“New laws, new kinds of things can emerge as the universe evolves.”

There’s not a single shred of evidence for the multiverse. If, in order to explain this universe, you need a theory that invents an infinite number of parallel universes – that’s not a very good theory.

It is the dialogue that lets the brilliance of the diamond’s infinite facets shine clearly. It is the dialogue that instills within us a power and capacity that is, and always has been, saturated with meaning.

The ideas always have to be in service of the story. And that’s what Scott and the writers did – they weren’t trying to beat you over the head with an idea; they had a story they wanted to tell, and they had ideas

The more moving parts you have in something, the more possibilities there are.

It is the dialogue that matters most, not its imagined end. It is the sacred act of inquiry wherein we gently trace the experienced outlines of an ever-greater whole.

Like most young physicists, when I was a kid enraptured with physics, I thought, “Everything can be explained by the theory of the atom!”

The number of people who consider themselves to be religious and going to services is dropping, and the number of people who consider themselves to be spiritual but not religious is increasing.

People have been talking about multiverses as a philosophical idea for a long time. But the current incarnations in physics

Rather than make claims of final theories, perhaps we should focus on our ever-continuing dialogue with the universe.

But as I’ve gotten older, and I look at the world, I think there’s a lot of ways in which that kind of building up from the smallest building blocks doesn’t actually account for the world.

Scientists and artists are both living in the cultural milieu that they come up in. They’re always responding to what is happening culturally.

Millennials, in particular, consider themselves to be spiritual, but they’re not necessarily going to anybody’s church.

People love science and all it offers, but they also feel a calling in themselves to the sense of what’s deeper.

Right now, culturally, we’re seeing a really interesting evolution in ideas about spirituality and the world, right?

There’s a whole new science now of complexity, and what we see is that complexity requires a very different approach than the kind of bottom-up approach that fundamental physics has always used.

I’m found of what’s called emergence – as the universe gets more complex, new laws can emerge. Like evolution – there’s things that you just aren’t able to explain, even if you had an understanding of atoms.

We may be in a rapidly evolving international financial system with all the bells and whistles of the so-called new economy. But the old-economy rules of prudence are as formidable as ever. We violate them at our own peril.

If the country is to survive as a democracy it will depend on voters who understand how our political institutions have evolved and the events that went into their creation.

Strategy should evolve out of the mud of the marketplace, not in the antiseptic environment of an ivory tower.

When the Constitution was written, the founders had no way of anticipating the new technologies that would evolve in the coming centuries.

And certainly, we have come far enough in our technology that our language can evolve, because it has an impact.

I did a project on immigration, which is something that has always been close to my heart. For me, immigration was the way to evolve, to make people better.

It’s time to evolve as well and I think that should be inspirational to other people.

it must evolve in such a way that it provides easier access to the imposed currents that flow through it.