as a human to beings like myself who really know the ant. To look at something impersonally is no more correct

or incorrect than to look at it personally. But in general, the better you get to know something, the more personal it becomes. To illustrate my point, do you think of me as a personal or an impersonal being? Man, while I am talking to you, am I not? God, exactly. Now from that point of view, your attitude toward me might be described as a personal one. And yet, from another point of view, no less valid. I can also be looked at impersonally. Man, but if you're really such an abstract thing as a process, I don't see how I can make sense of what it means to talk to a mere process. God, I love how you say the word mere. You might as well just say you're living in a mere universe. Also, why must everything one does make sense? Does it make sense to talk to a tree? Man, of course not, God.

And yet many children and primitives do just that. Man, well, I'm neither a child nor a primitive. God, I realize that, unfortunately. Man, why unfortunately? God, because many children and primitives have a primal intuition which the likes of you have lost. Frankly, I think it would do you a lot of good to talk to a tree every once in a while. Even more good than talking to me. But we do seem

to be getting sidetracked. Let's get back to why I gave you free will. Man, I have been thinking about this all the while. God, you mean you haven't been paying attention during a conversation? Man, of course I have, but all the while, on another level, I have been thinking about why did you give me free will? God, okay, have you come to a conclusion? Man, well, you say that the reason is not to test our worthiness, and you disclaimed that the reason is that we need to feel that we merit some things in order to enjoy them,

and you claim to be a utilitarian. Most significant of all, you also appeared so delighted when I came to the sudden realization that it is not sinning in itself which is bad, but the suffering which it causes. God, well, of course. What else could be conceivably bad about sinning? Man, alright, you know that, now I know that. But all my life, I unfortunately have been under the influence of moralists who hold sinning to be bad in itself. Anyway, putting all these pieces together, it occurs to me that the only reason you gave free will is because of your belief that with free will, people will tend to hurt each other,

and themselves, less than without free will, people will tend to hurt each other and themselves less than without free will. God, bravo. That is by far the best reason you have yet given. I can assure you that had I chosen to give you free will, that would have been my very reason for doing so. Man, what? You're saying that you did not choose to give me free will? God, my dear fellow, I could no more choose to give you free will than I could choose to make an equilateral triangle equiangular. I could choose to make or not to make an equilateral triangle in the first place, but then once I've chosen to make one, I no longer have the choice but to make it equiangular. Man, I thought you could do anything.

God, only things that are logically possible. As St. Thomas said, it is a sin to regard the fact that God cannot do the impossible as a limitation on his powers. I agree, except in the fact that I wouldn't use the term sin, I would use the term error. Man, anyway, I'm still puzzled by your implication that you did not choose to give me free will. God, well, it's high time that I inform you that this entire discussion, from the very beginning, has been based on one monstrous fallacy. We have been talking purely on a moral level,

you originally complained that I gave you free will, and raised the whole question as to whether or not I should have, it never occurred to you that I had absolutely no choice in the matter. Man, I am still in the dark. God, absolutely. Because you're only able to look at it through the eyes of a moralist. The more fundamental metaphysical aspects of the question you never even considered. Man, I still don't see question you never even considered. Man,

I still don't see what you're driving at. God, before you requested me to remove your free will, shouldn't your first question have been whether, as a matter of fact, that you do have free will? Man, well I simply took that for granted, God, but why should you? Man, I don't know. Do I have free will? God, yes. Man, then why would you say that I shouldn't have taken it for granted? God, because you shouldn't. Just because something happens to be true, it doesn't follow that it should be taken for granted. Man, anyway, it's reassuring to know that my natural intuition about having free will is correct.

Sometimes I've been worried that the determinists are correct. God, they are correct. Man, wait a minute now. Do I have free will or don't I? God, I told you that you do, but that doesn't mean determinism is incorrect. Man, well, are my acts determined by the laws of nature, or are not they? God. The word determined here is a subtle but powerfully misleading one, and has contributed so much to the confusion of the free will versus determinism controversies. Your acts are certainly in accordance with the laws of nature,

but to say that they are determined by the laws of nature creates a totally misleading psychological image, which is that your will could somehow be in conflict with the laws of nature, and that the latter is somehow more powerful than you and could determine your acts whether you liked it or not. But it's simply impossible for your will to ever be in conflict with natural law. You and natural law are really one and the same. Man, what do you mean that I cannot conflict with nature? Suppose I become very stubborn and I determine not to obey the laws of nature. What could stop me? If I became sufficiently stubborn, even you could not stop me. God, you are absolutely right.

I certainly could not stop you. Nothing could stop you. But there is no need to stop you, because you couldn't even start. As Goethe very beautifully expressed it, in trying to oppose nature, we are, in the very process of doing so, acting in accordance with the laws of nature. Don't you see that the so-called laws of nature are nothing more than a description of how you and other beings do act? They are merely a description of how you act, not a prescription of how you should act, not a power or a force which compels or determines

your acts. To be valid, a law of nature must take into account how you in fact do act, or if you like, how you choose to act. Man, so you really claim that I am incapable of determining to act against natural law, God. It is interesting that you have twice now used the phrase determined to act and chosen to act. This identification is quite common. One often uses the statement, I am determined to do this, synonymously with the statement, I have chosen

to do this. This very psychological identification should reveal that determinism and choice are much closer than they may appear. Of course, you might as well say that the doctrine of free will says that it is you who are doing the determining, whereas the doctrine of determinism appears to say that you are determined by something apparently outside you. But this confusion is largely caused by this bifurcation of reality into the you and to the not you. Really now, just where do you leave off and the rest of the universe begin? Or, equivalently, where does the rest of the universe leave off and you begin? Once you can see that this so-called

you and so-called nature is a continuous whole, then you'll never again be bothered by such questions as to whether or not it's you controlling nature or nature controlling you. Thus, the muddle of free will versus determinism will vanish. If I may use a crude analogy, imagine two bodies moving toward each other by virtue of gravitational attraction. Which one is exerting the force on the other? Each body, if sentient, would say that it's the other exerting the force, but in a way it both is, in another way it is neither. It is best to say that it is the configuration of the two which is crucial. Man, you said a short while ago that our whole discussion was based on a monstrous fallacy. You still haven't told me what that fallacy is. God, why the idea that I possibly could have created you without free will.

You acted as if this was a genuine possibility and wondered why didn't I choose it. It never occurred to you that a sentient being without free will is no more conceivable than a physical object which exerts no gravitational attraction. There is, incidentally, more analogy here than you realize between a physical object exerting a gravitational attraction and a sentient being exerting free will. Can you honestly even imagine a conscious being without free will? What on earth could that be like? I think one thing in your life that has so misled you is that I've given man the gift of free will. As if I first created man and then as an afterthought endowed him with the property of free will.

Maybe you think I have some paintbrush with which I daub some creatures with free will and not others. No, free will is not an extra. It is part and parcel of the very essence of consciousness. it is part and parcel of the very essence of consciousness. A conscious being without free will is simply a metaphysical absurdity. Man, then why did you play along with me all this while discussing what I thought was a moral problem when, as you say, my basic confusion was metaphysical? God.

Because I thought this would be good therapy for you. I thought it'd be good therapy for you to get some moral poison out of your system. Much of your metaphysical confusion was due to faulty moral notions, and so the latter had to be dealt with first. And now we must part, at least until you need me again. I think our present union will do much to sustain you for a long while, but do remember what I told you about the trees. Of course, you don't have to literally talk to them if doing so makes you feel, let's say, silly, but there is much more you can learn from them, as well as from the rocks and the streams and other aspects of nature.

There is nothing like a naturalistic orientation to dispel all these morbid thoughts of sin and free will and moral responsibility. At one stage of history, such notions were actually useful. I refer to the days when tyrants had unlimited power and nothing short of fears of hell could possibly restrain them. But man has grown up since then, and this gruesome way of thinking is no longer necessary. It might be helpful for you to recall what I once said through the writings of the great Zen poet, Tseng Tsang. If you want to get the plain truth, be not concerned with right and wrong.

The conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind. I hope you enjoyed this reading of Is God a Taoist? by Raymond Smullyan. If you'd like to hear more commentary like this, slash readings, more conversations like this, though I tend to have conversations with people rather than reading them, then please do consider going to patreon.com slash Kurt Jaimungal. It's the patrons as well as the sponsors that help me do this on a full-time basis. I wouldn't be able to go in depth with people on, I wouldn't be able to speak to people in depth at all on, let's say, loop quantum gravity, or string theory, or consciousness, or have out five-hour, six-hour long conversations with, for example, Leo Gura,

if not for your support. So please, if you're interested in helping support this channel, then do go to patreon.com slash KurtJaiMungle. In the description, there's a PayPal option for one-time donations. There's also a crypto address. Thank you for your viewership, regardless of whatever it is that you choose. is that you choose. Commentary. The reason why I love Raymond Smullyan is this is such a playful conversation. And to me, it captures plenty of the unconscious thoughts that we have, or perhaps even conscious, that we've never verbalized out loud at least, that we have about God.