There are certain things which are difficult for us mortals to conceptualize. One that I find particularly challenging is the notion of “There [being] no such thing as an ultimate beginning, a time prior to which there was nothing” (Mormon Doctrine). It just seems like there should be a beginning somewhere in the past.

What is unusual about the doctrine of “no beginning” is that it is equally difficult to conceptualize the opposite, that there ever was a beginning. If I say there was a beginning to the god-created universe, then who created God? Identifying a cause for a god-created universe just begs the question, “Who is responsible for God’s existence?” If our cause was a divine creator, then who created our creator, and who was his creator, and so on? Indeed, cosmological speculation about a “first cause” creator that cannot possibly exist leads to a hopeless infinite regression.

By reflecting on the apparent impossibility of both positions (beginning vs. no beginning), we run the risk of experiencing a minor ontological crisis over whether any of this life is real. This issue goes beyond the false reality created by the Matrix as portrayed in the popular sci-fi movie. We are, in a sense, asking, “Who created the Matrix? And “Who created the Matrix’s creator?”

Thankfully Descartes provided a temporary solution to these sorts of existential crises. Regardless of whether there was or was not a beginning, we exist as evidenced by the fact that we can think about these very issues. Cogito ergo sum – I think therefore I am!  Descartes’ cogito ergo sum does not solve the problem of an infinite regress of identifying the first cause, it only assures us that we are real, or does it?

The importance of thinking does not stop at cogito ergo sum. Other influential philosophers and theologians have convincingly argued that for the physical world to exist, it must be perceived. Bishop Berkley (namesake of Berkley University) put it this way: “Esse est percipi” – to be is to be perceived! The essence of esse est percipi is that for something to be real, it must be perceived. Take the old familiar question: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound?” However, in the current discussion, the question becomes: “Does the tree even exist at all if no one ever perceives it?” If you think this is a bunch of malarkey, you are in good company – Einstein was very skeptical of esse est percipi. The whole notion of something having to be perceived in order for it to exist led him to quip, “When no one is observing the moon, is it still there?” as if to suggest, of course it is there!

Not so fast! Esse est percipi is supported by experiments in quantum mechanics.

In one renowned quantum mechanics study, electrons are fired one at a time from an electron gun through a double slit barrier. When the positions of the electrons are registered on a screen behind the barrier, the single fired electrons create an interference pattern that can only be explained by the electrons behaving like a non-physical wave of potentialities after leaving the electron gun. However, when we observe, at the barrier, which slit the electron goes through, the electrons go back to being physical particles.  The upshot of all this is that when no one observes the electrons they are non-physical waves, but when we observe the electrons they are physical particles.

Confused? Don’t worry. Dr. Quantum describes this process very well. Click the video below.