Physics and God: Exploring the Fine-Tuning Argument with Elie Feder and Aaron Zimmer

Speaker: 00:00:00

Hello, welcome to another

episode of philosophy and faith.

2

: 00:00:03

We are really excited for today's episode.

3

: 00:00:06

We have some special guests through

God's gift of technology, able to sit

4

: 00:00:10

here with rabbis, Ellie and Aaron,

and they are hosts of the podcast

5

: 00:00:16

physics to God, and we're excited

to pick their brains a little bit on

6

: 00:00:20

arguments for the existence of God,

especially the teleological argument.

7

: 00:00:24

And, uh, so Ellie and Aaron,

guys, welcome to the show.

8

: 00:00:27

Pleasure to be here.

9

: 00:00:28

for having us.

10

: 00:00:29

Yeah, cool.

11

: 00:00:30

I thought it'd be good to just

begin some introductions since we're

12

: 00:00:35

getting to know you We'd love for

you to introduce yourselves to our

13

: 00:00:37

listeners We'd love to hear a little

bit about your faith journeys and your

14

: 00:00:41

academic journeys Ellie If you would

share first, my name is Ellie fader.

15

: 00:00:47

I'm orthodox rabbi and a mathematician

I grew up in a modern Orthodox Jewish

16

: 00:00:53

home and in, in my home and in my

family, we really had a strong balance,

17

: 00:00:59

a strong value of religion, Judaism,

and a strong balance, a strong valuation

18

: 00:01:04

of the modern secular world, whether

it be science and physics, uh, science,

19

: 00:01:09

philosophy, psychology, things like that.

20

: 00:01:11

So my father is a rabbi and is a lawyer.

21

: 00:01:13

My grandfather is a rabbi,

was a rabbi and a chemist.

22

: 00:01:17

And that was my upbringing.

23

: 00:01:18

I was really brought up, I had

a pursuit of the dual curriculum

24

: 00:01:21

throughout my schooling, where

we studied the Talmud and Bible.

25

: 00:01:24

And then at the same time, we also

studied all the secular studies.

26

: 00:01:28

And growing up, as I grew, I became

committed and I loved, passionate about

27

: 00:01:34

studying the Torah, studying the religion.

28

: 00:01:37

But I also, I was passionate about

the world of knowledge out there.

29

: 00:01:40

And as a kid, I was always, I

was always very good at math.

30

: 00:01:43

I was like the math whiz in class.

31

: 00:01:45

That annoying kid who

always knows the answers.

32

: 00:01:47

So that was me, but I ended up

pursuing math and I ended up

33

: 00:01:51

getting a PhD in mathematics.

34

: 00:01:53

I studied something called braid groups.

35

: 00:01:56

And now currently, again, I became a

professor at a local community college.

36

: 00:02:01

I do research in the

field called graph theory.

37

: 00:02:04

And again, I love teaching.

38

: 00:02:05

I love doing math.

39

: 00:02:06

I love teaching.

40

: 00:02:07

I love trying to explain

complicated topics to students

41

: 00:02:10

who have a hard time with them.

42

: 00:02:12

And simultaneously, I teach Torah, Talmud,

and the Bible in a, in a local yeshiva.

43

: 00:02:19

Yeah.

44

: 00:02:19

And I've been studying with Aaron for

many years, 20 some odd years or so.

45

: 00:02:22

And we discuss, we learn Talmud together.

46

: 00:02:24

We talk science and physics

and philosophy and all that.

47

: 00:02:28

And yeah.

48

: 00:02:29

Okay.

49

: 00:02:29

Aaron.

50

: 00:02:31

Okay.

51

: 00:02:31

Thanks for having us.

52

: 00:02:32

My name is Aaron Zimmer.

53

: 00:02:34

I'm also a modern Orthodox rabbi.

54

: 00:02:36

The idea of modern Orthodox Judaism

is really to try to have Judaism be

55

: 00:02:42

relevant in the modern world and not

to have it being some old archaic

56

: 00:02:47

religion, but it's that it should

grow and develop as the world changes.

57

: 00:02:50

Judaism should be able to handle

that and really express itself in

58

: 00:02:55

a positive way in the modern world.

59

: 00:02:57

And that's, there's a challenge between

religion in the modern world that

60

: 00:03:00

exists for any religious person in

the last few hundred years, really.

61

: 00:03:04

And I felt that growing up,

I felt that tension between

62

: 00:03:06

religion and between modernity.

63

: 00:03:08

And along my, again, I also followed

a dual curriculum, I got, I learned

64

: 00:03:13

Talmud in Bible together with secular

studies and secular knowledge.

65

: 00:03:17

In college, I got a degree in

physics, but I was also studying

66

: 00:03:21

Talmud through this method called

the Brisker Method of Analysis, which

67

: 00:03:24

is a conceptual analytic method.

68

: 00:03:27

method of studying the Talmud.

69

: 00:03:28

And after college, I was faced with

the choice to either really pretty

70

: 00:03:32

become exclusively devote my profession

towards rabbinics or to try to pursue

71

: 00:03:36

a professional physicist role, and I

chose to do something different that,

72

: 00:03:41

so that would enable me to be able to

study Talmud and Bible and physics and

73

: 00:03:46

science and psychology and philosophy and

all different areas I was interested in.

74

: 00:03:50

So instead I decided to try to make

money using the methods I learned

75

: 00:03:54

from the brisker method of analysis

of Talmud and the conceptual modeling

76

: 00:03:58

methods of physics, quantitative

methods and go into commodities.

77

: 00:04:02

We're trading oil and gas and gasoline

and then cotton and sugar, all

78

: 00:04:07

different types of commodity futures.

79

: 00:04:09

And I was able to do that for 11 years.

80

: 00:04:10

And now after 11 years, I was able to

retire about, about six, seven years ago.

81

: 00:04:15

And now I really have the time to devote

towards studying different areas of

82

: 00:04:19

my intellectual interests and also in

trying to put together some of the more

83

: 00:04:23

interesting things I've come across to

spread those ideas and to teach others

84

: 00:04:28

the different ideas in physics and in

Talmud and develop for myself and convey

85

: 00:04:32

it to others through the time that

I'm afforded from my command history.

86

: 00:04:37

That's great.

87

: 00:04:37

Thank you so much for that background.

88

: 00:04:40

And I love how you guys are bringing

together the interests of mathematics

89

: 00:04:44

and physics and your faith.

90

: 00:04:46

So I've really enjoyed listening

to your podcast lately and

91

: 00:04:51

just totally recommend that.

92

: 00:04:52

It's been so wonderful and interesting.

93

: 00:04:55

You guys do a great job of sharing

complexities in a very accessible way.

94

: 00:04:58

So thank you for doing that.

95

: 00:05:00

Yeah, we appreciate it.

96

: 00:05:01

We made the podcast for people

who may not have a tremendous

97

: 00:05:05

science or physics background.

98

: 00:05:07

For people like you, for people like you

who are interested in philosophy and in

99

: 00:05:10

thinking and religion and God, and are

just looking for a way into the science,

100

: 00:05:15

into the physics, even though you might

not have the full physics background.

101

: 00:05:19

And that's what we designed the

podcast through, where Ellie gives

102

: 00:05:23

it a lot of analogies and makes it

accessible, so that any person who

103

: 00:05:27

just is interested and wants to know,

really gain a lot of knowledge in

104

: 00:05:31

physics and science, and be made aware

of the arguments we present there.

105

: 00:05:35

You guys do a tremendous job at that.

106

: 00:05:36

I love the analogies, and I love how

the analogies are sustained throughout

107

: 00:05:42

even several episodes in Dibella.

108

: 00:05:44

That's, uh, very helpful,

but it's also a rare gift.

109

: 00:05:47

So the analogy of the Lego City and

the analogy of a moral law being

110

: 00:05:52

used in the same way analogies

to some of the laws of physics.

111

: 00:05:56

Analogies are very powerful ways

for us to understand complex topics,

112

: 00:06:01

and so just my hats off to you guys.

113

: 00:06:03

I learned a lot.

114

: 00:06:04

I read different writers about

some of the same topics, though.

115

: 00:06:07

I understood it in a much deeper

way because of your podcast.

116

: 00:06:12

Thank you.

117

: 00:06:12

Aaron and I often, we go back and forth in

terms of our teaching styles, if you will.

118

: 00:06:17

And it comes across in the podcast, but

Aaron is, uh, demands a lot more of his

119

: 00:06:21

listeners and he likes to explain ideas

in the most, the clearest, uh, way,

120

: 00:06:27

but sometimes clarity is inaccessible.

121

: 00:06:29

It's oftentimes a little bit

not spelled out, but it's fully.

122

: 00:06:32

And I think there is great

value to the way Aaron does it.

123

: 00:06:35

And he says it exactly properly.

124

: 00:06:38

And, uh, in the most accurate way, but

sometimes me being a teacher in community

125

: 00:06:42

college, I teach students, some students

math that they've tried to learn the five

126

: 00:06:46

or 10 times before I never fully got it.

127

: 00:06:48

So I appreciate the difficulties that

sometimes people have, especially

128

: 00:06:52

with topics like math and physics.

129

: 00:06:54

And I think the problem with these

types of areas is some people that

130

: 00:06:57

we really think what we talk about

largely in our podcast is what's

131

: 00:07:00

called the fine tuning argument.

132

: 00:07:02

And it's an argument

based on modern physics.

133

: 00:07:04

And it's, we think it's a very compelling

argument for the existence of God, but

134

: 00:07:09

at the same time it's very, one might

think it's hard, people are probably

135

: 00:07:12

afraid to even approach it because

physics is so scary and math is scary.

136

: 00:07:17

How are they going to even get into it?

137

: 00:07:19

And that's really where we

think it's not the case.

138

: 00:07:21

It really appropriately explained

as you were talking today with, with

139

: 00:07:25

analogies, we really try to break down

all the physics and to give, to make

140

: 00:07:29

it familiar in categories which people

could relate to and allow even a person

141

: 00:07:35

who doesn't have a background and a

strong background in science and physics

142

: 00:07:39

to be able to see the arguments step by

step and to be able to see how modern

143

: 00:07:43

science provides us a solid, compelling.

144

: 00:07:47

Yeah, you guys do a great job of

complimenting each other in that, and

145

: 00:07:54

we thought it would be neat to get

into some of that fine tuning argument

146

: 00:07:58

and I was wondering if you guys would

be able to give us a, an overview of

147

: 00:08:02

that, and then we got some questions

and all that would love to just unpack

148

: 00:08:06

it, so would you do us the honors of

walking us through that a little bit?

149

: 00:08:09

Sure.

150

: 00:08:10

So I guess we could start with what

you could consider the goal of science.

151

: 00:08:15

And there's a good quote, I don't have it

here, but a quote from Einstein, like the

152

: 00:08:18

goal, the supreme goal of all of science

is to take all the multi, multifarious

153

: 00:08:22

phenomenon which we see in the universe

and break them down, explain them based

154

: 00:08:26

on the simplest possible principles.

155

: 00:08:29

And that's, if you think about it,

you look around and there's thunder

156

: 00:08:32

and lightning and rainbows and there's

everything out in the universe.

157

: 00:08:35

Science has tried to explain them

all and tried to explain it based

158

: 00:08:38

upon laws and to show how everything

which we see is a result of, of laws.

159

: 00:08:42

And not only that, we see all different

types of objects, whether it be a phone,

160

: 00:08:46

or whether it be a pen, or whether it be

an animal, or whatever, all these objects

161

: 00:08:50

are made up of different components.

162

: 00:08:52

And science breaks down those

into the different components

163

: 00:08:55

of which they're made.

164

: 00:08:56

So it might be made of the different

elements, and then we see those

165

: 00:08:58

elements are made out of different,

ultimately, of fundamental particles.

166

: 00:09:02

And the idea is that science tries

to simplify, to take our complex

167

: 00:09:06

world and break it down into most

simple and simpler components,

168

: 00:09:09

which operate through simple laws.

169

: 00:09:11

And this is the goal of what science does.

170

: 00:09:14

And science has, uh, been very

successful, and specifically,

171

: 00:09:18

ultimately, physics is successful

at explaining, largely successful at

172

: 00:09:22

reducing, reducing, and simplifying.

173

: 00:09:24

Ultimately, we've shown, science has

shown that everything, all the substances

174

: 00:09:30

in our universe could be broken down

into what are known as fundamental

175

: 00:09:33

particles, like an electron for example,

and other fundamental particles.

176

: 00:09:37

And those fundamental

particles are governed by laws.

177

: 00:09:40

Which govern the interaction

between these fundamental particles.

178

: 00:09:43

And those laws could be summarized

by the current state of the art is

179

: 00:09:47

quantum mechanics and gravity, or which

is expressed in general relativity.

180

: 00:09:52

And these laws are the rules

which govern the interaction of

181

: 00:09:55

all these fundamental particles.

182

: 00:09:57

Now, when physicists have studied these

laws, they've discovered That any law, or

183

: 00:10:03

when you're talking about the particles

as well, the laws have qualitative

184

: 00:10:06

components and quantitative components.

185

: 00:10:09

Okay, so what do I mean by that?

186

: 00:10:10

For example, gravity, as we know,

gravity is that all masses attract.

187

: 00:10:15

But that's a qualitative

description, that the effect of

188

: 00:10:17

gravity is that they attract.

189

: 00:10:19

But then you could ask the quantity,

how strongly do they attract?

190

: 00:10:22

How strongly do masses attract?

191

: 00:10:24

And that's a quantity.

192

: 00:10:25

And it turns out that's

measured by a number.

193

: 00:10:28

And these numbers are

called constants of nature.

194

: 00:10:30

For example, electromagnetism

is another force of nature

195

: 00:10:34

where opposite charges attract.

196

: 00:10:35

So gravity says masses attract.

197

: 00:10:37

Electromagnetism says

opposite charges attract.

198

: 00:10:40

While they both attract and qualitatively

you could think of them as attractive

199

: 00:10:44

forces, the quantity is totally off.

200

: 00:10:47

I think electromagnetism is like 10

to the 40 times as strong as gravity.

201

: 00:10:51

And the idea is that when physicists

study the laws of nature, they've

202

: 00:10:54

discovered that they have to

describe our universe and describe

203

: 00:10:58

everything about our universe.

204

: 00:10:59

You have these qualitative laws,

but ultimately they're these

205

: 00:11:02

numbers, these constants of nature.

206

: 00:11:04

Which are measured and then the numbers

which result, which for example, another

207

: 00:11:08

one of the numbers is something called

the fine structure, which is related

208

: 00:11:11

to the strength of the electromagnetic

force is a number like 1 over 137.

209

: 00:11:18

139777.

210

: 00:11:18

There's many numbers like 25

or so numbers, which are these

211

: 00:11:21

strange arbitrary looking numbers.

212

: 00:11:23

And these are what the current

state of the art is where science

213

: 00:11:26

is like everything of our universe

can be explained by these two

214

: 00:11:29

simple laws of nature, quantum

mechanics and general relativity.

215

: 00:11:32

for listening.

216

: 00:11:32

And also you have these 25

unwieldy numbers, and that

217

: 00:11:36

leads physicists to a mystery.

218

: 00:11:38

So maybe Aaron, you want to talk

a little bit about the mystery?

219

: 00:11:41

Sure.

220

: 00:11:42

Okay, good.

221

: 00:11:43

So that's the good, um, background.

222

: 00:11:46

I just want to, before I get into

the mystery of the constants,

223

: 00:11:48

I just want to make one point.

224

: 00:11:49

What we're doing here is presenting

the fine tuning argument.

225

: 00:11:52

It's a fairly well known

argument, uh, nowadays for the

226

: 00:11:55

existence of an intelligent cause.

227

: 00:11:57

And there's different ways to formulate.

228

: 00:11:59

There's at least two other ways.

229

: 00:12:00

We do it a third way, and we think

we do it in a unique way, and there's

230

: 00:12:04

a reason why we do it this way.

231

: 00:12:05

It avoids a lot of problems that

sometimes atheistic scientists will

232

: 00:12:09

ask about the other formulations.

233

: 00:12:11

I just want to point out that

there's something different in the,

234

: 00:12:13

what's different about it is this

exact point I'm about to say, that

235

: 00:12:16

it's based upon the mystery, okay?

236

: 00:12:18

So let's say, what is the

mystery of the constants?

237

: 00:12:21

Now it's something that Richard Feynman,

when Richard Feynman was editing his

238

: 00:12:23

book QED, it was, uh, 1985, he said,

for example, one of these constants,

239

: 00:12:28

the constant defined structure

constant that I mentioned before.

240

: 00:12:32

So it's these constants of nature.

241

: 00:12:33

How do scientists know how

strong electromagnetic force is?

242

: 00:12:37

The answer is they just measure.

243

: 00:12:38

They measure, they take two electrons,

put them next to each other, and

244

: 00:12:41

they measure the force between them.

245

: 00:12:43

They could quantify how big that is.

246

: 00:12:45

How do you get another

one of these constants?

247

: 00:12:48

is the mass of an electron.

248

: 00:12:49

How big is an electron?

249

: 00:12:50

How heavy is it?

250

: 00:12:51

How much would it weigh if

you put it on the scale?

251

: 00:12:53

So, that's called the mass of an electron.

252

: 00:12:55

How do scientists know that?

253

: 00:12:57

They just measure it and they

say that's how big it is.

254

: 00:12:59

And the mystery of the constants that

Feynman spoke about, which he called one

255

: 00:13:03

of the greatest damn mysteries in physics,

was, how do you explain these numbers?

256

: 00:13:08

How do you explain a number

like 1 over 137, with 0, 3, 9?

257

: 00:13:12

Where does that number come from?

258

: 00:13:13

Feynman metaphorically said it's as if

the number is written by the hand of God.

259

: 00:13:16

It is, it's just something

that we put into the equation.

260

: 00:13:19

Feynman wasn't using this

as an argument from God.

261

: 00:13:21

And this is not, at this point,

in the other stages, there's no

262

: 00:13:24

argument for God at this point.

263

: 00:13:25

It's just a question of, it's

a big mystery in physics.

264

: 00:13:27

Physicists are trained to explain

everything in the universe.

265

: 00:13:30

And they've reduced everything

down to these two beautiful

266

: 00:13:32

laws, quantum mechanics and

gyrorelative, and 25 numbers.

267

: 00:13:37

And these numbers are, to all appearances,

in: 1985

268

: 00:13:42

numbers, complex numbers, many strings

of decimal places, who knows how many

269

: 00:13:47

decimal places it is, the fine structure

constant was measured to, I think it's

270

: 00:13:50

eight decimal places or something.

271

: 00:13:52

But it can go further, it can go a

hundred, who knows, it's the only way

272

: 00:13:55

you know is by measuring further, the

more precise your instruments are.

273

: 00:13:58

The more you'll know, an electron

is this incredibly small value

274

: 00:14:02

and where does it come from?

275

: 00:14:03

Who determines it?

276

: 00:14:05

And is it fundamental?

277

: 00:14:07

Is it that the ultimate reality in

the universe is quantum mechanics,

278

: 00:14:12

general relativity in 25 numbers?

279

: 00:14:15

That's not beautiful.

280

: 00:14:16

Positivists are looking for, for something

that's the fundamental basis of reality.

281

: 00:14:21

And they're looking for something

that's simple and unified and beautiful.

282

: 00:14:27

These 25 numbers, I think in the, uh,

the words of Steven Zuse Weinberg,

283

: 00:14:31

Steve Weinberg, a Nobel prize winner,

he in his dreams of a final theory,

284

: 00:14:35

he says it's the exact opposite of

what scientists are looking for.

285

: 00:14:37

They're looking for something

beautiful and simple and unified.

286

: 00:14:40

And instead you get these 25 numbers

that read like a list of data.

287

: 00:14:44

How could that be the ultimate reality?

288

: 00:14:45

25 random looking arbitrary numbers.

289

: 00:14:49

And if they're not fundamental, and

if these numbers are derived from

290

: 00:14:52

something else, what kind of equation

are scientists going to come up with?

291

: 00:14:56

Thanks.

292

: 00:14:56

That's going to pop out these 25 numbers.

293

: 00:14:59

How are they going to find a

deeper mathematical equation, a

294

: 00:15:02

qualitative equation, which is

going to pop out these 25 constants?

295

: 00:15:06

It didn't seem plausible that

there would be any reasonable

296

: 00:15:09

path to accomplishing that.

297

: 00:15:11

And that was the great mystery is

the way scientists explain things

298

: 00:15:14

is by showing that it derives from

deeper and deeper things until you

299

: 00:15:17

get to the most fundamental reality.

300

: 00:15:19

And the most fundamental reality

was supposed to be this qualitative

301

: 00:15:21

law called quantum mechanics.

302

: 00:15:22

And now it has 25 other numbers

that are just additional.

303

: 00:15:27

pieces of information

you have to add onto it.

304

: 00:15:29

And how could you come up with

a deeper mathematical law that

305

: 00:15:31

would naturally terministically

result in these 25 numbers?

306

: 00:15:35

It didn't seem possible.

307

: 00:15:36

And it doesn't seem possible.

308

: 00:15:37

These numbers are fundamental

basis of reality that just totally

309

: 00:15:41

offends everything physicists

believed was the ultimate

310

: 00:15:44

reality, and that was the mystery.

311

: 00:15:46

And the point I want to make

here is just to emphasize is.

312

: 00:15:51

Nothing about the mystery has

anything to do with fine tuning.

313

: 00:15:54

I haven't mentioned fine tuning yet.

314

: 00:15:56

It's, fine tuning, you don't

even know what fine tuning is.

315

: 00:15:58

The mystery of the constants is an

intrinsic mystery that lies at the

316

: 00:16:02

heart of physics in the pursuit of

physicists of a theory of everything.

317

: 00:16:06

In their attempt to try to explain

the ultimate foundations of reality,

318

: 00:16:10

they're faced with 25 arbitrary looking

complex numbers, and the question

319

: 00:16:15

is, how can you explain fine tuning?

320

: 00:16:17

Something like that.

321

: 00:16:17

That's the mystery.

322

: 00:16:19

Allow me to interrupt.

323

: 00:16:20

The teacher in me feels like

I just want to ask Nathan and

324

: 00:16:23

Daniel, do you have any questions?

325

: 00:16:24

Are we talking over your head?

326

: 00:16:25

Are we not explaining anything fully?

327

: 00:16:28

We don't really want to be lecturing.

328

: 00:16:29

So if there's any questions, I

think we'll become out if you

329

: 00:16:32

guys have any follow up questions.

330

: 00:16:35

Thanks, Ellie.

331

: 00:16:36

Having listened to some of your

podcasts or watched them, I'm able

332

: 00:16:39

to follow where you're going on this.

333

: 00:16:41

And I would encourage other people,

if you're not following this, go

334

: 00:16:44

listen to those podcasts or those

YouTube episodes from Physics to God.

335

: 00:16:49

One of those 25 numbers that you

also talked about and was even

336

: 00:16:52

more understandable to me, and

that was the cosmological constant.

337

: 00:16:57

And correct me if I'm wrong, but

from what I understand, this is

338

: 00:17:01

the number that determines the rate

of the expansion of the universe.

339

: 00:17:05

And it has to be precisely balanced

against the force of gravity.

340

: 00:17:09

The force of gravity is too strong,

you have a big crunch, everything

341

: 00:17:12

collapses, and you don't have any room

for atoms or molecules to Okay, but

342

: 00:17:17

you're jumping, that's the key point.

343

: 00:17:19

This is the key point, is, now

you're talking about fine tuning.

344

: 00:17:22

Which is, if it's too big, the

universe expands too fast, if it's

345

: 00:17:26

too small, the universe crushes.

346

: 00:17:27

But, what's so important, I think, in the

conceptual presentation of the idea, is

347

: 00:17:32

to appreciate that the mystery of, where

does the cosmological constant come from?

348

: 00:17:36

You're right.

349

: 00:17:36

The cosmological constant determines

the expansion rate of the universe.

350

: 00:17:40

That was said at the Big Bang and

how fast it accelerates after that.

351

: 00:17:44

That's fine.

352

: 00:17:45

And it is this fantastically small number.

353

: 00:17:47

It's 3 times 10 to the negative

120 second or something.

354

: 00:17:50

Right.

355

: 00:17:51

Where does that number come from?

356

: 00:17:52

Why is it that the number who

determined that's the number and

357

: 00:17:56

how do you explain that number?

358

: 00:17:57

That's the mystery.

359

: 00:17:59

That number could have.

360

: 00:17:59

Let's say the number could have been

anything and, and it wouldn't have matter.

361

: 00:18:02

Let's just say then you, you have

a mystery of how do you explain it?

362

: 00:18:06

Why is that the number?

363

: 00:18:07

Are we just supposed to accept that

the basis of reality is a number, like

364

: 00:18:12

0.0 zero, zero zero a hundred nineteen,

decibel, places, zeros, and then a three.

365

: 00:18:17

Like, where does that number come from?

366

: 00:18:19

That's the mystery.

367

: 00:18:20

It has really nothing to do with the

fact that, which we're going to explain

368

: 00:18:23

in a second, that if that number's a

little too big, there's no galaxies,

369

: 00:18:26

the number's too small, then there's,

everything just crunches in on itself.

370

: 00:18:30

That's fine tuning.

371

: 00:18:31

Many of the other formulations

of fine tuning, they look at

372

: 00:18:34

fine tuning as the problem.

373

: 00:18:36

The key is to realize the mystery

that Feynman spoke about in

374

: 00:18:39

1985 had, he didn't know that he

was talking about fine tuning.

375

: 00:18:41

He was talking about the intrinsic

problem of how do you explain a number?

376

: 00:18:46

How does physics explain it in a deeper

way, or are we physicists forced to

377

: 00:18:51

accept the fact that 25 numbers are

the ultimate base foundation of all

378

: 00:18:56

reality and they are, they're not,

there's no other deeper explanation

379

: 00:18:59

and this is just what we've come to.

380

: 00:19:01

That's the mystery.

381

: 00:19:02

Okay.

382

: 00:19:02

Great.

383

: 00:19:02

Thank you.

384

: 00:19:03

Okay.

385

: 00:19:04

So go ahead.

386

: 00:19:04

I don't know why you tried to

explain where fine tuning comes in.

387

: 00:19:07

Okay.

388

: 00:19:08

Good.

389

: 00:19:08

So this actually gets to what Daniel

was starting to lead towards, is

390

: 00:19:11

that Feynman's mystery was how

in the world do you explain these

391

: 00:19:15

completely arbitrary numbers?

392

: 00:19:17

They seem to have nothing

special about these numbers.

393

: 00:19:20

Already starting in the 70s, 80s, 90s, the

topping came in: 1998

394

: 00:19:25

started to realize that these numbers

are not as arbitrary as they thought.

395

: 00:19:30

And not just 1 over 137 or whatever,

it's not as strange and crazy as it is.

396

: 00:19:35

But, what's special about these

numbers is nothing about the

397

: 00:19:38

laws of physics themselves.

398

: 00:19:40

The laws of physics, if you change

the number from 1 over 137 to

399

: 00:19:43

1 over a million, or to 53, the

laws of physics would be the same.

400

: 00:19:48

There's nothing different about them.

401

: 00:19:49

But, if those numbers were

different, Then the laws of physics

402

: 00:19:53

would not be able to result.

403

: 00:19:55

As the universe developed, it wouldn't

result in the formation of atoms, of

404

: 00:20:00

molecules, of planets, of stars, of life.

405

: 00:20:03

And that's what, that's

what scientists realized.

406

: 00:20:05

These numbers are fine tuned.

407

: 00:20:06

If you can imagine these numbers having

dials, which sets the value of, these

408

: 00:20:10

numbers are fine tuned such that if

the numbers were not what they're

409

: 00:20:14

at, what the value of which they

are, but they were different values.

410

: 00:20:17

Then physics will be fine, but

you wouldn't be able to result in

411

: 00:20:20

fields of astronomy and biology,

chemistry, nothing would result.

412

: 00:20:24

And that was an amazing clue, a

discovery, a scientific discovery,

413

: 00:20:28

that these values are special.

414

: 00:20:31

They're special, but not special

in terms of physics, special in

415

: 00:20:34

terms of the purpose, in terms

of what they ultimately produce.

416

: 00:20:38

And that was a shocking

discovery, which was surprising

417

: 00:20:41

to physicists and scientists.

418

: 00:20:43

It was something which

they had to deal with.

419

: 00:20:45

How do you, what do you do with that clue?

420

: 00:20:47

What do you do with that?

421

: 00:20:48

And that's what, for example, you

talked about Daniels, the cosmological

422

: 00:20:51

constant, which is this red number,

which determines the rate at which the

423

: 00:20:55

universe is expanding or accelerating.

424

: 00:20:57

And it turns out that if it was expanding

too fast, then everything would have

425

: 00:21:00

just pulled away from each other.

426

: 00:21:01

We wouldn't have been able

to have any galaxies form.

427

: 00:21:03

It was expanding too slow and

gravity would have caused everything

428

: 00:21:06

to crunch and you would never

also have never formed galaxies.

429

: 00:21:09

And a lot of these numbers, as science

gets more and more knowledge, we realize

430

: 00:21:12

a lot of these numbers are fine too.

431

: 00:21:15

That the values of these numbers

are what they need to be in order

432

: 00:21:19

to produce a universe like our own.

433

: 00:21:22

And that was an amazing discovery.

434

: 00:21:23

Right.

435

: 00:21:24

Now, the key point is to look at Phi

Thuny as the solution to the mystery.

436

: 00:21:30

It's the clue.

437

: 00:21:31

It's the great clue

that solves the mystery.

438

: 00:21:34

Because the mystery is

these arbitrary numbers.

439

: 00:21:36

How do you explain the number?

440

: 00:21:38

And fine tuning is scientific knowledge,

which we learn about it, we learn

441

: 00:21:42

about the mass of the electrons.

442

: 00:21:43

So these electrons are really tiny,

they're one, almost one two thousandth

443

: 00:21:47

the mass of a proton and a neutron,

but they're not exactly one two

444

: 00:21:51

thousandth, they're one thousand

eight hundred and thirty six of a

445

: 00:21:56

proton and one thousand eight hundred

and thirty eighth of a neutron.

446

: 00:21:59

And it turns out if the illicit electron's

a little bit bigger than its tiny

447

: 00:22:03

value, then the two and a half times.

448

: 00:22:05

Then protons and electrons will be able

to combine, the charges would cancel

449

: 00:22:09

and you'd end up getting neutrons.

450

: 00:22:10

And all atoms would collapse and you would

lose, would be no such thing as atoms.

451

: 00:22:13

Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen,

Carbon, everything.

452

: 00:22:16

All you'd have is

everything become neutrons.

453

: 00:22:19

And there wouldn't be any

atoms or molecules and planets

454

: 00:22:21

and stars and anything else.

455

: 00:22:23

And that's scientific knowledge.

456

: 00:22:25

The only reason you know that

is because scientists understand

457

: 00:22:28

chemistry and anatomic physics.

458

: 00:22:30

And phi tuning is a type of scientific

knowledge which explains one of

459

: 00:22:34

the deepest mysteries In science,

the mystery of the constants, and

460

: 00:22:38

that's very important to understand

why this is, the whole fine tuning

461

: 00:22:41

is not a problem, it's a solution.

462

: 00:22:42

It's the, it's scientific knowledge which

points the way to the true solution.

463

: 00:22:46

The true solution is that we can

explain the constants, we understand

464

: 00:22:50

why they have their crazy values.

465

: 00:22:52

Why is that in fine structure

constant over 1 over 137?

466

: 00:22:56

In order to have atoms and molecules

or planets and stars, if it was 1

467

: 00:23:00

over 140, you don't have any of that.

468

: 00:23:02

Because when I've already been there

in 30, you don't have that either.

469

: 00:23:05

And this, you know, a lot of these

custs, you change them a couple percent

470

: 00:23:08

and nothing works out and you lose

all the complexity and structure and

471

: 00:23:11

order and the universe falls away.

472

: 00:23:13

And that is a type of an explanation.

473

: 00:23:15

Now, it's not the standard

type of explanation that modern

474

: 00:23:19

science had been working with.

475

: 00:23:20

It's called a teleological explanation.

476

: 00:23:23

You're explaining the values of

these constants by their purpose.

477

: 00:23:26

And the problem with that for a

scientist was, this is something

478

: 00:23:31

new, this is something different.

479

: 00:23:32

Teleology was something where, teleology

means a purpose based explanation.

480

: 00:23:37

That's something that Aristotelian

scientists have, but modern Newtonian

481

: 00:23:41

physics, in theory, got rid of that.

482

: 00:23:43

And now all of a sudden, fine

tuning shows that it's coming back.

483

: 00:23:45

That there is this connection.

484

: 00:23:47

Connection of the

objective of the contents.

485

: 00:23:49

The purpose of them is to produce stars

and planets and scientists that he

486

: 00:23:53

recognizes, this is something so far,

everything we've said is something that

487

: 00:23:57

physicists and scientists will say, maybe

99 percent of the wall, more or less all

488

: 00:24:02

agreed to everything we said of mystery

of the concepts that finally talked about.

489

: 00:24:06

And fine tuning itself, the

fact that if you change these

490

: 00:24:09

numbers, you won't get any of the

complexionate order in the universe.

491

: 00:24:13

But nobody's arguing on that.

492

: 00:24:15

The question is, how

do you interpret that?

493

: 00:24:17

So, this is where we diverge.

494

: 00:24:18

We think that the natural interpretation,

and the direct indication of when

495

: 00:24:23

you see purpose, That the constants

have a purpose of producing atoms and

496

: 00:24:27

molecules of stars and planets and life.

497

: 00:24:30

The cause of the constants is

intelligent because an intelligent

498

: 00:24:35

cause acts with a purpose.

499

: 00:24:36

That whoever set the constants

are not truly fundamental.

500

: 00:24:40

To answer the mystery of the constants,

they're not truly fundamental.

501

: 00:24:43

Rather, they were set by an intelligent

cause that set them at their values

502

: 00:24:46

in order to produce a universe,

which is an interesting universe,

503

: 00:24:49

which has stars and planets and

life and galaxies and all these.

504

: 00:24:52

Other different, amazing,

wonderful things.

505

: 00:24:54

And that shows you that there's an

intelligent cause for the universe.

506

: 00:24:57

It's not just an unintelligent brute

fact of reality of 25 numbers or some

507

: 00:25:02

Randall thing that just produces numbers

for no purpose, but it shows you that

508

: 00:25:06

the cause of the laws of nature and the

constants of nature is an intelligent

509

: 00:25:11

cause, which acts with a purpose,

understands what it's doing and set

510

: 00:25:14

these constants for a specific value.

511

: 00:25:16

For a specific purpose and an

objective that obviously is

512

: 00:25:20

what scientists don't like.

513

: 00:25:21

We'll talk about in a second about their

approach and notice the multiverse.

514

: 00:25:25

But the main point in following this

whole, this whole formulation of the

515

: 00:25:29

fine tuning argument is appreciating.

516

: 00:25:31

It's not an argument from the gaps.

517

: 00:25:33

It's not an argument from ignorance

that very often seems to be the case.

518

: 00:25:37

When you people try to argue with a

teleological argument from biology,

519

: 00:25:41

which seems to be, we don't know

how to explain certain things.

520

: 00:25:44

Okay.

521

: 00:25:44

And you're seeing that it

must be God is doing that.

522

: 00:25:46

We don't know how to explain

where our life originated.

523

: 00:25:49

It must be God did it in.

524

: 00:25:50

We're not trying to knock

the argument in biology.

525

: 00:25:52

It's just, we want to show you.

526

: 00:25:54

And then that's very much why we

made the podcast physics to God.

527

: 00:25:58

And what we're doing is the first

five episodes of that, of the, of our

528

: 00:26:01

podcast, the fine tuning argument is

because it's, there's a superiority.

529

: 00:26:05

It's tremendously superior.

530

: 00:26:07

There's argument in physics.

531

: 00:26:08

If you want to have real conviction.

532

: 00:26:10

That there's an intelligent

cause to the universe.

533

: 00:26:13

The argument from physics is much

better than any other argument,

534

: 00:26:16

frankly, that I've seen anywhere.

535

: 00:26:18

And it's why we've devoted more

than a decade towards developing

536

: 00:26:22

it and ultimately trying to

present it in a podcast and

537

: 00:26:24

hopefully in the future a book.

538

: 00:26:26

It's because it's very clear

it's an argument from knowledge.

539

: 00:26:29

And it's not an argument from the gaps

where you just simply don't understand

540

: 00:26:32

the detail in some sort of, you know.

541

: 00:26:34

How cows have spots, but you're dealing

with the fundamental basis of reality,

542

: 00:26:38

the constants of nature, the fundamental

concepts of physicists called constants.

543

: 00:26:42

And you're showing there's an intrinsic

mystery that scientists acknowledge and

544

: 00:26:45

fine tuning, which scientists acknowledge

also is coming in and scientific

545

: 00:26:49

knowledge, which solves the mystery and

points directly to an intelligent cause.

546

: 00:26:54

And that's very much why it's so important

to formulate it, to see why the idea of

547

: 00:26:58

an intelligent clause of the constants is

simply the natural outcome of following

548

: 00:27:02

the conceptual unfolding of how physics

went from the mystery to fine tuning.

549

: 00:27:07

Okay, I appreciate that,

and there's a lot here.

550

: 00:27:10

Let me see if I could put

this into a deductive analogy.

551

: 00:27:15

So I used to teach logic, and when

I was on the debate team, we tried

552

: 00:27:18

to put things in an argument just

so we could analyze them better.

553

: 00:27:22

That's my first shot, just

listening to you, Aaron, talk

554

: 00:27:25

about that the last five minutes.

555

: 00:27:28

Deductive argument, you've got two

premises that lead to a conclusion.

556

: 00:27:32

Try this out, see if I'm

on the same page with you.

557

: 00:27:35

Premise number one, the best

scientific answer to the mystery

558

: 00:27:38

of the consonants is fine tuning.

559

: 00:27:41

Premise two, fine tuning

implies intelligence.

560

: 00:27:45

Conclusion, therefore, the best

scientific explanation for the

561

: 00:27:49

constants of physics is intelligence.

562

: 00:27:53

Okay, so you're saying that

you're starting off with The fine

563

: 00:27:57

tuning is the best explanation

for the constants, correct?

564

: 00:28:01

That is the best scientific

knowledge we have.

565

: 00:28:04

Okay.

566

: 00:28:04

So that's the premise for it.

567

: 00:28:05

And it's pretty much the only scientific

knowledge we have about the constants.

568

: 00:28:08

Everything else about them is,

they're, they're arbitrary.

569

: 00:28:11

We don't know anything about them.

570

: 00:28:12

So that's the knowledge we have.

571

: 00:28:13

Okay.

572

: 00:28:14

And then you're saying, and

then if we have fine tuning

573

: 00:28:16

implies an intelligent cause.

574

: 00:28:18

Yes.

575

: 00:28:18

That's the premise, too.

576

: 00:28:19

Right.

577

: 00:28:20

And then if we put those together, since

we have a mystery, fine tuning is the clue

578

: 00:28:24

that leads to such an intelligent cause.

579

: 00:28:25

And therefore we have

an intelligent cause.

580

: 00:28:27

Yes.

581

: 00:28:28

You guys are philosophers.

582

: 00:28:29

I see.

583

: 00:28:29

I just got a philosopher.

584

: 00:28:31

Solid.

585

: 00:28:32

Solid.

586

: 00:28:32

I used to elaborate a teeny

bit on the second premise.

587

: 00:28:35

We're just saying, yeah,

it's an intelligent cause.

588

: 00:28:38

So I think it comes down to intelligence,

how you understand intelligence.

589

: 00:28:42

So the way we think about it is

intelligence comes from some Latin

590

: 00:28:45

word that I don't know how to

pronounce, but it's like interlegory.

591

: 00:28:48

So then it means let's select.

592

: 00:28:50

And the idea is that you select,

intelligence really is like the ability

593

: 00:28:54

to select one particular path or strategy

or anything from a set of many for

594

: 00:29:01

the purpose of realizing some goal.

595

: 00:29:03

And you can think about that in any area.

596

: 00:29:05

Intelligence is a person's

ability to select, to choose.

597

: 00:29:08

There's a lot of different options out

there, and you're choosing one which

598

: 00:29:12

leads you towards a desired goal.

599

: 00:29:13

And that being the case, with that

idea of intelligence, we think

600

: 00:29:16

fine tuning is basically saying the

values, as far as physics knows,

601

: 00:29:21

the values could have been anything.

602

: 00:29:22

Although physicists will tell you

there's nothing which Seemingly the

603

: 00:29:25

target is that the values are any

value on one of 137 or any other value.

604

: 00:29:29

But the choice of the constants, the

values of the constants were selected

605

: 00:29:35

as the particular values, which

are necessary to be able to result

606

: 00:29:39

in our amazing complex universe.

607

: 00:29:41

And we're saying is that's the

signature fine tuning design order.

608

: 00:29:45

These are signatures of intelligence.

609

: 00:29:48

The fact that the cons are

selected the perfect values with

610

: 00:29:52

which will result in that goal.

611

: 00:29:54

Of Ring About Our Universe, that's

why that second premise is the case.

612

: 00:29:58

That fine tuning implies

an indulgent cause.

613

: 00:30:01

Okay, that's good stuff.

614

: 00:30:02

Very helpful.

615

: 00:30:03

And so again, this is not necessarily

a direct proof for God as we understand

616

: 00:30:08

it, but to me, if this argument

is successful, then it undermines

617

: 00:30:13

naturalism and, and obviously has

a very important purpose then.

618

: 00:30:19

Yeah, exactly.

619

: 00:30:20

So I'll take off on that point

actually is it's not from the way we're

620

: 00:30:23

formulating it You're not going to

get divine providence in order to get

621

: 00:30:27

divine providence You really have to

say that there are specifically fine

622

: 00:30:30

tuning for intelligent life for human

beings And that we think is if you,

623

: 00:30:35

you don't really have specific fine

tuning for human beings in particular.

624

: 00:30:40

Yes, it's true if you don't have the

cosmological constant set properly,

625

: 00:30:44

the whole universe collapses.

626

: 00:30:45

But then you don't have, it's more you

don't have, you don't have anything.

627

: 00:30:48

If you don't have the fine structure

constant, or the mass of an electron fine

628

: 00:30:51

tuned very precisely, there's no atoms

and molecules and planets and stars.

629

: 00:30:57

And no human beings, no intelligent life,

but it doesn't show you a philosophically,

630

: 00:31:02

if you use a proper philosophical

methodology, it doesn't show you that the

631

: 00:31:05

purpose of everything is human beings.

632

: 00:31:08

It just shows you that the cause of the

universe selected these things to produce

633

: 00:31:13

a universe with structure and hierarchy

and order and complexity, and all the

634

: 00:31:18

amazing, wonderful things that exist in

the universe from a cause and chemistry

635

: 00:31:23

to stars and galaxies, everything.

636

: 00:31:25

And yes, life is phenomenal and

intelligent life is special, but we're

637

: 00:31:29

just one part of this amazing universe.

638

: 00:31:31

And the cause of the universe intended

it all, as far as we can tell.

639

: 00:31:35

Is there one particular part that

the cause God likes the most?

640

: 00:31:40

That's, in a sense, beyond

the scope of this argument.

641

: 00:31:43

We think, and, and, and we think

when people try to formulate it,

642

: 00:31:46

that say intelligence, that fine

tuning is for intelligent life, Then

643

: 00:31:49

they expose themselves to having

questions from atheistic scientists

644

: 00:31:53

and saying, well, hold on a second.

645

: 00:31:54

Maybe there's different forms of life

that can, in some hydrogen cloud,

646

: 00:31:57

maybe it's possible to have life.

647

: 00:31:58

And you end up, um, opening

up the argument, the fighting

648

: 00:32:01

argument to a lot of questions.

649

: 00:32:03

And then a person hears that and says,

you know what, these scientists are right.

650

: 00:32:06

But what's really happened is

that people have not formulated

651

: 00:32:09

the argument in the proper way.

652

: 00:32:10

There's an expression in the Talmud

that's, that says, it's in Aramaic, it's

653

: 00:32:14

tefas tamur walot tefas tamiet tebas.

654

: 00:32:17

That if you try to grab too

much, you grab nothing at all.

655

: 00:32:20

And if you try to grab a small

amount, what you're able to

656

: 00:32:23

grab, then you grab something.

657

: 00:32:24

And that's what goes wrong here is that

you try to prove divine providence,

658

: 00:32:28

you try to get everything out of the

fine tuning argument, then it ends

659

: 00:32:31

up becoming a weaker formulation

that can be knocked off by scientists

660

: 00:32:35

and philosophers poking holes in it

because you tried to do too much.

661

: 00:32:39

But if you are satisfied by saying, we

have the best proof that modern science

662

: 00:32:43

has ever afforded with the idea of

God, who created the universe, caused

663

: 00:32:47

the universe, set the laws of nature

and the constants of nature for the

664

: 00:32:51

purpose of producing an entire wonderful

amazing Ordered in complex universe.

665

: 00:32:55

That's incredible in the modern world

to actually have science indicating in

666

: 00:33:00

a very clear, compelling, convincing

way to a person that God exists is an

667

: 00:33:04

amazing thing and to try to overreach

and try to use this to prove divine

668

: 00:33:10

providence, then you end up losing it all.

669

: 00:33:12

And it's just a big mistake

that we think people often make.

670

: 00:33:15

And that's.

671

: 00:33:16

It, it's, start off with God as the

foundation of religion, and then

672

: 00:33:19

if you want to prove religion, you

want to prove divine providence,

673

: 00:33:22

there's other arguments you can use.

674

: 00:33:24

Yes, they're not the fine tuning

argument, maybe they're not as

675

: 00:33:27

rigorous, but still you have to be

honest with what this argument proves.

676

: 00:33:32

Okay.

677

: 00:33:32

Yeah, I love that.

678

: 00:33:33

I like that a lot.

679

: 00:33:35

Yeah, yeah.

680

: 00:33:36

Go ahead, Nathan.

681

: 00:33:37

No, I appreciate that as well that you're

trying to make it as tight as possible.

682

: 00:33:42

I guess my question is there's no one of

those 25 numbers that are foundational

683

: 00:33:49

that is necessary for This is that

corresponds to human life, right?

684

: 00:33:54

Is that right?

685

: 00:33:55

Is that one way of putting it?

686

: 00:33:56

Maybe.

687

: 00:33:56

Exactly.

688

: 00:33:57

That's the thing that the closest

thing you have is like, there's like

689

: 00:34:00

a certain element of fine tuning of

carbon, which is a little bit complex.

690

: 00:34:03

And that's like the closest thing,

but the fine tuning there is disputed

691

: 00:34:07

by how much the fine tuning is.

692

: 00:34:08

Weinberg wanted to say, it's

like a 25 percent thing.

693

: 00:34:11

And that's like the best, the best

argument you're going to get is for,

694

: 00:34:14

is from carbon is a certain resonance

and needs and in order for it to, in

695

: 00:34:18

the formation of carbon from stars.

696

: 00:34:20

I think Fred Hoyle is the one who

discovered it and he was an atheist,

697

: 00:34:23

I think, but still, but that's

like the closest to me than carbon.

698

: 00:34:26

It gets you, maybe it gets you

life, carbon based life, but still

699

: 00:34:29

doesn't get you intelligent life.

700

: 00:34:31

And that's, and that's like

dispute amongst the scientists.

701

: 00:34:34

Well, what's so amazing about what the

fine tuning argument is, we've presented

702

: 00:34:37

it, is we're not, there's nothing

we've said scientists would argue about

703

: 00:34:41

in the framework of science, right?

704

: 00:34:43

The fine tuning, they, they

agree that if you don't have.

705

: 00:34:46

How's logic constant?

706

: 00:34:47

You don't have a universe.

707

: 00:34:48

You don't have covered galaxies.

708

: 00:34:49

If you don't have the fine structure

constant or the mass of an electron or

709

: 00:34:52

the masses of quarks or the relationship

between gravity and electromagnetic force,

710

: 00:34:56

the strengths, you don't have stars.

711

: 00:34:58

You don't have, you don't have atoms

and molecules, things like that.

712

: 00:35:01

They all say this.

713

: 00:35:02

You could go online and you could

go search videos of fine tuning and

714

: 00:35:05

of the constants or the multiverse.

715

: 00:35:08

Scientists will talk about this when we

talk about the multiverse and, and, and.

716

: 00:35:11

They agree about everything we say, what

they just say is, granted there's this

717

: 00:35:16

mystery, granted the fine tuning seems

to make it look like you need these

718

: 00:35:21

constants in order to, for the purpose.

719

: 00:35:23

They just say it's an illusion.

720

: 00:35:25

The proper interpretation according to

them is that we live in a multiverse,

721

: 00:35:29

which if you listeners who don't

know what a multiverse is, it's an

722

: 00:35:32

infinite number of unobservable.

723

: 00:35:35

Other universes, where the constants

of nature are different in every

724

: 00:35:39

universe speculated that the, that

the concepts of nature are different.

725

: 00:35:42

Every universe and obviously 99%,

99% of them, there's no life.

726

: 00:35:48

There's no planets, there's

no atos or molecules, and

727

: 00:35:51

there's no intelligent life.

728

: 00:35:53

And in ours, just a few universes or

whatever, small subset of them that

729

: 00:35:57

happens to be fine tuning by chance alone.

730

: 00:36:00

And we obviously are in a universe

which has fine tuning because we

731

: 00:36:03

couldn't exist in any other universe.

732

: 00:36:05

And that's called the anthropic

principle, that it's an observer bias.

733

: 00:36:08

And of course, we're going to look

around and see a universe which

734

: 00:36:11

has fine tuned constants because we

couldn't exist in any other universe.

735

: 00:36:15

And that's their explanation.

736

: 00:36:17

And we were doing an entire series,

our series two in our podcast, which

737

: 00:36:21

is going to come out in November.

738

: 00:36:22

Take care.

739

: 00:36:22

It'll be about 15 episodes to

show understanding the multiverse

740

: 00:36:26

and rejecting the multiverse,

seeing why it's not good science.

741

: 00:36:29

It's rather bad philosophy because

it doesn't meet the standards of

742

: 00:36:33

science of observation and prediction,

and it has more intrinsic flaws.

743

: 00:36:37

Which we'll talk about in our

season two, but that's where

744

: 00:36:40

they argue it is essentially.

745

: 00:36:41

It's a philosophical argument of what

is the proper interpretation of the

746

: 00:36:45

fact that these constants seem to be Set

with the specific values for the purpose

747

: 00:36:50

of bringing about atoms and molecules

and stars Do you say therefore there's

748

: 00:36:54

an intelligent cause who sent him?

749

: 00:36:55

What do you say?

750

: 00:36:55

No, it's just an illusion of purpose

It looks like this purpose because we

751

: 00:36:59

have an observer bias and that really

becomes a philosophical Discussion

752

: 00:37:04

of what are the proper philosophical

methodology for interpreting this?

753

: 00:37:07

Um, and, and we, we say to people is,

if you want to believe that this fine

754

: 00:37:11

tuning argument is really a good argument

for the existence of God, And it's not,

755

: 00:37:15

we're not just making something up.

756

: 00:37:17

Go look at the multiverse.

757

: 00:37:18

Go Google, go on YouTube and

watch videos of the multiverse.

758

: 00:37:21

And when you see the top physicists in

the world, the most brilliant people in

759

: 00:37:24

the world, talk about the multiverse,

how they really believe there's infinite

760

: 00:37:27

number of parallel universes, and

everything that possibly can happen.

761

: 00:37:31

Does happen, and they talk about universes

with smurfs in them, and universes

762

: 00:37:34

with people being resurrected, and they

literally talk about all this stuff.

763

: 00:37:39

You're going to realize that there must

be a really good argument from fine

764

: 00:37:42

tuning, because scientists would not be

saying the multiverse if there weren't

765

: 00:37:46

a strong argument from fine tuning.

766

: 00:37:48

And that's another reason why we

believe the argument from physics is

767

: 00:37:51

much better than the one from biology,

because in biology, people who are

768

: 00:37:55

proponents of intelligent design,

they're arguing with scientists.

769

: 00:37:58

about biology.

770

: 00:37:59

They're arguing is this, is fear of

evolution comprehensive, does it have

771

: 00:38:03

flaws in it, or And again, we don't

want to get into that, but you argue

772

: 00:38:06

scientific arguments with scientists.

773

: 00:38:09

In physics, when you deal with fine

tuning the constants, you're not

774

: 00:38:12

arguing physics with physicists.

775

: 00:38:15

We all agree on the physics.

776

: 00:38:16

We all agree on the science.

777

: 00:38:17

The question is, what is the better

philosophical interpretation of the fact

778

: 00:38:21

that the constants are fine tuned in order

to allow a complex universe to exist.

779

: 00:38:25

Is it that there really is the

purpose of the constants and there's

780

: 00:38:28

an intelligent cause that said it?

781

: 00:38:29

Or is it that we live in an infinite

number of parallel universes which nobody

782

: 00:38:33

can ever see, nobody could ever test for,

and it just happens to be this illusion of

783

: 00:38:37

fine tuning because of an observer bias?

784

: 00:38:39

That's why we think it's

a much stronger argument.

785

: 00:38:42

Yeah, that's great.

786

: 00:38:43

So I've got two questions.

787

: 00:38:44

First, from a pop culture perspective,

is the Marvel Universe portrayal of

788

: 00:38:49

the multiverse and like the Spider

Man and Avengers movies, is that

789

: 00:38:53

accurate from a physics perspective?

790

: 00:38:56

Okay, so this is really a subtle

question because the multiverse

791

: 00:38:59

is such a ridiculous theory.

792

: 00:39:01

I think in the Marvel movies, you

can travel between universes, okay?

793

: 00:39:05

So, really you can, in, in a physics

perspective, the whole point of these

794

: 00:39:09

other universes, they're not causally

connected, they're separate bubble

795

: 00:39:12

universes, and it's impossible to

travel from one to the other, okay?

796

: 00:39:16

But what you could do, and this, I

play this game with my son a little

797

: 00:39:19

bit, there is a universe that's

where if you just run as fast as

798

: 00:39:23

you can right into a brick wall.

799

: 00:39:25

So there is a universe where, you know,

as soon as you hit the brick wall, all

800

: 00:39:29

your items will just disperse and you

will disappear in that universe, okay?

801

: 00:39:32

Okay?

802

: 00:39:33

Now, there's another universe where

randomly that brick wall, the atoms in

803

: 00:39:37

that molecule, they fluctuate and you pop

out of the other side of the brick wall.

804

: 00:39:42

So they're good because everything

happens in the multiverse.

805

: 00:39:45

When you're dealing with an infinite

number of universes and quantum

806

: 00:39:48

mechanics, everything possible

that can happen does happen.

807

: 00:39:51

So there are portals in the

sense that you can run it.

808

: 00:39:54

If you really believe in the multiverse

and you run straight into a wall, there

809

: 00:39:56

is a universe in the multiverse where

you'll cease to exist in this universe.

810

: 00:40:01

And there's another universe

where you'll pop out of it.

811

: 00:40:03

So you can treat that like

a portal between universe.

812

: 00:40:06

And that really does exist.

813

: 00:40:07

Multiverse scientists really

believe in this kind of things.

814

: 00:40:09

I don't think they're going

to run into a brick wall.

815

: 00:40:11

Um, I don't know if they really

believe in it, but, but you do.

816

: 00:40:15

That's the thing when you, as is,

if you think about the logical

817

: 00:40:18

conclusions of multiverse, which is

an infinite number of universes where

818

: 00:40:22

everything possible happens, you end

up with the most absurd types of.

819

: 00:40:26

Scenarios.

820

: 00:40:27

And it really starts to

parallel science fiction.

821

: 00:40:30

It becomes something like that.

822

: 00:40:32

Yeah.

823

: 00:40:32

I appreciate that.

824

: 00:40:34

One of the things I wrestled with

before is whether the idea of an actual

825

: 00:40:38

infinite is even a tenable hypothesis,

an actual infinite of anything.

826

: 00:40:42

Obviously you can have the idea of

an infinite as being without limits

827

: 00:40:46

and have a conceptual infinity, but.

828

: 00:40:49

Once you start talking about an

infinite number of books or an infinite

829

: 00:40:53

number of molecules, then you begin

to have some self contradictions.

830

: 00:40:57

I don't know.

831

: 00:40:57

Am I off base?

832

: 00:40:58

Yeah, no, that's good.

833

: 00:40:59

That's one of the things we're going

to talk about on our series about the

834

: 00:41:01

multiverse, is that in order for a

multiverse to work, they end up having to

835

: 00:41:05

posit that they're in silly man universes.

836

: 00:41:07

Then, There's a lot of problems with

multiverse, but one, one of them,

837

: 00:41:11

probably the smallest of them is that

in, that they have to posit that they

838

: 00:41:15

have to take a side on this ancient

philosophical debate of whether there's

839

: 00:41:19

such a thing as a physical infinity.

840

: 00:41:21

And it's not so simple.

841

: 00:41:22

There are potential

contradictions that you got to do.

842

: 00:41:24

We're obviously, we don't want to take

a stand on that, but that's one of the

843

: 00:41:28

things that multiverse has to suggest

is that there are infinitely many

844

: 00:41:31

universes, physical infinity is possible.

845

: 00:41:33

And that's part of their model

is that they end up having

846

: 00:41:36

infinitely many universes.

847

: 00:41:37

Where everything possible

happens somewhere.

848

: 00:41:39

So that's, yeah, that's

definitely one, one issue.

849

: 00:41:42

But again, it's arguably

one of the smaller problems.

850

: 00:41:45

We've got a lot of problems.

851

: 00:41:46

But that's not true.

852

: 00:41:46

It's something which

people don't often say.

853

: 00:41:49

But there's a physicist named

George Ellis who makes this point.

854

: 00:41:52

He says that somehow physicists or

scientists are ignoring that problem

855

: 00:41:57

and just treating it like it makes sense

and there's nothing to worry about.

856

: 00:41:59

But, you know, there's great,

great philosophers, physicists,

857

: 00:42:01

mathematicians who have said there's

no such thing as a physical unbound.

858

: 00:42:05

But that's not our, we do point out, we,

in the, throughout our process, we, in

859

: 00:42:09

the, in these, in the, in our episodes,

we're going to point out a lot of

860

: 00:42:12

potential problems with the multiverse.

861

: 00:42:14

And there are a lot of problems.

862

: 00:42:16

Besides for the fact though, like

Aaron's mentioning is that there's no,

863

: 00:42:19

it sounds like science fiction, it's

make believe, it's like all this stuff.

864

: 00:42:22

But we take this, even though it sounds

that way, we take it very seriously

865

: 00:42:26

and we look into all the potential

supports and show the problems.

866

: 00:42:30

And ultimately culminating in a problem,

which we're not going to talk about

867

: 00:42:33

now, but something called the measure

problem, which is the real devastating

868

: 00:42:36

problem, which ultimately shows that

even in its own framework of, even

869

: 00:42:39

if you believe and you accept all the

infinitely many universes and the fact

870

: 00:42:42

the constants change, ultimately it fails.

871

: 00:42:45

And based on those devastating

problem called the measure problem.

872

: 00:42:48

But more on that in our second series.

873

: 00:42:51

Looking forward to that.

874

: 00:42:52

Yeah.

875

: 00:42:53

I've often wondered too, okay, the

multi universe is true and there's an

876

: 00:42:57

infinite number of universes where.

877

: 00:42:59

They have their own laws of physics

and reality and rationality, then

878

: 00:43:02

certainly there are universes

where the multiverse isn't true.

879

: 00:43:05

Anyway, you've seen already

contradictions of different kinds.

880

: 00:43:08

But I appreciate the point that you

made, Aaron, that when you start

881

: 00:43:12

proposing a multiverse, you're

stepping outside of science, you're

882

: 00:43:16

stepping outside of physics, and

you are in the area of philosophy.

883

: 00:43:20

A lot of people just don't

seem to understand that.

884

: 00:43:23

And there seems to be a presupposition

of philosophical naturalism that guides

885

: 00:43:29

all that they're doing to such a degree

that they don't recognize that they've

886

: 00:43:33

already made a philosophical choice

that's guiding what they're doing.

887

: 00:43:37

So You I, I think you're,

from what I understood anyway,

888

: 00:43:40

you're exactly on point there.

889

: 00:43:41

I, I love science and I love physics.

890

: 00:43:45

You know, when you read

physicists of the earlier 20th

891

: 00:43:48

century, they knew philosophy.

892

: 00:43:50

Einstein and Bohr and Schrodinger

and, and Heisenberg, they were

893

: 00:43:55

knowledgeable about philosophy.

894

: 00:43:56

And then something happened in the

middle of the 20th century, maybe the

895

: 00:44:00

later part of the 20th century, some

degree, Feynman's responsible for it.

896

: 00:44:03

He's so influential.

897

: 00:44:05

where this physicist developed

like a disdain for philosophy.

898

: 00:44:08

I think Stephen Hawking started one of his

books with philosophy is dead, and science

899

: 00:44:14

and physics has become the new, the new

way forward, and philosophy is over.

900

: 00:44:18

And that attitude of just looking down

on philosophy and disdain has caused,

901

: 00:44:23

Modern physicists and scientists look

askew at philosophy and it really it's

902

: 00:44:28

glorifying their ignorance of philosophy.

903

: 00:44:30

And that makes them unaware of that.

904

: 00:44:32

They are taking philosophical positions

that are controversial and they don't

905

: 00:44:36

necessarily work out their theories

in a philosophical framework because

906

: 00:44:40

they think they're just doing science

and shut up and calculate and as long

907

: 00:44:43

as it works out, you're doing science.

908

: 00:44:46

And then they don't understand

the foundations of physics.

909

: 00:44:48

They end up with these.

910

: 00:44:50

They end up doing multiverse and

thinking it's science because it's

911

: 00:44:52

mathematical, when they really

veer beyond what classical science

912

: 00:44:56

is and it becomes philosophy.

913

: 00:44:58

And it gets worse because they

hate philosophy so much because

914

: 00:45:02

they're scientists and philosophy

is bad and I don't know why, they

915

: 00:45:06

really don't like philosophy.

916

: 00:45:08

Then they have to call what the

philosophy that they are doing,

917

: 00:45:11

they have to call it science.

918

: 00:45:13

And they really have discussions about

changing the definition of science

919

: 00:45:16

in order to accommodate multiverse.

920

: 00:45:18

And there's articles written about it.

921

: 00:45:20

Sean Carroll has an

argument right by doing it.

922

: 00:45:22

And Brian Greene talks about it and

Ellis obviously doesn't like it.

923

: 00:45:25

But there's this big question

in amongst physicists of can we

924

: 00:45:29

legitimately change what has been

the classic definition of science

925

: 00:45:33

in order to accommodate multiverse.

926

: 00:45:35

As being science, because they don't

want just to admit that they're doing

927

: 00:45:37

philosophy because they don't, they don't

like philosophy and philosophy is no good.

928

: 00:45:41

So they have to be doing science, but

they're doing injury to fit to science

929

: 00:45:44

and to physics, because there's a reason

why there's a scientific methodology.

930

: 00:45:48

That's been so successful that

demand observation, comparing

931

: 00:45:51

your things to reality.

932

: 00:45:53

And that's good.

933

: 00:45:54

That's been really good

and beneficial for science.

934

: 00:45:56

And it's progressed so much over

the past few hundred years because

935

: 00:45:59

of the methodology of science.

936

: 00:46:00

And to just change the definition of

science to accommodate multiverse,

937

: 00:46:04

because Physicists refuse to accept

that they're doing philosophy.

938

: 00:46:08

It's just really, it's based on

ignorance of philosophy and it's

939

: 00:46:11

really, uh, hurtful to science.

940

: 00:46:13

And I exactly take to your point,

it's just, I think a really big

941

: 00:46:17

mistake that that is, is very much

the attitude to philosophy has really

942

: 00:46:21

contributed to the rise of multiverse.

943

: 00:46:24

Yeah.

944

: 00:46:24

So I love that you guys are

offering a really well thought out

945

: 00:46:28

treatment alternative to multiverse.

946

: 00:46:31

And I was curious in your

scientific mathematical landscape.

947

: 00:46:35

If you see or sense any sort of more

openness toward the argument for an

948

: 00:46:41

intelligent cause, or is there any

kind of openness or it sounds like

949

: 00:46:45

there's also some movement on the

other side of things with redefining

950

: 00:46:49

science and all that stuff, but where

do you view the current conversation

951

: 00:46:53

and where do you see it heading?

952

: 00:46:54

I think the problem is that there

is a attitude, a pervasive sense

953

: 00:46:59

of knowing that God is impossible.

954

: 00:47:02

That the idea of God is.

955

: 00:47:03

Even just in the theism, just, or deism,

even just as an intelligent cause of

956

: 00:47:07

the universe, they know that's wrong.

957

: 00:47:10

That's impossible.

958

: 00:47:11

That doesn't make any sense.

959

: 00:47:12

That's just a childish religious

fantasy and they know it's not true.

960

: 00:47:16

And therefore the only possible way

to interpret this is a multiverse.

961

: 00:47:20

And that's why they say

multiverse, because they believe

962

: 00:47:22

the idea of God is not true.

963

: 00:47:24

And I think until that changes,

I don't think they're going to be

964

: 00:47:28

able to move off of multiverse.

965

: 00:47:29

And that's why like we're coming in with

season two of the multiverse in November,

966

: 00:47:33

but after that, Probably about a year

later, we're going to come out with

967

: 00:47:36

our third part, or probably the final

part, which is going to be about God.

968

: 00:47:40

Because if you can't present to a

rational scientist, a clear, coherent,

969

: 00:47:46

logical, and cohesive, intuitive

idea of God, and without we answering

970

: 00:47:50

these questions of who created God,

or who designed the designer, or what

971

: 00:47:54

does God even mean, they ask serious

questions, and that demand real answers.

972

: 00:47:59

And if you can't, just like we presented

the fine tuning argument in a clear way,

973

: 00:48:03

with analogies in a, you know, clear

way, we're going to do that with the

974

: 00:48:06

multiverse with these analogies, and the

clear method, we're going to do the same

975

: 00:48:09

thing for the idea of God, and showing how

there is a clear idea of God that emerges

976

: 00:48:13

from the fine tuning argument naturally.

977

: 00:48:15

And it's this factor idea of, of, of

one God, um, who is the cause of the

978

: 00:48:20

constants and that is defensible and

that the same categories that physicists

979

: 00:48:25

use to understand fundamental laws and

fundamental constants and fundamental

980

: 00:48:29

interactions between articles, things

like that, those same we're using in a

981

: 00:48:33

certain sense, the categories of physics,

fundamental physics, as an analogy for

982

: 00:48:39

metaphysical categories, how you deal with

fundamentals in a metaphysical framework.

983

: 00:48:43

So it's obviously a little bit more

abstract because you're using Physics,

984

: 00:48:46

which is hard enough as an analogy

for metaphysics, but Ellie's going

985

: 00:48:50

to give great analogies in that third

part, and we're going to have to do

986

: 00:48:52

that because until you can present

an idea of God that seems possible to

987

: 00:48:56

scientists, they're just not going to

be able to move off of the multiverse.

988

: 00:49:01

But ultimately I think

multiverse is fated to fail.

989

: 00:49:04

It just, there's no way, in my

opinion, I hope I'm right, is that

990

: 00:49:07

there's no way that the heart of

science and the spirit of science is

991

: 00:49:10

going to tolerate multiverse forever.

992

: 00:49:12

And it might take another decade or

two, but it's just not real science.

993

: 00:49:16

And there's just no way that

it has any staying power.

994

: 00:49:19

In the long run, it's just, it's

too big a corruption of what actual

995

: 00:49:23

science is that eventually scientists

are going to have to drop it.

996

: 00:49:27

When that happens is

obviously nobody can tell you.

997

: 00:49:30

Wow.

998

: 00:49:31

I can't wait to hear all that, man.

999

: 00:49:32

Is there anything else you guys

want to talk about or Nathan,

: 1000

00:49:36,509 --> 00:49:37,749

are there any other questions?

: 1001

00:49:37,899 --> 00:49:39,249

My mind's pretty full right now.

: 1002

00:49:40,084 --> 00:49:44,534

Yeah, I've got one more sounds, but

your podcasts, you, you talk about

: 1003

00:49:44,534 --> 00:49:48,754

intentionally focusing on the logic

and the, and the reason and the science

: 1004

00:49:48,754 --> 00:49:53,274

without bringing in divine revelation,

but it sounds like some of that might be

: 1005

00:49:53,284 --> 00:49:59,454

coming as you begin to move into season

three or, or maybe not divine revelation,

: 1006

00:49:59,454 --> 00:50:04,174

but I'm curious why you guys chose to

take that approach and personally also,

: 1007

00:50:04,174 --> 00:50:08,219

I'd maybe love to end on a personal

note, like how divine revelation or, or.

: 1008

00:50:08,659 --> 00:50:11,519

Maybe the lack of, I don't know,

has played a role in your own faiths

: 1009

00:50:11,519 --> 00:50:13,679

and academic journeys and all that.

: 1010

00:50:14,779 --> 00:50:19,169

Yeah, so I think is that when we

discovered this argument, uh, maybe 10

: 1011

00:50:19,169 --> 00:50:23,629

years ago, and it got better and better

as time goes on, we realized that as

: 1012

00:50:23,629 --> 00:50:27,889

Aaron was talking about before, we think

there's a solid, convincing argument that

: 1013

00:50:27,889 --> 00:50:31,519

God exists, that there's an intelligent

cause of our universe from fine tuning.

: 1014

00:50:31,959 --> 00:50:36,069

And again, when you overreach, as

Aaron quoted before, if you try

: 1015

00:50:36,069 --> 00:50:40,264

to do too much, I think you end up

Not being able to be as successful.

: 1016

00:50:40,304 --> 00:50:44,084

And we think we, we want to put

our focus on what we think is

: 1017

00:50:44,094 --> 00:50:46,294

solid, convincing, compelling.

: 1018

00:50:46,644 --> 00:50:49,754

And if you could get people to

see the idea that God exists,

: 1019

00:50:49,754 --> 00:50:51,024

we think that's a major step.

: 1020

00:50:51,519 --> 00:50:55,769

And while we do, of course, believe and

have justification for other beliefs,

: 1021

00:50:55,809 --> 00:51:00,279

which we have for divine revelation and

all that, we think we want to focus on

: 1022

00:51:00,279 --> 00:51:02,559

that, which is a major issue in our day.

: 1023

00:51:02,569 --> 00:51:05,749

I think atheism, as Tocqueville,

especially new atheists, have told

: 1024

00:51:05,929 --> 00:51:10,159

a lot of people and can try and

convince people that modern sciences

: 1025

00:51:10,159 --> 00:51:13,609

show that God is make believe, that

God is dead, that God doesn't exist.

: 1026

00:51:13,619 --> 00:51:14,909

That's all this ancient thing.

: 1027

00:51:14,919 --> 00:51:19,539

And we realized that this is an issue

which every religion, whatever religion,

: 1028

00:51:20,499 --> 00:51:24,429

Any religious person struggles with this

impression that atheistic scientists

: 1029

00:51:24,449 --> 00:51:29,729

give that God is outdated, and we

think that We don't want to, in a

: 1030

00:51:29,729 --> 00:51:33,719

certain sense, we do, we teach Torah,

we study religion and we discuss those

: 1031

00:51:33,719 --> 00:51:37,969

things in our classes that we give, we

taught, we give to in our communities.

: 1032

00:51:38,209 --> 00:51:40,849

But at the same time, we think

this has a very universal appeal.

: 1033

00:51:40,859 --> 00:51:45,139

There's a compelling argument, which

is solid and convincing for everybody,

: 1034

00:51:45,139 --> 00:51:46,614

wherever your religion you're from.

: 1035

00:51:46,614 --> 00:51:50,049

We think that this is, there's a common

battle, if you will, against atheists

: 1036

00:51:50,049 --> 00:51:55,309

who maintain this world is purposeless

without any, just total random chaos,

: 1037

00:51:55,329 --> 00:51:57,309

multiverse, everything is random.

: 1038

00:51:57,309 --> 00:52:00,439

Um, And we see that's a common

problem, and we have a broad audience

: 1039

00:52:00,439 --> 00:52:04,659

that we think we could share this

idea with the larger world than

: 1040

00:52:05,604 --> 00:52:08,994

We're focusing on the particulars

which we teach about our religion.

: 1041

00:52:08,994 --> 00:52:13,574

So while we think we have great ideas

on that and in Revelation we believe in

: 1042

00:52:13,574 --> 00:52:17,144

it and we think it's true and grounded,

at the same time we think this is a

: 1043

00:52:17,154 --> 00:52:21,774

solid argument which we don't, we're not

really ready to go, to present anything

: 1044

00:52:21,774 --> 00:52:23,454

like that, anything in this type of way.

: 1045

00:52:23,664 --> 00:52:26,704

Just add the idea that, well in our

podcast we're really just trying to

: 1046

00:52:26,704 --> 00:52:30,544

establish the foundation of religion

and divine revelation but we're

: 1047

00:52:30,544 --> 00:52:34,994

not going to actually seek to prove

that from physics and from science.

: 1048

00:52:35,509 --> 00:52:37,929

In all likelihood, who knows

what will end up happening.

: 1049

00:52:38,289 --> 00:52:42,759

We do have arguments from, for example,

for the Torah itself, and we live a life

: 1050

00:52:43,009 --> 00:52:47,309

guided by the commandments and studying

the oral Torah, the oral law that was in

: 1051

00:52:47,319 --> 00:52:52,429

the Talmud, and it, as our life as Jews

in terms of the land of Israel, and it's

: 1052

00:52:52,759 --> 00:52:56,429

the return of the Jewish people, and

then, uh, it's, our life is very much

: 1053

00:52:56,449 --> 00:53:01,269

influenced by our relationship to God in,

in particular, in, in divine providence.

: 1054

00:53:01,914 --> 00:53:04,404

But like Ellie said, we thought

it was very important that people

: 1055

00:53:04,454 --> 00:53:08,204

should see that the idea of God is

not contingent on divine providence,

: 1056

00:53:08,234 --> 00:53:11,294

that the idea of divine providence

is contingent on the idea of God.

: 1057

00:53:11,694 --> 00:53:15,114

You first have to know God exists

in order to ask the question.

: 1058

00:53:15,134 --> 00:53:17,914

Once you know God exists, you

can ask the question, does

: 1059

00:53:17,914 --> 00:53:19,454

he relate to mankind or not?

: 1060

00:53:20,444 --> 00:53:24,584

And I'll say one thing, it's a very

big, it's a very different question and

: 1061

00:53:24,584 --> 00:53:28,464

the burden of proof is much lower when

you're trying to prove divine providence

: 1062

00:53:28,904 --> 00:53:30,604

after you already know that God exists.

: 1063

00:53:31,029 --> 00:53:35,099

And very often people try to,

again, in proper methodology,

: 1064

00:53:35,099 --> 00:53:36,189

they try to prove everything.

: 1065

00:53:36,189 --> 00:53:41,079

You try to prove that God exists, He

probably prophesies, gives prophecy to

: 1066

00:53:41,079 --> 00:53:44,699

mankind, He does miracles, He relates

to people in particular, and you're

: 1067

00:53:44,699 --> 00:53:46,379

trying to prove those all at once.

: 1068

00:53:46,719 --> 00:53:49,069

And that's a high standard, that's

a high burden, but if you just

: 1069

00:53:49,079 --> 00:53:51,589

break it up logically, what's the

first thing that you have to prove?

: 1070

00:53:52,084 --> 00:53:53,604

That's the idea that there exists a God.

: 1071

00:53:54,104 --> 00:53:57,894

Once you know a God exists, that

already gives a person confidence.

: 1072

00:53:57,904 --> 00:54:00,294

Now, these atheistic scientists,

you can see they're wrong.

: 1073

00:54:00,564 --> 00:54:01,324

Don't just trust them.

: 1074

00:54:01,324 --> 00:54:03,874

They believe that God never

gave the Torah at Mount Sinai.

: 1075

00:54:04,194 --> 00:54:05,154

They say that's not true.

: 1076

00:54:05,274 --> 00:54:06,504

They also believe in a multiverse.

: 1077

00:54:06,784 --> 00:54:10,014

And once you see yourself firsthand,

that's the idea of the podcast.

: 1078

00:54:10,044 --> 00:54:13,874

You're going to have firsthand knowledge

that God exists and that the scientists

: 1079

00:54:13,874 --> 00:54:15,084

are wrong about the multiverse.

: 1080

00:54:15,464 --> 00:54:17,854

And you'll watch their videos about

the multiverse and you're going

: 1081

00:54:17,854 --> 00:54:19,994

to see the smartest people in the

world are believing in something

: 1082

00:54:19,994 --> 00:54:21,764

that you can see yourself is wrong.

: 1083

00:54:22,269 --> 00:54:24,349

That's going to give you a lot

of confidence when you're facing

: 1084

00:54:24,349 --> 00:54:27,279

these other issues and these other

arguments of divine providence.

: 1085

00:54:27,659 --> 00:54:30,619

It's, it's, like I said, the most

important thing we think is to

: 1086

00:54:30,619 --> 00:54:32,239

go logically and step by step.

: 1087

00:54:32,239 --> 00:54:36,159

And once God exists, you'll be able to see

afterwards, each on their own will be able

: 1088

00:54:36,159 --> 00:54:40,209

to see it for themselves, say, and maybe

we'll do something later on about that.

: 1089

00:54:40,209 --> 00:54:40,579

Yeah.

: 1090

00:54:40,759 --> 00:54:41,359

That's great.

: 1091

00:54:41,789 --> 00:54:42,389

Go ahead, Dan.

: 1092

00:54:43,829 --> 00:54:46,379

We talked in one of our earlier episodes.

: 1093

00:54:47,179 --> 00:54:52,859

About the, uh, case of Anthony Flu and

for those who, who don't know the name

: 1094

00:54:52,889 --> 00:54:57,419

in the world of philosophy, there are

what you would call the popular atheists.

: 1095

00:54:57,419 --> 00:55:01,509

The people like Richard Dawkins, who

the sell their books that are sold

: 1096

00:55:01,509 --> 00:55:04,509

to bars and nobles and whatnot, and

they make the rounds of the talk

: 1097

00:55:04,509 --> 00:55:06,279

shoes and there are TBA and whatnot.

: 1098

00:55:06,279 --> 00:55:09,819

And then you had the more serious

atheist and probably the most

: 1099

00:55:09,819 --> 00:55:15,879

serious opponent of theism in the

last 50 to 60 years was Anthony Flu.

: 1100

00:55:16,119 --> 00:55:16,839

He was.

: 1101

00:55:18,039 --> 00:55:22,899

A very intelligent British philosopher

who wrote somewhere around 45

: 1102

00:55:22,909 --> 00:55:26,759

books about philosophy and about

logic and reasoning especially.

: 1103

00:55:27,219 --> 00:55:31,019

So his two specialties were

analyzing reasoning and logic.

: 1104

00:55:31,379 --> 00:55:34,939

So he wrote several great books

on logic and then also atheism.

: 1105

00:55:35,139 --> 00:55:37,579

He was an atheist for almost all his life.

: 1106

00:55:38,349 --> 00:55:42,159

And then in the last years of his

life, he published a book called

: 1107

00:55:42,209 --> 00:55:46,419

There is a God, How the World's Most

Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

: 1108

00:55:47,279 --> 00:55:50,639

And if you look at that book, what

he argues is basically many of the

: 1109

00:55:50,639 --> 00:55:51,799

same things that you're arguing.

: 1110

00:55:52,279 --> 00:55:57,659

What changed his mind was the evidence

of the fine tuning of the universe.

: 1111

00:55:58,169 --> 00:56:03,219

And then he tried to reason what's the

best explanation for that fine tuning.

: 1112

00:56:03,779 --> 00:56:06,539

And for him, as a logician,

it became very clear.

: 1113

00:56:06,909 --> 00:56:09,419

He said that he really did

not want to go down that road.

: 1114

00:56:09,784 --> 00:56:13,744

But he had made it his life's

goal to follow the argument

: 1115

00:56:13,774 --> 00:56:15,184

wherever the evidence led.

: 1116

00:56:15,684 --> 00:56:21,004

And for him, the evidence led to the idea

that it's much more rational to believe in

: 1117

00:56:21,004 --> 00:56:23,294

the existence of a God than in naturalism.

: 1118

00:56:23,834 --> 00:56:26,074

So anyway, I just thought you

might find that interesting.

: 1119

00:56:26,324 --> 00:56:27,204

Maybe you already knew that.

: 1120

00:56:28,214 --> 00:56:29,834

No, I really didn't know that.

: 1121

00:56:29,834 --> 00:56:30,304

That is fascinating.

: 1122

00:56:30,304 --> 00:56:30,494

Amen.

: 1123

00:56:30,924 --> 00:56:31,134

Thanks.

: 1124

00:56:32,289 --> 00:56:32,529

Yeah.

: 1125

00:56:32,529 --> 00:56:33,929

And that book is on Amazon.

: 1126

00:56:33,949 --> 00:56:38,579

It presents a lot of the same arguments,

but it's in a much, it's on a lower

: 1127

00:56:38,579 --> 00:56:40,029

level in terms of understanding.

: 1128

00:56:40,189 --> 00:56:42,839

Anyone who can read college

level material or high school

: 1129

00:56:43,119 --> 00:56:44,549

level material can get that.

: 1130

00:56:44,549 --> 00:56:48,499

And Anthony Flew, There is a God,

How the World's Most Notorious

: 1131

00:56:48,529 --> 00:56:49,749

Atheist Changed His Mind.

: 1132

00:56:49,859 --> 00:56:50,359

Fascinating.

: 1133

00:56:50,829 --> 00:56:51,149

Yeah.

: 1134

00:56:51,149 --> 00:56:54,829

I love your guys approach and

just how thorough it's been.

: 1135

00:56:54,839 --> 00:56:57,389

I'm looking forward to

season two and season three.

: 1136

00:56:57,694 --> 00:57:02,124

And appreciate how focused you guys

have been, not trying to come up with

: 1137

00:57:02,124 --> 00:57:07,254

answers for everything, but just to help

people in that first step toward the, the

: 1138

00:57:07,254 --> 00:57:10,344

possible existence of intelligent desire.

: 1139

00:57:10,344 --> 00:57:11,824

So hats off to you guys.

: 1140

00:57:11,824 --> 00:57:12,364

Well done.

: 1141

00:57:12,734 --> 00:57:13,174

Thank you.

: 1142

00:57:14,194 --> 00:57:14,864

No, we're lucky.

: 1143

00:57:14,904 --> 00:57:17,184

It's great to hear that

people, um, appreciate it.

: 1144

00:57:17,184 --> 00:57:19,874

And it's also, it's amazing

because I know you guys don't

: 1145

00:57:19,874 --> 00:57:20,854

have, you're not physicists.

: 1146

00:57:21,849 --> 00:57:25,439

But it's, it was such a challenge for

us to really break it down and make it

: 1147

00:57:25,439 --> 00:57:27,909

accessible to everybody who is interested.

: 1148

00:57:28,499 --> 00:57:30,789

And yes, the person, you have to

be intelligent to understand what

: 1149

00:57:30,789 --> 00:57:33,279

we're saying, but you don't have to

have a great scientific background.

: 1150

00:57:33,329 --> 00:57:37,229

And it's great for us to hear you guys,

your philosophy, not necessarily physics

: 1151

00:57:37,229 --> 00:57:40,799

guys, but philosophy guys, and just to

be able to, to hear you guys say that

: 1152

00:57:40,799 --> 00:57:43,579

you appreciate it, you understand that

it means a lot to us to know that.

: 1153

00:57:43,869 --> 00:57:46,779

But these are the people we're

trying to reach, to hear these

: 1154

00:57:46,779 --> 00:57:48,479

arguments and to make them available.

: 1155

00:57:48,894 --> 00:57:52,334

For people who are curious and

genuinely interested in, in knowing

: 1156

00:57:52,334 --> 00:57:55,424

whether there's a God from science

to make it accessible without having

: 1157

00:57:55,464 --> 00:57:56,794

to go through years of schooling.

: 1158

00:57:56,794 --> 00:57:59,514

So that it's good for us to

hear you, hear you understanding

: 1159

00:57:59,514 --> 00:58:00,674

the podcast and like you.

: 1160

00:58:01,694 --> 00:58:02,264

For sure.

: 1161

00:58:02,734 --> 00:58:04,204

It was so nice to meet you guys.

: 1162

00:58:04,204 --> 00:58:04,464

Yeah.

: 1163

00:58:04,464 --> 00:58:05,764

Very.

: 1164

00:58:05,924 --> 00:58:07,304

This was really interesting to me.

: 1165

00:58:07,484 --> 00:58:07,904

Thank you.

: 1166

00:58:08,664 --> 00:58:08,964

Yeah.

: 1167

00:58:09,024 --> 00:58:09,894

Our pleasure.

: 1168

00:58:09,894 --> 00:58:10,404

Our pleasure.

: 1169

00:58:10,404 --> 00:58:12,774

And maybe one time we'll do it again,

but it was our pleasure to come on

: 1170

00:58:12,774 --> 00:58:14,044

and it was great to meet you guys.

: 1171

00:58:14,044 --> 00:58:14,934

And thank you very much.

: 1172

00:58:14,974 --> 00:58:15,364

Definitely.

: 1173

00:58:15,374 --> 00:58:16,044

I really enjoyed.

: 1174

00:58:16,044 --> 00:58:16,274

Thanks.

: 1175

00:58:16,784 --> 00:58:17,224

Our pleasure.

: 1176

00:58:17,224 --> 00:58:17,954

Yeah, absolutely.

: 1177

00:58:18,064 --> 00:58:18,664

And again.

: 1178

00:58:18,664 --> 00:58:18,884

Yeah.

: 1179

00:58:18,914 --> 00:58:23,184

Give my wholehearted recommendation,

if anyone's interested in this topic,

: 1180

00:58:23,584 --> 00:58:26,684

there's a YouTube channel and there's

also an audio podcast, correct?

: 1181

00:58:26,684 --> 00:58:26,934

Yep.

: 1182

00:58:26,934 --> 00:58:29,584

Both the cemetery wall, physics, and wide.

: 1183

00:58:30,384 --> 00:58:30,514

Yeah.

: 1184

00:58:30,514 --> 00:58:32,584

And you can go on our

website, physics2god.

: 1185

00:58:32,624 --> 00:58:36,354

com, where we, we have essay

forms of the, of the podcast.

: 1186

00:58:36,424 --> 00:58:36,824

Oh, great.

: 1187

00:58:36,924 --> 00:58:37,124

Yeah.

: 1188

00:58:37,124 --> 00:58:37,934

And you can subscribe.

: 1189

00:58:37,944 --> 00:58:39,434

There's an email subscription.

: 1190

00:58:39,444 --> 00:58:40,694

We don't send out that many emails.

: 1191

00:58:40,694 --> 00:58:42,694

Maybe whenever we do,

you'll get access to that.

: 1192

00:58:42,694 --> 00:58:45,024

So those are the three different

ways right now that's, that

: 1193

00:58:45,024 --> 00:58:46,224

the information is available.

: 1194

00:58:46,874 --> 00:58:47,344

All right.

: 1195

00:58:47,664 --> 00:58:48,504

Anything else guys?

: 1196

00:58:48,994 --> 00:58:49,484

No, I think.

: 1197

00:58:49,684 --> 00:58:50,567

I think that's good.

: 1198

00:58:50,567 --> 00:58:51,474

Well, we appreciate it.

: 1199

00:58:51,474 --> 00:58:52,424

It was great to talk to you.

: 1200

00:58:52,424 --> 00:58:54,034

And it was a great conversation.

: 1201

00:58:54,044 --> 00:58:54,484

Really enjoyed it.

: 1202

00:58:54,484 --> 00:58:55,044

I like it.

: 1203

00:58:56,164 --> 00:58:56,834

Thanks so much.

: 1204

00:58:56,844 --> 00:58:57,174

Yeah.

: 1205

00:58:57,184 --> 00:58:57,514

Absolutely.

Share Episode

Shownotes

Transcripts

Follow

Links

Chapters

Video

More from YouTube