1 00:00:02,680 --> 00:00:03,600 Speaker 1: Life audio. 2 00:00:08,200 --> 00:00:10,399 Speaker 2: As best we can tell, the universe has a beginning. 3 00:00:10,560 --> 00:00:14,080 Speaker 2: The best explanation of that likely fact is that something 4 00:00:14,120 --> 00:00:17,120 Speaker 2: beyond matterspace, time, and energy brought the universe into existence, 5 00:00:17,360 --> 00:00:21,040 Speaker 2: and that something has attributes that correspond to those that 6 00:00:21,120 --> 00:00:27,240 Speaker 2: Jews and Christians are traditional feasts have assigned to God, transcendence, volition, power, 7 00:00:27,560 --> 00:00:29,800 Speaker 2: and even intelligence. When we start to look at the 8 00:00:30,360 --> 00:00:32,440 Speaker 2: degree to which the universe has to be fine tuned 9 00:00:32,479 --> 00:00:32,720 Speaker 2: from the. 10 00:00:32,720 --> 00:00:35,879 Speaker 1: Beginning, whether they've pieced it all together and applied it 11 00:00:35,880 --> 00:00:39,599 Speaker 1: to the Penrose model, would agree these are pretty standard 12 00:00:39,640 --> 00:00:43,040 Speaker 1: critiques that you're making, Doctor Stephen Meyer. Welcome back to 13 00:00:43,080 --> 00:00:47,519 Speaker 1: part two of our conversation. It turns out, fascinatingly that 14 00:00:47,600 --> 00:00:50,840 Speaker 1: there's a battle that is emerging over the Big Bang 15 00:00:51,400 --> 00:00:55,560 Speaker 1: and the preeminent. Sir Roger Penrose responded to a video 16 00:00:55,720 --> 00:00:59,520 Speaker 1: of mine in which I interviewed you. He raised some challenges. 17 00:01:00,040 --> 00:01:02,520 Speaker 1: In our last video, we talked about why his critique 18 00:01:02,640 --> 00:01:04,920 Speaker 1: is so important, who he is, kind of where we 19 00:01:05,040 --> 00:01:08,560 Speaker 1: stand in this debate. We promised we'd come back and 20 00:01:08,600 --> 00:01:13,040 Speaker 1: do a deep dive specifically responding to his model, because 21 00:01:13,040 --> 00:01:16,520 Speaker 1: the question is does the science point towards the universe 22 00:01:16,640 --> 00:01:20,759 Speaker 1: having a beginning or not if it does, that cries 23 00:01:20,800 --> 00:01:25,080 Speaker 1: out as we both agree for a supernatural explanation, and 24 00:01:25,120 --> 00:01:28,399 Speaker 1: he has one of the most pre eminent models challenging 25 00:01:28,440 --> 00:01:30,760 Speaker 1: that the universe had a beginning in the way that 26 00:01:30,760 --> 00:01:32,840 Speaker 1: we would understand it. We're going to do a little 27 00:01:32,880 --> 00:01:34,640 Speaker 1: bit of a deep dive and I'm going to turn 28 00:01:34,680 --> 00:01:39,240 Speaker 1: the reins over to you. I want our audience to no, no, 29 00:01:39,240 --> 00:01:41,600 Speaker 1: no chance. But I want people to know this might 30 00:01:41,640 --> 00:01:43,880 Speaker 1: be one you listen to two or three times, and 31 00:01:43,920 --> 00:01:47,000 Speaker 1: if you don't get a particular point, see the big 32 00:01:47,080 --> 00:01:50,200 Speaker 1: picture of it. That's what's most important. But before we 33 00:01:50,240 --> 00:01:52,320 Speaker 1: dive in, did I miss anything about how we want 34 00:01:52,360 --> 00:01:53,600 Speaker 1: to frame this conversation? 35 00:01:54,440 --> 00:01:57,600 Speaker 2: What you said was perfect, but there's an additional element 36 00:01:57,640 --> 00:02:01,080 Speaker 2: we should add. And just reminding that audience that last 37 00:02:01,120 --> 00:02:07,559 Speaker 2: time we talked about how these new cosmological models, these 38 00:02:07,600 --> 00:02:14,200 Speaker 2: infinite universe models, are possible, but they come at a 39 00:02:14,280 --> 00:02:17,160 Speaker 2: very high cost, especially to those who hold to a 40 00:02:17,160 --> 00:02:23,480 Speaker 2: philosophical to philosophical naturalism or materialism. So the basic structure 41 00:02:23,520 --> 00:02:26,560 Speaker 2: of my argument in return of the God hypothesis is 42 00:02:26,919 --> 00:02:31,520 Speaker 2: a kind of either or pick your poison argument in 43 00:02:31,639 --> 00:02:35,840 Speaker 2: challenge to scientific materialism, either of the universe has a beginning. 44 00:02:36,280 --> 00:02:39,600 Speaker 2: And my contention, and that of several of my key colleagues, 45 00:02:39,680 --> 00:02:43,959 Speaker 2: is that, and I would say the majority of the 46 00:02:44,280 --> 00:02:46,960 Speaker 2: physics and cosmology community is that, as best we can tell, 47 00:02:47,200 --> 00:02:51,320 Speaker 2: the universe had a beginning. But I also acknowledge that 48 00:02:51,520 --> 00:02:54,360 Speaker 2: it's possible to model your way out of that. You 49 00:02:54,360 --> 00:02:58,960 Speaker 2: can with very clever mathematical modeling. You can conceive of 50 00:02:59,000 --> 00:03:04,359 Speaker 2: the universe as as being infinite in duration and make 51 00:03:04,600 --> 00:03:08,600 Speaker 2: your model consistent with the data, though not I would say, 52 00:03:08,600 --> 00:03:12,440 Speaker 2: not motivated by the data, Okay. And so, in the 53 00:03:12,560 --> 00:03:15,799 Speaker 2: first instance, if as best we can tell, the universe 54 00:03:15,840 --> 00:03:20,359 Speaker 2: has a beginning, the best explanation of that likely fact 55 00:03:20,919 --> 00:03:24,760 Speaker 2: is that something beyond matter, space, time, and energy brought 56 00:03:24,760 --> 00:03:28,639 Speaker 2: the universe into existence, and that something has attributes that 57 00:03:28,760 --> 00:03:32,480 Speaker 2: correspond to those that Jews and Christians are traditional theists 58 00:03:32,560 --> 00:03:38,160 Speaker 2: have assigned to God transcendence, volition, power, and even intelligence. 59 00:03:38,160 --> 00:03:40,560 Speaker 2: When we start to look at the degree to which 60 00:03:40,600 --> 00:03:45,400 Speaker 2: the universe has to be fine tuned from the beginning. Alternatively, 61 00:03:45,440 --> 00:03:47,360 Speaker 2: if you don't, if you want to say, well, maybe 62 00:03:47,400 --> 00:03:49,920 Speaker 2: the universe didn't have a beginning, and here's a bunch 63 00:03:49,920 --> 00:03:56,840 Speaker 2: of models that propose an alternative our claim. My claim 64 00:03:56,960 --> 00:03:59,120 Speaker 2: is that those models always come at a very high cost, 65 00:03:59,400 --> 00:04:01,760 Speaker 2: particularly to natural So they first come at a high 66 00:04:01,840 --> 00:04:06,560 Speaker 2: cost to the coherency of physics that invariably to model 67 00:04:06,600 --> 00:04:10,240 Speaker 2: the universe as as having infinite duration in the past, 68 00:04:10,880 --> 00:04:16,720 Speaker 2: there's very Oftentimes the modelers are having deposit physical properties 69 00:04:16,800 --> 00:04:19,600 Speaker 2: or processes that have no precedent in our experience, or 70 00:04:19,640 --> 00:04:23,480 Speaker 2: which even violate known principles of physics. They often will 71 00:04:23,520 --> 00:04:27,680 Speaker 2: involve some level of mathematical slide of hand, as in 72 00:04:27,800 --> 00:04:30,880 Speaker 2: Hawking's use of imaginary time. For example, the. 73 00:04:30,920 --> 00:04:33,640 Speaker 3: Idea is that there is a quantum origin of the universe, 74 00:04:34,200 --> 00:04:37,920 Speaker 3: and imaginaty time is a way of approximating the properties 75 00:04:38,000 --> 00:04:40,960 Speaker 3: of this quantum origin. So that's the proposal that's hart 76 00:04:41,040 --> 00:04:44,320 Speaker 3: on Hawking can. 77 00:04:43,160 --> 00:04:49,960 Speaker 2: And they almost always involve violations of Okham's razor in 78 00:04:50,000 --> 00:04:54,839 Speaker 2: the sense that they needlessly multiply new theoretical entities. They 79 00:04:54,920 --> 00:04:58,880 Speaker 2: have a number of very ad hoc postulations. But finally, 80 00:04:58,920 --> 00:05:01,320 Speaker 2: and most importantly, every single model that I and my 81 00:05:01,360 --> 00:05:09,240 Speaker 2: colleagues have looked at involves introducing unexplained new levels new 82 00:05:10,080 --> 00:05:12,520 Speaker 2: unexplained fine tuning and a great deal of it. And 83 00:05:12,560 --> 00:05:18,520 Speaker 2: so new fine tuning provides support for a different form 84 00:05:18,520 --> 00:05:21,839 Speaker 2: of theistic argument, the argument from contingency, or the argument 85 00:05:22,920 --> 00:05:26,080 Speaker 2: a design argument. And so you can get around the 86 00:05:26,120 --> 00:05:30,880 Speaker 2: cosmological argument, but only at the cost of going right 87 00:05:30,880 --> 00:05:33,480 Speaker 2: into the teeth of an even stronger fine tuning argument. 88 00:05:33,920 --> 00:05:39,000 Speaker 2: And this was actually first first illustrated by Einstein when 89 00:05:39,360 --> 00:05:42,479 Speaker 2: in the nineteen teens he realized that his theory of 90 00:05:42,560 --> 00:05:47,400 Speaker 2: general relativity implied the need for an outward pushing force 91 00:05:47,520 --> 00:05:50,960 Speaker 2: to compensate for gravitation to create empty space in the universe. 92 00:05:51,240 --> 00:05:55,120 Speaker 2: That outward pushing force he dubbed the cosmological constant, and 93 00:05:55,440 --> 00:05:58,039 Speaker 2: so far, so good. But then he assigned to the 94 00:05:58,080 --> 00:06:02,520 Speaker 2: cosmological constant a very sise, in fact finely tuned by 95 00:06:02,560 --> 00:06:06,479 Speaker 2: Einstein value in order to depict the universe as being 96 00:06:06,560 --> 00:06:09,680 Speaker 2: in a kind of balance between the outward push of 97 00:06:09,720 --> 00:06:12,920 Speaker 2: the cosmological constant and the inward push of gravity. So 98 00:06:12,960 --> 00:06:16,799 Speaker 2: that's that was, in a sense, the first cosmological model 99 00:06:16,800 --> 00:06:20,119 Speaker 2: that illustrates this point we're making. You can get around 100 00:06:20,200 --> 00:06:22,960 Speaker 2: the evidence for a beginning, but only at the cost 101 00:06:23,080 --> 00:06:28,040 Speaker 2: of an exquisite and degree of fine tuning unexplained fine 102 00:06:28,040 --> 00:06:34,200 Speaker 2: tuning that provides grounds for theism, provides other grounds for theism, 103 00:06:34,240 --> 00:06:36,600 Speaker 2: supports a theistic argument for other reasons. So it's kind 104 00:06:36,600 --> 00:06:40,080 Speaker 2: of a It's either a cosmological or a fine tuning argument, 105 00:06:40,160 --> 00:06:44,159 Speaker 2: or both. Is the situation that the naturals are confronting. 106 00:06:43,839 --> 00:06:48,520 Speaker 1: So the universe has beginning, which has theistic implications, or 107 00:06:48,560 --> 00:06:52,040 Speaker 1: we maintain an eternal universe, but it takes a mind 108 00:06:52,560 --> 00:06:55,520 Speaker 1: to do so, fudging with the physics, so to speak, 109 00:06:55,760 --> 00:06:58,600 Speaker 1: which would also imply theistic implications. 110 00:07:00,240 --> 00:07:03,679 Speaker 2: Yes, and it is often the modeler will often introduce 111 00:07:03,760 --> 00:07:07,960 Speaker 2: the fine tuning and often be somewhat aware unaware of 112 00:07:07,960 --> 00:07:12,320 Speaker 2: what they're doing. In Sir Rogers's response to our comments, 113 00:07:12,480 --> 00:07:16,160 Speaker 2: my comments and our discussion last time, he said, well, well, 114 00:07:16,160 --> 00:07:17,960 Speaker 2: where is this fine tuning? I don't see. We didn't 115 00:07:17,960 --> 00:07:20,120 Speaker 2: introduce any fine there's no fine tuning involved. 116 00:07:20,160 --> 00:07:22,960 Speaker 4: I have no idea what he's talking about. There isn't 117 00:07:23,000 --> 00:07:26,480 Speaker 4: any fine tuning of this thought. The main material in 118 00:07:26,520 --> 00:07:30,119 Speaker 4: the universe is dark matter, and the dark matter comes 119 00:07:30,160 --> 00:07:34,600 Speaker 4: about through gravitons, and it's not a question of any 120 00:07:34,680 --> 00:07:37,800 Speaker 4: fine tuning. There's nothing. There's any fine tuning. I don't 121 00:07:37,840 --> 00:07:38,880 Speaker 4: know what he's talking about. 122 00:07:39,280 --> 00:07:41,960 Speaker 2: Well, he didn't calculate any fine tuning, but he introduced 123 00:07:41,960 --> 00:07:45,920 Speaker 2: it in order to make his model work. So he 124 00:07:46,040 --> 00:07:50,960 Speaker 2: modeled the need for fine tuning and quite a great 125 00:07:51,000 --> 00:07:54,000 Speaker 2: amount of additional fine tuning beyond what's already there in 126 00:07:54,400 --> 00:07:57,200 Speaker 2: our in our normal discussions of cosmology. 127 00:07:57,520 --> 00:08:01,120 Speaker 1: So that distinction between modeling and introduced. If people listening 128 00:08:01,200 --> 00:08:03,280 Speaker 1: right now are going I don't understand, well, you're in 129 00:08:03,320 --> 00:08:05,720 Speaker 1: the exact right place, because that is a part of 130 00:08:05,760 --> 00:08:06,640 Speaker 1: what we're going to one pack. 131 00:08:06,720 --> 00:08:07,640 Speaker 2: We're going to break it down. 132 00:08:07,720 --> 00:08:11,760 Speaker 1: You put together a very careful, thoughtful power point and 133 00:08:11,760 --> 00:08:14,160 Speaker 1: we're not going to read all of that here, but 134 00:08:14,200 --> 00:08:16,320 Speaker 1: we're gonna give a link to it so people can fault, 135 00:08:16,400 --> 00:08:19,200 Speaker 1: they can study it, they can assess it. See the documentation. 136 00:08:19,760 --> 00:08:22,440 Speaker 1: We'll have some pictures jump up. But if sir Roger 137 00:08:22,480 --> 00:08:24,640 Speaker 1: Penrose watches this and says, you know what, I'm up 138 00:08:24,680 --> 00:08:27,400 Speaker 1: for a conversation, we would love to host him here 139 00:08:27,440 --> 00:08:30,400 Speaker 1: at Taut School Theology. You agreed to fly back down 140 00:08:30,480 --> 00:08:32,240 Speaker 1: or the two of us would fly somewhere to meet 141 00:08:32,280 --> 00:08:32,640 Speaker 1: with him. 142 00:08:32,679 --> 00:08:35,720 Speaker 2: Well, he's in Britain. We would probably allow him to 143 00:08:35,800 --> 00:08:36,559 Speaker 2: come remotely. 144 00:08:36,640 --> 00:08:39,320 Speaker 1: I suppose we would do that in a heartbeat if 145 00:08:39,360 --> 00:08:40,680 Speaker 1: you wanted to have a conversation. 146 00:08:40,760 --> 00:08:43,640 Speaker 2: He's a wonderful scientist and a wonderful man, and I 147 00:08:43,679 --> 00:08:47,439 Speaker 2: welcome the conversation. And in fairness, there we had a 148 00:08:47,559 --> 00:08:50,520 Speaker 2: very rushed conversation with about his model at the end 149 00:08:50,520 --> 00:08:54,679 Speaker 2: of a rather long discussion of the situation in cosmology 150 00:08:54,679 --> 00:08:57,199 Speaker 2: and the cosmological argument. So part of the reason we're 151 00:08:57,240 --> 00:08:59,240 Speaker 2: doing this is so that we can kind of tidy 152 00:08:59,240 --> 00:09:01,800 Speaker 2: that up a little bit, clean that up, and clarify 153 00:09:02,240 --> 00:09:04,760 Speaker 2: the points. There are a couple things that I got wrong, 154 00:09:05,200 --> 00:09:08,040 Speaker 2: but I think the substance of our critique stands, and 155 00:09:08,559 --> 00:09:09,920 Speaker 2: we're going to try to show that this morning. 156 00:09:09,960 --> 00:09:11,559 Speaker 1: All right, Well, I'm honored that one of the pre 157 00:09:11,600 --> 00:09:15,000 Speaker 1: eminent scientists of our day cares about what is covered 158 00:09:15,080 --> 00:09:18,040 Speaker 1: on this podcast and weighed in. So I'm going to 159 00:09:18,080 --> 00:09:19,719 Speaker 1: turn the reinsar of view. I'm only going to jump 160 00:09:19,760 --> 00:09:22,480 Speaker 1: in now and then maybe to clarify or ask a question, 161 00:09:23,040 --> 00:09:24,200 Speaker 1: but take it away. 162 00:09:24,440 --> 00:09:26,920 Speaker 2: Well, why don't we start with a discussion of the 163 00:09:27,000 --> 00:09:31,280 Speaker 2: three great cosmological models of the twentieth century. The first 164 00:09:31,520 --> 00:09:35,000 Speaker 2: bit was coming into the nineteen twenties with the discovery 165 00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:38,199 Speaker 2: of the expanding universe. The first idea was the idea 166 00:09:38,320 --> 00:09:40,120 Speaker 2: of the it was now known as the hot big 167 00:09:40,160 --> 00:09:42,800 Speaker 2: Bang model, the idea that the universe had a beginning 168 00:09:42,840 --> 00:09:46,800 Speaker 2: and it has been expanding outward from that beginning. And 169 00:09:46,960 --> 00:09:50,480 Speaker 2: your audience will see on the screen a depiction of 170 00:09:50,520 --> 00:09:54,720 Speaker 2: these three models starting on my far left, the picture 171 00:09:54,760 --> 00:09:56,840 Speaker 2: of the hot big Bang, where you have the beginning 172 00:09:57,080 --> 00:10:00,520 Speaker 2: and expanding universe outward, sometimes depicted as what's called the 173 00:10:00,600 --> 00:10:05,920 Speaker 2: light cone. The second model that came along to challenge 174 00:10:05,920 --> 00:10:08,440 Speaker 2: that was the idea of the steady state, and that 175 00:10:08,559 --> 00:10:12,120 Speaker 2: was the idea of proposed by Fred Hoyle and Hermann Bondi. 176 00:10:12,320 --> 00:10:15,920 Speaker 2: Thomas gold I was oddly fortunate enough to meet all 177 00:10:15,960 --> 00:10:18,760 Speaker 2: three of those men at different points in my young career. 178 00:10:19,600 --> 00:10:21,920 Speaker 2: But in any case, their idea was that, yes, the 179 00:10:22,000 --> 00:10:26,640 Speaker 2: universe is expanding, but there is a but it's been 180 00:10:26,760 --> 00:10:30,880 Speaker 2: always expanding, and there's a force that Hoyle called the 181 00:10:30,880 --> 00:10:35,280 Speaker 2: creation force, that as the universe expanded, expands in stretches 182 00:10:35,640 --> 00:10:38,719 Speaker 2: because there is a In his view, he postulated that 183 00:10:38,760 --> 00:10:41,199 Speaker 2: there was a need for constant density in the universe. 184 00:10:41,520 --> 00:10:44,640 Speaker 2: This was a pure theoretical partilate, but he proposed this 185 00:10:45,240 --> 00:10:48,120 Speaker 2: that then as the universe expands, the new matter must 186 00:10:48,160 --> 00:10:51,800 Speaker 2: be created to maintain that constant density, and so it 187 00:10:51,920 --> 00:10:54,840 Speaker 2: kind of pop into existence. So he attempted to account 188 00:10:54,880 --> 00:11:00,000 Speaker 2: for the expansion of the universe, but within an infinite 189 00:11:00,120 --> 00:11:04,400 Speaker 2: universe cosmology, no beginning point, no beginning point. It's expanding now, 190 00:11:04,400 --> 00:11:06,880 Speaker 2: but it's always been expanding. It's getting bigger now, but 191 00:11:06,920 --> 00:11:10,600 Speaker 2: it's always been getting bigger. But what's remaining constant is 192 00:11:10,640 --> 00:11:15,280 Speaker 2: the amount of matter per unit volume, its density. That 193 00:11:15,400 --> 00:11:20,280 Speaker 2: model came in for hard times, in particular with the 194 00:11:20,320 --> 00:11:23,560 Speaker 2: discovery of the cosmic background radiation, which was a direct 195 00:11:23,679 --> 00:11:26,480 Speaker 2: prediction or something that was expected on the basis of 196 00:11:26,480 --> 00:11:28,839 Speaker 2: the Big Bang, but was not expected on the basis 197 00:11:28,880 --> 00:11:32,560 Speaker 2: of the steady state. Steady state never envisioned a place 198 00:11:32,559 --> 00:11:35,000 Speaker 2: where all the matter in the universe would would be 199 00:11:35,520 --> 00:11:38,480 Speaker 2: congealed into one place. Rather, it was popping into existence 200 00:11:38,480 --> 00:11:42,839 Speaker 2: in little, localized areas all the time. So by the 201 00:11:42,920 --> 00:11:47,440 Speaker 2: nineteen sixties, pretty much all physicists mid nineteen sixties, steady 202 00:11:47,440 --> 00:11:50,280 Speaker 2: state kind of goes by the boards. Oil holds on 203 00:11:50,559 --> 00:11:52,320 Speaker 2: for a while, maybe all the way to the end 204 00:11:52,320 --> 00:11:56,840 Speaker 2: of his life, but the model did not in the 205 00:11:56,880 --> 00:11:59,559 Speaker 2: seventies and eighties, another model came about, and this kind 206 00:11:59,559 --> 00:12:02,439 Speaker 2: of illustri it's the way you can model your way 207 00:12:02,559 --> 00:12:07,120 Speaker 2: out of what seems to be the premufacia implications of 208 00:12:07,559 --> 00:12:11,920 Speaker 2: cosmological or astrophysical evidence. So again have to account for 209 00:12:11,960 --> 00:12:15,200 Speaker 2: the expanding universe, and so the oscillating universe. And this 210 00:12:15,240 --> 00:12:17,040 Speaker 2: is the third picture. This has one on the far right. 211 00:12:17,320 --> 00:12:20,480 Speaker 2: The oscillating universe suggests that the universe is expanding now 212 00:12:21,120 --> 00:12:24,120 Speaker 2: and then collapsing crunch and to a crunch, but then 213 00:12:24,160 --> 00:12:28,800 Speaker 2: it will bounce and expand again and recollapse add infinitem. 214 00:12:28,920 --> 00:12:31,400 Speaker 2: So yes, we're in an expansion, but it's only one 215 00:12:31,400 --> 00:12:35,040 Speaker 2: of an infinite number of expansions and contractions. That model 216 00:12:35,080 --> 00:12:38,280 Speaker 2: ran into a couple of problems. First, empirically, it was 217 00:12:38,360 --> 00:12:41,360 Speaker 2: determined that there wasn't enough matter in the universe to 218 00:12:41,440 --> 00:12:45,640 Speaker 2: cause a gravitational recollapse, even taking into account dark matter. 219 00:12:46,000 --> 00:12:51,040 Speaker 2: And secondly, even a more fundamental concern was the realization, 220 00:12:51,160 --> 00:12:53,840 Speaker 2: this was something Alan Gooth showed at MIT in the eighties, 221 00:12:54,160 --> 00:12:57,200 Speaker 2: that with each successive cycle there would be less and 222 00:12:57,280 --> 00:13:01,640 Speaker 2: less and less energy available to do work. So if 223 00:13:01,640 --> 00:13:04,760 Speaker 2: you think of a ball bouncing, it will bounce and 224 00:13:04,880 --> 00:13:08,480 Speaker 2: bounce and bounce. The total mass energy of the system 225 00:13:09,080 --> 00:13:11,720 Speaker 2: when you consider everything around the ball is the same, 226 00:13:11,920 --> 00:13:14,200 Speaker 2: but the energy available for the ball to have another 227 00:13:14,240 --> 00:13:17,520 Speaker 2: bounce is is going to dissipate with each cycle. 228 00:13:17,559 --> 00:13:19,920 Speaker 1: So thequalent of a hand that's pushing it down the 229 00:13:20,000 --> 00:13:21,800 Speaker 1: universe wouldn't have such a hand. 230 00:13:21,640 --> 00:13:24,280 Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. And there were other other problems with this 231 00:13:24,360 --> 00:13:27,680 Speaker 2: model as well. But this idea of the build up 232 00:13:27,840 --> 00:13:33,040 Speaker 2: of entropy disorder, a disorderly arrangement of matter means less 233 00:13:33,200 --> 00:13:36,760 Speaker 2: energy available to do work to cause something good in 234 00:13:36,800 --> 00:13:40,480 Speaker 2: the next cycle. And so it also if there's if 235 00:13:40,480 --> 00:13:42,280 Speaker 2: there's a finite number of cycles, there must have been 236 00:13:42,280 --> 00:13:46,200 Speaker 2: a beginning to the universe, all right. So this is 237 00:13:46,280 --> 00:13:50,200 Speaker 2: essentially where Sir Rodgers' model comes in because he's trying 238 00:13:50,240 --> 00:13:54,320 Speaker 2: to solve this problem of the build up of entropy, 239 00:13:54,360 --> 00:13:58,520 Speaker 2: where entropy is essentially disorder and a loss of energy 240 00:13:58,559 --> 00:14:01,080 Speaker 2: available to do work. And so he has a kind 241 00:14:01,120 --> 00:14:04,800 Speaker 2: of five or six step scenario whereby he attempts to 242 00:14:06,720 --> 00:14:09,920 Speaker 2: solve that problem and to depict the universe. Now, I 243 00:14:10,280 --> 00:14:14,160 Speaker 2: have another picture that your audience will we'll see here. 244 00:14:14,240 --> 00:14:17,680 Speaker 2: It's the second one up and This is from a 245 00:14:17,800 --> 00:14:21,440 Speaker 2: twenty eighteen paper that he wrote, and this is one 246 00:14:21,480 --> 00:14:24,640 Speaker 2: of the things I got slightly wrong in our discussions. Yes, 247 00:14:24,720 --> 00:14:29,240 Speaker 2: the Penrose wrote, this is our second the second picture here, 248 00:14:29,720 --> 00:14:35,160 Speaker 2: and it's it shows a series of big bangs, big 249 00:14:35,200 --> 00:14:38,680 Speaker 2: bangs and expansions of the universe, followed by a new 250 00:14:38,680 --> 00:14:41,120 Speaker 2: big bang and a new expansion. So it's not like 251 00:14:41,120 --> 00:14:43,760 Speaker 2: the oscillating universe, where it goes big small, big small. 252 00:14:44,240 --> 00:14:49,280 Speaker 2: It goes big and then and then gets bigger. Although 253 00:14:49,520 --> 00:14:52,400 Speaker 2: there's a twist in all this, and that he rescales 254 00:14:52,520 --> 00:14:55,360 Speaker 2: or resizes the universe at each what he calls a 255 00:14:55,400 --> 00:15:00,360 Speaker 2: crossover event, where you move from one eon of cosmic 256 00:15:00,400 --> 00:15:05,640 Speaker 2: expansion into the other. The picture is slightly misleading. I 257 00:15:05,720 --> 00:15:09,160 Speaker 2: got it from It was in his twenty eighteen paper, 258 00:15:09,560 --> 00:15:12,920 Speaker 2: but he later acknowledged that it didn't quite capture the model. Okay, 259 00:15:12,960 --> 00:15:15,640 Speaker 2: and that's understandable because it's kind of hard to envision 260 00:15:15,680 --> 00:15:19,480 Speaker 2: the model. Sure, I took in our conversation this picture 261 00:15:19,560 --> 00:15:21,880 Speaker 2: a bit too literally, and this was a mistake I made. 262 00:15:22,240 --> 00:15:25,000 Speaker 2: The new universe and the new eon does not come 263 00:15:25,000 --> 00:15:27,960 Speaker 2: out of a patch of the old universe. It comes 264 00:15:28,040 --> 00:15:30,600 Speaker 2: out of the whole thing where the whole of the 265 00:15:30,720 --> 00:15:35,440 Speaker 2: universe has been rescaled or resized from big to small. 266 00:15:35,640 --> 00:15:39,160 Speaker 2: Since you get that, you have an expansion, and then 267 00:15:39,720 --> 00:15:43,480 Speaker 2: there's a some out of somewhere in that existing universe. 268 00:15:43,480 --> 00:15:45,480 Speaker 2: There's a patch of that universe that's. 269 00:15:45,280 --> 00:15:50,800 Speaker 4: Just playing wrong. The next eon just describes the whole universe, 270 00:15:50,800 --> 00:15:53,600 Speaker 4: and it comes from the whole universe previously, there's no 271 00:15:53,680 --> 00:15:56,480 Speaker 4: little patch anywhere in it. That's not part of the story. 272 00:15:57,040 --> 00:16:00,520 Speaker 3: Maybe he kind of watched this video that's had that 273 00:16:00,800 --> 00:16:03,680 Speaker 3: there is a little past that's come up, because that's 274 00:16:03,680 --> 00:16:07,440 Speaker 3: the only that's the only reference to a little pass 275 00:16:07,520 --> 00:16:10,240 Speaker 3: that I know of, And of course our video is just, 276 00:16:10,360 --> 00:16:13,040 Speaker 3: I think an animation. We shouldn't take it too seriously 277 00:16:13,120 --> 00:16:16,520 Speaker 3: in that sense, because really, the entire universe maps to 278 00:16:16,520 --> 00:16:19,480 Speaker 3: the entire universe in all versions of CCC. This the 279 00:16:19,680 --> 00:16:23,200 Speaker 3: entire universe that maps to the entire universe. It's just 280 00:16:23,240 --> 00:16:27,080 Speaker 3: that it loses the sense of a scale or is 281 00:16:27,120 --> 00:16:32,320 Speaker 3: this what Roger calls conformer re scaling, because the theory 282 00:16:32,400 --> 00:16:35,280 Speaker 3: becomes a scale free at some point in the far 283 00:16:35,400 --> 00:16:37,040 Speaker 3: future and near the big banks. 284 00:16:37,080 --> 00:16:39,840 Speaker 2: A little mind blowing and mind bending, but that's what's 285 00:16:39,880 --> 00:16:46,320 Speaker 2: meant by conformal cyclic cosmology. The conformal resizing is something 286 00:16:46,360 --> 00:16:49,680 Speaker 2: we'll explain, okay, because but that's that's that's in a sense, 287 00:16:50,840 --> 00:16:54,200 Speaker 2: one of the essential elements of his model. Okay. So 288 00:16:54,240 --> 00:16:56,480 Speaker 2: now if we just we can now if we keep 289 00:16:56,480 --> 00:16:59,320 Speaker 2: in mind that problem of we've got a very big 290 00:16:59,480 --> 00:17:03,320 Speaker 2: at the end of the expansion of this universe, we've 291 00:17:03,320 --> 00:17:09,840 Speaker 2: got a very big, cold, dark disordered in the universe, 292 00:17:10,000 --> 00:17:11,720 Speaker 2: disordered in the sense of the matter and energy is 293 00:17:11,800 --> 00:17:15,000 Speaker 2: very diffuse and it's not any longer available to do work. 294 00:17:15,280 --> 00:17:17,760 Speaker 2: And so if you're going to get a new expansion phase, 295 00:17:18,080 --> 00:17:21,959 Speaker 2: you're going to have to somehow get that reduce that entropy, 296 00:17:22,080 --> 00:17:26,600 Speaker 2: that disorder, make it more orderly, and therefore create the 297 00:17:26,600 --> 00:17:30,120 Speaker 2: conditions for doing work. Okay. So that's the problem he's 298 00:17:30,119 --> 00:17:33,760 Speaker 2: trying to solve, essentially. So he does it in several steps. 299 00:17:33,840 --> 00:17:38,720 Speaker 2: And I'm I'm available to stop talking and let you anything. 300 00:17:39,760 --> 00:17:43,199 Speaker 1: So are are we onto a multiverse scenario? Because the 301 00:17:43,240 --> 00:17:48,920 Speaker 1: first three are one universe that's oscillating or steady, stay safe. 302 00:17:49,000 --> 00:17:50,240 Speaker 2: I mean, you could think of it that way, but 303 00:17:50,359 --> 00:17:52,280 Speaker 2: I would say, no, this is not really a classic 304 00:17:52,320 --> 00:17:56,440 Speaker 2: multiverse model. Okay, these are all multiverses are causally disconnected 305 00:17:56,440 --> 00:17:59,440 Speaker 2: from each other, and they're really separate in that sense. 306 00:17:59,760 --> 00:18:03,400 Speaker 2: These are this is these are different eons of expansion 307 00:18:04,240 --> 00:18:08,040 Speaker 2: that are all connected in a series going back infinitely 308 00:18:08,080 --> 00:18:11,400 Speaker 2: into the past and continuing infinitely into the future. That's 309 00:18:11,440 --> 00:18:15,119 Speaker 2: the model. So so now notice again, his model, like 310 00:18:15,160 --> 00:18:19,280 Speaker 2: all the other models we've seen before, captures the is 311 00:18:19,359 --> 00:18:22,720 Speaker 2: consistent with the eye of the idea of the galaxies 312 00:18:22,840 --> 00:18:25,680 Speaker 2: moving away from us, as indicated by we talked the 313 00:18:25,720 --> 00:18:28,639 Speaker 2: last time about the red shift data, the way in 314 00:18:28,680 --> 00:18:30,720 Speaker 2: which the light from it coming from distant galaxies is 315 00:18:30,720 --> 00:18:34,119 Speaker 2: stretched out. Okay, so we've got we've got data showing 316 00:18:34,160 --> 00:18:36,560 Speaker 2: that galaxies are moving outward in a way the universe 317 00:18:36,640 --> 00:18:40,520 Speaker 2: is expanding. He's he's capturing that in this model because 318 00:18:40,560 --> 00:18:42,920 Speaker 2: he's saying, look in our present universe, that's what's happening, 319 00:18:43,240 --> 00:18:45,639 Speaker 2: and it's going to happen again and again and again. 320 00:18:46,040 --> 00:18:47,800 Speaker 2: But there's this going to be this way in which 321 00:18:47,960 --> 00:18:50,639 Speaker 2: the universe is going to be resized so that it 322 00:18:50,720 --> 00:18:54,720 Speaker 2: can start that cosmic expansion over again. It doesn't go 323 00:18:55,680 --> 00:18:57,360 Speaker 2: kind of goes big small, but it's not the same 324 00:18:57,359 --> 00:18:58,560 Speaker 2: way as the oscillating universe. 325 00:18:58,920 --> 00:19:00,520 Speaker 1: Okay, Okay, jump in. 326 00:19:00,800 --> 00:19:03,439 Speaker 2: So the idea is that at the end of a 327 00:19:03,640 --> 00:19:08,320 Speaker 2: period of cosmic expansion, Penrose envisions that all the black 328 00:19:08,359 --> 00:19:11,400 Speaker 2: holes that are in the universe, the black holes being 329 00:19:11,480 --> 00:19:15,240 Speaker 2: dense concentrations of matter so dense that not even light 330 00:19:15,320 --> 00:19:18,120 Speaker 2: can get out of them. Okay, the black holes would 331 00:19:18,119 --> 00:19:21,960 Speaker 2: have evaporated by a process known as Hawking radiation. 332 00:19:21,720 --> 00:19:25,600 Speaker 5: Stephen Wolking's discovery, the black holes evaporate. 333 00:19:25,640 --> 00:19:27,680 Speaker 4: That's where only entry goes into the black holes. 334 00:19:28,280 --> 00:19:30,720 Speaker 2: So I don't know how deep to go into this, 335 00:19:30,800 --> 00:19:33,920 Speaker 2: but Hawking radiation is the idea that you've got these 336 00:19:34,000 --> 00:19:40,040 Speaker 2: virtual particles that form, one with negative energy, one with 337 00:19:40,119 --> 00:19:43,560 Speaker 2: positive energy, and the one with the negative energy gets 338 00:19:43,560 --> 00:19:45,600 Speaker 2: absorbed into the black hole, and the one with a 339 00:19:45,680 --> 00:19:48,440 Speaker 2: positive energy then escapes and goes out into the into 340 00:19:48,480 --> 00:19:51,800 Speaker 2: the universe. And as this process goes on, then the 341 00:19:51,840 --> 00:19:54,800 Speaker 2: black hole is going to start to lose mass and 342 00:19:54,840 --> 00:19:59,600 Speaker 2: it will eventually evaporate. Okay and Hawking sorry. Penrose maintains 343 00:19:59,600 --> 00:20:02,840 Speaker 2: that is a result of this process, not only the 344 00:20:03,000 --> 00:20:05,639 Speaker 2: entropy of the black hole, but the entropy of the 345 00:20:05,800 --> 00:20:09,000 Speaker 2: entire universe will reduce, and that there will be a 346 00:20:09,040 --> 00:20:13,960 Speaker 2: loss of information that this process destroys the information about 347 00:20:13,960 --> 00:20:16,800 Speaker 2: the internal state of the black hole and therefore reduces 348 00:20:17,000 --> 00:20:20,200 Speaker 2: entropy of the black hole, reduces the disorder of the 349 00:20:20,240 --> 00:20:24,800 Speaker 2: black hole and of the entire universe. Now there's a 350 00:20:24,840 --> 00:20:26,480 Speaker 2: reason he wants to get rid of the mass, and 351 00:20:26,520 --> 00:20:28,120 Speaker 2: we'll get to that, the mass of the black hole, 352 00:20:28,119 --> 00:20:30,359 Speaker 2: and he's going to have another process that invokes to 353 00:20:30,400 --> 00:20:34,080 Speaker 2: do that. But this is actually quite contentious proposition among 354 00:20:34,160 --> 00:20:38,680 Speaker 2: among physicists. Physicists accept that Hawking radiation would reduce the 355 00:20:38,800 --> 00:20:44,120 Speaker 2: entropy the disorder of the black hole, okay, but they 356 00:20:44,200 --> 00:20:47,840 Speaker 2: don't accept that it would reduce the entropy of the 357 00:20:47,960 --> 00:20:52,560 Speaker 2: universe as a whole, or that it would destroy the 358 00:20:52,600 --> 00:20:56,720 Speaker 2: information about about the internal state of the black hole. So, okay, 359 00:20:56,760 --> 00:20:58,680 Speaker 2: what's what's the big picture here? The big picture is 360 00:20:58,720 --> 00:21:03,840 Speaker 2: that the Hawking radiation mechanism is getting rid of the 361 00:21:03,840 --> 00:21:06,119 Speaker 2: mass of the black hole little by little, and in 362 00:21:06,160 --> 00:21:10,560 Speaker 2: the process, Penrose says, reducing the entropy of the universe, 363 00:21:10,560 --> 00:21:12,560 Speaker 2: which is what he wants, right, because you want to 364 00:21:12,560 --> 00:21:15,080 Speaker 2: get to a low entry in the state which is 365 00:21:15,160 --> 00:21:20,080 Speaker 2: capable of doing work, all right, gotcha? Okay, So that's 366 00:21:20,280 --> 00:21:22,919 Speaker 2: that's that's the first step. But this is this is 367 00:21:23,720 --> 00:21:29,359 Speaker 2: highly controversial among other physicists, quantum physicists. It violates something 368 00:21:29,400 --> 00:21:34,480 Speaker 2: called the unitary principle of quantum mechanics that affirms that 369 00:21:34,600 --> 00:21:38,600 Speaker 2: information is conserved not lost. Okay, and so it's a 370 00:21:38,600 --> 00:21:42,399 Speaker 2: big deal to violate that. And so this is a 371 00:21:42,440 --> 00:21:46,480 Speaker 2: contentious proposition. But there is debate about this, Okay, Okay, 372 00:21:46,720 --> 00:21:48,879 Speaker 2: So okay, that's the first part. That's the first step. 373 00:21:49,240 --> 00:21:52,760 Speaker 2: And in the in the PowerPoint, we will have quotes 374 00:21:52,800 --> 00:21:56,720 Speaker 2: from Sir Roger showing from his in particular from a 375 00:21:56,720 --> 00:21:58,760 Speaker 2: twenty eighteen article and then a later when he co 376 00:21:58,800 --> 00:22:02,000 Speaker 2: authored in twenty twenty five, showing that we're representing his 377 00:22:02,680 --> 00:22:07,159 Speaker 2: view accurately. Accurately I always taught my students Bob Dylan, 378 00:22:08,240 --> 00:22:11,040 Speaker 2: which is most important quote from Bob Dylan. You can't 379 00:22:11,040 --> 00:22:12,680 Speaker 2: criticize what you don't understand. 380 00:22:13,080 --> 00:22:14,640 Speaker 1: So we're gonna simply yet profound. 381 00:22:14,720 --> 00:22:16,760 Speaker 2: Okay, all right, so we want no straw men here, 382 00:22:17,320 --> 00:22:20,720 Speaker 2: and okay, So now the second the second step in 383 00:22:20,840 --> 00:22:26,160 Speaker 2: Penrose's In Penrose's model, and again his model is called 384 00:22:26,160 --> 00:22:29,440 Speaker 2: the conformal cyclic cosmology. That was one of the mistakes 385 00:22:29,480 --> 00:22:33,080 Speaker 2: I made. I called it the cyclical, the cyclic conformal cosmology. 386 00:22:33,080 --> 00:22:36,880 Speaker 2: I reversed the terms. And Phil Halper, who interviewed him, 387 00:22:38,000 --> 00:22:40,920 Speaker 2: was I've debated Phil, so we've got a little history here, 388 00:22:40,920 --> 00:22:43,960 Speaker 2: and he's a good guy, but he got a little 389 00:22:44,000 --> 00:22:46,120 Speaker 2: snide about undescending out. 390 00:22:46,119 --> 00:22:49,600 Speaker 5: What that's something was in Penrose view is a cyclic model, 391 00:22:50,000 --> 00:22:53,040 Speaker 5: and that's what Maya is now attacking. But can he 392 00:22:53,160 --> 00:22:57,400 Speaker 5: even get the name of the model he criticizes, correct. 393 00:22:57,640 --> 00:23:03,320 Speaker 2: The Penrose cyclic formal cosmology model is its formal name, 394 00:23:03,440 --> 00:23:04,200 Speaker 2: the CCC. 395 00:23:04,920 --> 00:23:08,600 Speaker 4: It's not quite right. It's conformal cyclic cosmology. They both 396 00:23:08,640 --> 00:23:10,040 Speaker 4: begin with, see don't they. 397 00:23:10,880 --> 00:23:13,560 Speaker 5: Now that's not too bad. We all make mistakes. But 398 00:23:13,600 --> 00:23:17,600 Speaker 5: what's worse is why my mind describes how CCC actually works. 399 00:23:17,920 --> 00:23:22,040 Speaker 2: Okay, fair enough, Phil, simple mistake, I understand. Switch the 400 00:23:22,080 --> 00:23:25,600 Speaker 2: two c's there. So it's the conformal cyclic cosmology. Now 401 00:23:25,640 --> 00:23:28,200 Speaker 2: here's the second step. That you've got all the matter 402 00:23:28,280 --> 00:23:30,240 Speaker 2: that's that's bunched into the black holes. But there's a 403 00:23:30,280 --> 00:23:32,840 Speaker 2: lot of other matter in the universe. Okay, And again 404 00:23:32,840 --> 00:23:35,480 Speaker 2: we're talking about the at the end of a cosmic cycle, 405 00:23:35,520 --> 00:23:38,760 Speaker 2: when you've got a things of really things are really diffuse, 406 00:23:39,400 --> 00:23:42,879 Speaker 2: very disordered, no energy available to work. And Penros says, well, 407 00:23:42,920 --> 00:23:44,439 Speaker 2: now what about all the rest of the matter. How 408 00:23:44,480 --> 00:23:46,240 Speaker 2: were we going to get rid of that? And we'll 409 00:23:46,240 --> 00:23:47,720 Speaker 2: get to why he wants to get rid of the matter. 410 00:23:48,240 --> 00:23:49,359 Speaker 2: But you've got to get rid of the matter to 411 00:23:49,359 --> 00:23:52,800 Speaker 2: do the trick he's going to do. And the remaining 412 00:23:52,880 --> 00:23:55,920 Speaker 2: matter he says is going to is going to disappear 413 00:23:56,560 --> 00:23:59,959 Speaker 2: as a result of radiation. That he asserts that all 414 00:24:00,200 --> 00:24:05,080 Speaker 2: other particles of mass will eventually decay by radiation, and 415 00:24:05,119 --> 00:24:08,200 Speaker 2: this is sometimes called the mass fade out hypothesis. And 416 00:24:08,359 --> 00:24:11,000 Speaker 2: the problem with this is that the standard model of 417 00:24:11,040 --> 00:24:15,720 Speaker 2: particle physics provides no basis for saying that all matter 418 00:24:15,800 --> 00:24:19,640 Speaker 2: will be converted into radiation. In fact, in the case 419 00:24:19,640 --> 00:24:23,080 Speaker 2: of electrons, we know that there's no known or even 420 00:24:23,200 --> 00:24:28,359 Speaker 2: hypothesized mechanism by which electrons could decay into radiation in 421 00:24:28,840 --> 00:24:32,080 Speaker 2: this way. So this is a pure postulation. It's pure 422 00:24:32,080 --> 00:24:35,920 Speaker 2: positive that this would happen with no empirical basis, and 423 00:24:36,040 --> 00:24:40,520 Speaker 2: so that's also contentious. But you're going to see the 424 00:24:40,560 --> 00:24:43,680 Speaker 2: audience will see now in the next step why he's 425 00:24:43,680 --> 00:24:45,520 Speaker 2: doing this, Because you've got to get rid of the 426 00:24:45,560 --> 00:24:48,800 Speaker 2: matter in order to resize the universe. Then this is 427 00:24:48,840 --> 00:24:53,359 Speaker 2: the third thing. Once mass disappears, there is no longer 428 00:24:53,400 --> 00:24:55,760 Speaker 2: a scale for measuring length. 429 00:24:55,960 --> 00:24:58,639 Speaker 5: But a brief summary of CCC it says that with 430 00:24:58,720 --> 00:25:02,080 Speaker 5: no mass in the or late universe, there's no way 431 00:25:02,160 --> 00:25:04,480 Speaker 5: to build a rule or a clock. So there's no 432 00:25:04,640 --> 00:25:07,000 Speaker 5: scale on big and small butcom equivalent. 433 00:25:07,240 --> 00:25:10,000 Speaker 2: Okay, now this is the you in other words, and 434 00:25:10,040 --> 00:25:12,280 Speaker 2: then the universe can be treated as if it were 435 00:25:12,359 --> 00:25:15,919 Speaker 2: very small. This is this is there's a little bit 436 00:25:15,960 --> 00:25:17,879 Speaker 2: of I'm gonna critique this and say, there's a bit 437 00:25:17,920 --> 00:25:21,040 Speaker 2: of mathematical slide of hand. So if you're immediately saying wait, wait, wait, 438 00:25:21,080 --> 00:25:23,439 Speaker 2: that doesn't that doesn't seem to follow, You're you're not 439 00:25:23,560 --> 00:25:26,560 Speaker 2: You're not wrong, You're not off with that intuition. This 440 00:25:26,680 --> 00:25:29,920 Speaker 2: is something. But Penros claims this is justified by something 441 00:25:29,960 --> 00:25:33,560 Speaker 2: called conformal geometry. So let's break this down a little bit. First, 442 00:25:33,880 --> 00:25:37,160 Speaker 2: first part of this to understand this is that mass 443 00:25:37,200 --> 00:25:41,080 Speaker 2: in quantum mechanics or in physics generally defines an intrinsic 444 00:25:41,320 --> 00:25:42,120 Speaker 2: length scale. 445 00:25:42,840 --> 00:25:43,159 Speaker 5: UH. 446 00:25:43,280 --> 00:25:45,800 Speaker 2: That's uh that acts as a kind of ruler in 447 00:25:45,840 --> 00:25:49,520 Speaker 2: the universe. There's something called the Compton wavelength, where that 448 00:25:49,640 --> 00:25:52,680 Speaker 2: defines a sort of minimal length by which you can 449 00:25:52,680 --> 00:25:55,640 Speaker 2: measure everything else in the universe. And it's it's that 450 00:25:55,640 --> 00:26:03,200 Speaker 2: that wavelength, that Compton wavelength is. It's it's it's expressed 451 00:26:03,280 --> 00:26:06,760 Speaker 2: as an equation. It's the plant constant divided by the 452 00:26:06,800 --> 00:26:09,399 Speaker 2: mass the mass of the particle in question times the 453 00:26:09,440 --> 00:26:11,360 Speaker 2: speed of light. And so then you get a kind 454 00:26:11,359 --> 00:26:15,920 Speaker 2: of for every particle, there's a a corresponding minimal length 455 00:26:15,960 --> 00:26:19,200 Speaker 2: measure that goes with it. And so if you have mass, 456 00:26:19,480 --> 00:26:22,040 Speaker 2: you have a kind of built in ruler that can 457 00:26:22,080 --> 00:26:25,960 Speaker 2: be computed with this Compton wavelength. That's that's the sort 458 00:26:26,000 --> 00:26:28,680 Speaker 2: of idea. Okay, okay, you get rid of the mass. 459 00:26:29,160 --> 00:26:32,280 Speaker 2: You can't compute the Compton wavelength, all right, and so 460 00:26:32,320 --> 00:26:37,520 Speaker 2: you've lost your ruler for measuring the universe in for 461 00:26:38,440 --> 00:26:41,200 Speaker 2: corresponding to each particle, the kind of the smallest unit 462 00:26:41,280 --> 00:26:44,600 Speaker 2: of length corresponding to each each elementary particle. So you 463 00:26:44,680 --> 00:26:48,400 Speaker 2: lose the you lose those rulers all right. Now. Penrose 464 00:26:48,440 --> 00:26:52,240 Speaker 2: then claims that the absence of mass eliminates this by 465 00:26:52,320 --> 00:26:55,560 Speaker 2: eliminating this intrinsic measure of length. He then says that 466 00:26:55,600 --> 00:27:00,880 Speaker 2: allows for what's called conformal rescaling. Okay, a little heavy here, 467 00:27:00,880 --> 00:27:03,000 Speaker 2: but let me let me give it a go. Okay. Yeah, 468 00:27:03,560 --> 00:27:08,320 Speaker 2: So in a conformally rescalable or what's called a conformally 469 00:27:08,440 --> 00:27:14,360 Speaker 2: invariant system, one can change the the length of something 470 00:27:14,880 --> 00:27:20,879 Speaker 2: without changing angular relationships. So imagine an Isosceles triangle. You 471 00:27:20,920 --> 00:27:25,320 Speaker 2: could shrink all the length, but you're not. You get 472 00:27:25,400 --> 00:27:28,160 Speaker 2: us no matter how big the how big it is 473 00:27:28,200 --> 00:27:30,880 Speaker 2: in size, you're not going to change the relationship between 474 00:27:30,880 --> 00:27:32,719 Speaker 2: the angles. They're all going to be sixty degrees at 475 00:27:32,720 --> 00:27:34,120 Speaker 2: each one of the three angles. 476 00:27:34,240 --> 00:27:37,080 Speaker 1: So just the scale is what changes, not the ra You. 477 00:27:37,000 --> 00:27:38,520 Speaker 2: Could have a you know, you have a big elephant, 478 00:27:38,600 --> 00:27:40,879 Speaker 2: a little elephant. The shape is going to remain the 479 00:27:40,920 --> 00:27:43,920 Speaker 2: same irrespective of changes in size. Okay, So that's a 480 00:27:43,960 --> 00:27:49,879 Speaker 2: conformal rescalable, conformally invariant system. So he then further claims 481 00:27:49,920 --> 00:27:53,159 Speaker 2: that if the universe is conformally invariant because and he 482 00:27:53,400 --> 00:27:55,399 Speaker 2: says it is now because you've lost your length scale, 483 00:27:56,240 --> 00:27:58,560 Speaker 2: that would justify treating the universe as if it were 484 00:27:58,680 --> 00:27:59,320 Speaker 2: very small. 485 00:27:59,520 --> 00:28:02,240 Speaker 5: But summary of CCC is that it says that with 486 00:28:02,359 --> 00:28:05,359 Speaker 5: a mass in the early or late universe. There's no 487 00:28:05,480 --> 00:28:08,320 Speaker 5: way to build a ruler or a clock. There's no scale, 488 00:28:08,320 --> 00:28:11,800 Speaker 5: and big and small become equivalent. Switching to the scale 489 00:28:11,920 --> 00:28:17,720 Speaker 5: free or conformal geometry removes the singularity, and, according to Penrose, 490 00:28:18,000 --> 00:28:22,639 Speaker 5: implies a series of cyclic eons where the universe forgets 491 00:28:22,640 --> 00:28:25,000 Speaker 5: how big it is in a related period at time. 492 00:28:25,000 --> 00:28:28,359 Speaker 5: Cosmology developed by Actually and Good. The same thing happens, 493 00:28:28,359 --> 00:28:30,960 Speaker 5: but the future and the past are glued to each 494 00:28:30,960 --> 00:28:34,560 Speaker 5: other to form a loop. Both use conformal rescaling. And 495 00:28:34,600 --> 00:28:38,480 Speaker 5: it's this that our intelligent design guru Maya seems not 496 00:28:38,720 --> 00:28:39,480 Speaker 5: to understand. 497 00:28:39,800 --> 00:28:42,640 Speaker 4: My view is that the Big Bang was something that 498 00:28:42,720 --> 00:28:48,560 Speaker 4: you can explain by conformal geometry. In conformal geometry, the 499 00:28:48,600 --> 00:28:51,920 Speaker 4: Big Bang was nice and smooth, and it joined on 500 00:28:52,000 --> 00:28:55,320 Speaker 4: to something else nice and smooth, which was the remote 501 00:28:55,320 --> 00:28:58,240 Speaker 4: future of a previous cosmological eon. 502 00:28:58,600 --> 00:29:01,080 Speaker 2: Okay, you got chew on that a little bit to 503 00:29:01,120 --> 00:29:03,880 Speaker 2: see if you buy that, uh, And I will tell 504 00:29:03,920 --> 00:29:07,120 Speaker 2: you that most physicists don't. Okay, So this it isn't 505 00:29:07,240 --> 00:29:12,240 Speaker 2: just the uh, the guys like uh, you know, Bill 506 00:29:12,320 --> 00:29:15,800 Speaker 2: Craig or me or others making cosmological arguments. This, this 507 00:29:15,880 --> 00:29:18,520 Speaker 2: is this is highly contentious now within physics, and in 508 00:29:18,560 --> 00:29:21,800 Speaker 2: the PowerPoint, we'll have a couple of slides from with 509 00:29:21,960 --> 00:29:25,120 Speaker 2: Penrose describing this move. Okay, so we're people can be 510 00:29:25,160 --> 00:29:28,400 Speaker 2: sure we're representing him, right. So but here's our here's 511 00:29:28,400 --> 00:29:30,440 Speaker 2: our basic critique of this, and I think most people 512 00:29:30,440 --> 00:29:34,520 Speaker 2: will follow this. In it the universe. Here's the first point. 513 00:29:34,560 --> 00:29:38,080 Speaker 2: The universe does not become small simply because we no 514 00:29:38,160 --> 00:29:42,680 Speaker 2: longer have a way of measuring it, okay, or or 515 00:29:43,240 --> 00:29:48,240 Speaker 2: because we have performed more precisely a mathematical transformation that 516 00:29:48,360 --> 00:29:54,000 Speaker 2: obscures the reality of length of the object under investigation. Okay. 517 00:29:54,040 --> 00:29:56,880 Speaker 2: In this case, that object would be the universe as 518 00:29:56,920 --> 00:29:59,600 Speaker 2: a whole. Okay, So just because we can't measure it, 519 00:29:59,600 --> 00:30:05,720 Speaker 2: doesn't I mean that itself has become smaller. All right, 520 00:30:06,800 --> 00:30:11,080 Speaker 2: here's an illustration. Let's say we think it's very hard 521 00:30:11,080 --> 00:30:14,240 Speaker 2: to hike to the top of Mount Everest. It's thirty 522 00:30:14,280 --> 00:30:17,560 Speaker 2: one thousand whatever feet. Okay, but let's say we're just 523 00:30:17,600 --> 00:30:20,200 Speaker 2: gonna we're going to rescale Mount Everest. We're gonna say 524 00:30:20,240 --> 00:30:31,800 Speaker 2: it's not thirty one thousand feet tall, it's one mountaineering unit. Ah. Oh, 525 00:30:31,840 --> 00:30:35,520 Speaker 2: that's so much easier, just one unit. It's pretty small now. Okay. 526 00:30:36,000 --> 00:30:39,160 Speaker 2: So this is a you're a philosopher, this is an 527 00:30:39,160 --> 00:30:45,240 Speaker 2: epistemology ontology, right, Okay, Okay. So pistemology is the study 528 00:30:45,240 --> 00:30:47,400 Speaker 2: of how we know what we know. It involves how 529 00:30:47,440 --> 00:30:51,160 Speaker 2: we describe things, how we depict things. It's our knowledge 530 00:30:51,200 --> 00:30:54,160 Speaker 2: of something or the way we represent something. And we're 531 00:30:54,200 --> 00:30:58,800 Speaker 2: confusing our representation of something with the reality the ontology 532 00:30:58,960 --> 00:31:03,200 Speaker 2: of the something. Okay. Now there's an even more precise 533 00:31:03,240 --> 00:31:07,960 Speaker 2: critique that comes out of a deep understanding of conformal cosmology. 534 00:31:08,120 --> 00:31:09,320 Speaker 2: And I'm going to just say it and see if 535 00:31:09,360 --> 00:31:11,719 Speaker 2: it makes sense. Okay, And I'm going to read this 536 00:31:11,800 --> 00:31:16,840 Speaker 2: to get this right. I crafted this. But inconformally invariant systems, 537 00:31:17,480 --> 00:31:21,560 Speaker 2: one can change length without changing angular relationships. Think that 538 00:31:21,640 --> 00:31:25,320 Speaker 2: Isosceles triangles, right, Okay, But it doesn't follow that one 539 00:31:25,360 --> 00:31:28,960 Speaker 2: can change length without changing length, because when you change 540 00:31:28,960 --> 00:31:33,240 Speaker 2: the length, you have changed the length. Okay. So and 541 00:31:33,480 --> 00:31:37,640 Speaker 2: therefore overall size even if one doesn't have a way 542 00:31:37,680 --> 00:31:42,000 Speaker 2: of measuring. So just because something is conformally invarianment invariant, 543 00:31:42,040 --> 00:31:46,120 Speaker 2: doesn't mean you can arbitrarily assign a new length or 544 00:31:46,160 --> 00:31:49,680 Speaker 2: size to the system without having to actually change the 545 00:31:49,760 --> 00:31:52,400 Speaker 2: size of the system. And Sir Roger does nothing to 546 00:31:52,440 --> 00:31:55,040 Speaker 2: change the size of the universe. He's only changing the 547 00:31:55,040 --> 00:31:57,080 Speaker 2: way we're describing the size of the universe. 548 00:31:57,120 --> 00:32:02,320 Speaker 1: And his model depends upon the universe size itself changing. 549 00:32:02,840 --> 00:32:04,440 Speaker 1: That's a necessary component. 550 00:32:04,480 --> 00:32:09,240 Speaker 2: It's a necessary condition of getting that new getting a 551 00:32:10,160 --> 00:32:13,400 Speaker 2: new eon of expansion after what he calls crossover. And 552 00:32:13,400 --> 00:32:15,400 Speaker 2: I'm going to now the next step in his scenario 553 00:32:15,400 --> 00:32:16,760 Speaker 2: will make that even more clear why. 554 00:32:16,640 --> 00:32:17,200 Speaker 1: That's the case. 555 00:32:17,320 --> 00:32:19,880 Speaker 2: Good, Okay, so this is the fourth This is the 556 00:32:19,880 --> 00:32:22,600 Speaker 2: fourth step in his scenario and the PowerPoint that people 557 00:32:22,600 --> 00:32:26,040 Speaker 2: will see I have. I have six assertions of his. 558 00:32:25,960 --> 00:32:28,160 Speaker 1: Model, and it sounds like, as you start this one, 559 00:32:28,240 --> 00:32:31,200 Speaker 1: for each one there's some assertion, there's he recognize this, 560 00:32:31,320 --> 00:32:35,600 Speaker 1: that's built in, and you're contesting each one of these assertions, 561 00:32:35,720 --> 00:32:38,440 Speaker 1: or at least saying a lot of scientists contests. 562 00:32:38,440 --> 00:32:41,040 Speaker 2: Maybe less so in the very first case, although there's 563 00:32:41,040 --> 00:32:45,600 Speaker 2: plenty of physicists that would content, but second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, 564 00:32:45,600 --> 00:32:50,120 Speaker 2: that it all gets very contentious, or in the case 565 00:32:50,160 --> 00:32:53,360 Speaker 2: of the sixth, the final one, you'll see that if 566 00:32:53,400 --> 00:32:55,120 Speaker 2: it's true, it has theistic implications. 567 00:32:55,120 --> 00:32:56,400 Speaker 1: All right, good, can't wait? 568 00:32:56,440 --> 00:32:58,120 Speaker 2: All right now, So here's the fourth one. Here's the 569 00:32:58,160 --> 00:33:01,440 Speaker 2: fourth one. Once the universe can be treated or rescaled 570 00:33:01,520 --> 00:33:05,520 Speaker 2: as being very small, the available energy to do work 571 00:33:05,640 --> 00:33:10,760 Speaker 2: in the universe will appear to be very large. Okay. 572 00:33:10,800 --> 00:33:13,760 Speaker 2: Now here's why. According to quantum mechanics, the amount of 573 00:33:13,800 --> 00:33:19,320 Speaker 2: energy associated with a particle is inversely proportional to its wavelength. 574 00:33:20,160 --> 00:33:24,120 Speaker 2: So if the wavelength is small, the energy is high, 575 00:33:24,800 --> 00:33:28,240 Speaker 2: is higher if it's if the energy, and the converse 576 00:33:28,320 --> 00:33:30,640 Speaker 2: is true. So if the universe now can be treated 577 00:33:30,680 --> 00:33:35,520 Speaker 2: as if it's very small, the wavelengths associated with the 578 00:33:35,560 --> 00:33:39,360 Speaker 2: remaining radiant energy will be much shorter. They will be 579 00:33:39,400 --> 00:33:43,040 Speaker 2: effectively not red shifted stretched out longer wavelengths, they'll be 580 00:33:43,120 --> 00:33:47,560 Speaker 2: blue shifted. Okay, So this implies that then the amount 581 00:33:47,600 --> 00:33:51,520 Speaker 2: of energy associated with the remaining radiation will be much 582 00:33:51,560 --> 00:33:55,719 Speaker 2: greater in this new effectively smaller universe. This universe we're 583 00:33:55,760 --> 00:33:57,960 Speaker 2: treating a small So if we treated as small, we 584 00:33:58,000 --> 00:34:01,240 Speaker 2: can also treat it as having more energy available to 585 00:34:01,280 --> 00:34:05,280 Speaker 2: do work. And now we're we're solving that build up 586 00:34:05,280 --> 00:34:10,560 Speaker 2: of entry entropy problem. Now this is why and and this, uh, 587 00:34:10,600 --> 00:34:12,319 Speaker 2: this is why getting rid of the mass is so 588 00:34:12,360 --> 00:34:17,520 Speaker 2: important because this conformal UH rescaling that he does will 589 00:34:17,640 --> 00:34:19,680 Speaker 2: only work if there's no mass. You've got to get 590 00:34:19,760 --> 00:34:23,400 Speaker 2: rid of to have even to make this even remotely plausible, 591 00:34:23,719 --> 00:34:27,640 Speaker 2: you've got to get rid of the intrinsic length scale, 592 00:34:27,680 --> 00:34:32,440 Speaker 2: the intrinsic ruler UH and so, and that's dependent on 593 00:34:32,480 --> 00:34:34,640 Speaker 2: the existence of mass, the mass. So if he gets 594 00:34:34,680 --> 00:34:37,760 Speaker 2: rid of the mass, he can rescale. If he can rescale, 595 00:34:37,920 --> 00:34:42,360 Speaker 2: he can treat the universe as as effectively very small. 596 00:34:42,480 --> 00:34:45,960 Speaker 2: If it's effectively very small, the energy is effectively. 597 00:34:45,480 --> 00:34:48,560 Speaker 1: You have more energy available to do work. It makes sense, 598 00:34:48,600 --> 00:34:50,360 Speaker 1: all right, Okay, So so. 599 00:34:50,239 --> 00:34:53,200 Speaker 2: There's that that that's that's that's that's a step four 600 00:34:53,280 --> 00:34:57,640 Speaker 2: or certion number four in the in the in the scenario. 601 00:34:57,880 --> 00:35:00,560 Speaker 2: Now we've got a critique of that course, and it's 602 00:35:00,680 --> 00:35:04,040 Speaker 2: very similar to the critique of assertion three. It's again 603 00:35:04,080 --> 00:35:07,200 Speaker 2: an epistemology ontology problem. Okay, okay. 604 00:35:07,200 --> 00:35:09,520 Speaker 1: And before you add this critique, I might say it's 605 00:35:09,560 --> 00:35:12,600 Speaker 1: a double critique because the first one still stands. 606 00:35:12,680 --> 00:35:16,520 Speaker 2: Yes, it does, okay, stands. We really can't just say 607 00:35:16,680 --> 00:35:20,800 Speaker 2: that the universe is actually small because we no longer 608 00:35:20,800 --> 00:35:22,000 Speaker 2: have a way of measuring length. 609 00:35:22,200 --> 00:35:24,440 Speaker 1: Got it. But if we were to say, let's concede 610 00:35:24,440 --> 00:35:27,719 Speaker 1: for the sake of a smaller I have an additional critic. 611 00:35:28,200 --> 00:35:30,279 Speaker 2: Well, that follows directly from the other, because it's the 612 00:35:30,320 --> 00:35:33,799 Speaker 2: same type of problem. Okay, So changing the scale by 613 00:35:33,800 --> 00:35:37,880 Speaker 2: which one measures length or volume of a space occupied 614 00:35:37,880 --> 00:35:42,720 Speaker 2: by radiant energy does not change its wavelength or frequency. Okay, 615 00:35:43,080 --> 00:35:45,560 Speaker 2: it's the same problem. Just because we can't measure it 616 00:35:45,560 --> 00:35:50,080 Speaker 2: doesn't mean that it's now magically smaller, all right, or conversely, 617 00:35:50,160 --> 00:35:54,840 Speaker 2: that the energy is now magically greater. Right. The absence 618 00:35:54,880 --> 00:35:58,279 Speaker 2: of a physical ruler does not entail the absence of 619 00:35:58,440 --> 00:36:03,840 Speaker 2: a physical extent. In the case of or a smaller 620 00:36:03,840 --> 00:36:08,759 Speaker 2: physical extent and greater energy associated with it. Conformal rescaling 621 00:36:08,880 --> 00:36:12,759 Speaker 2: is an equivalence between of mathematical descriptions. It does not 622 00:36:12,960 --> 00:36:16,440 Speaker 2: change the entity being described. Okay, So again this is 623 00:36:16,520 --> 00:36:20,880 Speaker 2: the ontology epistemology problem. We're confusing our description. Oh we're 624 00:36:20,880 --> 00:36:25,000 Speaker 2: going to call it one mountaineering unit. That doesn't change 625 00:36:25,040 --> 00:36:28,239 Speaker 2: Mount Everest. It only changes the way we're describing it, 626 00:36:28,400 --> 00:36:31,000 Speaker 2: or the way we're going to deep or the measuring 627 00:36:31,080 --> 00:36:33,720 Speaker 2: scale that we might apply to it or not apply. Okay. 628 00:36:34,040 --> 00:36:36,239 Speaker 2: So the same problem that we had with length, we 629 00:36:36,320 --> 00:36:40,120 Speaker 2: now have with energy. Just simply treating the universe as 630 00:36:40,120 --> 00:36:43,279 Speaker 2: if it's small and then treating the universe as if 631 00:36:43,320 --> 00:36:45,880 Speaker 2: it had more energy available to do work is a 632 00:36:45,880 --> 00:36:48,319 Speaker 2: form of It's a sleight of hand, okay, because we 633 00:36:48,400 --> 00:36:51,800 Speaker 2: haven't changed anything about the length scale, the length itself, 634 00:36:51,920 --> 00:36:55,280 Speaker 2: the size of the universe itself, or the energy available 635 00:36:55,320 --> 00:36:56,960 Speaker 2: to do work within the universe. 636 00:36:57,120 --> 00:37:02,520 Speaker 1: So effectively, his model requires this scaling down and more 637 00:37:02,640 --> 00:37:03,520 Speaker 1: energy and a. 638 00:37:03,560 --> 00:37:07,960 Speaker 2: Corresponding increase and energy available to do work because it's smaller, 639 00:37:08,440 --> 00:37:12,919 Speaker 2: and both of those are not accounted for themselves. 640 00:37:13,520 --> 00:37:16,880 Speaker 1: We're accounting for measuring them. But a change in measuring 641 00:37:17,040 --> 00:37:20,320 Speaker 1: doesn't change the energy and the sizes exactly that fair. 642 00:37:20,760 --> 00:37:23,280 Speaker 2: Point is exactly the right way. Yeah, that's good. Okay. 643 00:37:23,440 --> 00:37:28,719 Speaker 2: So again all of this is confusing our description with 644 00:37:28,960 --> 00:37:30,680 Speaker 2: the reality of the thing being described. 645 00:37:30,800 --> 00:37:33,000 Speaker 1: And we've got the notes and the points here people 646 00:37:33,040 --> 00:37:35,000 Speaker 1: can go back and work through. Okay, good. 647 00:37:35,440 --> 00:37:39,000 Speaker 2: Yeah. And in this with the specificity of this critique 648 00:37:39,320 --> 00:37:42,080 Speaker 2: of the fourth proposition is if we change the scale 649 00:37:42,080 --> 00:37:45,359 Speaker 2: by which we measure wavelength, we will change the We 650 00:37:45,400 --> 00:37:49,520 Speaker 2: will not change the actual wavelength and its associated energy. Okay. 651 00:37:49,560 --> 00:37:53,600 Speaker 2: So that's very similar to the critique of proposition three. Okay. Now, 652 00:37:53,640 --> 00:37:56,360 Speaker 2: in the PowerPoint, we have a nice a couple of 653 00:37:56,400 --> 00:38:02,320 Speaker 2: slides where we are quoting Sir Roger showing that we 654 00:38:00,600 --> 00:38:06,280 Speaker 2: we're being accurate, being careful, we're respecting the Dylan principle. 655 00:38:06,280 --> 00:38:09,480 Speaker 2: Here principle. Okay. Now here's where it gets really interesting. 656 00:38:10,200 --> 00:38:15,560 Speaker 2: The energy generated by conformal rescaling. Okay. Now, Sir Rogers 657 00:38:15,600 --> 00:38:20,920 Speaker 2: model provides the basis for a new field, an energy 658 00:38:21,000 --> 00:38:25,200 Speaker 2: rich field capable of generating mass particles with mass called 659 00:38:25,280 --> 00:38:28,799 Speaker 2: ara bonds and air bonds is his own coinage, all right. Now. 660 00:38:28,840 --> 00:38:31,680 Speaker 2: He used to call this a phantom field, and one 661 00:38:31,719 --> 00:38:34,840 Speaker 2: of the things he critiqued me for in our conversation 662 00:38:34,960 --> 00:38:36,759 Speaker 2: is I was still calling it a phantom field. But 663 00:38:36,760 --> 00:38:38,880 Speaker 2: he's gotten rid of that designation the phantom field. He 664 00:38:38,960 --> 00:38:41,280 Speaker 2: used to call it a phantom field because the field 665 00:38:41,560 --> 00:38:44,160 Speaker 2: really had no physical presence or it wasn't activated until 666 00:38:44,160 --> 00:38:44,680 Speaker 2: it was needed. 667 00:38:44,800 --> 00:38:48,320 Speaker 4: Forget the phantom field. There's nothing in the description. Probably 668 00:38:48,320 --> 00:38:50,960 Speaker 4: did use the term phantom field. That's on sedge, but 669 00:38:51,040 --> 00:38:53,920 Speaker 4: it doesn't feature in the in the MODELN scheme. That's 670 00:38:54,000 --> 00:38:58,799 Speaker 4: not the term that I would use. Now, there's no 671 00:38:58,840 --> 00:39:01,920 Speaker 4: such thing as a phantom theory. 672 00:39:02,040 --> 00:39:04,799 Speaker 2: In the skate, it was kind of ghost like in 673 00:39:04,840 --> 00:39:08,680 Speaker 2: our conversation said, that's sort of imputing to a physical 674 00:39:08,719 --> 00:39:13,720 Speaker 2: field properties of mind that no known physical field has. Okay, 675 00:39:14,960 --> 00:39:18,279 Speaker 2: but he's adjusted his model a little bit now and 676 00:39:18,320 --> 00:39:20,239 Speaker 2: he and he says that we got this this energy 677 00:39:20,280 --> 00:39:25,719 Speaker 2: available to do work. It creates a field that creates 678 00:39:26,719 --> 00:39:30,880 Speaker 2: particles or that they're called arabons. 679 00:39:30,920 --> 00:39:32,319 Speaker 1: And this is assertion five. 680 00:39:32,440 --> 00:39:35,719 Speaker 2: This is five. Now come to Serson five. So he 681 00:39:35,800 --> 00:39:37,600 Speaker 2: since retired the name of phantom field. But now he 682 00:39:37,600 --> 00:39:40,200 Speaker 2: claims we've got this this field that can create ara 683 00:39:40,280 --> 00:39:45,440 Speaker 2: bonds and these arabons. He further proposes only interact with 684 00:39:46,000 --> 00:39:50,239 Speaker 2: gravitational field and that they eventually, near the end of 685 00:39:50,239 --> 00:39:52,200 Speaker 2: the eon, will decay into gravitons. 686 00:39:52,520 --> 00:39:54,680 Speaker 4: It needs a better theory than that. It needs a 687 00:39:54,719 --> 00:39:58,400 Speaker 4: theory which explains in detail why this happens. I'm just 688 00:39:58,440 --> 00:40:02,200 Speaker 4: giving you the overall picture, which is incomplete at the moment. 689 00:40:02,280 --> 00:40:06,560 Speaker 4: I agree, it needs more calculation. It needs how to 690 00:40:06,640 --> 00:40:10,160 Speaker 4: describe the air bons properly in the theory why they 691 00:40:10,200 --> 00:40:13,440 Speaker 4: decay into gravitons into a pair of gravitons for the argument, 692 00:40:14,080 --> 00:40:17,080 Speaker 4: and why do those gravitons survive until the next day 693 00:40:17,160 --> 00:40:21,439 Speaker 4: on and then things are the other way around. They 694 00:40:21,520 --> 00:40:24,480 Speaker 4: start to collide again and produce more air bonds. So 695 00:40:24,600 --> 00:40:28,480 Speaker 4: the airbons come back as the gravitons start to run 696 00:40:28,520 --> 00:40:33,880 Speaker 4: into each other. And as in the highly hot, dense 697 00:40:35,200 --> 00:40:41,359 Speaker 4: New Universe, it's enough gravitons running around hitting each other. 698 00:40:41,400 --> 00:40:43,880 Speaker 4: In a certain sense, it's hard for gravitons to hit 699 00:40:43,920 --> 00:40:48,360 Speaker 4: each other. That there is an amplitude, if you like, 700 00:40:48,440 --> 00:40:51,200 Speaker 4: for the graviton to make an airbone. 701 00:40:52,000 --> 00:40:54,759 Speaker 2: Now, part of the critique here is that no known 702 00:40:54,760 --> 00:40:57,640 Speaker 2: particle possesses these properties. So whereas before you had a 703 00:40:57,680 --> 00:41:02,239 Speaker 2: field that had no course to know the properties, he 704 00:41:02,280 --> 00:41:07,200 Speaker 2: had a field for which that had properties that had 705 00:41:07,200 --> 00:41:10,080 Speaker 2: no precedent in other physical fields. Now he's got particles 706 00:41:10,360 --> 00:41:14,279 Speaker 2: that have properties with that are not similar to any 707 00:41:14,480 --> 00:41:22,000 Speaker 2: known particles. Okay, well again, we've got a nice quote 708 00:41:22,000 --> 00:41:25,680 Speaker 2: from Sir Roger about the universe at crossover. How it's 709 00:41:25,719 --> 00:41:28,240 Speaker 2: important that we get a huge amount of new matter. 710 00:41:28,400 --> 00:41:29,920 Speaker 2: Now we got rid of the matter. This is this 711 00:41:29,960 --> 00:41:31,759 Speaker 2: is what he's trying to achieve. He got rid of 712 00:41:31,800 --> 00:41:34,520 Speaker 2: the matter to do the rescaling. But now to get 713 00:41:34,560 --> 00:41:37,279 Speaker 2: a universe that's going to expand in form galaxies, you've 714 00:41:37,280 --> 00:41:40,719 Speaker 2: got to matter again. So the the new energy rich 715 00:41:40,800 --> 00:41:44,000 Speaker 2: field produced by the low entropy state, with lots of 716 00:41:44,360 --> 00:41:47,040 Speaker 2: energy available to do work, is going to produce these 717 00:41:47,080 --> 00:41:50,800 Speaker 2: ara bonds that are eventually going to well, they're actually 718 00:41:50,800 --> 00:41:52,839 Speaker 2: going to be the dark matter, but they'll be part 719 00:41:52,960 --> 00:41:56,600 Speaker 2: of the equation of the they'll be part of the 720 00:41:58,040 --> 00:42:00,360 Speaker 2: situation as the universe begins to expand again. 721 00:42:00,640 --> 00:42:03,080 Speaker 1: Okay. So this is not like the steady state theory 722 00:42:03,160 --> 00:42:06,840 Speaker 1: where matter is coming into existence so to speak, that 723 00:42:06,920 --> 00:42:09,480 Speaker 1: didn't exist before. Is this a shift in state? 724 00:42:10,239 --> 00:42:13,680 Speaker 2: Yeah, good question. It's it's the matter is going to 725 00:42:13,960 --> 00:42:18,959 Speaker 2: arise in the new eon as a result of the 726 00:42:19,080 --> 00:42:23,200 Speaker 2: energy that's available to do work and concentrated and present 727 00:42:23,239 --> 00:42:26,560 Speaker 2: in this new field. Okay, and that that matter now, 728 00:42:27,080 --> 00:42:29,640 Speaker 2: and this is his crucial next move. And this is 729 00:42:31,719 --> 00:42:34,920 Speaker 2: this is the last assertion, Okay, the last part of 730 00:42:34,600 --> 00:42:41,320 Speaker 2: the scenario. At the crossover event, Penrose assumes rather than derives, 731 00:42:41,719 --> 00:42:45,799 Speaker 2: a near perfect uniformity of the gravitational field. Okay, So 732 00:42:45,880 --> 00:42:48,440 Speaker 2: that's a kind of fine tuning that he's going to introduce. 733 00:42:48,560 --> 00:42:51,360 Speaker 4: I have no idea what he's talking about. There isn't 734 00:42:51,400 --> 00:42:54,880 Speaker 4: any fine tuning of this thought. The main material in 735 00:42:54,920 --> 00:42:58,520 Speaker 4: the universe is dark mata, and the dark mata comes 736 00:42:58,560 --> 00:43:03,000 Speaker 4: about through vatans. And it's not a question of any 737 00:43:03,040 --> 00:43:05,960 Speaker 4: fine tuning. There's nothing. There's any fine tuning in I 738 00:43:06,000 --> 00:43:07,280 Speaker 4: don't know what he's talking about. 739 00:43:07,480 --> 00:43:10,520 Speaker 2: He doesn't call it fine tuning, but he assumes a 740 00:43:10,600 --> 00:43:13,919 Speaker 2: near perfect uniformity in the gravitational field. It's something called 741 00:43:14,400 --> 00:43:21,040 Speaker 2: zero h vile curvature, all right in physics terminology. He 742 00:43:21,160 --> 00:43:25,759 Speaker 2: then asserts that the arabon producing field generates the right 743 00:43:25,880 --> 00:43:31,560 Speaker 2: number of arabonds with the right collective mass, so that 744 00:43:32,280 --> 00:43:38,239 Speaker 2: as the universe expands, they are perfectly balancing the cosmological constant, 745 00:43:38,239 --> 00:43:41,840 Speaker 2: which is which is active in every every one of 746 00:43:41,880 --> 00:43:45,200 Speaker 2: his eons. That's as a constant's continuing this outward push. 747 00:43:45,400 --> 00:43:48,160 Speaker 2: But now he wants new matter to be introduced so 748 00:43:48,200 --> 00:43:50,400 Speaker 2: that it doesn't expand too quickly and we get a 749 00:43:50,440 --> 00:43:56,040 Speaker 2: new dissipation of mass energy. Instead, he wants the universe 750 00:43:56,120 --> 00:43:59,640 Speaker 2: to be expanding at the at the right somewhat sedate pace, 751 00:44:00,040 --> 00:44:03,400 Speaker 2: so we can get galaxy formation. So we've got to 752 00:44:03,440 --> 00:44:05,960 Speaker 2: have the right number of Ara bonds with the right 753 00:44:06,040 --> 00:44:09,080 Speaker 2: amount of combined mass to generate just the right amount 754 00:44:09,120 --> 00:44:13,960 Speaker 2: of gravitational attraction to counter the outward push of the 755 00:44:13,960 --> 00:44:17,600 Speaker 2: cosmological constant. So he's got a very beautifully finely tuned 756 00:44:17,640 --> 00:44:24,480 Speaker 2: system in mind, okay, and that gravitational attraction will counter 757 00:44:24,560 --> 00:44:28,600 Speaker 2: the cosmological constant. The other force is responsible for the 758 00:44:28,640 --> 00:44:35,359 Speaker 2: initial rate of expansion so that galaxies conform. Okay, okay, okay, 759 00:44:35,400 --> 00:44:37,440 Speaker 2: So it's fine tuned for galaxy formation. 760 00:44:38,280 --> 00:44:40,360 Speaker 1: So can I jump in for this clarification? If this 761 00:44:40,440 --> 00:44:43,840 Speaker 1: is too simplistic, just say it's too simplistic. One of 762 00:44:43,880 --> 00:44:47,000 Speaker 1: the critiques I've heard of the oscillating universe is not 763 00:44:47,040 --> 00:44:50,960 Speaker 1: only that it needs more energy, but that each you know, 764 00:44:51,080 --> 00:44:54,960 Speaker 1: expansion and contraction would need to be fine tuned with 765 00:44:55,000 --> 00:44:59,160 Speaker 1: something like say, a cosmological constant. That's your critique of 766 00:44:59,160 --> 00:45:02,560 Speaker 1: that model. It sounds like there's at least similar critique, 767 00:45:02,680 --> 00:45:06,120 Speaker 1: even though his model is very different than oscillating. Requires 768 00:45:06,160 --> 00:45:07,120 Speaker 1: some fine tuning. 769 00:45:07,200 --> 00:45:09,080 Speaker 2: And this is what we're finding time and time again 770 00:45:09,120 --> 00:45:12,240 Speaker 2: with all these new infinite universe cosmologies. This is illustrative 771 00:45:12,680 --> 00:45:16,239 Speaker 2: of a pervasive problem. Going back to this is why 772 00:45:16,239 --> 00:45:20,160 Speaker 2: I cited the Einstein example, and in my debate with 773 00:45:20,200 --> 00:45:25,080 Speaker 2: Phil Halper, I started to explain that and the date. 774 00:45:25,400 --> 00:45:29,720 Speaker 2: It was very skillfully moderated by Justin bryerly the best, Yes, 775 00:45:30,239 --> 00:45:35,719 Speaker 2: but I wasn't able to really unpack that example to illustrate. 776 00:45:35,800 --> 00:45:43,200 Speaker 2: I think, as we're doing now, how incorrigible pervasive this type, 777 00:45:43,280 --> 00:45:46,200 Speaker 2: this need for fine tuning is in these in these 778 00:45:46,200 --> 00:45:51,640 Speaker 2: infinite universe cosmological models, there's always there's always a cost. Okay, 779 00:45:52,000 --> 00:45:54,759 Speaker 2: and right now we're seeing I'm going to summarize the cost, 780 00:45:54,840 --> 00:45:56,000 Speaker 2: but one of the costs is going. 781 00:45:55,920 --> 00:45:58,800 Speaker 1: To be okay, so hold the up, hold on a 782 00:45:58,840 --> 00:46:01,320 Speaker 1: new fine tuning Okay, okay, new fine tunes. Sorry McKay. 783 00:46:01,520 --> 00:46:03,920 Speaker 1: I want to make sure people understand this two to 784 00:46:04,000 --> 00:46:09,000 Speaker 1: three hour friendly debate with halperin is on Justin Briley's podcast. 785 00:46:09,360 --> 00:46:11,640 Speaker 2: Yeah, Phil Helper is, Yeah, Helper. 786 00:46:11,360 --> 00:46:14,960 Speaker 1: Thank you around the same time. We released this intentional 787 00:46:15,000 --> 00:46:18,360 Speaker 1: around that time so people could watch both push the 788 00:46:18,440 --> 00:46:21,319 Speaker 1: conversation forward. Absolutely, but people going, wait a minute, we 789 00:46:21,320 --> 00:46:24,480 Speaker 1: want some pushback from skeptics. Watch that longer dialogue. 790 00:46:24,560 --> 00:46:31,279 Speaker 2: Yeah, Phil and his co author Professor F. Shorty have 791 00:46:31,360 --> 00:46:33,439 Speaker 2: written this new book called Battle for the Big Bang, 792 00:46:33,560 --> 00:46:38,320 Speaker 2: and they do a wonderful job exposition of these new models. 793 00:46:38,360 --> 00:46:41,080 Speaker 2: They have about twenty five in there. We Bruce Gordon 794 00:46:41,120 --> 00:46:44,920 Speaker 2: and I working on this with our colleague Brian Miller 795 00:46:46,000 --> 00:46:49,560 Speaker 2: at Discovery Institute. We've actually found forty one models and wow, 796 00:46:49,960 --> 00:46:55,000 Speaker 2: we're writing out critiques of all of them. Yes, and well, 797 00:46:55,600 --> 00:47:00,719 Speaker 2: we're writing up a generalized critique that applies applies all 798 00:47:00,719 --> 00:47:03,080 Speaker 2: of them. There's just the proliferation of these things is, 799 00:47:03,120 --> 00:47:04,160 Speaker 2: you know, kind of like rabbits. 800 00:47:04,200 --> 00:47:07,000 Speaker 1: But so keep us posted when you have all those here. 801 00:47:07,040 --> 00:47:07,440 Speaker 1: Let's see. 802 00:47:07,440 --> 00:47:12,520 Speaker 2: But this discussion of Sir Rogers' model is very is 803 00:47:12,640 --> 00:47:18,680 Speaker 2: illustrative of common problems with all these models, and it's 804 00:47:18,280 --> 00:47:22,160 Speaker 2: it is an I found this pattern first in critiquing 805 00:47:22,200 --> 00:47:25,360 Speaker 2: what's called quantum cosmology, and that that critique is in 806 00:47:25,480 --> 00:47:28,080 Speaker 2: chapter seventeen and eighteen a return of the God hypothesis. 807 00:47:28,280 --> 00:47:32,120 Speaker 2: And that's where I developed this idea that where I 808 00:47:32,200 --> 00:47:35,600 Speaker 2: of the pick your poison either way, naturalism has a 809 00:47:35,600 --> 00:47:39,520 Speaker 2: problem kind of argument. Philosophers call that a robust argument 810 00:47:39,560 --> 00:47:43,239 Speaker 2: where you get to the same conclusion irrespective of two 811 00:47:43,400 --> 00:47:46,560 Speaker 2: or more different factual predicates where you start with different 812 00:47:46,560 --> 00:47:48,600 Speaker 2: set of facts but end up same conclusion either way, 813 00:47:50,000 --> 00:47:53,160 Speaker 2: and the different facts are the universe was finite, which 814 00:47:53,200 --> 00:47:55,880 Speaker 2: I think is what is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. 815 00:47:56,440 --> 00:47:59,120 Speaker 2: The other the other factual predicate would we know it's infinite, 816 00:47:59,640 --> 00:48:03,080 Speaker 2: it is infinitely old. But even if you start with 817 00:48:03,080 --> 00:48:05,480 Speaker 2: that predicate, you end up with a theistic conclusion. Okay, 818 00:48:05,520 --> 00:48:08,799 Speaker 2: so this is this is what we're and we talked. 819 00:48:08,840 --> 00:48:12,640 Speaker 2: I think in the in the previous conversation that that's 820 00:48:12,640 --> 00:48:15,439 Speaker 2: where I felt I had been misrepresented. Phil has been 821 00:48:15,560 --> 00:48:18,680 Speaker 2: put out a video saying Meyer is wedded to a 822 00:48:18,800 --> 00:48:21,160 Speaker 2: singularity based apologetics. 823 00:48:21,320 --> 00:48:25,840 Speaker 5: Removing the singularity unsettled those who had built theological arguments 824 00:48:25,840 --> 00:48:28,759 Speaker 5: based on this notion. The physics breaks down at the 825 00:48:28,800 --> 00:48:33,520 Speaker 5: Big Bang and unsurprisingly intelligent design ad because, like Stephen 826 00:48:33,640 --> 00:48:37,759 Speaker 5: Meyer in his recent best selling but have attacked Hawking's work. 827 00:48:38,440 --> 00:48:41,919 Speaker 5: But as we'll show, these attacks missed the mall. 828 00:48:42,360 --> 00:48:46,839 Speaker 2: The singularity refers to the singularity theorem of Hawking and Penrose, 829 00:48:48,120 --> 00:48:51,040 Speaker 2: and I very carefully explained that the singularity theorem does 830 00:48:51,040 --> 00:48:54,360 Speaker 2: not provide an absolute proof of the beginning, but I 831 00:48:54,400 --> 00:48:57,000 Speaker 2: think it points decisively in that in that direction that 832 00:48:57,080 --> 00:49:00,839 Speaker 2: if we combine general relativity with our understanding from observational 833 00:49:00,880 --> 00:49:04,440 Speaker 2: astronomy of the expansion of the universe, it's giving us 834 00:49:04,480 --> 00:49:06,320 Speaker 2: a picture in the reverse direction of time of the 835 00:49:06,400 --> 00:49:09,040 Speaker 2: universe is getting smaller and smaller and smaller, and spatial 836 00:49:09,080 --> 00:49:12,279 Speaker 2: curvature getting tighter and tighter and tighter, and it's it's approchient. 837 00:49:12,320 --> 00:49:19,360 Speaker 2: It's approachient, approaching almost asymptotically a limiting case where you 838 00:49:19,360 --> 00:49:21,400 Speaker 2: can't go back any further. There's a way to get 839 00:49:21,440 --> 00:49:25,399 Speaker 2: around that, Well, there's a when you get small enough, 840 00:49:25,880 --> 00:49:30,719 Speaker 2: we can't close it right to the final the final singularity. 841 00:49:32,280 --> 00:49:34,600 Speaker 2: But that's where quantum cosmology comes in. And then I 842 00:49:34,640 --> 00:49:38,160 Speaker 2: show that quantum cosmology itself has theistic implication. So if 843 00:49:38,200 --> 00:49:39,879 Speaker 2: you want to get around, I think there's a strong 844 00:49:39,920 --> 00:49:44,560 Speaker 2: pointer to a beginning. No, we just we rarely expect 845 00:49:44,880 --> 00:49:48,640 Speaker 2: absolute proof in science to end to conclusion. I think 846 00:49:48,960 --> 00:49:52,919 Speaker 2: the postulation of a beginning provides the best overall explanation 847 00:49:53,320 --> 00:49:56,240 Speaker 2: of the observational astronomy and the results from theoretical physics, 848 00:49:56,360 --> 00:49:58,480 Speaker 2: but we don't have an absolute proof of it. I 849 00:49:58,520 --> 00:50:00,920 Speaker 2: concede that, But then say, if if you want to invoke. 850 00:50:01,760 --> 00:50:05,840 Speaker 2: You want to develop these models to give us a 851 00:50:05,840 --> 00:50:08,279 Speaker 2: picture of an infinite universe, you're going to have other 852 00:50:08,320 --> 00:50:11,760 Speaker 2: problems if you're a philosophical naturalist. Makes sense, Yeah, okay, 853 00:50:11,920 --> 00:50:16,160 Speaker 2: So assertion six was you've got to have this energy 854 00:50:16,560 --> 00:50:22,960 Speaker 2: rich producing field generating the right number of ARA bonds 855 00:50:23,000 --> 00:50:27,560 Speaker 2: with the right collective mass to essentially slow down that 856 00:50:27,560 --> 00:50:30,239 Speaker 2: that cosmic expansion, so you get things balanced right to 857 00:50:30,239 --> 00:50:35,040 Speaker 2: make galaxies. So absence such fine tuning, the universe in 858 00:50:35,080 --> 00:50:38,359 Speaker 2: the new phase of expansion would either collapse back onto 859 00:50:38,400 --> 00:50:41,480 Speaker 2: itself in a big crunch or expand too rapidly, and 860 00:50:41,520 --> 00:50:47,240 Speaker 2: we get the heat death problem. Okay, So clearly Penrose's 861 00:50:47,320 --> 00:50:51,400 Speaker 2: model is introducing extensive new sources of unexplained fine tuning, 862 00:50:51,600 --> 00:50:55,920 Speaker 2: thus providing additional basis for a theistic argument fine tuning 863 00:50:56,280 --> 00:50:59,640 Speaker 2: pointing to a fine tuner. Yep. So now, just in 864 00:50:59,680 --> 00:51:02,279 Speaker 2: some to drop the whole thing up, this is our 865 00:51:02,320 --> 00:51:04,920 Speaker 2: idea that yes, you can model your way out of 866 00:51:04,960 --> 00:51:08,240 Speaker 2: the beginning, but only at a very high epistemic cost, 867 00:51:08,560 --> 00:51:13,279 Speaker 2: and especially at a high cost to philosophical materialism or 868 00:51:13,280 --> 00:51:17,600 Speaker 2: philosophical naturalism. First of all, you have violations of established 869 00:51:17,600 --> 00:51:21,440 Speaker 2: physics asserting that I'm going to enumerate them now. In summary, 870 00:51:21,800 --> 00:51:26,799 Speaker 2: asserting that black hole evaporation ultimately reduces entropy contradicts what's 871 00:51:26,800 --> 00:51:29,279 Speaker 2: called the unitary principle of quantum mechanics. So that's a 872 00:51:29,280 --> 00:51:31,719 Speaker 2: big deal to contradict that. Now, there are physicists who 873 00:51:31,760 --> 00:51:34,400 Speaker 2: agree with Penrose. I kind of see some of his 874 00:51:34,520 --> 00:51:39,840 Speaker 2: rationale on this, but overall this is to assert what 875 00:51:39,880 --> 00:51:45,640 Speaker 2: he's asserting about the loss of information and the reduction 876 00:51:45,719 --> 00:51:49,120 Speaker 2: of information of the whole universe. It does run counter 877 00:51:49,280 --> 00:51:52,640 Speaker 2: to very establish physics. The claim that all ordinary matter 878 00:51:52,680 --> 00:51:56,520 Speaker 2: will convert into radiation, that was his second proposition, has 879 00:51:56,600 --> 00:51:59,520 Speaker 2: no basis in the standard model of particle physics or 880 00:51:59,560 --> 00:52:02,839 Speaker 2: any known nor in any known physical phenomenon. So that's 881 00:52:02,840 --> 00:52:07,080 Speaker 2: a pure kind of postulation. That's that's uh, at least 882 00:52:07,160 --> 00:52:11,440 Speaker 2: not has no basis and maybe even is contradictory to 883 00:52:11,880 --> 00:52:14,560 Speaker 2: some of the things we know in physics. The mathematical 884 00:52:14,560 --> 00:52:17,480 Speaker 2: sleight of hand is the whole idea that UH that 885 00:52:17,560 --> 00:52:21,719 Speaker 2: treats that change in the measurement scale it can be 886 00:52:22,160 --> 00:52:24,720 Speaker 2: treated will result in a change in both the length 887 00:52:24,960 --> 00:52:29,360 Speaker 2: and the energy of the entity either universe being measured. Okay, 888 00:52:29,400 --> 00:52:35,399 Speaker 2: so that's the ontology epistemology confusion. More problems, ad hoc 889 00:52:35,520 --> 00:52:38,959 Speaker 2: postulations are violations of Oakham's razor. Remember Oucam's raiser says, 890 00:52:40,600 --> 00:52:42,480 Speaker 2: all of the things being equal, we want to avoid 891 00:52:42,920 --> 00:52:48,480 Speaker 2: needlessly postulating new theoretical entities. Okay, don't don't. Don't postulate 892 00:52:49,160 --> 00:52:53,440 Speaker 2: additional theoretical entities as much as possible to avoid that. 893 00:52:54,080 --> 00:52:56,080 Speaker 2: So he's got a number of new theoretical entities, new 894 00:52:56,080 --> 00:52:58,200 Speaker 2: things for which we have no precedent. That's they're purely 895 00:52:58,239 --> 00:53:01,480 Speaker 2: ad hoc versus his mass fade out hypothesis, the idea 896 00:53:01,520 --> 00:53:04,320 Speaker 2: that all mass in the universe will be converted converted 897 00:53:04,360 --> 00:53:09,239 Speaker 2: into radiation. That's not only inconsistent with known physics, it 898 00:53:09,280 --> 00:53:12,520 Speaker 2: then is a kind of ad hoc postulation. We're just 899 00:53:12,520 --> 00:53:15,680 Speaker 2: going to say that this happens uh the existence of 900 00:53:15,760 --> 00:53:19,480 Speaker 2: arab bon producing fields, in other words, fields that can 901 00:53:19,520 --> 00:53:22,520 Speaker 2: produce these particles that have properties that no other known 902 00:53:22,600 --> 00:53:27,440 Speaker 2: proper particles have, in particular the properties of arabons, the 903 00:53:27,520 --> 00:53:31,319 Speaker 2: ability of massive particles to decay into gravitons. That's a 904 00:53:31,400 --> 00:53:35,160 Speaker 2: that's a purely ad hoc ad hoc postulation. And then 905 00:53:35,200 --> 00:53:37,320 Speaker 2: finally we get to for what for us is the 906 00:53:37,400 --> 00:53:40,080 Speaker 2: key thing, and that is the the two sources of 907 00:53:40,160 --> 00:53:44,000 Speaker 2: unexplained fine tuning, the idea of a perfectly uniform gravitational 908 00:53:44,040 --> 00:53:50,439 Speaker 2: field which called zero uh Veil Vile curvature, and then 909 00:53:50,520 --> 00:53:54,920 Speaker 2: the fine tuning of the number of a number of 910 00:53:55,040 --> 00:53:57,400 Speaker 2: and the collective mass of the ARA bonds, so that 911 00:53:57,480 --> 00:54:02,160 Speaker 2: we do indeed get stable galaxies rather than gravitational recollapse 912 00:54:02,239 --> 00:54:04,399 Speaker 2: or heat death of the universe. So that's a very 913 00:54:04,600 --> 00:54:10,560 Speaker 2: a lot of each of those four problems. Contradictions of 914 00:54:10,600 --> 00:54:15,040 Speaker 2: known physics, mathematical slights of hand, violations of Oakham's razor, 915 00:54:15,640 --> 00:54:21,120 Speaker 2: and postulations of unexplained fine tuning are characteristics in some 916 00:54:21,200 --> 00:54:23,640 Speaker 2: combination of all the models that we've looked at. 917 00:54:24,080 --> 00:54:27,319 Speaker 1: Oh that's interesting, we say, all, like all forty one. 918 00:54:27,360 --> 00:54:29,120 Speaker 2: Well, we haven't gone through all forty one yet, but 919 00:54:29,200 --> 00:54:33,840 Speaker 2: we've we've been looking at at the most popular models 920 00:54:33,840 --> 00:54:37,920 Speaker 2: within physics, where this infinite quantum cosmology is one of those. Okay, 921 00:54:37,920 --> 00:54:39,680 Speaker 2: and that's where I first got turned on to this. 922 00:54:40,160 --> 00:54:42,879 Speaker 2: But you find it in the Steinhardt model. You find 923 00:54:42,920 --> 00:54:49,360 Speaker 2: it in the book. They proposed suspending the limitation on 924 00:54:49,400 --> 00:54:52,120 Speaker 2: the speed of light, which is a fundamental part of 925 00:54:52,280 --> 00:54:58,400 Speaker 2: special relativity. Yeah. They I think they also propose the 926 00:54:58,440 --> 00:55:03,160 Speaker 2: idea that causality is not a pervasive feature of the universe. 927 00:55:03,200 --> 00:55:06,560 Speaker 2: While you start suspending very fundamental things like that, you 928 00:55:06,560 --> 00:55:09,480 Speaker 2: can prove almost anything, well, not prove you can. You 929 00:55:09,520 --> 00:55:13,759 Speaker 2: can formulate a consistent model, but the cost is very high. 930 00:55:13,800 --> 00:55:17,880 Speaker 2: That's that's the idea, either to coherency of the physics 931 00:55:18,440 --> 00:55:23,840 Speaker 2: or plausibility of the math, or especially the cost is 932 00:55:23,920 --> 00:55:26,680 Speaker 2: very high with respect to the need to postulate new 933 00:55:27,160 --> 00:55:32,799 Speaker 2: unexplained fine tuning and therefore providing, thereby providing alternative support 934 00:55:33,040 --> 00:55:38,040 Speaker 2: for a theistic argument, an argument for theism, the argument 935 00:55:38,160 --> 00:55:40,720 Speaker 2: from a for theistic design based on tine tuning. 936 00:55:41,719 --> 00:55:44,359 Speaker 1: Okay, so let me take a step back. Some of this, 937 00:55:44,880 --> 00:55:48,440 Speaker 1: in all honesty is above my pay grade. But I 938 00:55:48,640 --> 00:55:51,160 Speaker 1: tracked with your point. I think you made it very 939 00:55:51,200 --> 00:55:55,680 Speaker 1: well and very clearly. Would it seems like your critique 940 00:55:55,719 --> 00:55:59,160 Speaker 1: is rooted in not saying, well, I'm an outsider from 941 00:55:59,200 --> 00:56:02,040 Speaker 1: the scientific and I'm going to quibble with these small 942 00:56:02,120 --> 00:56:06,320 Speaker 1: points You're saying. Physicists, whether they've pieced it all together 943 00:56:06,920 --> 00:56:11,000 Speaker 1: and applied it to the Penrose model, would agree with 944 00:56:11,360 --> 00:56:14,600 Speaker 1: the challenges These are pretty standard critiques that you're making. 945 00:56:14,960 --> 00:56:18,920 Speaker 2: There are many other physicists that have critiqued the conformal 946 00:56:19,080 --> 00:56:24,200 Speaker 2: cyclic cosmology. In the PowerPoint that we'll provide to your viewers, 947 00:56:24,760 --> 00:56:31,160 Speaker 2: I have several extended quotes from people prominent physicists critiquing this. 948 00:56:31,560 --> 00:56:38,359 Speaker 2: At one point, Professor Penrose, in his very self effacing way, 949 00:56:39,200 --> 00:56:43,000 Speaker 2: described his model as the conformal crazy cosmology. Okay, so 950 00:56:43,360 --> 00:56:45,799 Speaker 2: he's aware that you know, this is a bit of 951 00:56:45,800 --> 00:56:48,880 Speaker 2: a walk on the wild side. And when I debated 952 00:56:48,880 --> 00:56:54,239 Speaker 2: Phil Halper and I would critique specific models, he would say, well, 953 00:56:54,239 --> 00:56:57,880 Speaker 2: we're not saying this model is right. We're just saying 954 00:56:57,920 --> 00:57:00,200 Speaker 2: that it's a possibility. The very fact that they're so 955 00:57:00,239 --> 00:57:03,160 Speaker 2: many that are possible means we can't say that there 956 00:57:03,280 --> 00:57:06,359 Speaker 2: was in fact a beginning. Our counter argument to that 957 00:57:06,560 --> 00:57:11,800 Speaker 2: is that because of these pervasive, multiple, the pervasive problems 958 00:57:11,800 --> 00:57:14,160 Speaker 2: that we find in all the models that we've examined, 959 00:57:14,560 --> 00:57:17,800 Speaker 2: that simply, you know, throwing a whole bunch of mud 960 00:57:17,840 --> 00:57:20,600 Speaker 2: at the wall and hoping it sticks doesn't mean that 961 00:57:20,600 --> 00:57:23,760 Speaker 2: that you know that that's an effective strategy. The the 962 00:57:24,560 --> 00:57:29,680 Speaker 2: standard hot big bang model that explains that so powerfully 963 00:57:29,680 --> 00:57:33,880 Speaker 2: suggested by the evidence for expanding universe, by the cosmic 964 00:57:33,920 --> 00:57:37,840 Speaker 2: background radiation, by so many other empirical results, and by 965 00:57:38,400 --> 00:57:42,680 Speaker 2: the the the proofs that come out of theoretical physics, 966 00:57:42,720 --> 00:57:47,040 Speaker 2: the singularity theorems, which don't absolutely prove a beginning, but 967 00:57:47,200 --> 00:57:50,280 Speaker 2: point decisively toward one. And I think an even more 968 00:57:50,280 --> 00:57:56,400 Speaker 2: compelling proof the board Gooth Volenkan theorem, which again, like 969 00:57:56,440 --> 00:57:59,960 Speaker 2: all proofs, is predicated on certain assumptions. Yep, okay, every 970 00:58:00,040 --> 00:58:04,040 Speaker 2: thing is predicated on postulateary assumptions, but they are fewer. 971 00:58:04,520 --> 00:58:11,040 Speaker 2: They don't require meeting the same energy conditions that the 972 00:58:11,080 --> 00:58:16,400 Speaker 2: singularity theorem does. It only the only assumption that's necessary 973 00:58:16,480 --> 00:58:19,120 Speaker 2: is that is that you for any universe which is 974 00:58:19,160 --> 00:58:22,280 Speaker 2: on average expanding, they show that there must have been 975 00:58:23,200 --> 00:58:26,000 Speaker 2: a finite beginning and so and so. That's based on 976 00:58:26,040 --> 00:58:29,120 Speaker 2: special relativity, not general relativity. It's not subject to the 977 00:58:29,160 --> 00:58:32,920 Speaker 2: problem of getting inside the plank time and then you 978 00:58:32,960 --> 00:58:36,880 Speaker 2: have the quantum effects becoming dominant. Don't have to worry 979 00:58:36,920 --> 00:58:39,959 Speaker 2: about that in this other proof. So there's a number 980 00:58:40,040 --> 00:58:42,920 Speaker 2: of very powerful indicators of a beginning. So I think 981 00:58:42,960 --> 00:58:46,680 Speaker 2: the best overall explanation of our cosmological history is that 982 00:58:46,720 --> 00:58:49,720 Speaker 2: there was a beginning, but I acknowledge that there are 983 00:58:49,760 --> 00:58:54,320 Speaker 2: these other models, that every proof has preconditions, and that 984 00:58:54,520 --> 00:58:57,640 Speaker 2: if you want to suspend those or challenge those, you 985 00:58:57,640 --> 00:59:00,160 Speaker 2: can model your way out. But then you have this 986 00:59:00,160 --> 00:59:02,760 Speaker 2: this big epistemic cost, and it leads you right back 987 00:59:02,800 --> 00:59:03,360 Speaker 2: to theism. 988 00:59:03,800 --> 00:59:06,480 Speaker 1: So we have about four or five minutes at most. 989 00:59:07,360 --> 00:59:11,439 Speaker 1: What would critics have to do to respond to, say, 990 00:59:11,800 --> 00:59:16,479 Speaker 1: your model or strengthen penroses and where do you see 991 00:59:16,480 --> 00:59:17,400 Speaker 1: this going from here? 992 00:59:17,920 --> 00:59:21,200 Speaker 2: I think what we're proposing is not so much a model, 993 00:59:21,240 --> 00:59:26,320 Speaker 2: but a framework for understanding okay, and saying, look, we're putting, 994 00:59:26,360 --> 00:59:30,320 Speaker 2: we're we're wrapping a framing around this. It says either 995 00:59:30,400 --> 00:59:34,680 Speaker 2: way you go philosophical materialists or naturalists, you've got you've 996 00:59:34,680 --> 00:59:39,280 Speaker 2: got trouble for your metaphysical belief system. The evidence for 997 00:59:39,320 --> 00:59:42,840 Speaker 2: the beginning, I think is best explained by the postulation 998 00:59:43,360 --> 00:59:47,360 Speaker 2: of something like a theistic or deistic creator. But if 999 00:59:47,400 --> 00:59:49,440 Speaker 2: you don't, if you want to say you don't like 1000 00:59:49,480 --> 00:59:50,960 Speaker 2: that beginning, and you're going to we're going to go 1001 00:59:51,040 --> 00:59:56,400 Speaker 2: back to an infinite universe cosmology, then likely you've got 1002 00:59:56,400 --> 00:59:59,000 Speaker 2: something that's got a fair amount of incoherence to it, 1003 00:59:59,000 --> 01:00:02,880 Speaker 2: it's contradictoring unknown physics. But even if you set that aside, 1004 01:00:03,480 --> 01:00:08,400 Speaker 2: you invariably have to have a system that's very intricately 1005 01:00:08,440 --> 01:00:12,840 Speaker 2: finely tuned. And then you're back to an argument from 1006 01:00:12,840 --> 01:00:16,560 Speaker 2: contingency or a fine tuning design argument. And I think 1007 01:00:17,320 --> 01:00:19,760 Speaker 2: so to refuw what we're saying, people are gonna have 1008 01:00:19,800 --> 01:00:22,000 Speaker 2: to show that they can they can develop an infinite 1009 01:00:22,040 --> 01:00:26,400 Speaker 2: universe cosmological model that doesn't come at the high epistemic 1010 01:00:26,440 --> 01:00:30,480 Speaker 2: costs that we are saying is inherent to the enterprise. 1011 01:00:30,720 --> 01:00:32,960 Speaker 1: Gotcha, that makes sense. One of the critiques of intelligent 1012 01:00:33,000 --> 01:00:37,600 Speaker 1: design is that it doesn't make predictions and it's not testable. 1013 01:00:38,120 --> 01:00:41,600 Speaker 1: You have forty one models. You've seen this pattern show 1014 01:00:41,720 --> 01:00:45,160 Speaker 1: up again and again and again, and also see it 1015 01:00:45,200 --> 01:00:48,280 Speaker 1: in your critique of Penrose. Is it a prediction that 1016 01:00:48,360 --> 01:00:52,440 Speaker 1: as we work through the rest of these forty one models. 1017 01:00:52,240 --> 01:00:54,280 Speaker 2: Will they're gonna have one or more of these problems? 1018 01:00:54,480 --> 01:00:57,080 Speaker 1: Okay? Yeah, all right, well said, well, as you work 1019 01:00:57,120 --> 01:00:58,720 Speaker 1: through those, maybe when you get through the forty one 1020 01:00:58,760 --> 01:01:01,520 Speaker 1: to get closer, we will have you back to take 1021 01:01:01,520 --> 01:01:03,400 Speaker 1: a look and kind of assess us on where this 1022 01:01:03,440 --> 01:01:08,080 Speaker 1: discussion and this debate is sir Roger Penrose. If you 1023 01:01:08,200 --> 01:01:10,640 Speaker 1: happen to see this, we would love to get a 1024 01:01:10,680 --> 01:01:13,200 Speaker 1: response from you. We'd love to have a conversation with 1025 01:01:13,240 --> 01:01:15,320 Speaker 1: a two of you, and wouldn't have to be a debate. 1026 01:01:15,480 --> 01:01:18,920 Speaker 1: Just clarifying and give me your sense, I would. 1027 01:01:18,720 --> 01:01:23,960 Speaker 2: Say too, yeah, just in all modesty here, this is 1028 01:01:24,160 --> 01:01:26,600 Speaker 2: one of the great scientists of the twentieth century twenty 1029 01:01:26,640 --> 01:01:30,640 Speaker 2: first century. I have tremendous respect for him, and if 1030 01:01:30,680 --> 01:01:33,640 Speaker 2: I got something wrong, I'd love to have that clarified. 1031 01:01:33,640 --> 01:01:35,640 Speaker 2: And the whole reason we did this is that there 1032 01:01:35,640 --> 01:01:37,280 Speaker 2: were a few things I got wrong. In fact, I've 1033 01:01:37,400 --> 01:01:41,800 Speaker 2: failed to mention. One of them was about the picture, okay, 1034 01:01:41,840 --> 01:01:43,960 Speaker 2: the idea of that the universe coming out of the patch. 1035 01:01:44,280 --> 01:01:48,760 Speaker 2: I also misstated the name of the theory. There are 1036 01:01:48,760 --> 01:01:50,680 Speaker 2: a couple of other things in the way I described 1037 01:01:50,840 --> 01:01:54,080 Speaker 2: his views about entropy that we've tidied up in just 1038 01:01:54,120 --> 01:01:59,400 Speaker 2: this presentation, but the central critique about the unexplained fine tuning, 1039 01:01:59,520 --> 01:02:02,920 Speaker 2: which he to because I don't think he was. I 1040 01:02:02,920 --> 01:02:05,480 Speaker 2: think this happens a lot in all kinds of simulations, 1041 01:02:05,680 --> 01:02:09,400 Speaker 2: both in prebiotics, simulations of origin of life and also 1042 01:02:09,440 --> 01:02:12,320 Speaker 2: cosmological simulations. Of the origin of the universe. Often the 1043 01:02:12,840 --> 01:02:18,200 Speaker 2: theoretician forgets what they themselves are adding to the makes sense. Yeah, 1044 01:02:18,240 --> 01:02:20,800 Speaker 2: and so I think this is clearly he's postulating the 1045 01:02:20,840 --> 01:02:22,840 Speaker 2: need for unexplained fine tuning. So I think that that 1046 01:02:22,840 --> 01:02:25,560 Speaker 2: part of the critique holds. But I'm very well, I 1047 01:02:25,960 --> 01:02:30,240 Speaker 2: very much welcome the opportunity to improve my own understanding 1048 01:02:30,280 --> 01:02:33,280 Speaker 2: of this. These papers are hard to and you have 1049 01:02:33,320 --> 01:02:35,520 Speaker 2: to really really go through them carefully to make sure 1050 01:02:35,520 --> 01:02:37,640 Speaker 2: you're getting it right. And I've got I've got a 1051 01:02:37,640 --> 01:02:40,520 Speaker 2: good group. We have a good physics and philosophy physics 1052 01:02:40,560 --> 01:02:43,360 Speaker 2: research group at Discovery, and several of us really carefully 1053 01:02:43,400 --> 01:02:46,320 Speaker 2: comb this stuff, and if there's further need for refinement 1054 01:02:46,360 --> 01:02:48,400 Speaker 2: in our understanding, we want to make sure that's the 1055 01:02:48,480 --> 01:02:49,920 Speaker 2: basis of any further discussion. 1056 01:02:50,280 --> 01:02:52,520 Speaker 1: Love it. He was willing to sit down with William 1057 01:02:52,600 --> 01:02:55,720 Speaker 1: Lane Craig not longo, and it's just a wonderful, insightful, 1058 01:02:55,920 --> 01:03:00,400 Speaker 1: respectful conversation. Stuff like that with doctor steven My would 1059 01:03:00,440 --> 01:03:02,400 Speaker 1: be wonderful, I think for people on all sides of 1060 01:03:02,400 --> 01:03:04,800 Speaker 1: this conversation. Thanks for all your work on this. I 1061 01:03:04,840 --> 01:03:06,560 Speaker 1: could tell this took a ton of time and a 1062 01:03:06,600 --> 01:03:08,840 Speaker 1: ton of thought to really clarify and make your case. 1063 01:03:09,240 --> 01:03:10,560 Speaker 1: I think you made it well. I'm going to go 1064 01:03:10,600 --> 01:03:13,160 Speaker 1: back and listen to this myself a few times to 1065 01:03:13,200 --> 01:03:15,080 Speaker 1: make sure it sinks in. I was tracking with the 1066 01:03:15,080 --> 01:03:17,520 Speaker 1: big picture. This might be one that people want to 1067 01:03:17,560 --> 01:03:20,280 Speaker 1: go back through and maybe grab a physicist friend and say, 1068 01:03:20,360 --> 01:03:23,000 Speaker 1: walk through and explain this to me. When you get it, 1069 01:03:23,040 --> 01:03:25,520 Speaker 1: the lights really go on because you made some important 1070 01:03:25,960 --> 01:03:28,960 Speaker 1: responses and critique. So thanks for coming back on. 1071 01:03:29,280 --> 01:03:32,640 Speaker 2: Thanks for having me Sean. A great conversation and a 1072 01:03:32,640 --> 01:03:34,160 Speaker 2: bit of a walk on the wild side, but we 1073 01:03:34,200 --> 01:03:34,640 Speaker 2: got through it. 1074 01:03:34,960 --> 01:03:38,160 Speaker 1: Loved it. Hey, friends, if you enjoyed this show, please 1075 01:03:38,280 --> 01:03:41,040 Speaker 1: hit that fall button on your podcast app. Most of 1076 01:03:41,080 --> 01:03:43,480 Speaker 1: you tuning in haven't done this yet and it makes 1077 01:03:43,520 --> 01:03:46,320 Speaker 1: a huge difference in helping us reach and equit more 1078 01:03:46,360 --> 01:03:50,520 Speaker 1: people and build community. And please consider leaving a podcast review. 1079 01:03:50,880 --> 01:03:54,520 Speaker 1: Every review helps. Thanks for listening to The Sean McDowell Show, 1080 01:03:54,640 --> 01:03:58,480 Speaker 1: brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, 1081 01:03:58,520 --> 01:04:01,880 Speaker 1: where we have on campus and online programs and apologetic 1082 01:04:01,880 --> 01:04:05,160 Speaker 1: spiritual formation, marriage and family, Bible, and so much more. 1083 01:04:05,240 --> 01:04:08,240 Speaker 1: We would love to train you to more effectively live, teach, 1084 01:04:08,320 --> 01:04:11,160 Speaker 1: and defend the Christian faith today, and we will see 1085 01:04:11,200 --> 01:04:13,000 Speaker 1: you when the next episode drops