Episode 30

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

Exploring the Fine-Tuning Argument with Physicists and Rabbis Elie Feder and Aaron Zimmer

In this episode of Philosophy and Faith, the hosts welcome Rabbis Elie Feder and Aaron Zimmer, hosts of the podcast Physics to God, to discuss arguments for the existence of God, specifically focusing on the teleological and fine-tuning arguments. Elie, an orthodox rabbi and mathematician, and Aaron, a modern Orthodox rabbi with a background in physics and commodities trading, detail their journeys in faith and academia. They explain the fine-tuning argument, which posits that the constants of nature, such as the fine structure constant and the cosmological constant, are precisely calibrated to allow the universe to support life and complex structures. They argue that this precise tuning suggests an intelligent cause. The discussion also critically evaluates the multiverse theory as an alternative explanation and emphasizes the importance of recognizing when physicists are doing philosophy instead of science. The episode also touches on the importance of understanding philosophy in interpreting scientific data and the potential limitations of atheistic naturalism.


00:00 Introduction and Guest Welcome

00:30 Ellie's Faith and Academic Journey

02:32 Aaron's Faith and Career Path

07:47 The Fine Tuning Argument

11:43 The Mystery of the Constants

19:08 Scientific Discoveries and Fine Tuning

28:27 Philosophical Foundations of Intelligence

29:13 Fine-Tuning and Intelligent Design

30:03 Challenges to Fine-Tuning Argument

35:25 The Multiverse Theory

38:56 Philosophical Implications of the Multiverse

44:50 The Future of Science and Philosophy

49:40 Personal Reflections and Future Directions

56:57 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Transcript
Speaker:

Hello, welcome to another

episode of philosophy and faith.

2

:

We are really excited for today's episode.

3

:

We have some special guests through

God's gift of technology, able to sit

4

:

here with rabbis, Ellie and Aaron,

and they are hosts of the podcast

5

:

physics to God, and we're excited

to pick their brains a little bit on

6

:

arguments for the existence of God,

especially the teleological argument.

7

:

And, uh, so Ellie and Aaron,

guys, welcome to the show.

8

:

Pleasure to be here.

9

:

for having us.

10

:

Yeah, cool.

11

:

I thought it'd be good to just

begin some introductions since we're

12

:

getting to know you We'd love for

you to introduce yourselves to our

13

:

listeners We'd love to hear a little

bit about your faith journeys and your

14

:

academic journeys Ellie If you would

share first, my name is Ellie fader.

15

:

I'm orthodox rabbi and a mathematician

I grew up in a modern Orthodox Jewish

16

:

home and in, in my home and in my

family, we really had a strong balance,

17

:

a strong value of religion, Judaism,

and a strong balance, a strong valuation

18

:

of the modern secular world, whether

it be science and physics, uh, science,

19

:

philosophy, psychology, things like that.

20

:

So my father is a rabbi and is a lawyer.

21

:

My grandfather is a rabbi,

was a rabbi and a chemist.

22

:

And that was my upbringing.

23

:

I was really brought up, I had

a pursuit of the dual curriculum

24

:

throughout my schooling, where

we studied the Talmud and Bible.

25

:

And then at the same time, we also

studied all the secular studies.

26

:

And growing up, as I grew, I became

committed and I loved, passionate about

27

:

studying the Torah, studying the religion.

28

:

But I also, I was passionate about

the world of knowledge out there.

29

:

And as a kid, I was always, I

was always very good at math.

30

:

I was like the math whiz in class.

31

:

That annoying kid who

always knows the answers.

32

:

So that was me, but I ended up

pursuing math and I ended up

33

:

getting a PhD in mathematics.

34

:

I studied something called braid groups.

35

:

And now currently, again, I became a

professor at a local community college.

36

:

I do research in the

field called graph theory.

37

:

And again, I love teaching.

38

:

I love doing math.

39

:

I love teaching.

40

:

I love trying to explain

complicated topics to students

41

:

who have a hard time with them.

42

:

And simultaneously, I teach Torah, Talmud,

and the Bible in a, in a local yeshiva.

43

:

Yeah.

44

:

And I've been studying with Aaron for

many years, 20 some odd years or so.

45

:

And we discuss, we learn Talmud together.

46

:

We talk science and physics

and philosophy and all that.

47

:

And yeah.

48

:

Okay.

49

:

Aaron.

50

:

Okay.

51

:

Thanks for having us.

52

:

My name is Aaron Zimmer.

53

:

I'm also a modern Orthodox rabbi.

54

:

The idea of modern Orthodox Judaism

is really to try to have Judaism be

55

:

relevant in the modern world and not

to have it being some old archaic

56

:

religion, but it's that it should

grow and develop as the world changes.

57

:

Judaism should be able to handle

that and really express itself in

58

:

a positive way in the modern world.

59

:

And that's, there's a challenge between

religion in the modern world that

60

:

exists for any religious person in

the last few hundred years, really.

61

:

And I felt that growing up,

I felt that tension between

62

:

religion and between modernity.

63

:

And along my, again, I also followed

a dual curriculum, I got, I learned

64

:

Talmud in Bible together with secular

studies and secular knowledge.

65

:

In college, I got a degree in

physics, but I was also studying

66

:

Talmud through this method called

the Brisker Method of Analysis, which

67

:

is a conceptual analytic method.

68

:

method of studying the Talmud.

69

:

And after college, I was faced with

the choice to either really pretty

70

:

become exclusively devote my profession

towards rabbinics or to try to pursue

71

:

a professional physicist role, and I

chose to do something different that,

72

:

so that would enable me to be able to

study Talmud and Bible and physics and

73

:

science and psychology and philosophy and

all different areas I was interested in.

74

:

So instead I decided to try to make

money using the methods I learned

75

:

from the brisker method of analysis

of Talmud and the conceptual modeling

76

:

methods of physics, quantitative

methods and go into commodities.

77

:

We're trading oil and gas and gasoline

and then cotton and sugar, all

78

:

different types of commodity futures.

79

:

And I was able to do that for 11 years.

80

:

And now after 11 years, I was able to

retire about, about six, seven years ago.

81

:

And now I really have the time to devote

towards studying different areas of

82

:

my intellectual interests and also in

trying to put together some of the more

83

:

interesting things I've come across to

spread those ideas and to teach others

84

:

the different ideas in physics and in

Talmud and develop for myself and convey

85

:

it to others through the time that

I'm afforded from my command history.

86

:

That's great.

87

:

Thank you so much for that background.

88

:

And I love how you guys are bringing

together the interests of mathematics

89

:

and physics and your faith.

90

:

So I've really enjoyed listening

to your podcast lately and

91

:

just totally recommend that.

92

:

It's been so wonderful and interesting.

93

:

You guys do a great job of sharing

complexities in a very accessible way.

94

:

So thank you for doing that.

95

:

Yeah, we appreciate it.

96

:

We made the podcast for people

who may not have a tremendous

97

:

science or physics background.

98

:

For people like you, for people like you

who are interested in philosophy and in

99

:

thinking and religion and God, and are

just looking for a way into the science,

100

:

into the physics, even though you might

not have the full physics background.

101

:

And that's what we designed the

podcast through, where Ellie gives

102

:

it a lot of analogies and makes it

accessible, so that any person who

103

:

just is interested and wants to know,

really gain a lot of knowledge in

104

:

physics and science, and be made aware

of the arguments we present there.

105

:

You guys do a tremendous job at that.

106

:

I love the analogies, and I love how

the analogies are sustained throughout

107

:

even several episodes in Dibella.

108

:

That's, uh, very helpful,

but it's also a rare gift.

109

:

So the analogy of the Lego City and

the analogy of a moral law being

110

:

used in the same way analogies

to some of the laws of physics.

111

:

Analogies are very powerful ways

for us to understand complex topics,

112

:

and so just my hats off to you guys.

113

:

I learned a lot.

114

:

I read different writers about

some of the same topics, though.

115

:

I understood it in a much deeper

way because of your podcast.

116

:

Thank you.

117

:

Aaron and I often, we go back and forth in

terms of our teaching styles, if you will.

118

:

And it comes across in the podcast, but

Aaron is, uh, demands a lot more of his

119

:

listeners and he likes to explain ideas

in the most, the clearest, uh, way,

120

:

but sometimes clarity is inaccessible.

121

:

It's oftentimes a little bit

not spelled out, but it's fully.

122

:

And I think there is great

value to the way Aaron does it.

123

:

And he says it exactly properly.

124

:

And, uh, in the most accurate way, but

sometimes me being a teacher in community

125

:

college, I teach students, some students

math that they've tried to learn the five

126

:

or 10 times before I never fully got it.

127

:

So I appreciate the difficulties that

sometimes people have, especially

128

:

with topics like math and physics.

129

:

And I think the problem with these

types of areas is some people that

130

:

we really think what we talk about

largely in our podcast is what's

131

:

called the fine tuning argument.

132

:

And it's an argument

based on modern physics.

133

:

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

argument for the existence of God, but

134

:

at the same time it's very, one might

think it's hard, people are probably

135

:

afraid to even approach it because

physics is so scary and math is scary.

136

:

How are they going to even get into it?

137

:

And that's really where we

think it's not the case.

138

:

It really appropriately explained

as you were talking today with, with

139

:

analogies, we really try to break down

all the physics and to give, to make

140

:

it familiar in categories which people

could relate to and allow even a person

141

:

who doesn't have a background and a

strong background in science and physics

142

:

to be able to see the arguments step by

step and to be able to see how modern

143

:

science provides us a solid, compelling.

144

:

Yeah, you guys do a great job of

complimenting each other in that, and

145

:

we thought it would be neat to get

into some of that fine tuning argument

146

:

and I was wondering if you guys would

be able to give us a, an overview of

147

:

that, and then we got some questions

and all that would love to just unpack

148

:

it, so would you do us the honors of

walking us through that a little bit?

149

:

Sure.

150

:

So I guess we could start with what

you could consider the goal of science.

151

:

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

here, but a quote from Einstein, like the

152

:

goal, the supreme goal of all of science

is to take all the multi, multifarious

153

:

phenomenon which we see in the universe

and break them down, explain them based

154

:

on the simplest possible principles.

155

:

And that's, if you think about it,

you look around and there's thunder

156

:

and lightning and rainbows and there's

everything out in the universe.

157

:

Science has tried to explain them

all and tried to explain it based

158

:

upon laws and to show how everything

which we see is a result of, of laws.

159

:

And not only that, we see all different

types of objects, whether it be a phone,

160

:

or whether it be a pen, or whether it be

an animal, or whatever, all these objects

161

:

are made up of different components.

162

:

And science breaks down those

into the different components

163

:

of which they're made.

164

:

So it might be made of the different

elements, and then we see those

165

:

elements are made out of different,

ultimately, of fundamental particles.

166

:

And the idea is that science tries

to simplify, to take our complex

167

:

world and break it down into most

simple and simpler components,

168

:

which operate through simple laws.

169

:

And this is the goal of what science does.

170

:

And science has, uh, been very

successful, and specifically,

171

:

ultimately, physics is successful

at explaining, largely successful at

172

:

reducing, reducing, and simplifying.

173

:

Ultimately, we've shown, science has

shown that everything, all the substances

174

:

in our universe could be broken down

into what are known as fundamental

175

:

particles, like an electron for example,

and other fundamental particles.

176

:

And those fundamental

particles are governed by laws.

177

:

Which govern the interaction

between these fundamental particles.

178

:

And those laws could be summarized

by the current state of the art is

179

:

quantum mechanics and gravity, or which

is expressed in general relativity.

180

:

And these laws are the rules

which govern the interaction of

181

:

all these fundamental particles.

182

:

Now, when physicists have studied these

laws, they've discovered That any law, or

183

:

when you're talking about the particles

as well, the laws have qualitative

184

:

components and quantitative components.

185

:

Okay, so what do I mean by that?

186

:

For example, gravity, as we know,

gravity is that all masses attract.

187

:

But that's a qualitative

description, that the effect of

188

:

gravity is that they attract.

189

:

But then you could ask the quantity,

how strongly do they attract?

190

:

How strongly do masses attract?

191

:

And that's a quantity.

192

:

And it turns out that's

measured by a number.

193

:

And these numbers are

called constants of nature.

194

:

For example, electromagnetism

is another force of nature

195

:

where opposite charges attract.

196

:

So gravity says masses attract.

197

:

Electromagnetism says

opposite charges attract.

198

:

While they both attract and qualitatively

you could think of them as attractive

199

:

forces, the quantity is totally off.

200

:

I think electromagnetism is like 10

to the 40 times as strong as gravity.

201

:

And the idea is that when physicists

study the laws of nature, they've

202

:

discovered that they have to

describe our universe and describe

203

:

everything about our universe.

204

:

You have these qualitative laws,

but ultimately they're these

205

:

numbers, these constants of nature.

206

:

Which are measured and then the numbers

which result, which for example, another

207

:

one of the numbers is something called

the fine structure, which is related

208

:

to the strength of the electromagnetic

force is a number like 1 over 137.

209

:

139777.

210

:

There's many numbers like 25

or so numbers, which are these

211

:

strange arbitrary looking numbers.

212

:

And these are what the current

state of the art is where science

213

:

is like everything of our universe

can be explained by these two

214

:

simple laws of nature, quantum

mechanics and general relativity.

215

:

for listening.

216

:

And also you have these 25

unwieldy numbers, and that

217

:

leads physicists to a mystery.

218

:

So maybe Aaron, you want to talk

a little bit about the mystery?

219

:

Sure.

220

:

Okay, good.

221

:

So that's the good, um, background.

222

:

I just want to, before I get into

the mystery of the constants,

223

:

I just want to make one point.

224

:

What we're doing here is presenting

the fine tuning argument.

225

:

It's a fairly well known

argument, uh, nowadays for the

226

:

existence of an intelligent cause.

227

:

And there's different ways to formulate.

228

:

There's at least two other ways.

229

:

We do it a third way, and we think

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

230

:

a reason why we do it this way.

231

:

It avoids a lot of problems that

sometimes atheistic scientists will

232

:

ask about the other formulations.

233

:

I just want to point out that

there's something different in the,

234

:

what's different about it is this

exact point I'm about to say, that

235

:

it's based upon the mystery, okay?

236

:

So let's say, what is the

mystery of the constants?

237

:

Now it's something that Richard Feynman,

when Richard Feynman was editing his

238

:

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

for example, one of these constants,

239

:

the constant defined structure

constant that I mentioned before.

240

:

So it's these constants of nature.

241

:

How do scientists know how

strong electromagnetic force is?

242

:

The answer is they just measure.

243

:

They measure, they take two electrons,

put them next to each other, and

244

:

they measure the force between them.

245

:

They could quantify how big that is.

246

:

How do you get another

one of these constants?

247

:

is the mass of an electron.

248

:

How big is an electron?

249

:

How heavy is it?

250

:

How much would it weigh if

you put it on the scale?

251

:

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

252

:

How do scientists know that?

253

:

They just measure it and they

say that's how big it is.

254

:

And the mystery of the constants that

Feynman spoke about, which he called one

255

:

of the greatest damn mysteries in physics,

was, how do you explain these numbers?

256

:

How do you explain a number

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

257

:

Where does that number come from?

258

:

Feynman metaphorically said it's as if

the number is written by the hand of God.

259

:

It is, it's just something

that we put into the equation.

260

:

Feynman wasn't using this

as an argument from God.

261

:

And this is not, at this point,

in the other stages, there's no

262

:

argument for God at this point.

263

:

It's just a question of, it's

a big mystery in physics.

264

:

Physicists are trained to explain

everything in the universe.

265

:

And they've reduced everything

down to these two beautiful

266

:

laws, quantum mechanics and

gyrorelative, and 25 numbers.

267

:

And these numbers are, to all appearances,

in:

268

:

numbers, complex numbers, many strings

of decimal places, who knows how many

269

:

decimal places it is, the fine structure

constant was measured to, I think it's

270

:

eight decimal places or something.

271

:

But it can go further, it can go a

hundred, who knows, it's the only way

272

:

you know is by measuring further, the

more precise your instruments are.

273

:

The more you'll know, an electron

is this incredibly small value

274

:

and where does it come from?

275

:

Who determines it?

276

:

And is it fundamental?

277

:

Is it that the ultimate reality in

the universe is quantum mechanics,

278

:

general relativity in 25 numbers?

279

:

That's not beautiful.

280

:

Positivists are looking for, for something

that's the fundamental basis of reality.

281

:

And they're looking for something

that's simple and unified and beautiful.

282

:

These 25 numbers, I think in the, uh,

the words of Steven Zuse Weinberg,

283

:

Steve Weinberg, a Nobel prize winner,

he in his dreams of a final theory,

284

:

he says it's the exact opposite of

what scientists are looking for.

285

:

They're looking for something

beautiful and simple and unified.

286

:

And instead you get these 25 numbers

that read like a list of data.

287

:

How could that be the ultimate reality?

288

:

25 random looking arbitrary numbers.

289

:

And if they're not fundamental, and

if these numbers are derived from

290

:

something else, what kind of equation

are scientists going to come up with?

291

:

Thanks.

292

:

That's going to pop out these 25 numbers.

293

:

How are they going to find a

deeper mathematical equation, a

294

:

qualitative equation, which is

going to pop out these 25 constants?

295

:

It didn't seem plausible that

there would be any reasonable

296

:

path to accomplishing that.

297

:

And that was the great mystery is

the way scientists explain things

298

:

is by showing that it derives from

deeper and deeper things until you

299

:

get to the most fundamental reality.

300

:

And the most fundamental reality

was supposed to be this qualitative

301

:

law called quantum mechanics.

302

:

And now it has 25 other numbers

that are just additional.

303

:

pieces of information

you have to add onto it.

304

:

And how could you come up with

a deeper mathematical law that

305

:

would naturally terministically

result in these 25 numbers?

306

:

It didn't seem possible.

307

:

And it doesn't seem possible.

308

:

These numbers are fundamental

basis of reality that just totally

309

:

offends everything physicists

believed was the ultimate

310

:

reality, and that was the mystery.

311

:

And the point I want to make

here is just to emphasize is.

312

:

Nothing about the mystery has

anything to do with fine tuning.

313

:

I haven't mentioned fine tuning yet.

314

:

It's, fine tuning, you don't

even know what fine tuning is.

315

:

The mystery of the constants is an

intrinsic mystery that lies at the

316

:

heart of physics in the pursuit of

physicists of a theory of everything.

317

:

In their attempt to try to explain

the ultimate foundations of reality,

318

:

they're faced with 25 arbitrary looking

complex numbers, and the question

319

:

is, how can you explain fine tuning?

320

:

Something like that.

321

:

That's the mystery.

322

:

Allow me to interrupt.

323

:

The teacher in me feels like

I just want to ask Nathan and

324

:

Daniel, do you have any questions?

325

:

Are we talking over your head?

326

:

Are we not explaining anything fully?

327

:

We don't really want to be lecturing.

328

:

So if there's any questions, I

think we'll become out if you

329

:

guys have any follow up questions.

330

:

Thanks, Ellie.

331

:

Having listened to some of your

podcasts or watched them, I'm able

332

:

to follow where you're going on this.

333

:

And I would encourage other people,

if you're not following this, go

334

:

listen to those podcasts or those

YouTube episodes from Physics to God.

335

:

One of those 25 numbers that you

also talked about and was even

336

:

more understandable to me, and

that was the cosmological constant.

337

:

And correct me if I'm wrong, but

from what I understand, this is

338

:

the number that determines the rate

of the expansion of the universe.

339

:

And it has to be precisely balanced

against the force of gravity.

340

:

The force of gravity is too strong,

you have a big crunch, everything

341

:

collapses, and you don't have any room

for atoms or molecules to Okay, but

342

:

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

343

:

This is the key point, is, now

you're talking about fine tuning.

344

:

Which is, if it's too big, the

universe expands too fast, if it's

345

:

too small, the universe crushes.

346

:

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

conceptual presentation of the idea, is

347

:

to appreciate that the mystery of, where

does the cosmological constant come from?

348

:

You're right.

349

:

The cosmological constant determines

the expansion rate of the universe.

350

:

That was said at the Big Bang and

how fast it accelerates after that.

351

:

That's fine.

352

:

And it is this fantastically small number.

353

:

It's 3 times 10 to the negative

120 second or something.

354

:

Right.

355

:

Where does that number come from?

356

:

Why is it that the number who

determined that's the number and

357

:

how do you explain that number?

358

:

That's the mystery.

359

:

That number could have.

360

:

Let's say the number could have been

anything and, and it wouldn't have matter.

361

:

Let's just say then you, you have

a mystery of how do you explain it?

362

:

Why is that the number?

363

:

Are we just supposed to accept that

the basis of reality is a number, like

364

:

0.0 zero, zero zero a hundred nineteen,

decibel, places, zeros, and then a three.

365

:

Like, where does that number come from?

366

:

That's the mystery.

367

:

It has really nothing to do with the

fact that, which we're going to explain

368

:

in a second, that if that number's a

little too big, there's no galaxies,

369

:

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

everything just crunches in on itself.

370

:

That's fine tuning.

371

:

Many of the other formulations

of fine tuning, they look at

372

:

fine tuning as the problem.

373

:

The key is to realize the mystery

that Feynman spoke about in

374

:

1985 had, he didn't know that he

was talking about fine tuning.

375

:

He was talking about the intrinsic

problem of how do you explain a number?

376

:

How does physics explain it in a deeper

way, or are we physicists forced to

377

:

accept the fact that 25 numbers are

the ultimate base foundation of all

378

:

reality and they are, they're not,

there's no other deeper explanation

379

:

and this is just what we've come to.

380

:

That's the mystery.

381

:

Okay.

382

:

Great.

383

:

Thank you.

384

:

Okay.

385

:

So go ahead.

386

:

I don't know why you tried to

explain where fine tuning comes in.

387

:

Okay.

388

:

Good.

389

:

So this actually gets to what Daniel

was starting to lead towards, is

390

:

that Feynman's mystery was how

in the world do you explain these

391

:

completely arbitrary numbers?

392

:

They seem to have nothing

special about these numbers.

393

:

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

topping came in:

394

:

started to realize that these numbers

are not as arbitrary as they thought.

395

:

And not just 1 over 137 or whatever,

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

396

:

But, what's special about these

numbers is nothing about the

397

:

laws of physics themselves.

398

:

The laws of physics, if you change

the number from 1 over 137 to

399

:

1 over a million, or to 53, the

laws of physics would be the same.

400

:

There's nothing different about them.

401

:

But, if those numbers were

different, Then the laws of physics

402

:

would not be able to result.

403

:

As the universe developed, it wouldn't

result in the formation of atoms, of

404

:

molecules, of planets, of stars, of life.

405

:

And that's what, that's

what scientists realized.

406

:

These numbers are fine tuned.

407

:

If you can imagine these numbers having

dials, which sets the value of, these

408

:

numbers are fine tuned such that if

the numbers were not what they're

409

:

at, what the value of which they

are, but they were different values.

410

:

Then physics will be fine, but

you wouldn't be able to result in

411

:

fields of astronomy and biology,

chemistry, nothing would result.

412

:

And that was an amazing clue, a

discovery, a scientific discovery,

413

:

that these values are special.

414

:

They're special, but not special

in terms of physics, special in

415

:

terms of the purpose, in terms

of what they ultimately produce.

416

:

And that was a shocking

discovery, which was surprising

417

:

to physicists and scientists.

418

:

It was something which

they had to deal with.

419

:

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

420

:

What do you do with that?

421

:

And that's what, for example, you

talked about Daniels, the cosmological

422

:

constant, which is this red number,

which determines the rate at which the

423

:

universe is expanding or accelerating.

424

:

And it turns out that if it was expanding

too fast, then everything would have

425

:

just pulled away from each other.

426

:

We wouldn't have been able

to have any galaxies form.

427

:

It was expanding too slow and

gravity would have caused everything

428

:

to crunch and you would never

also have never formed galaxies.

429

:

And a lot of these numbers, as science

gets more and more knowledge, we realize

430

:

a lot of these numbers are fine too.

431

:

That the values of these numbers

are what they need to be in order

432

:

to produce a universe like our own.

433

:

And that was an amazing discovery.

434

:

Right.

435

:

Now, the key point is to look at Phi

Thuny as the solution to the mystery.

436

:

It's the clue.

437

:

It's the great clue

that solves the mystery.

438

:

Because the mystery is

these arbitrary numbers.

439

:

How do you explain the number?

440

:

And fine tuning is scientific knowledge,

which we learn about it, we learn

441

:

about the mass of the electrons.

442

:

So these electrons are really tiny,

they're one, almost one two thousandth

443

:

the mass of a proton and a neutron,

but they're not exactly one two

444

:

thousandth, they're one thousand

eight hundred and thirty six of a

445

:

proton and one thousand eight hundred

and thirty eighth of a neutron.

446

:

And it turns out if the illicit electron's

a little bit bigger than its tiny

447

:

value, then the two and a half times.

448

:

Then protons and electrons will be able

to combine, the charges would cancel

449

:

and you'd end up getting neutrons.

450

:

And all atoms would collapse and you would

lose, would be no such thing as atoms.

451

:

Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen,

Carbon, everything.

452

:

All you'd have is

everything become neutrons.

453

:

And there wouldn't be any

atoms or molecules and planets

454

:

and stars and anything else.

455

:

And that's scientific knowledge.

456

:

The only reason you know that

is because scientists understand

457

:

chemistry and anatomic physics.

458

:

And phi tuning is a type of scientific

knowledge which explains one of

459

:

the deepest mysteries In science,

the mystery of the constants, and

460

:

that's very important to understand

why this is, the whole fine tuning

461

:

is not a problem, it's a solution.

462

:

It's the, it's scientific knowledge which

points the way to the true solution.

463

:

The true solution is that we can

explain the constants, we understand

464

:

why they have their crazy values.

465

:

Why is that in fine structure

constant over 1 over 137?

466

:

In order to have atoms and molecules

or planets and stars, if it was 1

467

:

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

468

:

Because when I've already been there

in 30, you don't have that either.

469

:

And this, you know, a lot of these

custs, you change them a couple percent

470

:

and nothing works out and you lose

all the complexity and structure and

471

:

order and the universe falls away.

472

:

And that is a type of an explanation.

473

:

Now, it's not the standard

type of explanation that modern

474

:

science had been working with.

475

:

It's called a teleological explanation.

476

:

You're explaining the values of

these constants by their purpose.

477

:

And the problem with that for a

scientist was, this is something

478

:

new, this is something different.

479

:

Teleology was something where, teleology

means a purpose based explanation.

480

:

That's something that Aristotelian

scientists have, but modern Newtonian

481

:

physics, in theory, got rid of that.

482

:

And now all of a sudden, fine

tuning shows that it's coming back.

483

:

That there is this connection.

484

:

Connection of the

objective of the contents.

485

:

The purpose of them is to produce stars

and planets and scientists that he

486

:

recognizes, this is something so far,

everything we've said is something that

487

:

physicists and scientists will say, maybe

99 percent of the wall, more or less all

488

:

agreed to everything we said of mystery

of the concepts that finally talked about.

489

:

And fine tuning itself, the

fact that if you change these

490

:

numbers, you won't get any of the

complexionate order in the universe.

491

:

But nobody's arguing on that.

492

:

The question is, how

do you interpret that?

493

:

So, this is where we diverge.

494

:

We think that the natural interpretation,

and the direct indication of when

495

:

you see purpose, That the constants

have a purpose of producing atoms and

496

:

molecules of stars and planets and life.

497

:

The cause of the constants is

intelligent because an intelligent

498

:

cause acts with a purpose.

499

:

That whoever set the constants

are not truly fundamental.

500

:

To answer the mystery of the constants,

they're not truly fundamental.

501

:

Rather, they were set by an intelligent

cause that set them at their values

502

:

in order to produce a universe,

which is an interesting universe,

503

:

which has stars and planets and

life and galaxies and all these.

504

:

Other different, amazing,

wonderful things.

505

:

And that shows you that there's an

intelligent cause for the universe.

506

:

It's not just an unintelligent brute

fact of reality of 25 numbers or some

507

:

Randall thing that just produces numbers

for no purpose, but it shows you that

508

:

the cause of the laws of nature and the

constants of nature is an intelligent

509

:

cause, which acts with a purpose,

understands what it's doing and set

510

:

these constants for a specific value.

511

:

For a specific purpose and an

objective that obviously is

512

:

what scientists don't like.

513

:

We'll talk about in a second about their

approach and notice the multiverse.

514

:

But the main point in following this

whole, this whole formulation of the

515

:

fine tuning argument is appreciating.

516

:

It's not an argument from the gaps.

517

:

It's not an argument from ignorance

that very often seems to be the case.

518

:

When you people try to argue with a

teleological argument from biology,

519

:

which seems to be, we don't know

how to explain certain things.

520

:

Okay.

521

:

And you're seeing that it

must be God is doing that.

522

:

We don't know how to explain

where our life originated.

523

:

It must be God did it in.

524

:

We're not trying to knock

the argument in biology.

525

:

It's just, we want to show you.

526

:

And then that's very much why we

made the podcast physics to God.

527

:

And what we're doing is the first

five episodes of that, of the, of our

528

:

podcast, the fine tuning argument is

because it's, there's a superiority.

529

:

It's tremendously superior.

530

:

There's argument in physics.

531

:

If you want to have real conviction.

532

:

That there's an intelligent

cause to the universe.

533

:

The argument from physics is much

better than any other argument,

534

:

frankly, that I've seen anywhere.

535

:

And it's why we've devoted more

than a decade towards developing

536

:

it and ultimately trying to

present it in a podcast and

537

:

hopefully in the future a book.

538

:

It's because it's very clear

it's an argument from knowledge.

539

:

And it's not an argument from the gaps

where you just simply don't understand

540

:

the detail in some sort of, you know.

541

:

How cows have spots, but you're dealing

with the fundamental basis of reality,

542

:

the constants of nature, the fundamental

concepts of physicists called constants.

543

:

And you're showing there's an intrinsic

mystery that scientists acknowledge and

544

:

fine tuning, which scientists acknowledge

also is coming in and scientific

545

:

knowledge, which solves the mystery and

points directly to an intelligent cause.

546

:

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

to formulate it, to see why the idea of

547

:

an intelligent clause of the constants is

simply the natural outcome of following

548

:

the conceptual unfolding of how physics

went from the mystery to fine tuning.

549

:

Okay, I appreciate that,

and there's a lot here.

550

:

Let me see if I could put

this into a deductive analogy.

551

:

So I used to teach logic, and when

I was on the debate team, we tried

552

:

to put things in an argument just

so we could analyze them better.

553

:

That's my first shot, just

listening to you, Aaron, talk

554

:

about that the last five minutes.

555

:

Deductive argument, you've got two

premises that lead to a conclusion.

556

:

Try this out, see if I'm

on the same page with you.

557

:

Premise number one, the best

scientific answer to the mystery

558

:

of the consonants is fine tuning.

559

:

Premise two, fine tuning

implies intelligence.

560

:

Conclusion, therefore, the best

scientific explanation for the

561

:

constants of physics is intelligence.

562

:

Okay, so you're saying that

you're starting off with The fine

563

:

tuning is the best explanation

for the constants, correct?

564

:

That is the best scientific

knowledge we have.

565

:

Okay.

566

:

So that's the premise for it.

567

:

And it's pretty much the only scientific

knowledge we have about the constants.

568

:

Everything else about them is,

they're, they're arbitrary.

569

:

We don't know anything about them.

570

:

So that's the knowledge we have.

571

:

Okay.

572

:

And then you're saying, and

then if we have fine tuning

573

:

implies an intelligent cause.

574

:

Yes.

575

:

That's the premise, too.

576

:

Right.

577

:

And then if we put those together, since

we have a mystery, fine tuning is the clue

578

:

that leads to such an intelligent cause.

579

:

And therefore we have

an intelligent cause.

580

:

Yes.

581

:

You guys are philosophers.

582

:

I see.

583

:

I just got a philosopher.

584

:

Solid.

585

:

Solid.

586

:

I used to elaborate a teeny

bit on the second premise.

587

:

We're just saying, yeah,

it's an intelligent cause.

588

:

So I think it comes down to intelligence,

how you understand intelligence.

589

:

So the way we think about it is

intelligence comes from some Latin

590

:

word that I don't know how to

pronounce, but it's like interlegory.

591

:

So then it means let's select.

592

:

And the idea is that you select,

intelligence really is like the ability

593

:

to select one particular path or strategy

or anything from a set of many for

594

:

the purpose of realizing some goal.

595

:

And you can think about that in any area.

596

:

Intelligence is a person's

ability to select, to choose.

597

:

There's a lot of different options out

there, and you're choosing one which

598

:

leads you towards a desired goal.

599

:

And that being the case, with that

idea of intelligence, we think

600

:

fine tuning is basically saying the

values, as far as physics knows,

601

:

the values could have been anything.

602

:

Although physicists will tell you

there's nothing which Seemingly the

603

:

target is that the values are any

value on one of 137 or any other value.

604

:

But the choice of the constants, the

values of the constants were selected

605

:

as the particular values, which

are necessary to be able to result

606

:

in our amazing complex universe.

607

:

And we're saying is that's the

signature fine tuning design order.

608

:

These are signatures of intelligence.

609

:

The fact that the cons are

selected the perfect values with

610

:

which will result in that goal.

611

:

Of Ring About Our Universe, that's

why that second premise is the case.

612

:

That fine tuning implies

an indulgent cause.

613

:

Okay, that's good stuff.

614

:

Very helpful.

615

:

And so again, this is not necessarily

a direct proof for God as we understand

616

:

it, but to me, if this argument

is successful, then it undermines

617

:

naturalism and, and obviously has

a very important purpose then.

618

:

Yeah, exactly.

619

:

So I'll take off on that point

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

620

:

formulating it You're not going to

get divine providence in order to get

621

:

divine providence You really have to

say that there are specifically fine

622

:

tuning for intelligent life for human

beings And that we think is if you,

623

:

you don't really have specific fine

tuning for human beings in particular.

624

:

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

cosmological constant set properly,

625

:

the whole universe collapses.

626

:

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

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

627

:

If you don't have the fine structure

constant, or the mass of an electron fine

628

:

tuned very precisely, there's no atoms

and molecules and planets and stars.

629

:

And no human beings, no intelligent life,

but it doesn't show you a philosophically,

630

:

if you use a proper philosophical

methodology, it doesn't show you that the

631

:

purpose of everything is human beings.

632

:

It just shows you that the cause of the

universe selected these things to produce

633

:

a universe with structure and hierarchy

and order and complexity, and all the

634

:

amazing, wonderful things that exist in

the universe from a cause and chemistry

635

:

to stars and galaxies, everything.

636

:

And yes, life is phenomenal and

intelligent life is special, but we're

637

:

just one part of this amazing universe.

638

:

And the cause of the universe intended

it all, as far as we can tell.

639

:

Is there one particular part that

the cause God likes the most?

640

:

That's, in a sense, beyond

the scope of this argument.

641

:

We think, and, and, and we think

when people try to formulate it,

642

:

that say intelligence, that fine

tuning is for intelligent life, Then

643

:

they expose themselves to having

questions from atheistic scientists

644

:

and saying, well, hold on a second.

645

:

Maybe there's different forms of life

that can, in some hydrogen cloud,

646

:

maybe it's possible to have life.

647

:

And you end up, um, opening

up the argument, the fighting

648

:

argument to a lot of questions.

649

:

And then a person hears that and says,

you know what, these scientists are right.

650

:

But what's really happened is

that people have not formulated

651

:

the argument in the proper way.

652

:

There's an expression in the Talmud

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

653

:

tefas tamur walot tefas tamiet tebas.

654

:

That if you try to grab too

much, you grab nothing at all.

655

:

And if you try to grab a small

amount, what you're able to

656

:

grab, then you grab something.

657

:

And that's what goes wrong here is that

you try to prove divine providence,

658

:

you try to get everything out of the

fine tuning argument, then it ends

659

:

up becoming a weaker formulation

that can be knocked off by scientists

660

:

and philosophers poking holes in it

because you tried to do too much.

661

:

But if you are satisfied by saying, we

have the best proof that modern science

662

:

has ever afforded with the idea of

God, who created the universe, caused

663

:

the universe, set the laws of nature

and the constants of nature for the

664

:

purpose of producing an entire wonderful

amazing Ordered in complex universe.

665

:

That's incredible in the modern world

to actually have science indicating in

666

:

a very clear, compelling, convincing

way to a person that God exists is an

667

:

amazing thing and to try to overreach

and try to use this to prove divine

668

:

providence, then you end up losing it all.

669

:

And it's just a big mistake

that we think people often make.

670

:

And that's.

671

:

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

foundation of religion, and then

672

:

if you want to prove religion, you

want to prove divine providence,

673

:

there's other arguments you can use.

674

:

Yes, they're not the fine tuning

argument, maybe they're not as

675

:

rigorous, but still you have to be

honest with what this argument proves.

676

:

Okay.

677

:

Yeah, I love that.

678

:

I like that a lot.

679

:

Yeah, yeah.

680

:

Go ahead, Nathan.

681

:

No, I appreciate that as well that you're

trying to make it as tight as possible.

682

:

I guess my question is there's no one of

those 25 numbers that are foundational

683

:

that is necessary for This is that

corresponds to human life, right?

684

:

Is that right?

685

:

Is that one way of putting it?

686

:

Maybe.

687

:

Exactly.

688

:

That's the thing that the closest

thing you have is like, there's like

689

:

a certain element of fine tuning of

carbon, which is a little bit complex.

690

:

And that's like the closest thing,

but the fine tuning there is disputed

691

:

by how much the fine tuning is.

692

:

Weinberg wanted to say, it's

like a 25 percent thing.

693

:

And that's like the best, the best

argument you're going to get is for,

694

:

is from carbon is a certain resonance

and needs and in order for it to, in

695

:

the formation of carbon from stars.

696

:

I think Fred Hoyle is the one who

discovered it and he was an atheist,

697

:

I think, but still, but that's

like the closest to me than carbon.

698

:

It gets you, maybe it gets you

life, carbon based life, but still

699

:

doesn't get you intelligent life.

700

:

And that's, and that's like

dispute amongst the scientists.

701

:

Well, what's so amazing about what the

fine tuning argument is, we've presented

702

:

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

we've said scientists would argue about

703

:

in the framework of science, right?

704

:

The fine tuning, they, they

agree that if you don't have.

705

:

How's logic constant?

706

:

You don't have a universe.

707

:

You don't have covered galaxies.

708

:

If you don't have the fine structure

constant or the mass of an electron or

709

:

the masses of quarks or the relationship

between gravity and electromagnetic force,

710

:

the strengths, you don't have stars.

711

:

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

and molecules, things like that.

712

:

They all say this.

713

:

You could go online and you could

go search videos of fine tuning and

714

:

of the constants or the multiverse.

715

:

Scientists will talk about this when we

talk about the multiverse and, and, and.

716

:

They agree about everything we say, what

they just say is, granted there's this

717

:

mystery, granted the fine tuning seems

to make it look like you need these

718

:

constants in order to, for the purpose.

719

:

They just say it's an illusion.

720

:

The proper interpretation according to

them is that we live in a multiverse,

721

:

which if you listeners who don't

know what a multiverse is, it's an

722

:

infinite number of unobservable.

723

:

Other universes, where the constants

of nature are different in every

724

:

universe speculated that the, that

the concepts of nature are different.

725

:

Every universe and obviously 99%,

99% of them, there's no life.

726

:

There's no planets, there's

no atos or molecules, and

727

:

there's no intelligent life.

728

:

And in ours, just a few universes or

whatever, small subset of them that

729

:

happens to be fine tuning by chance alone.

730

:

And we obviously are in a universe

which has fine tuning because we

731

:

couldn't exist in any other universe.

732

:

And that's called the anthropic

principle, that it's an observer bias.

733

:

And of course, we're going to look

around and see a universe which

734

:

has fine tuned constants because we

couldn't exist in any other universe.

735

:

And that's their explanation.

736

:

And we were doing an entire series,

our series two in our podcast, which

737

:

is going to come out in November.

738

:

Take care.

739

:

It'll be about 15 episodes to

show understanding the multiverse

740

:

and rejecting the multiverse,

seeing why it's not good science.

741

:

It's rather bad philosophy because

it doesn't meet the standards of

742

:

science of observation and prediction,

and it has more intrinsic flaws.

743

:

Which we'll talk about in our

season two, but that's where

744

:

they argue it is essentially.

745

:

It's a philosophical argument of what

is the proper interpretation of the

746

:

fact that these constants seem to be Set

with the specific values for the purpose

747

:

of bringing about atoms and molecules

and stars Do you say therefore there's

748

:

an intelligent cause who sent him?

749

:

What do you say?

750

:

No, it's just an illusion of purpose

It looks like this purpose because we

751

:

have an observer bias and that really

becomes a philosophical Discussion

752

:

of what are the proper philosophical

methodology for interpreting this?

753

:

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

if you want to believe that this fine

754

:

tuning argument is really a good argument

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

755

:

we're not just making something up.

756

:

Go look at the multiverse.

757

:

Go Google, go on YouTube and

watch videos of the multiverse.

758

:

And when you see the top physicists in

the world, the most brilliant people in

759

:

the world, talk about the multiverse,

how they really believe there's infinite

760

:

number of parallel universes, and

everything that possibly can happen.

761

:

Does happen, and they talk about universes

with smurfs in them, and universes

762

:

with people being resurrected, and they

literally talk about all this stuff.

763

:

You're going to realize that there must

be a really good argument from fine

764

:

tuning, because scientists would not be

saying the multiverse if there weren't

765

:

a strong argument from fine tuning.

766

:

And that's another reason why we

believe the argument from physics is

767

:

much better than the one from biology,

because in biology, people who are

768

:

proponents of intelligent design,

they're arguing with scientists.

769

:

about biology.

770

:

They're arguing is this, is fear of

evolution comprehensive, does it have

771

:

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

want to get into that, but you argue

772

:

scientific arguments with scientists.

773

:

In physics, when you deal with fine

tuning the constants, you're not

774

:

arguing physics with physicists.

775

:

We all agree on the physics.

776

:

We all agree on the science.

777

:

The question is, what is the better

philosophical interpretation of the fact

778

:

that the constants are fine tuned in order

to allow a complex universe to exist.

779

:

Is it that there really is the

purpose of the constants and there's

780

:

an intelligent cause that said it?

781

:

Or is it that we live in an infinite

number of parallel universes which nobody

782

:

can ever see, nobody could ever test for,

and it just happens to be this illusion of

783

:

fine tuning because of an observer bias?

784

:

That's why we think it's

a much stronger argument.

785

:

Yeah, that's great.

786

:

So I've got two questions.

787

:

First, from a pop culture perspective,

is the Marvel Universe portrayal of

788

:

the multiverse and like the Spider

Man and Avengers movies, is that

789

:

accurate from a physics perspective?

790

:

Okay, so this is really a subtle

question because the multiverse

791

:

is such a ridiculous theory.

792

:

I think in the Marvel movies, you

can travel between universes, okay?

793

:

So, really you can, in, in a physics

perspective, the whole point of these

794

:

other universes, they're not causally

connected, they're separate bubble

795

:

universes, and it's impossible to

travel from one to the other, okay?

796

:

But what you could do, and this, I

play this game with my son a little

797

:

bit, there is a universe that's

where if you just run as fast as

798

:

you can right into a brick wall.

799

:

So there is a universe where, you know,

as soon as you hit the brick wall, all

800

:

your items will just disperse and you

will disappear in that universe, okay?

801

:

Okay?

802

:

Now, there's another universe where

randomly that brick wall, the atoms in

803

:

that molecule, they fluctuate and you pop

out of the other side of the brick wall.

804

:

So they're good because everything

happens in the multiverse.

805

:

When you're dealing with an infinite

number of universes and quantum

806

:

mechanics, everything possible

that can happen does happen.

807

:

So there are portals in the

sense that you can run it.

808

:

If you really believe in the multiverse

and you run straight into a wall, there

809

:

is a universe in the multiverse where

you'll cease to exist in this universe.

810

:

And there's another universe

where you'll pop out of it.

811

:

So you can treat that like

a portal between universe.

812

:

And that really does exist.

813

:

Multiverse scientists really

believe in this kind of things.

814

:

I don't think they're going

to run into a brick wall.

815

:

Um, I don't know if they really

believe in it, but, but you do.

816

:

That's the thing when you, as is,

if you think about the logical

817

:

conclusions of multiverse, which is

an infinite number of universes where

818

:

everything possible happens, you end

up with the most absurd types of.

819

:

Scenarios.

820

:

And it really starts to

parallel science fiction.

821

:

It becomes something like that.

822

:

Yeah.

823

:

I appreciate that.

824

:

One of the things I wrestled with

before is whether the idea of an actual

825

:

infinite is even a tenable hypothesis,

an actual infinite of anything.

826

:

Obviously you can have the idea of

an infinite as being without limits

827

:

and have a conceptual infinity, but.

828

:

Once you start talking about an

infinite number of books or an infinite

829

:

number of molecules, then you begin

to have some self contradictions.

830

:

I don't know.

831

:

Am I off base?

832

:

Yeah, no, that's good.

833

:

That's one of the things we're going

to talk about on our series about the

834

:

multiverse, is that in order for a

multiverse to work, they end up having to

835

:

posit that they're in silly man universes.

836

:

Then, There's a lot of problems with

multiverse, but one, one of them,

837

:

probably the smallest of them is that

in, that they have to posit that they

838

:

have to take a side on this ancient

philosophical debate of whether there's

839

:

such a thing as a physical infinity.

840

:

And it's not so simple.

841

:

There are potential

contradictions that you got to do.

842

:

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

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

843

:

things that multiverse has to suggest

is that there are infinitely many

844

:

universes, physical infinity is possible.

845

:

And that's part of their model

is that they end up having

846

:

infinitely many universes.

847

:

Where everything possible

happens somewhere.

848

:

So that's, yeah, that's

definitely one, one issue.

849

:

But again, it's arguably

one of the smaller problems.

850

:

We've got a lot of problems.

851

:

But that's not true.

852

:

It's something which

people don't often say.

853

:

But there's a physicist named

George Ellis who makes this point.

854

:

He says that somehow physicists or

scientists are ignoring that problem

855

:

and just treating it like it makes sense

and there's nothing to worry about.

856

:

But, you know, there's great,

great philosophers, physicists,

857

:

mathematicians who have said there's

no such thing as a physical unbound.

858

:

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

in the, throughout our process, we, in

859

:

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

we're going to point out a lot of

860

:

potential problems with the multiverse.

861

:

And there are a lot of problems.

862

:

Besides for the fact though, like

Aaron's mentioning is that there's no,

863

:

it sounds like science fiction, it's

make believe, it's like all this stuff.

864

:

But we take this, even though it sounds

that way, we take it very seriously

865

:

and we look into all the potential

supports and show the problems.

866

:

And ultimately culminating in a problem,

which we're not going to talk about

867

:

now, but something called the measure

problem, which is the real devastating

868

:

problem, which ultimately shows that

even in its own framework of, even

869

:

if you believe and you accept all the

infinitely many universes and the fact

870

:

the constants change, ultimately it fails.

871

:

And based on those devastating

problem called the measure problem.

872

:

But more on that in our second series.

873

:

Looking forward to that.

874

:

Yeah.

875

:

I've often wondered too, okay, the

multi universe is true and there's an

876

:

infinite number of universes where.

877

:

They have their own laws of physics

and reality and rationality, then

878

:

certainly there are universes

where the multiverse isn't true.

879

:

Anyway, you've seen already

contradictions of different kinds.

880

:

But I appreciate the point that you

made, Aaron, that when you start

881

:

proposing a multiverse, you're

stepping outside of science, you're

882

:

stepping outside of physics, and

you are in the area of philosophy.

883

:

A lot of people just don't

seem to understand that.

884

:

And there seems to be a presupposition

of philosophical naturalism that guides

885

:

all that they're doing to such a degree

that they don't recognize that they've

886

:

already made a philosophical choice

that's guiding what they're doing.

887

:

So You I, I think you're,

from what I understood anyway,

888

:

you're exactly on point there.

889

:

I, I love science and I love physics.

890

:

You know, when you read

physicists of the earlier 20th

891

:

century, they knew philosophy.

892

:

Einstein and Bohr and Schrodinger

and, and Heisenberg, they were

893

:

knowledgeable about philosophy.

894

:

And then something happened in the

middle of the 20th century, maybe the

895

:

later part of the 20th century, some

degree, Feynman's responsible for it.

896

:

He's so influential.

897

:

where this physicist developed

like a disdain for philosophy.

898

:

I think Stephen Hawking started one of his

books with philosophy is dead, and science

899

:

and physics has become the new, the new

way forward, and philosophy is over.

900

:

And that attitude of just looking down

on philosophy and disdain has caused,

901

:

Modern physicists and scientists look

askew at philosophy and it really it's

902

:

glorifying their ignorance of philosophy.

903

:

And that makes them unaware of that.

904

:

They are taking philosophical positions

that are controversial and they don't

905

:

necessarily work out their theories

in a philosophical framework because

906

:

they think they're just doing science

and shut up and calculate and as long

907

:

as it works out, you're doing science.

908

:

And then they don't understand

the foundations of physics.

909

:

They end up with these.

910

:

They end up doing multiverse and

thinking it's science because it's

911

:

mathematical, when they really

veer beyond what classical science

912

:

is and it becomes philosophy.

913

:

And it gets worse because they

hate philosophy so much because

914

:

they're scientists and philosophy

is bad and I don't know why, they

915

:

really don't like philosophy.

916

:

Then they have to call what the

philosophy that they are doing,

917

:

they have to call it science.

918

:

And they really have discussions about

changing the definition of science

919

:

in order to accommodate multiverse.

920

:

And there's articles written about it.

921

:

Sean Carroll has an

argument right by doing it.

922

:

And Brian Greene talks about it and

Ellis obviously doesn't like it.

923

:

But there's this big question

in amongst physicists of can we

924

:

legitimately change what has been

the classic definition of science

925

:

in order to accommodate multiverse.

926

:

As being science, because they don't

want just to admit that they're doing

927

:

philosophy because they don't, they don't

like philosophy and philosophy is no good.

928

:

So they have to be doing science, but

they're doing injury to fit to science

929

:

and to physics, because there's a reason

why there's a scientific methodology.

930

:

That's been so successful that

demand observation, comparing

931

:

your things to reality.

932

:

And that's good.

933

:

That's been really good

and beneficial for science.

934

:

And it's progressed so much over

the past few hundred years because

935

:

of the methodology of science.

936

:

And to just change the definition of

science to accommodate multiverse,

937

:

because Physicists refuse to accept

that they're doing philosophy.

938

:

It's just really, it's based on

ignorance of philosophy and it's

939

:

really, uh, hurtful to science.

940

:

And I exactly take to your point,

it's just, I think a really big

941

:

mistake that that is, is very much

the attitude to philosophy has really

942

:

contributed to the rise of multiverse.

943

:

Yeah.

944

:

So I love that you guys are

offering a really well thought out

945

:

treatment alternative to multiverse.

946

:

And I was curious in your

scientific mathematical landscape.

947

:

If you see or sense any sort of more

openness toward the argument for an

948

:

intelligent cause, or is there any

kind of openness or it sounds like

949

:

there's also some movement on the

other side of things with redefining

950

:

science and all that stuff, but where

do you view the current conversation

951

:

and where do you see it heading?

952

:

I think the problem is that there

is a attitude, a pervasive sense

953

:

of knowing that God is impossible.

954

:

That the idea of God is.

955

:

Even just in the theism, just, or deism,

even just as an intelligent cause of

956

:

the universe, they know that's wrong.

957

:

That's impossible.

958

:

That doesn't make any sense.

959

:

That's just a childish religious

fantasy and they know it's not true.

960

:

And therefore the only possible way

to interpret this is a multiverse.

961

:

And that's why they say

multiverse, because they believe

962

:

the idea of God is not true.

963

:

And I think until that changes,

I don't think they're going to be

964

:

able to move off of multiverse.

965

:

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

season two of the multiverse in November,

966

:

but after that, Probably about a year

later, we're going to come out with

967

:

our third part, or probably the final

part, which is going to be about God.

968

:

Because if you can't present to a

rational scientist, a clear, coherent,

969

:

logical, and cohesive, intuitive

idea of God, and without we answering

970

:

these questions of who created God,

or who designed the designer, or what

971

:

does God even mean, they ask serious

questions, and that demand real answers.

972

:

And if you can't, just like we presented

the fine tuning argument in a clear way,

973

:

with analogies in a, you know, clear

way, we're going to do that with the

974

:

multiverse with these analogies, and the

clear method, we're going to do the same

975

:

thing for the idea of God, and showing how

there is a clear idea of God that emerges

976

:

from the fine tuning argument naturally.

977

:

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

one God, um, who is the cause of the

978

:

constants and that is defensible and

that the same categories that physicists

979

:

use to understand fundamental laws and

fundamental constants and fundamental

980

:

interactions between articles, things

like that, those same we're using in a

981

:

certain sense, the categories of physics,

fundamental physics, as an analogy for

982

:

metaphysical categories, how you deal with

fundamentals in a metaphysical framework.

983

:

So it's obviously a little bit more

abstract because you're using Physics,

984

:

which is hard enough as an analogy

for metaphysics, but Ellie's going

985

:

to give great analogies in that third

part, and we're going to have to do

986

:

that because until you can present

an idea of God that seems possible to

987

:

scientists, they're just not going to

be able to move off of the multiverse.

988

:

But ultimately I think

multiverse is fated to fail.

989

:

It just, there's no way, in my

opinion, I hope I'm right, is that

990

:

there's no way that the heart of

science and the spirit of science is

991

:

going to tolerate multiverse forever.

992

:

And it might take another decade or

two, but it's just not real science.

993

:

And there's just no way that

it has any staying power.

994

:

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

too big a corruption of what actual

995

:

science is that eventually scientists

are going to have to drop it.

996

:

When that happens is

obviously nobody can tell you.

997

:

Wow.

998

:

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

999

:

Is there anything else you guys

want to talk about or Nathan,

:

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

are there any other questions?

:

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

My mind's pretty full right now.

:

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

Yeah, I've got one more sounds, but

your podcasts, you, you talk about

:

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

intentionally focusing on the logic

and the, and the reason and the science

:

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

without bringing in divine revelation,

but it sounds like some of that might be

:

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

coming as you begin to move into season

three or, or maybe not divine revelation,

:

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

but I'm curious why you guys chose to

take that approach and personally also,

:

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

I'd maybe love to end on a personal

note, like how divine revelation or, or.

:

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

Maybe the lack of, I don't know,

has played a role in your own faiths

:

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

and academic journeys and all that.

:

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

Yeah, so I think is that when we

discovered this argument, uh, maybe 10

:

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

years ago, and it got better and better

as time goes on, we realized that as

:

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

Aaron was talking about before, we think

there's a solid, convincing argument that

:

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

God exists, that there's an intelligent

cause of our universe from fine tuning.

:

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

And again, when you overreach, as

Aaron quoted before, if you try

:

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

to do too much, I think you end up

Not being able to be as successful.

:

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

And we think we, we want to put

our focus on what we think is

:

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

solid, convincing, compelling.

:

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

And if you could get people to

see the idea that God exists,

:

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

we think that's a major step.

:

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

And while we do, of course, believe and

have justification for other beliefs,

:

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

which we have for divine revelation and

all that, we think we want to focus on

:

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

that, which is a major issue in our day.

:

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

I think atheism, as Tocqueville,

especially new atheists, have told

:

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

a lot of people and can try and

convince people that modern sciences

:

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

show that God is make believe, that

God is dead, that God doesn't exist.

:

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

That's all this ancient thing.

:

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

And we realized that this is an issue

which every religion, whatever religion,

:

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

Any religious person struggles with this

impression that atheistic scientists

:

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

give that God is outdated, and we

think that We don't want to, in a

:

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

certain sense, we do, we teach Torah,

we study religion and we discuss those

:

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

things in our classes that we give, we

taught, we give to in our communities.

:

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

But at the same time, we think

this has a very universal appeal.

:

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

There's a compelling argument, which

is solid and convincing for everybody,

:

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

wherever your religion you're from.

:

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

We think that this is, there's a common

battle, if you will, against atheists

:

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

who maintain this world is purposeless

without any, just total random chaos,

:

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

multiverse, everything is random.

:

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

Um, And we see that's a common

problem, and we have a broad audience

:

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

that we think we could share this

idea with the larger world than

:

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

We're focusing on the particulars

which we teach about our religion.

:

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

So while we think we have great ideas

on that and in Revelation we believe in

:

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

:

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

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

really ready to go, to present anything

:

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

like that, anything in this type of way.

:

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

Just add the idea that, well in our

podcast we're really just trying to

:

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

establish the foundation of religion

and divine revelation but we're

:

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

not going to actually seek to prove

that from physics and from science.

:

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

In all likelihood, who knows

what will end up happening.

:

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

We do have arguments from, for example,

for the Torah itself, and we live a life

:

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

guided by the commandments and studying

the oral Torah, the oral law that was in

:

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

:

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

the return of the Jewish people, and

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

:

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

influenced by our relationship to God in,

in particular, in, in divine providence.

:

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

But like Ellie said, we thought

it was very important that people

:

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

should see that the idea of God is

not contingent on divine providence,

:

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

that the idea of divine providence

is contingent on the idea of God.

:

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

You first have to know God exists

in order to ask the question.

:

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

Once you know God exists, you

can ask the question, does

:

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

he relate to mankind or not?

:

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

:

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

the burden of proof is much lower when

you're trying to prove divine providence

:

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

after you already know that God exists.

:

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

And very often people try to,

again, in proper methodology,

:

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

they try to prove everything.

:

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

You try to prove that God exists, He

probably prophesies, gives prophecy to

:

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

mankind, He does miracles, He relates

to people in particular, and you're

:

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

trying to prove those all at once.

:

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

And that's a high standard, that's

a high burden, but if you just

:

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

break it up logically, what's the

first thing that you have to prove?

:

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

That's the idea that there exists a God.

:

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

Once you know a God exists, that

already gives a person confidence.

:

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

Now, these atheistic scientists,

you can see they're wrong.

:

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

Don't just trust them.

:

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

They believe that God never

gave the Torah at Mount Sinai.

:

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

They say that's not true.

:

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

They also believe in a multiverse.

:

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

And once you see yourself firsthand,

that's the idea of the podcast.

:

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

You're going to have firsthand knowledge

that God exists and that the scientists

:

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

are wrong about the multiverse.

:

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

And you'll watch their videos about

the multiverse and you're going

:

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

to see the smartest people in the

world are believing in something

:

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

that you can see yourself is wrong.

:

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

That's going to give you a lot

of confidence when you're facing

:

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

these other issues and these other

arguments of divine providence.

:

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

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

important thing we think is to

:

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

go logically and step by step.

:

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

:

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

to see it for themselves, say, and maybe

we'll do something later on about that.

:

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

Yeah.

:

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

That's great.

:

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

Go ahead, Dan.

:

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

We talked in one of our earlier episodes.

:

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

:

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

in the world of philosophy, there are

what you would call the popular atheists.

:

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

The people like Richard Dawkins, who

the sell their books that are sold

:

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

to bars and nobles and whatnot, and

they make the rounds of the talk

:

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

shoes and there are TBA and whatnot.

:

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

And then you had the more serious

atheist and probably the most

:

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

serious opponent of theism in the

last 50 to 60 years was Anthony Flu.

:

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

He was.

:

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

A very intelligent British philosopher

who wrote somewhere around 45

:

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

books about philosophy and about

logic and reasoning especially.

:

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

So his two specialties were

analyzing reasoning and logic.

:

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

So he wrote several great books

on logic and then also atheism.

:

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

He was an atheist for almost all his life.

:

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

And then in the last years of his

life, he published a book called

:

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

There is a God, How the World's Most

Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

:

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

And if you look at that book, what

he argues is basically many of the

:

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

same things that you're arguing.

:

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

What changed his mind was the evidence

of the fine tuning of the universe.

:

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

And then he tried to reason what's the

best explanation for that fine tuning.

:

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

And for him, as a logician,

it became very clear.

:

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

He said that he really did

not want to go down that road.

:

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

But he had made it his life's

goal to follow the argument

:

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

wherever the evidence led.

:

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

:

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

the existence of a God than in naturalism.

:

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

So anyway, I just thought you

might find that interesting.

:

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

Maybe you already knew that.

:

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

No, I really didn't know that.

:

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

That is fascinating.

:

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

Amen.

:

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

Thanks.

:

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

Yeah.

:

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

And that book is on Amazon.

:

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

:

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

level in terms of understanding.

:

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

Anyone who can read college

level material or high school

:

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

level material can get that.

:

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

And Anthony Flew, There is a God,

How the World's Most Notorious

:

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

Atheist Changed His Mind.

:

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

Fascinating.

:

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

Yeah.

:

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

I love your guys approach and

just how thorough it's been.

:

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

I'm looking forward to

season two and season three.

:

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

And appreciate how focused you guys

have been, not trying to come up with

:

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

answers for everything, but just to help

people in that first step toward the, the

:

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

possible existence of intelligent desire.

:

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

So hats off to you guys.

:

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

Well done.

:

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

Thank you.

:

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

No, we're lucky.

:

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

It's great to hear that

people, um, appreciate it.

:

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

And it's also, it's amazing

because I know you guys don't

:

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

have, you're not physicists.

:

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

:

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

accessible to everybody who is interested.

:

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

And yes, the person, you have to

be intelligent to understand what

:

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

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

have a great scientific background.

:

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

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

your philosophy, not necessarily physics

:

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

guys, but philosophy guys, and just to

be able to, to hear you guys say that

:

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

you appreciate it, you understand that

it means a lot to us to know that.

:

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

But these are the people we're

trying to reach, to hear these

:

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

arguments and to make them available.

:

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

For people who are curious and

genuinely interested in, in knowing

:

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

whether there's a God from science

to make it accessible without having

:

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

to go through years of schooling.

:

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

So that it's good for us to

hear you, hear you understanding

:

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

the podcast and like you.

:

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

For sure.

:

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

It was so nice to meet you guys.

:

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

Yeah.

:

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

Very.

:

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

This was really interesting to me.

:

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

Thank you.

:

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

Yeah.

:

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

Our pleasure.

:

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

Our pleasure.

:

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

:

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

and it was great to meet you guys.

:

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

And thank you very much.

:

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

Definitely.

:

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

I really enjoyed.

:

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

Thanks.

:

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

Our pleasure.

:

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

Yeah, absolutely.

:

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

And again.

:

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

Yeah.

:

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

Give my wholehearted recommendation,

if anyone's interested in this topic,

:

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

there's a YouTube channel and there's

also an audio podcast, correct?

:

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

Yep.

:

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

Both the cemetery wall, physics, and wide.

:

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

Yeah.

:

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

And you can go on our

website, physics2god.

:

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

com, where we, we have essay

forms of the, of the podcast.

:

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

Oh, great.

:

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

Yeah.

:

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

And you can subscribe.

:

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

There's an email subscription.

:

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

We don't send out that many emails.

:

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

Maybe whenever we do,

you'll get access to that.

:

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

So those are the three different

ways right now that's, that

:

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

the information is available.

:

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

All right.

:

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

Anything else guys?

:

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

No, I think.

:

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

I think that's good.

:

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

Well, we appreciate it.

:

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

It was great to talk to you.

:

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

And it was a great conversation.

:

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

Really enjoyed it.

:

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

I like it.

:

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

Thanks so much.

:

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

Yeah.

:

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

Absolutely.

Next Episode All Episodes Previous Episode

About the Podcast

Show artwork for Philosophy and Faith
Philosophy and Faith
Helping you navigate your intellectual/spiritual journey

Listen for free