1
00:00:02,720 --> 00:00:08,160
Speaker 1: Life audio. Most were watching this going okay, who exactly

2
00:00:08,280 --> 00:00:12,280
Speaker 1: is Penrose and why is his claim that you misrepresented

3
00:00:12,360 --> 00:00:13,800
Speaker 1: him so significant?

4
00:00:14,080 --> 00:00:18,680
Speaker 2: Penrose expressed some dismay at misrepresenting him, and Justin Brierly

5
00:00:18,720 --> 00:00:21,239
Speaker 2: caught wind of it. He had a debate schedule for

6
00:00:21,360 --> 00:00:25,000
Speaker 2: me and Alex O'Connor, but then Alex preferred to do

7
00:00:25,079 --> 00:00:29,000
Speaker 2: somebody else, and Justin brought in Phil Helper, and Phil

8
00:00:29,000 --> 00:00:31,880
Speaker 2: and I had it went on about three hours. Bill

9
00:00:32,000 --> 00:00:35,400
Speaker 2: went then what he believe was my position and shared

10
00:00:35,440 --> 00:00:40,760
Speaker 2: it with various cosmologists and physicists and elicited critiques of

11
00:00:40,840 --> 00:00:44,000
Speaker 2: me based on what he had fed to them. But unfortunately,

12
00:00:44,040 --> 00:00:46,959
Speaker 2: what he fed to them was a misrepresentation of my position.

13
00:00:47,159 --> 00:00:50,159
Speaker 2: And so even though these very prominent people critiquing me

14
00:00:50,440 --> 00:00:55,520
Speaker 2: cumulatively sound very authoritative in dismissing poor old Meyer's the

15
00:00:55,640 --> 00:00:57,760
Speaker 2: night had view it was a kind of garbage in

16
00:00:57,880 --> 00:01:01,000
Speaker 2: garbage out situation where having fed had them a straw man.

17
00:01:01,200 --> 00:01:05,240
Speaker 2: The critiques that each of them collectively rendered missed the mark.

18
00:01:05,720 --> 00:01:09,920
Speaker 1: A new battle emerges over the Big Bang. Interestingly, part

19
00:01:09,959 --> 00:01:12,920
Speaker 1: of it came through from a conversation we had on

20
00:01:13,040 --> 00:01:15,840
Speaker 1: this channel, as well as a new book out that's

21
00:01:15,880 --> 00:01:19,679
Speaker 1: called Battle of the Big Bang. Doctor Stephen Meyer, a

22
00:01:19,760 --> 00:01:23,160
Speaker 1: friend of myself Taubaschool Theology, one of the leading defenders

23
00:01:23,200 --> 00:01:26,160
Speaker 1: of the existence of God in light of the emerging

24
00:01:26,319 --> 00:01:29,880
Speaker 1: scientific evidence, is here to explain kind of the drama

25
00:01:30,040 --> 00:01:33,120
Speaker 1: behind the debate and what's at stake. Thanks for coming

26
00:01:33,160 --> 00:01:33,840
Speaker 1: here in persons.

27
00:01:33,880 --> 00:01:36,280
Speaker 2: Great to be with you, Sean, Yeah, absolutely, Yeah, there's

28
00:01:36,280 --> 00:01:38,760
Speaker 2: a bit of a backstory that involves the two of us.

29
00:01:39,440 --> 00:01:41,080
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a great place to start.

30
00:01:41,160 --> 00:01:44,039
Speaker 2: Well, you and I had a conversation soon after the

31
00:01:44,080 --> 00:01:47,319
Speaker 2: paperback version of my book, Return of the God Hypothesis

32
00:01:47,319 --> 00:01:50,400
Speaker 2: came out, in which there was a new epilogue, and

33
00:01:50,440 --> 00:01:52,600
Speaker 2: in the epilogue I mentioned some of the newer what

34
00:01:52,640 --> 00:01:57,080
Speaker 2: are called infinite universe cosmological models, models that physicists and

35
00:01:57,160 --> 00:02:00,840
Speaker 2: mathematicians have been devising to try to gave the idea

36
00:02:01,080 --> 00:02:04,480
Speaker 2: that the universe is infinitely old, despite the many lines

37
00:02:04,520 --> 00:02:07,840
Speaker 2: of evidence that have been accumulating since the nineteen teens

38
00:02:07,840 --> 00:02:11,280
Speaker 2: and twenties suggesting that the universe had a beginning. And

39
00:02:11,400 --> 00:02:13,720
Speaker 2: one of those models is a model that was devised

40
00:02:13,800 --> 00:02:17,760
Speaker 2: by Sir Roger Penrose, the great British physicist and Sir

41
00:02:17,840 --> 00:02:22,280
Speaker 2: Roger's model, called the conformal cyclic cosmology, is something that

42
00:02:22,360 --> 00:02:25,760
Speaker 2: I critiqued in passing in the epilogue of the books,

43
00:02:26,040 --> 00:02:33,119
Speaker 2: pointing out that though it does provide a mathematical account

44
00:02:33,160 --> 00:02:36,040
Speaker 2: of how the universe could be infinitely old, it does

45
00:02:36,080 --> 00:02:40,560
Speaker 2: so at a high cost for philosophical naturalism, in particular,

46
00:02:40,680 --> 00:02:45,000
Speaker 2: the cost being the affirmation of unexplained fine tuning additional

47
00:02:45,080 --> 00:02:48,200
Speaker 2: sources of unexplained fine tuning. So you may be able

48
00:02:48,240 --> 00:02:51,200
Speaker 2: to get around the beginning, but to do so you

49
00:02:51,360 --> 00:02:56,160
Speaker 2: have to affirm additional sources of unexplained fine tuning that

50
00:02:56,400 --> 00:03:00,280
Speaker 2: suggests again a fine tuner, and reinforce the find tuning

51
00:03:00,360 --> 00:03:02,919
Speaker 2: argument for God's existence, even if you've gotten rid of

52
00:03:02,960 --> 00:03:07,520
Speaker 2: the cosmological argument for God's existence that's predicated on in beginning.

53
00:03:09,000 --> 00:03:16,079
Speaker 2: In response to our conversation, a British science writer, journalist

54
00:03:16,200 --> 00:03:20,880
Speaker 2: Phil Halper, apparently heard the conversation of This Big Bang,

55
00:03:21,240 --> 00:03:25,720
Speaker 2: heard the conversation, presented elements of it to Sir Roger.

56
00:03:27,240 --> 00:03:33,000
Speaker 2: They collectively expressed some dismay, thinking that I feeling perhaps

57
00:03:33,040 --> 00:03:36,480
Speaker 2: that I had misrepresented some aspects of Sir Roger's model,

58
00:03:37,040 --> 00:03:43,120
Speaker 2: and then they came back with a podcasting critique that

59
00:03:43,280 --> 00:03:47,640
Speaker 2: resulted in turn in Justin Brierly hearing about the help

60
00:03:47,640 --> 00:03:52,960
Speaker 2: her response to you and me. Justin was looking for

61
00:03:53,000 --> 00:03:56,560
Speaker 2: someone to debate me at Oxford. He had arranged for

62
00:03:56,600 --> 00:04:01,520
Speaker 2: a debate between me at first Alex O'Connor. Alex ended

63
00:04:01,560 --> 00:04:04,040
Speaker 2: up shifting and having a debate with a different partner,

64
00:04:04,520 --> 00:04:08,960
Speaker 2: and then Justin pulled in in Phil and he and

65
00:04:09,000 --> 00:04:13,280
Speaker 2: I had a three hour conversation moderated by Justin about

66
00:04:13,320 --> 00:04:17,120
Speaker 2: all things cosmological, which was in a way really terrific,

67
00:04:18,800 --> 00:04:24,720
Speaker 2: And that in turn has resulted in how Phil presenting

68
00:04:24,800 --> 00:04:28,200
Speaker 2: what he takes my position to be and presenting it

69
00:04:28,240 --> 00:04:31,920
Speaker 2: to a series of leading physicists and cosmologists he writes

70
00:04:31,960 --> 00:04:33,640
Speaker 2: on this topic, so he knows many of the leading

71
00:04:33,680 --> 00:04:36,880
Speaker 2: people in the field and eliciting their critique of me.

72
00:04:38,000 --> 00:04:41,279
Speaker 2: But that may be where we want to join the discussion,

73
00:04:41,360 --> 00:04:46,080
Speaker 2: because now, whereas Sir Roger felt that he had been misrepresented,

74
00:04:47,560 --> 00:04:51,920
Speaker 2: I think that Phil misrepresented me in what he shared

75
00:04:51,960 --> 00:04:55,400
Speaker 2: with these physicist and cosmologists, leading to a kind of

76
00:04:55,440 --> 00:04:59,039
Speaker 2: garbage in, garbage out situation where he presented them with

77
00:04:59,120 --> 00:05:02,800
Speaker 2: a straw man version of my position and then their

78
00:05:02,839 --> 00:05:08,520
Speaker 2: critique of my position being falsely predicated came back as

79
00:05:08,960 --> 00:05:13,240
Speaker 2: sounding very authoritative and suggesting that maybe I didn't know

80
00:05:13,279 --> 00:05:15,120
Speaker 2: what I was talking about at all, but it was

81
00:05:15,360 --> 00:05:19,360
Speaker 2: based on a misrepresent misrepresentation of my view, and you've

82
00:05:19,440 --> 00:05:23,040
Speaker 2: kindly given me a chance to rejoin the conversation first

83
00:05:23,080 --> 00:05:26,200
Speaker 2: by clarifying what my view actually is, and then I

84
00:05:26,200 --> 00:05:30,040
Speaker 2: guess we've decided we'll have a second conversation about the

85
00:05:30,080 --> 00:05:36,839
Speaker 2: work of Sir Roger Penrose in his conformal cycle cosmological model,

86
00:05:37,000 --> 00:05:41,039
Speaker 2: where we'll maybe clarify a few things, eliminate some confusion,

87
00:05:41,400 --> 00:05:43,920
Speaker 2: and then see if we can clean that that discussion

88
00:05:44,000 --> 00:05:44,520
Speaker 2: up as well.

89
00:05:44,800 --> 00:05:47,960
Speaker 1: This is a really remarkable moment that we're at because

90
00:05:48,000 --> 00:05:49,960
Speaker 1: debates about the Boo Gang, like have you said, I've

91
00:05:49,960 --> 00:05:53,040
Speaker 1: been going on for a century plus and now at

92
00:05:53,040 --> 00:05:56,320
Speaker 1: a point where all these new models are merging. People

93
00:05:56,440 --> 00:05:59,800
Speaker 1: like Sir Roger Penrose, one of the most influential scientists

94
00:05:59,839 --> 00:06:03,279
Speaker 1: for the past half century, has weighed in with his model.

95
00:06:03,520 --> 00:06:08,400
Speaker 1: There's claims of underrepresentation, misrepresentation. Well, the most important thing

96
00:06:08,480 --> 00:06:10,880
Speaker 1: is that we get clarity on what the models are,

97
00:06:11,400 --> 00:06:14,440
Speaker 1: whether they point towards the universe. Having a beginning, whether

98
00:06:14,560 --> 00:06:18,360
Speaker 1: they point towards intelligent design. I think this is kind

99
00:06:18,360 --> 00:06:21,120
Speaker 1: of a remarkable moment that we're at, So I appreciate

100
00:06:21,160 --> 00:06:23,760
Speaker 1: you coming down and clarifying your model. And then we'll

101
00:06:23,800 --> 00:06:27,080
Speaker 1: also have part two where we'll focus it distinctly on

102
00:06:27,320 --> 00:06:30,120
Speaker 1: Roger Penrose's model. Get your responsible.

103
00:06:30,080 --> 00:06:32,960
Speaker 2: I'm you know, I believe in God, but I'm also

104
00:06:33,000 --> 00:06:38,839
Speaker 2: a big believer in Bob Dylan, and Dylan's famous quote

105
00:06:38,839 --> 00:06:40,919
Speaker 2: which I always shared with my students as you can't

106
00:06:40,960 --> 00:06:45,640
Speaker 2: criticize what you don't understand it. So if I misunderstood

107
00:06:45,640 --> 00:06:49,320
Speaker 2: some part of Sir Roger's model, let's return to that

108
00:06:49,400 --> 00:06:54,120
Speaker 2: and clean that up. I think that the graviman the

109
00:06:54,160 --> 00:06:58,800
Speaker 2: focus of my critique stands irrespective of one thing that

110
00:06:58,880 --> 00:07:00,440
Speaker 2: where I think I did get it a bit wrong

111
00:07:01,240 --> 00:07:04,719
Speaker 2: when one element of what he's proposing in a way

112
00:07:04,960 --> 00:07:07,080
Speaker 2: in my defense, I think we'll see when we get

113
00:07:07,080 --> 00:07:10,239
Speaker 2: there that my way of representing what he was arguing

114
00:07:10,360 --> 00:07:15,280
Speaker 2: was was perhaps a more sympathetic reconstruction of his rationale

115
00:07:15,320 --> 00:07:19,880
Speaker 2: than some physicists would grant to him. So it was

116
00:07:20,400 --> 00:07:23,880
Speaker 2: it was an error in that direction. At least. I

117
00:07:23,960 --> 00:07:28,320
Speaker 2: also embarrassingly misstated the title of his model. I said

118
00:07:28,320 --> 00:07:32,920
Speaker 2: that it was the the cyclic conformal cosmology, when it's

119
00:07:33,000 --> 00:07:37,800
Speaker 2: actually the conformal cyclic cosmology. And and my new friend

120
00:07:37,840 --> 00:07:39,720
Speaker 2: Phil had a little fun with that, but we can

121
00:07:40,160 --> 00:07:43,600
Speaker 2: we'll let that go as he did ultimately. But in

122
00:07:43,600 --> 00:07:45,800
Speaker 2: any case, I do appreciate this because I think I

123
00:07:45,800 --> 00:07:48,440
Speaker 2: think in the interest of clarity in advancing the truth,

124
00:07:48,800 --> 00:07:51,520
Speaker 2: we want to make sure that we are critiquing each

125
00:07:51,640 --> 00:07:54,960
Speaker 2: other's ideas accurately. It was one of the one of

126
00:07:55,040 --> 00:07:57,640
Speaker 2: the neat things about the conversation with Justin Brierley in

127
00:07:57,640 --> 00:08:00,160
Speaker 2: his new program. That's one of the he wants to

128
00:08:00,200 --> 00:08:03,200
Speaker 2: make sure that each of the interlocators are feeling that

129
00:08:03,280 --> 00:08:07,840
Speaker 2: the other interlocator is representing their position accurately. So I

130
00:08:07,880 --> 00:08:10,200
Speaker 2: think this is a great opportunity to do that, and

131
00:08:10,200 --> 00:08:12,080
Speaker 2: I thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify

132
00:08:12,160 --> 00:08:16,120
Speaker 2: what my position is so that people understand what it

133
00:08:16,200 --> 00:08:21,240
Speaker 2: is I'm actually arguing as opposed to the impression that

134
00:08:21,560 --> 00:08:25,480
Speaker 2: Phil gave to these cosmologists and physicists. And it may

135
00:08:25,520 --> 00:08:33,560
Speaker 2: be that charitably that fills impression of my position was inaccurate,

136
00:08:33,600 --> 00:08:40,840
Speaker 2: but was innocently derived because these are difficult things to master.

137
00:08:41,440 --> 00:08:44,160
Speaker 2: And in my book Return of the God Hypothesis, I

138
00:08:44,200 --> 00:08:48,280
Speaker 2: have a kind of prima facia case for theism based

139
00:08:48,320 --> 00:08:51,120
Speaker 2: on the beginning. But then I have in the latter

140
00:08:51,160 --> 00:08:55,000
Speaker 2: part of the book a second derivative case that says,

141
00:08:55,000 --> 00:08:57,319
Speaker 2: but if you don't accept the evidence for a beginning,

142
00:08:57,520 --> 00:08:59,960
Speaker 2: and you want to model the origin of the universe

143
00:09:00,440 --> 00:09:07,600
Speaker 2: alternatively as having a past eternal kind of profile, then

144
00:09:08,000 --> 00:09:11,760
Speaker 2: you will invariably end up affirming something that provides grounds

145
00:09:12,280 --> 00:09:16,000
Speaker 2: provides other grounds for theism. And so this is a

146
00:09:16,160 --> 00:09:20,160
Speaker 2: style of argumentation that philosophers sometimes called a robust argument,

147
00:09:20,160 --> 00:09:23,840
Speaker 2: and a robust argument is one that terminates with the

148
00:09:23,840 --> 00:09:29,120
Speaker 2: same conclusion irrespective of two or more different factual predicates.

149
00:09:29,400 --> 00:09:31,360
Speaker 2: And that's the kind of argument that I'm actually making,

150
00:09:31,400 --> 00:09:35,080
Speaker 2: and that is a little bit difficult, perhaps to perceive

151
00:09:35,760 --> 00:09:36,160
Speaker 2: at first.

152
00:09:36,240 --> 00:09:39,079
Speaker 1: Blush, we'll get into some of that. I really appreciate

153
00:09:39,160 --> 00:09:43,360
Speaker 1: your commitment and desire to fall truth, to represent arguments fairly,

154
00:09:43,800 --> 00:09:45,440
Speaker 1: your humility to come on and say you know what.

155
00:09:45,480 --> 00:09:47,720
Speaker 1: I might have gotten this not as clearly as I

156
00:09:47,720 --> 00:09:50,359
Speaker 1: could have, but let's come back and get it exactly

157
00:09:50,520 --> 00:09:53,520
Speaker 1: right and then offer our critique. I think we're at

158
00:09:53,920 --> 00:09:55,760
Speaker 1: a remarkable part of this conversation.

159
00:09:55,840 --> 00:09:59,520
Speaker 2: It's actually fascinating Sean to go step by it, to

160
00:09:59,559 --> 00:10:01,160
Speaker 2: go step by step, and this is what we'll do

161
00:10:01,200 --> 00:10:03,959
Speaker 2: in our in our second conversation, we can go step

162
00:10:04,000 --> 00:10:07,880
Speaker 2: by step through the Penrose model. A lot of people,

163
00:10:08,679 --> 00:10:12,560
Speaker 2: these discussions of cosmology are of interest to everyone. Where

164
00:10:12,559 --> 00:10:15,400
Speaker 2: did the universe come from? This is a question of

165
00:10:15,520 --> 00:10:18,960
Speaker 2: ultimate concern. Why is there something rather than nothing? You know,

166
00:10:19,080 --> 00:10:22,200
Speaker 2: one of the great philosophical questions closely related to that.

167
00:10:22,679 --> 00:10:28,200
Speaker 2: But because the cosmologists are often physicists in their training,

168
00:10:28,240 --> 00:10:34,280
Speaker 2: and because cosmological models are rendered mathematically, often many people

169
00:10:34,679 --> 00:10:39,040
Speaker 2: cannot read the papers and that are written by these

170
00:10:39,160 --> 00:10:43,000
Speaker 2: leading thinkers, and so they end up being opaque to

171
00:10:43,040 --> 00:10:45,440
Speaker 2: the public. And one of the things that I like

172
00:10:45,480 --> 00:10:48,440
Speaker 2: to do, having had a background in physics and having

173
00:10:48,600 --> 00:10:54,080
Speaker 2: great physics colleagues. Bruce Gordon a philosopher of physics who

174
00:10:54,200 --> 00:10:58,920
Speaker 2: studied his PhD with Arthur Fine at Northwestern Brian Miller, PhD.

175
00:10:59,160 --> 00:11:03,240
Speaker 2: In Complex physics from Duke. When I was doing Return

176
00:11:03,280 --> 00:11:07,080
Speaker 2: of the God hypothesis, I did a lot of mathematical

177
00:11:07,240 --> 00:11:10,760
Speaker 2: retooling myself. My daughter was Tulane at the time. Every

178
00:11:10,760 --> 00:11:13,440
Speaker 2: time i'd go down, I'd spend three hours with Frank

179
00:11:13,440 --> 00:11:18,640
Speaker 2: Tippler in his office, and he derived some of these

180
00:11:18,760 --> 00:11:23,160
Speaker 2: fundamental equations of quantum cosmology for me and showed how

181
00:11:23,160 --> 00:11:27,239
Speaker 2: they followed from the Schrodinger equation in ordinary quantum mechanics.

182
00:11:27,440 --> 00:11:30,600
Speaker 2: So I had enough background to be able to kind

183
00:11:30,600 --> 00:11:34,000
Speaker 2: of retool in this area and then to read these

184
00:11:34,040 --> 00:11:37,480
Speaker 2: papers profitably and then function it a bit as a

185
00:11:37,520 --> 00:11:42,320
Speaker 2: translator with some even more sophisticated accomplished physicists as my

186
00:11:42,440 --> 00:11:45,240
Speaker 2: guide to make sure I was getting the technical details right.

187
00:11:45,800 --> 00:11:48,320
Speaker 2: And so with that in mind, I think when we

188
00:11:48,360 --> 00:11:52,079
Speaker 2: come back to have that conversation about Sir Roger's work,

189
00:11:52,920 --> 00:11:55,640
Speaker 2: it's remarkable that I think that when you break it

190
00:11:55,720 --> 00:12:00,439
Speaker 2: down in qualitative terms and explain what he's are arguing

191
00:12:01,000 --> 00:12:04,319
Speaker 2: metaphysically as well as physically and mathematically, most people can

192
00:12:04,480 --> 00:12:07,200
Speaker 2: will actually be able to understand the model. And that

193
00:12:07,280 --> 00:12:09,800
Speaker 2: will also, I think, expose where there are some logical

194
00:12:10,880 --> 00:12:15,360
Speaker 2: logical limitations, let's say, in what he's doing, and why

195
00:12:15,760 --> 00:12:18,960
Speaker 2: the case I'm making about unexplained fine tuning in all

196
00:12:19,040 --> 00:12:23,720
Speaker 2: the infinite universe cosmological models is actually is actually quite compelling.

197
00:12:24,320 --> 00:12:27,240
Speaker 1: Okay, so let's take a step back. You know very

198
00:12:27,240 --> 00:12:30,240
Speaker 1: well who Roger Penrose is. I've tracked his work for

199
00:12:30,240 --> 00:12:32,640
Speaker 1: a long time. One of the most respected scientists of

200
00:12:32,679 --> 00:12:35,319
Speaker 1: our day. But for those who are watching this going okay,

201
00:12:35,320 --> 00:12:39,280
Speaker 1: who exactly is Penrose and why is his claim that

202
00:12:39,400 --> 00:12:43,520
Speaker 1: you misrepresented him so significant? Tell us a little bit

203
00:12:43,559 --> 00:12:44,359
Speaker 1: of that backstory.

204
00:12:44,400 --> 00:12:49,200
Speaker 2: Well, Sir, Roger was actually one of Hawking's PhD examiners,

205
00:12:49,360 --> 00:12:55,280
Speaker 2: and Hawking in the mid sixties presented a PhD thesis

206
00:12:55,280 --> 00:12:59,960
Speaker 2: at Cambridge University was after his als diagnosis. It's really

207
00:13:00,200 --> 00:13:03,120
Speaker 2: very heroic story because he was so discouraged. At one

208
00:13:03,120 --> 00:13:05,360
Speaker 2: point he thought he would quit the PhD, but he

209
00:13:05,400 --> 00:13:09,920
Speaker 2: continued and in one of the key chapters of his

210
00:13:10,040 --> 00:13:14,400
Speaker 2: dissertation or thesis, he'd been thinking about he'd been thinking

211
00:13:14,400 --> 00:13:18,280
Speaker 2: about black hole physics, and he realized in the forward

212
00:13:18,280 --> 00:13:21,040
Speaker 2: direction of time, matter is getting more and more diffuse.

213
00:13:21,400 --> 00:13:24,440
Speaker 2: In the reverse, well, he's thinking a black hole is

214
00:13:24,080 --> 00:13:29,760
Speaker 2: a concentration of matter that is so dense that even

215
00:13:29,840 --> 00:13:32,880
Speaker 2: light can't get out. But then he begins to think

216
00:13:32,920 --> 00:13:36,880
Speaker 2: about black hole physics in relation to what the cosmologists

217
00:13:36,920 --> 00:13:39,079
Speaker 2: are talking about that in the forward direction of time,

218
00:13:39,440 --> 00:13:43,320
Speaker 2: matter is getting more and more diffuse. But that means

219
00:13:43,320 --> 00:13:45,920
Speaker 2: in the reverse direction of time, matters getting more and

220
00:13:45,960 --> 00:13:49,920
Speaker 2: more densely concentrated. So according to Einstein's theory of general relativity,

221
00:13:50,480 --> 00:13:53,840
Speaker 2: the space around the matter in the reverse direction of

222
00:13:53,880 --> 00:13:57,720
Speaker 2: time would have been more and more tightly curved as

223
00:13:57,760 --> 00:14:02,880
Speaker 2: you go progressively further and further back. And that's why yountintuitively,

224
00:14:02,920 --> 00:14:05,800
Speaker 2: you reach a limiting case because as you go further

225
00:14:05,800 --> 00:14:07,120
Speaker 2: in for the back, the matter gets more and more

226
00:14:07,120 --> 00:14:11,079
Speaker 2: densely concentrated, the space gets more tightly curved. That the

227
00:14:11,679 --> 00:14:14,280
Speaker 2: space gets more tightly curved, the matter gets more densely concentrated,

228
00:14:14,360 --> 00:14:17,720
Speaker 2: and eventually you reach what Hawking eventually called the singularity.

229
00:14:18,440 --> 00:14:22,960
Speaker 2: Now he presents that as part of his PhD thesis,

230
00:14:23,480 --> 00:14:26,480
Speaker 2: and in the in the little little film about his

231
00:14:26,480 --> 00:14:29,680
Speaker 2: his life, the biopic called the Theory of Everything to

232
00:14:29,680 --> 00:14:32,160
Speaker 2: be confused with our new our new film coming out

233
00:14:32,160 --> 00:14:37,280
Speaker 2: called the Story of that R. Hawking. They show, you know,

234
00:14:37,360 --> 00:14:42,520
Speaker 2: the the examiners pushing the the thesis across and saying, uh,

235
00:14:42,560 --> 00:14:44,560
Speaker 2: they're picking at all the little mistakes he made in

236
00:14:44,560 --> 00:14:46,480
Speaker 2: the other chapters. And then with this idea of a

237
00:14:46,800 --> 00:14:49,400
Speaker 2: of a space time singularity, a big bang at the beginning,

238
00:14:49,840 --> 00:14:52,840
Speaker 2: a black hole at the beginning of the universe. That's brilliant, congratulations,

239
00:14:52,880 --> 00:14:54,840
Speaker 2: doctor Hawking. And they shove the book back across and

240
00:14:56,040 --> 00:14:58,920
Speaker 2: of the ones is one of them. And then and

241
00:14:58,920 --> 00:15:02,240
Speaker 2: then someone says, now, well, go work out the maths. Okay. Well,

242
00:15:02,280 --> 00:15:05,320
Speaker 2: so Penrose in Hawking, then go work out the maths okay.

243
00:15:05,680 --> 00:15:09,120
Speaker 2: And in sixty seven sixty eight I think, they publish

244
00:15:09,240 --> 00:15:13,440
Speaker 2: a couple of papers with mathematical proof of the singularity.

245
00:15:13,840 --> 00:15:18,560
Speaker 2: Then Penrose then rather Hawking, writes a book with George

246
00:15:18,560 --> 00:15:23,800
Speaker 2: Ellis in seventy one with a further elaboration of proofs

247
00:15:23,800 --> 00:15:29,160
Speaker 2: of singularities. And in the seventy one book they acknowledged that, yes,

248
00:15:29,200 --> 00:15:32,000
Speaker 2: well in I think it was at that point ten

249
00:15:32,080 --> 00:15:34,320
Speaker 2: to the minus thirty third of a centimeter is the

250
00:15:34,440 --> 00:15:38,760
Speaker 2: volume at which the general relativity analysis has to take

251
00:15:38,760 --> 00:15:41,200
Speaker 2: into account the quantum. And they really at that point

252
00:15:41,320 --> 00:15:44,240
Speaker 2: we you know, all bets are off, but we're talking

253
00:15:44,320 --> 00:15:47,920
Speaker 2: about something so small you can hardly imagine it. And

254
00:15:49,440 --> 00:15:52,760
Speaker 2: they say it's it's essentially, if not a singularity, it's

255
00:15:52,760 --> 00:15:56,000
Speaker 2: a near singularity, and essentially it's a creation event what

256
00:15:56,120 --> 00:15:59,280
Speaker 2: we've established as there was a creation event. Hawking then

257
00:15:59,320 --> 00:16:01,760
Speaker 2: spends much to the rest of his career in at

258
00:16:01,840 --> 00:16:07,400
Speaker 2: least on cosmology, attempting to circumvent that conclusion, and he

259
00:16:07,560 --> 00:16:11,600
Speaker 2: formulates quantum cosmology as the way to do that. Okay,

260
00:16:12,080 --> 00:16:14,360
Speaker 2: And that's why I address I go into so much

261
00:16:14,440 --> 00:16:16,480
Speaker 2: depth on that in the in the Return of the

262
00:16:16,480 --> 00:16:19,520
Speaker 2: God hypothesis, because I wanted to show that you can

263
00:16:19,680 --> 00:16:24,760
Speaker 2: circumvent the conclusion of an absolutely certain beginning, but you

264
00:16:24,800 --> 00:16:26,520
Speaker 2: do so at a cost. And the cost in quantum

265
00:16:26,760 --> 00:16:31,200
Speaker 2: cosmology is an unexplained informational input or unexplained fine tuning

266
00:16:31,240 --> 00:16:33,960
Speaker 2: that itself has theistic implications. That's the bottom line of

267
00:16:34,000 --> 00:16:36,840
Speaker 2: what we've just been talking about. What Penrose now has

268
00:16:36,880 --> 00:16:41,920
Speaker 2: done is come up with another cosmological model that that

269
00:16:42,040 --> 00:16:47,880
Speaker 2: attempts to restore an infinite universe, attempts to depict the

270
00:16:47,960 --> 00:16:54,080
Speaker 2: universes infinitely or past eternal. And that's and that's only

271
00:16:54,120 --> 00:16:56,600
Speaker 2: one of it's only one of many reasons that Penros

272
00:16:56,600 --> 00:16:59,840
Speaker 2: is significant. And he's a great physicist on multiple uh

273
00:17:00,360 --> 00:17:03,480
Speaker 2: in multiple different areas, and also kind of a leader

274
00:17:03,480 --> 00:17:05,680
Speaker 2: in the discussion of the mind body problem as well,

275
00:17:05,800 --> 00:17:07,840
Speaker 2: where He's had some very interesting things that I think

276
00:17:07,880 --> 00:17:10,840
Speaker 2: are actually quite favorable to the sort of notion of dualism.

277
00:17:10,920 --> 00:17:15,280
Speaker 2: So it's a very interesting figure, brilliant physicist, and and

278
00:17:15,600 --> 00:17:17,879
Speaker 2: you know, obviously, in a way, I was kind of

279
00:17:17,880 --> 00:17:22,240
Speaker 2: pleased that, oh I was engaged us. He was saying

280
00:17:22,280 --> 00:17:25,679
Speaker 2: in the interview that I had critiqued his new models,

281
00:17:25,760 --> 00:17:28,520
Speaker 2: pointing out that many many leading physicists have rejected it.

282
00:17:28,760 --> 00:17:31,880
Speaker 2: They think it's just very counterintuitive, contrary to a lot

283
00:17:31,880 --> 00:17:36,640
Speaker 2: of known physics. And he said, well, well, but other

284
00:17:36,640 --> 00:17:39,240
Speaker 2: physicists are critiquing it is a point in its favor.

285
00:17:39,280 --> 00:17:41,560
Speaker 2: I'm glad to know that that they're taking it seriously

286
00:17:41,680 --> 00:17:44,639
Speaker 2: enough to critique it. I feel the same way about

287
00:17:44,680 --> 00:17:46,919
Speaker 2: Sir Roger critiquing our conversation.

288
00:17:47,119 --> 00:17:48,560
Speaker 1: So you know, I love to hear you say that.

289
00:17:48,600 --> 00:17:51,000
Speaker 1: When I heard he responded, I was like, Wow, he's

290
00:17:51,520 --> 00:17:54,280
Speaker 1: hands down one of the most influential scientists over the

291
00:17:54,320 --> 00:17:58,040
Speaker 1: past half century. Takes our interview and your work seriously

292
00:17:58,119 --> 00:18:02,120
Speaker 1: enough to respond. This is great moment for this conversation

293
00:18:02,359 --> 00:18:06,200
Speaker 1: and for this debate. So maybe maybe let's take a

294
00:18:06,240 --> 00:18:10,080
Speaker 1: step back. Phil's created this video of the responses by

295
00:18:10,320 --> 00:18:16,800
Speaker 1: sixteen cosmologists and or physicists based on a misrepresentation of

296
00:18:16,800 --> 00:18:19,359
Speaker 1: what your argument actually is.

297
00:18:19,640 --> 00:18:22,200
Speaker 2: That's my claim that he that he misrepresents, and I

298
00:18:22,280 --> 00:18:25,960
Speaker 2: can I can justify that. The backstory is that after

299
00:18:26,440 --> 00:18:33,040
Speaker 2: Sir Roger Phil Phil heard our conversation about where I

300
00:18:33,080 --> 00:18:35,800
Speaker 2: discussed Penrose's model at the end of a longer conversation.

301
00:18:36,280 --> 00:18:39,120
Speaker 2: He then shared my remarks with Penrose and then did

302
00:18:39,119 --> 00:18:46,000
Speaker 2: an interview with him. Penrose expressed some dismay at my

303
00:18:46,600 --> 00:18:51,240
Speaker 2: misrepresenting him, and then this went out in some of

304
00:18:51,280 --> 00:18:57,400
Speaker 2: the sort of atheist scientific atheist circles, and Justin Brierly

305
00:18:57,440 --> 00:19:00,919
Speaker 2: caught wind of it and had he had a debate

306
00:19:01,080 --> 00:19:06,439
Speaker 2: scheduled for me and Alex O'Connor, but then Alex preferred

307
00:19:06,480 --> 00:19:11,199
Speaker 2: to do somebody else and and Justin brought in in

308
00:19:11,240 --> 00:19:14,639
Speaker 2: Phil Helper and Phil and I had I think about

309
00:19:14,640 --> 00:19:17,240
Speaker 2: a three hour long debate. It was. It was all

310
00:19:17,240 --> 00:19:19,240
Speaker 2: conversationally moderated by by.

311
00:19:19,240 --> 00:19:21,560
Speaker 1: Justin who's very skilled at.

312
00:19:21,200 --> 00:19:25,800
Speaker 2: And but it went on about three hours, and you know,

313
00:19:25,840 --> 00:19:27,879
Speaker 2: in in blocks of time, and I guess it's going

314
00:19:27,960 --> 00:19:31,800
Speaker 2: to be released later this spring. In any case, Phil

315
00:19:31,880 --> 00:19:35,639
Speaker 2: went then and took what he took my what he

316
00:19:36,119 --> 00:19:39,760
Speaker 2: what he believed was my position, and and shared it

317
00:19:40,000 --> 00:19:44,720
Speaker 2: with various cosmologists and physicists in his acquaintance because he

318
00:19:44,760 --> 00:19:46,520
Speaker 2: writes on this, so he knows a lot of these

319
00:19:46,560 --> 00:19:51,040
Speaker 2: people and elicited critiques of me based on what he

320
00:19:51,080 --> 00:19:54,879
Speaker 2: had fed to them. But unfortunately, what he fed to

321
00:19:54,920 --> 00:19:58,320
Speaker 2: them was a misrepresentation of my position. And so even

322
00:19:58,320 --> 00:20:04,680
Speaker 2: though these very prominent people critiquing me accumulatively sound very

323
00:20:04,720 --> 00:20:09,720
Speaker 2: authoritative in dismissing poor old Meyer's The Night at View,

324
00:20:10,880 --> 00:20:13,520
Speaker 2: it was a kind of garbage in, garbage out situation

325
00:20:13,680 --> 00:20:16,840
Speaker 2: where having fed them a straw man, the critiques that

326
00:20:17,000 --> 00:20:22,600
Speaker 2: each of them collectively rendered, I think in the end

327
00:20:23,920 --> 00:20:27,919
Speaker 2: missed the mark. And so that's that's kind of where

328
00:20:27,960 --> 00:20:29,560
Speaker 2: where it stood or where it stands.

329
00:20:29,640 --> 00:20:32,080
Speaker 1: Yeah, okay, do you want to go into any of

330
00:20:32,119 --> 00:20:34,560
Speaker 1: the details of that debate, kind of what happened, where

331
00:20:34,560 --> 00:20:37,119
Speaker 1: it goes. Obviously want people to go watch that as well.

332
00:20:37,400 --> 00:20:39,720
Speaker 2: Well, let's less of the debate, but more than this

333
00:20:39,720 --> 00:20:42,680
Speaker 2: this question of the misrepresentation, because I think it's crucial

334
00:20:42,720 --> 00:20:44,480
Speaker 2: and it goes back to what we were first talking about,

335
00:20:45,760 --> 00:20:49,600
Speaker 2: because what what Halper told them was that I claimed

336
00:20:49,680 --> 00:20:55,080
Speaker 2: that the singularity. Theorems of Hawking and Penrose proved a beginning,

337
00:20:55,720 --> 00:21:02,040
Speaker 2: and that I was advancing a singularity based apologetic for

338
00:21:02,160 --> 00:21:06,040
Speaker 2: the existence of God. And based on what I've already said,

339
00:21:06,240 --> 00:21:08,520
Speaker 2: I think your viewers and listeners will understand that my

340
00:21:08,640 --> 00:21:10,840
Speaker 2: argument is quite a bit more subtle than that, and

341
00:21:10,880 --> 00:21:15,640
Speaker 2: that it is it's a conditional argument. If there If

342
00:21:15,640 --> 00:21:18,479
Speaker 2: we accept that, as best we can tell, the universe

343
00:21:18,480 --> 00:21:21,119
Speaker 2: how a beginning, Not that we've proven it, but as

344
00:21:21,160 --> 00:21:23,160
Speaker 2: best we can tell. The best explanation of the evidence

345
00:21:23,240 --> 00:21:26,480
Speaker 2: is that there was a beginning, then that conclusion has

346
00:21:26,520 --> 00:21:33,400
Speaker 2: theistic implications. The positive postulating God best explains the finite

347
00:21:34,960 --> 00:21:37,760
Speaker 2: origin of the universe, the origin of the universe a

348
00:21:37,800 --> 00:21:42,320
Speaker 2: finite time ago where we consider the universe to be matterspace, time,

349
00:21:42,359 --> 00:21:46,480
Speaker 2: and energy. Okay, But if we accept one of these

350
00:21:46,600 --> 00:21:50,280
Speaker 2: infinite universe cosmologies, or if we model the universe as

351
00:21:50,320 --> 00:21:54,080
Speaker 2: having an infinite universe, then in our modeling we invariably

352
00:21:54,160 --> 00:22:00,119
Speaker 2: are affirming in something in particular, quite often unexploed in

353
00:22:00,240 --> 00:22:05,640
Speaker 2: fine tuning, that provides alternative evidence for theism. So it's

354
00:22:05,800 --> 00:22:10,400
Speaker 2: either that we have a theistic conclusion based on the

355
00:22:10,440 --> 00:22:14,680
Speaker 2: factual predicate of a beginning, or we have a theistic

356
00:22:14,760 --> 00:22:19,480
Speaker 2: conclusion based on some of the features that are invariably

357
00:22:19,520 --> 00:22:24,680
Speaker 2: present in these infinite universe cosmological models, in particular vast

358
00:22:24,720 --> 00:22:29,880
Speaker 2: amounts of new, unexplained fine tuning. And so my apologetic

359
00:22:29,960 --> 00:22:36,040
Speaker 2: is not singularity based. Rather, it's evidentially based, not a

360
00:22:36,200 --> 00:22:38,760
Speaker 2: proof of a single not a proof of an absolute beginning,

361
00:22:38,920 --> 00:22:42,240
Speaker 2: but a cumulative case for an absolute for a beginning

362
00:22:42,480 --> 00:22:47,800
Speaker 2: as a best explanation of the evidence, plus and in

363
00:22:47,840 --> 00:22:53,679
Speaker 2: addition to an alternative condition where if you don't if

364
00:22:53,720 --> 00:22:55,840
Speaker 2: you're not persuaded by that, or if you want to

365
00:22:55,880 --> 00:22:58,480
Speaker 2: model the universe as being infinitely old, you're going to

366
00:22:58,480 --> 00:23:02,720
Speaker 2: be affirming something else that invariably provides grounds for theism.

367
00:23:02,800 --> 00:23:06,159
Speaker 2: So it's an either or argument, not based only on

368
00:23:06,160 --> 00:23:07,720
Speaker 2: one possible factual predicate.

369
00:23:08,040 --> 00:23:09,479
Speaker 1: This is one of the most important things I want

370
00:23:09,520 --> 00:23:12,000
Speaker 1: people to take from this interview. You said at the beginning,

371
00:23:12,080 --> 00:23:17,240
Speaker 1: kind of pick your poison or either or we don't

372
00:23:17,400 --> 00:23:21,919
Speaker 1: escape design or information, whichever avenue we take. It's not

373
00:23:21,960 --> 00:23:24,080
Speaker 1: like a fork in the road. You can have universe

374
00:23:24,200 --> 00:23:27,080
Speaker 1: and get eternal universe, get rid of God. There's still

375
00:23:27,080 --> 00:23:29,439
Speaker 1: design there or this fork in the road we have

376
00:23:29,480 --> 00:23:33,680
Speaker 1: at the beginning of the universe, which has theistic implications. Now,

377
00:23:33,720 --> 00:23:36,719
Speaker 1: a minute ago, you said that Penrose's model, which we're

378
00:23:36,760 --> 00:23:39,159
Speaker 1: going to come back to and respond to in some depth,

379
00:23:39,960 --> 00:23:43,400
Speaker 1: has been rejected by many, if not most, physicists at

380
00:23:43,440 --> 00:23:45,120
Speaker 1: this point, Is.

381
00:23:45,080 --> 00:23:48,760
Speaker 3: That fair before? I? Well, either I maybe, well, let's

382
00:23:48,800 --> 00:23:52,000
Speaker 3: get into that when we do this conversation about Penrose.

383
00:23:52,040 --> 00:23:55,199
Speaker 3: But there are different elements of what Penrose has, a

384
00:23:55,320 --> 00:23:58,600
Speaker 3: kind of a five or six step scenario by which

385
00:23:58,680 --> 00:24:04,360
Speaker 3: he just fies a new eon of creation, a new

386
00:24:04,400 --> 00:24:07,000
Speaker 3: eon of expansion of the universe. So he has a

387
00:24:07,359 --> 00:24:10,000
Speaker 3: rather if you think of that old oscillating universe model,

388
00:24:10,040 --> 00:24:13,280
Speaker 3: where the universe expands and contracts and expands and contracts.

389
00:24:13,520 --> 00:24:16,679
Speaker 3: The problem in that old model was that when you

390
00:24:16,720 --> 00:24:19,360
Speaker 3: get to the to the end of an expansion phase,

391
00:24:19,880 --> 00:24:20,600
Speaker 3: you have.

392
00:24:22,200 --> 00:24:27,680
Speaker 2: Highly diffuse distribution of matter. It's not organized or concentrated

393
00:24:27,800 --> 00:24:30,119
Speaker 2: in any way that would allow it to do work,

394
00:24:30,720 --> 00:24:33,040
Speaker 2: and so you have a buildup of entropy. It's a

395
00:24:33,119 --> 00:24:37,960
Speaker 2: high entropy end of cycle state. And the problem that

396
00:24:38,000 --> 00:24:41,000
Speaker 2: the old oscillating universe model had was how do you

397
00:24:41,000 --> 00:24:43,679
Speaker 2: get from a high entropy state with a lot of

398
00:24:43,800 --> 00:24:48,320
Speaker 2: energy that is a lot of matter and no energy

399
00:24:48,359 --> 00:24:52,000
Speaker 2: available to do work to a new cycle where you

400
00:24:52,119 --> 00:24:55,560
Speaker 2: have a concentration of energy that's available to do work

401
00:24:55,720 --> 00:24:59,800
Speaker 2: and create a new a new expansion phase what Penrose

402
00:24:59,840 --> 00:25:05,040
Speaker 2: have as or a three or four step scenario where

403
00:25:05,040 --> 00:25:08,240
Speaker 2: he attempts to solve that problem, but he does so

404
00:25:08,320 --> 00:25:13,000
Speaker 2: by violating some very established known principles in physics, in

405
00:25:13,040 --> 00:25:16,880
Speaker 2: particular the unitary principle of quantum mechanics and a few

406
00:25:16,920 --> 00:25:20,680
Speaker 2: other things that have caused a lot of leading physicists

407
00:25:20,680 --> 00:25:22,280
Speaker 2: to say, wait, I don't think this works. And then

408
00:25:22,320 --> 00:25:24,520
Speaker 2: there's a little bit of a mathematical sleight of hand

409
00:25:24,520 --> 00:25:28,199
Speaker 2: where he uses something called conformal geometry to try to

410
00:25:28,240 --> 00:25:32,280
Speaker 2: make what looks very big, namely a universe, look very

411
00:25:32,400 --> 00:25:37,280
Speaker 2: very small, and where he's got a lot of where

412
00:25:37,280 --> 00:25:39,040
Speaker 2: he has no energy available to do work, and where

413
00:25:39,080 --> 00:25:41,800
Speaker 2: suddenly he gets a new concentration of energy available to

414
00:25:41,840 --> 00:25:45,120
Speaker 2: do work, and the moves he makes to accomplish that

415
00:25:45,440 --> 00:25:48,440
Speaker 2: have been questioned by lots and lots of physicists. Okay,

416
00:25:48,920 --> 00:25:51,000
Speaker 2: but we can come back to that, and we had

417
00:25:51,040 --> 00:25:53,080
Speaker 2: to break that down in a more step by step

418
00:25:53,119 --> 00:25:55,480
Speaker 2: away because the last thing we want to do in

419
00:25:55,560 --> 00:25:59,520
Speaker 2: our next conversation is misrepresents, Sir Roger, because he total

420
00:26:00,240 --> 00:26:05,520
Speaker 2: physicistm is observed. It deserves to be properly critique. My

421
00:26:05,880 --> 00:26:08,480
Speaker 2: motto that I've always taught my students is from Bob Dylan.

422
00:26:08,840 --> 00:26:11,840
Speaker 2: You can't criticize what you don't understand. So let's come

423
00:26:11,880 --> 00:26:15,280
Speaker 2: back and make sure that everyone understands that we understand

424
00:26:15,400 --> 00:26:18,560
Speaker 2: what Penrose's model is ill, and then I'll offer my

425
00:26:18,640 --> 00:26:22,680
Speaker 2: critique in that context and will take that conversation more slowly,

426
00:26:22,880 --> 00:26:24,520
Speaker 2: which we probably should have done the first time around.

427
00:26:24,600 --> 00:26:27,199
Speaker 1: Love it, No, that's totally fine, That's that's fair. So,

428
00:26:27,359 --> 00:26:30,840
Speaker 1: without going into depth, my question is that at least

429
00:26:31,040 --> 00:26:33,280
Speaker 1: maybe I haven't done a poll of most, but many

430
00:26:33,640 --> 00:26:37,440
Speaker 1: leading physicists are challenging and agreeing with you that there's

431
00:26:37,440 --> 00:26:38,280
Speaker 1: certain questions.

432
00:26:38,320 --> 00:26:42,040
Speaker 2: It's not just the id people that are questioning Penroll.

433
00:26:42,160 --> 00:26:45,399
Speaker 1: Then here's my question on your model. Since you're saying

434
00:26:45,480 --> 00:26:47,640
Speaker 1: the origin of the universe, if it had a beginning,

435
00:26:48,119 --> 00:26:51,840
Speaker 1: has theistic implications, and that seems to be widely agreed

436
00:26:51,880 --> 00:26:54,240
Speaker 1: at least by philosophers as far as I can tell.

437
00:26:54,680 --> 00:26:57,280
Speaker 1: But on the other you know, fork in the road

438
00:26:57,920 --> 00:27:01,880
Speaker 1: where you're saying, these models require some they don't get

439
00:27:02,000 --> 00:27:05,840
Speaker 1: rid of the need for information input and and hents.

440
00:27:05,840 --> 00:27:10,280
Speaker 1: An argument for design, is that equally built upon questionable

441
00:27:10,280 --> 00:27:13,760
Speaker 1: assumptions or would you say, in your other rung of this,

442
00:27:13,880 --> 00:27:18,520
Speaker 1: for no, I'm building on widely accepted theories and ideas

443
00:27:18,560 --> 00:27:20,240
Speaker 1: inside the scientific well world.

444
00:27:20,320 --> 00:27:25,200
Speaker 2: I would say that this conditional argument, you know, if

445
00:27:25,200 --> 00:27:27,879
Speaker 2: you elect condition A, you have theistic implications. If you

446
00:27:27,880 --> 00:27:31,360
Speaker 2: elect condition B, you've got theistic implications. That's what that

447
00:27:31,520 --> 00:27:35,399
Speaker 2: was perhaps the most original element of the return of

448
00:27:35,440 --> 00:27:38,480
Speaker 2: the God hypothesis. Okay, and for that reason it may

449
00:27:38,480 --> 00:27:42,720
Speaker 2: be exactly why it was difficult. You know, it has

450
00:27:42,720 --> 00:27:44,760
Speaker 2: been difficult for my critics to understand what I'm saying.

451
00:27:44,960 --> 00:27:47,439
Speaker 2: You know, Phil has just Phil Helper has sort of

452
00:27:47,800 --> 00:27:50,840
Speaker 2: just repaired to this idea that this is another version

453
00:27:50,840 --> 00:27:55,960
Speaker 2: of the column argument and Meyers arguing using the singularity

454
00:27:56,000 --> 00:27:59,320
Speaker 2: theorem to justify the second premise that the universe had

455
00:27:59,320 --> 00:28:01,680
Speaker 2: a beginning, and physicists say, no, you can't use the

456
00:28:01,720 --> 00:28:05,680
Speaker 2: singularity theorem to do that because inside the plank volume

457
00:28:06,080 --> 00:28:09,200
Speaker 2: we have quantum mechanical effects that mean that the energy

458
00:28:09,359 --> 00:28:11,880
Speaker 2: the weak and strong energy conditions don't apply, and therefore

459
00:28:12,240 --> 00:28:16,439
Speaker 2: we we don't know, you know, and and so. And

460
00:28:16,480 --> 00:28:20,359
Speaker 2: what I've shown is in the book that even if

461
00:28:20,640 --> 00:28:24,320
Speaker 2: we go for a quantum cosmological model that has theistic

462
00:28:24,320 --> 00:28:28,600
Speaker 2: implications as well, for for for different but more subtle reasons.

463
00:28:28,720 --> 00:28:31,399
Speaker 2: Not because it is the case that in those quantum

464
00:28:31,400 --> 00:28:34,960
Speaker 2: cosmological models the modelers don't get rid of the singularity,

465
00:28:34,960 --> 00:28:38,640
Speaker 2: they presuppose it in their equations. But setting that aside,

466
00:28:38,960 --> 00:28:42,520
Speaker 2: even if you can imagine a past eternal quantum mechanical state,

467
00:28:44,200 --> 00:28:46,880
Speaker 2: to get to a universal wave function that includes a

468
00:28:46,960 --> 00:28:51,040
Speaker 2: universe like ours, you have to constrain the underlying mathematics

469
00:28:51,520 --> 00:28:55,200
Speaker 2: in a way that's non arbitrary. That requires a huge

470
00:28:55,200 --> 00:28:59,280
Speaker 2: input of information, and in the modeling that information is

471
00:28:59,320 --> 00:29:02,160
Speaker 2: always provided by the intelligent physicists. So I want to

472
00:29:02,200 --> 00:29:04,720
Speaker 2: ask what's actually being modeled. What's being models is the

473
00:29:04,760 --> 00:29:07,800
Speaker 2: need for information coming from a mind to get a

474
00:29:07,880 --> 00:29:10,720
Speaker 2: universe like ours as one of the options. Gotcha? And

475
00:29:10,720 --> 00:29:13,960
Speaker 2: that's eete the book. It's the heaviest stuff in the book,

476
00:29:13,960 --> 00:29:17,320
Speaker 2: and it's not for everybody, but there it is. But

477
00:29:17,360 --> 00:29:21,080
Speaker 2: that's just now is with the new book by Helper

478
00:29:21,520 --> 00:29:23,240
Speaker 2: and F. Shorty and by the way, I would highly

479
00:29:23,320 --> 00:29:25,800
Speaker 2: recommend it. It's a great exposition of all the different

480
00:29:25,840 --> 00:29:28,480
Speaker 2: models that are out there, and they're very clearly explained.

481
00:29:28,880 --> 00:29:33,400
Speaker 2: But what my colleagues and I, Bruce Gordon, philosopher physics,

482
00:29:34,000 --> 00:29:38,680
Speaker 2: Brian Miller, a physicist, what we found in going through

483
00:29:38,720 --> 00:29:42,360
Speaker 2: these models is that invariably they have one or more

484
00:29:42,480 --> 00:29:45,800
Speaker 2: of these epistemic costs that I was describing, one of

485
00:29:45,840 --> 00:29:50,640
Speaker 2: which is always unexplained fine tuning, and the others, which

486
00:29:50,680 --> 00:29:55,360
Speaker 2: are often present are violations of known physical laws or principles,

487
00:29:56,280 --> 00:30:02,000
Speaker 2: some mathematical slights of hand, and very typically a multiplication

488
00:30:02,280 --> 00:30:09,200
Speaker 2: of pure theoretical postulates, the violations of parsimonia of Oukham's razor.

489
00:30:09,600 --> 00:30:14,280
Speaker 2: So high epistemic costs for these universe cosmologies, which is

490
00:30:14,320 --> 00:30:18,280
Speaker 2: one of the reasons I argue that, as best we

491
00:30:18,320 --> 00:30:21,240
Speaker 2: can tell the universe at a beginning, if the alternative

492
00:30:21,560 --> 00:30:29,200
Speaker 2: models are baroque convoluted in the Oakham's razor sense, if

493
00:30:29,240 --> 00:30:35,560
Speaker 2: they involve violations of known, well established physics, and they

494
00:30:36,200 --> 00:30:42,960
Speaker 2: have to invoke additional sources of fine tuning better than

495
00:30:43,080 --> 00:30:45,600
Speaker 2: the evidence we have. Not the proof, but the evidence

496
00:30:45,600 --> 00:30:48,720
Speaker 2: we have of the beginning suggests that probably the beginning

497
00:30:48,760 --> 00:30:52,040
Speaker 2: is that suggests that the universe, as best we can tell,

498
00:30:52,080 --> 00:30:55,240
Speaker 2: did have a beginning. That's a better explanation if you

499
00:30:55,280 --> 00:30:57,800
Speaker 2: have to resort to explanations that are as convoluted as

500
00:30:57,800 --> 00:31:01,360
Speaker 2: the ones that are being advanced and in the f

501
00:31:01,400 --> 00:31:08,160
Speaker 2: Shorty and Helper book, then the case for the beginning

502
00:31:08,200 --> 00:31:09,600
Speaker 2: I think looks all the stronger.

503
00:31:10,480 --> 00:31:12,840
Speaker 1: Okay, So when I saw this book Battle of the

504
00:31:12,840 --> 00:31:15,320
Speaker 1: Big Bang, I had a couple thoughts. I was like, awesome,

505
00:31:15,360 --> 00:31:18,880
Speaker 1: people are still talking about what this means. My second

506
00:31:18,960 --> 00:31:22,200
Speaker 1: thought was, I thought we started establishing the universe had

507
00:31:22,200 --> 00:31:25,920
Speaker 1: a beginning about a century ago, and it was sometime

508
00:31:25,960 --> 00:31:28,240
Speaker 1: in the middle to the end of the twentieth century

509
00:31:28,640 --> 00:31:31,920
Speaker 1: that multiple models came up, whether it's the steady state

510
00:31:32,040 --> 00:31:37,600
Speaker 1: or the oscillated universe, trying to explain away the apparent

511
00:31:37,760 --> 00:31:43,400
Speaker 1: beginning of the universe and maintain eternal universe. I thought,

512
00:31:43,440 --> 00:31:46,560
Speaker 1: I kind of thought this debate was dead, and yet

513
00:31:46,640 --> 00:31:50,240
Speaker 1: it's re emerging. What's new with this book and where

514
00:31:50,280 --> 00:31:52,840
Speaker 1: are we at right now? Kind of frame what's at

515
00:31:52,880 --> 00:31:55,200
Speaker 1: stake and why this conversation.

516
00:31:54,680 --> 00:31:57,880
Speaker 2: That's very mentioning To put it in an historical perspective,

517
00:31:58,000 --> 00:32:01,720
Speaker 2: because if you go back to the nineteen teens and twenties,

518
00:32:02,400 --> 00:32:06,520
Speaker 2: Einstein's theory of general relativity on its face, Einstein himself

519
00:32:06,560 --> 00:32:11,880
Speaker 2: realized implied a dynamic expanding universe that suggested a beginning.

520
00:32:12,560 --> 00:32:16,000
Speaker 2: He jerry mandered his equations. As you may recall, what

521
00:32:16,080 --> 00:32:23,120
Speaker 2: he did. He postulated an anti gravity force called the

522
00:32:23,120 --> 00:32:26,280
Speaker 2: cosmological constant, which we now think is a real thing.

523
00:32:26,840 --> 00:32:29,200
Speaker 2: But what he also did is he gave the cosmological

524
00:32:29,240 --> 00:32:33,200
Speaker 2: constant a very particular value so that it would exactly

525
00:32:33,240 --> 00:32:37,560
Speaker 2: balance the gravitational contraction, so that he could portray the

526
00:32:37,560 --> 00:32:42,080
Speaker 2: two forces as equiposed in perfect balance. And noticed the

527
00:32:42,080 --> 00:32:44,800
Speaker 2: movie made because this is what's going on right up

528
00:32:44,840 --> 00:32:47,560
Speaker 2: to the present. He fine tuned the value of the

529
00:32:47,560 --> 00:32:52,160
Speaker 2: cosmological constant. With enough fine tuning, he could circumvent the

530
00:32:52,200 --> 00:32:56,680
Speaker 2: impression that his equations otherwise gave of a beginning of

531
00:32:56,720 --> 00:33:00,520
Speaker 2: a dynamic expanding universe outward from the beginning. So fine

532
00:33:00,560 --> 00:33:04,520
Speaker 2: tuning has been in the toolbox of people who wanted

533
00:33:04,520 --> 00:33:07,600
Speaker 2: to depick the universe as infinitely old from from the

534
00:33:07,720 --> 00:33:11,120
Speaker 2: very beginning of this debate. But then Einstein eventually came around.

535
00:33:11,200 --> 00:33:15,200
Speaker 2: He was challenged by Eddington to go out to Mount

536
00:33:15,240 --> 00:33:19,160
Speaker 2: Wilson see the evidence that Hubble was acquiring of the

537
00:33:19,200 --> 00:33:22,040
Speaker 2: red shift and the expanding universe, and later said that

538
00:33:22,080 --> 00:33:25,520
Speaker 2: his attempt to jerry mander his own equations was the

539
00:33:25,560 --> 00:33:27,000
Speaker 2: greatest blunder of his life.

540
00:33:27,160 --> 00:33:28,160
Speaker 1: It's amazing I.

541
00:33:28,120 --> 00:33:30,360
Speaker 2: Misquoted him in the book I said, I quoted him

542
00:33:30,360 --> 00:33:32,400
Speaker 2: as saying it was the greatest blunder of his scientific career,

543
00:33:32,400 --> 00:33:35,120
Speaker 2: but it was of his life exactly what was of

544
00:33:35,160 --> 00:33:38,520
Speaker 2: his life interesting? And then we had the steady state

545
00:33:38,600 --> 00:33:43,680
Speaker 2: model nineteen sixties. You get the cosmic background radiation, and that,

546
00:33:45,360 --> 00:33:47,880
Speaker 2: for all intents and purposes, sounds the death knell to

547
00:33:47,920 --> 00:33:50,880
Speaker 2: the steady state model. Then we have the oscillating universe model,

548
00:33:50,880 --> 00:33:54,440
Speaker 2: which we were talking about before that. That model, I

549
00:33:54,440 --> 00:33:56,760
Speaker 2: think was pretty much as spent for us by the

550
00:33:56,840 --> 00:34:00,600
Speaker 2: mid eighties the record There was the problem of where

551
00:34:00,640 --> 00:34:03,040
Speaker 2: do you get the new uh, where do you get

552
00:34:03,080 --> 00:34:05,840
Speaker 2: new available energy to do work? And is there enough

553
00:34:05,880 --> 00:34:11,680
Speaker 2: mass to cause it recollapse? The conclusion was no. Then

554
00:34:11,719 --> 00:34:15,440
Speaker 2: there were other challenges that came about in the nineties.

555
00:34:15,600 --> 00:34:20,720
Speaker 2: There was a little perturbations in the cosmic background radiation

556
00:34:20,840 --> 00:34:22,960
Speaker 2: that had been predicted by the Big Bang but hadn't

557
00:34:23,000 --> 00:34:28,600
Speaker 2: been observed before the George Smoot stuff, so that provided

558
00:34:28,719 --> 00:34:31,960
Speaker 2: further evidence, and I would I would say that the

559
00:34:32,880 --> 00:34:34,799
Speaker 2: hot big Bang model is still the is still the

560
00:34:34,800 --> 00:34:38,480
Speaker 2: gold standard in cosmology. But what we're seeing now are

561
00:34:38,800 --> 00:34:42,920
Speaker 2: very very i would say, very clever attempts to model

562
00:34:43,040 --> 00:34:49,000
Speaker 2: an infinite universe past eternal universe using mathematics. And there's

563
00:34:49,000 --> 00:34:52,280
Speaker 2: a there's a book by German author called Lost in Math,

564
00:34:52,719 --> 00:34:55,880
Speaker 2: and there is a sense where the human mind is

565
00:34:55,960 --> 00:35:01,440
Speaker 2: infinitely creative and we can model almost anything mathematically. But

566
00:35:01,719 --> 00:35:04,319
Speaker 2: one of the reasons that I say that the as

567
00:35:04,320 --> 00:35:07,760
Speaker 2: best we can tell that the postulation of a beginning

568
00:35:08,239 --> 00:35:10,879
Speaker 2: provides the best explanation for the evidence that we have,

569
00:35:11,440 --> 00:35:16,120
Speaker 2: is that if you think about an expanding nam, a

570
00:35:16,200 --> 00:35:21,239
Speaker 2: dynamical expanding universe where galactic material is receding from us

571
00:35:21,960 --> 00:35:25,839
Speaker 2: and where space is getting less and less curved as

572
00:35:25,920 --> 00:35:29,320
Speaker 2: matter is getting more and more diffuse, you have actually

573
00:35:29,320 --> 00:35:32,120
Speaker 2: what you're seeing is a dynamic expanding universe. If you

574
00:35:32,200 --> 00:35:37,080
Speaker 2: back extrapolate, most naturally you come to some point past

575
00:35:37,120 --> 00:35:40,840
Speaker 2: which you cannot go. A limiting case. There's nothing in

576
00:35:40,880 --> 00:35:45,560
Speaker 2: the observational evidence that we have that suggests a static

577
00:35:45,680 --> 00:35:50,400
Speaker 2: or steady state universe. You can posit a pre Plank

578
00:35:50,560 --> 00:35:54,520
Speaker 2: time static universe if you like, But there's nothing in

579
00:35:54,560 --> 00:35:57,719
Speaker 2: what we see that suggests that as a natural conclusion.

580
00:35:58,080 --> 00:36:02,080
Speaker 2: Whereas what we see in this dynamic expanding universe, which

581
00:36:02,360 --> 00:36:06,480
Speaker 2: we back extrapolate, does suggest a limiting case and therefore beginning.

582
00:36:06,480 --> 00:36:09,560
Speaker 2: So there's a kind of prima facia obvious case for

583
00:36:09,600 --> 00:36:16,600
Speaker 2: a beginning. There's also certain paradoxical or there's certain explanatory

584
00:36:16,680 --> 00:36:21,600
Speaker 2: conundrums that result for naturalism. If you posit an infinite universe,

585
00:36:23,600 --> 00:36:27,200
Speaker 2: for example, if you say, well, inside Plank time, maybe

586
00:36:26,840 --> 00:36:31,320
Speaker 2: we had or inside the Plank volume, we had an

587
00:36:31,560 --> 00:36:35,879
Speaker 2: infinitely existing static universe and maybe was in a quantum state,

588
00:36:35,960 --> 00:36:38,960
Speaker 2: maybe some other kind of state. In whatever state it was,

589
00:36:39,400 --> 00:36:44,200
Speaker 2: there's two possibilities. If it was infinitely if it was

590
00:36:44,280 --> 00:36:45,960
Speaker 2: infinitely old, if you could kind of think of it

591
00:36:46,000 --> 00:36:49,880
Speaker 2: as a kind of infinite tail that preceded the expansion

592
00:36:49,920 --> 00:36:53,239
Speaker 2: of the universe, or a cosmic egg that was infinitely old.

593
00:36:53,719 --> 00:36:59,200
Speaker 2: Either in that state, the necessary and sufficient conditions of

594
00:36:59,239 --> 00:37:07,200
Speaker 2: a subsequent expansion were always present, okay, or they were not.

595
00:37:08,560 --> 00:37:11,640
Speaker 2: If they were always present, if those conditions were always present,

596
00:37:12,080 --> 00:37:15,239
Speaker 2: then we should expect to see evidence of an infinitely

597
00:37:15,800 --> 00:37:18,360
Speaker 2: long expansion, of an expansion that's been going on for

598
00:37:18,400 --> 00:37:20,200
Speaker 2: an infinitely long period of time. But that's not what

599
00:37:20,280 --> 00:37:23,799
Speaker 2: we see empirically. We see evidence of an expansion that's

600
00:37:24,000 --> 00:37:29,680
Speaker 2: only finitely old, so that we should eliminate. That means

601
00:37:29,680 --> 00:37:33,880
Speaker 2: that if we posit an infinitely old cosmic egg or

602
00:37:34,040 --> 00:37:38,480
Speaker 2: tail on the expansion, that perhaps the necessary conditions of

603
00:37:38,520 --> 00:37:42,279
Speaker 2: a subsequent expansion were there, but not the sufficient conditions,

604
00:37:42,320 --> 00:37:45,160
Speaker 2: not the conditions that would result that would cause a

605
00:37:45,200 --> 00:37:50,680
Speaker 2: subsequent expansion. In that case, something would have needed to

606
00:37:50,719 --> 00:37:54,560
Speaker 2: be added to those merely necessary conditions to make those

607
00:37:54,560 --> 00:38:01,360
Speaker 2: conditions sufficient. But that entity, whatever it was, inside the

608
00:38:01,360 --> 00:38:06,480
Speaker 2: plank volume, existing infinitely long into the past, was the

609
00:38:06,520 --> 00:38:10,640
Speaker 2: whole of the universe. That's what we're positing. The universe

610
00:38:10,880 --> 00:38:14,920
Speaker 2: was inside that plank volume, that tiny smidge of space

611
00:38:15,120 --> 00:38:18,240
Speaker 2: where the quantum effect supply, where maybe general relativity doesn't

612
00:38:18,440 --> 00:38:23,400
Speaker 2: et cetera, et cetera. But that means if the universe

613
00:38:24,800 --> 00:38:27,839
Speaker 2: as it existed from that infinite time did not have

614
00:38:28,000 --> 00:38:32,240
Speaker 2: the necessary and sufficient conditions to cause a subsequent expansion,

615
00:38:32,640 --> 00:38:36,759
Speaker 2: something from outside the system must have been added to

616
00:38:36,920 --> 00:38:42,759
Speaker 2: create to move it from mere necessary conditions to causal sufficiency.

617
00:38:43,480 --> 00:38:47,279
Speaker 2: But that means that a transcendent causal entity must have

618
00:38:47,360 --> 00:38:53,200
Speaker 2: acted to explain the expansion that ensued, and that causal entity, moreover,

619
00:38:53,360 --> 00:38:58,000
Speaker 2: was not conditioned determined by any physical state within the universe,

620
00:38:58,080 --> 00:39:02,480
Speaker 2: because it was something separate from the universe. So you

621
00:39:02,640 --> 00:39:07,839
Speaker 2: have something that looks and its action occurred at a

622
00:39:07,920 --> 00:39:10,800
Speaker 2: finite point in the past. So you have a discrete

623
00:39:11,520 --> 00:39:16,600
Speaker 2: event that's not physically determined that comes from a transcendent

624
00:39:16,640 --> 00:39:22,040
Speaker 2: causal entity. Now theism would explain how that happened. It

625
00:39:22,040 --> 00:39:27,279
Speaker 2: would explain why you had a subsequent expansion, whereas I

626
00:39:27,320 --> 00:39:29,799
Speaker 2: can't think of anything within a naturalistic framework that would

627
00:39:29,840 --> 00:39:33,520
Speaker 2: do that. And in any case, the whole question of

628
00:39:33,600 --> 00:39:37,040
Speaker 2: what how you got from from the cosmic egg or

629
00:39:37,040 --> 00:39:41,600
Speaker 2: the cosmic tail to the expansion is unanswered on naturalism.

630
00:39:42,120 --> 00:39:47,200
Speaker 2: So so again that's not a proof that the universe

631
00:39:47,200 --> 00:39:51,320
Speaker 2: had a beginning. But the attempt to circumvent the beginning

632
00:39:51,440 --> 00:40:00,920
Speaker 2: by invoking the indeterminate features inside the plank volume determinacy

633
00:40:00,600 --> 00:40:05,279
Speaker 2: of the pre plant time state don't really give you

634
00:40:05,280 --> 00:40:08,560
Speaker 2: a support for naturalism. They still point in a theistic direction.

635
00:40:09,800 --> 00:40:12,400
Speaker 1: Okay, So, if I'm going to frame this historically, if

636
00:40:12,440 --> 00:40:16,960
Speaker 1: we go back a century the again oscillating model and

637
00:40:17,000 --> 00:40:19,279
Speaker 1: then the steady state theory kind of model, there was

638
00:40:19,360 --> 00:40:23,040
Speaker 1: kind of one attempt at explanation that at least seemed

639
00:40:23,040 --> 00:40:26,640
Speaker 1: to be pushed forward and promoted. Now we have in

640
00:40:26,800 --> 00:40:30,240
Speaker 1: Battle of the Big Bang twenty five or so models

641
00:40:30,680 --> 00:40:34,160
Speaker 1: Penrose's model. Do you view this as saying, Wow, these

642
00:40:34,239 --> 00:40:37,880
Speaker 1: challenges are ramping up and it's getting greater. Or do

643
00:40:37,920 --> 00:40:40,680
Speaker 1: you kind of view this as people are really starting

644
00:40:40,719 --> 00:40:44,520
Speaker 1: to realize that it points towards the beginning of the universe,

645
00:40:44,960 --> 00:40:47,520
Speaker 1: and it's kind of just an attempt to avoid this

646
00:40:47,560 --> 00:40:49,920
Speaker 1: and we're coming full circle saying Nope, what started a

647
00:40:49,960 --> 00:40:53,399
Speaker 1: century ago is really clear, Like, how do you view

648
00:40:53,480 --> 00:40:56,000
Speaker 1: the state of this in this book emerging? If that's fair?

649
00:40:56,040 --> 00:40:59,440
Speaker 2: I would leave it to readers to determine whether or

650
00:40:59,520 --> 00:41:07,160
Speaker 2: not they detect underneath this proliferation of new models a desperation.

651
00:41:07,760 --> 00:41:08,240
Speaker 1: Okay.

652
00:41:08,719 --> 00:41:13,440
Speaker 2: I tend to not want to traffic in motivational arguments. Okay, fair,

653
00:41:13,840 --> 00:41:16,200
Speaker 2: but there is a very important argument from the history

654
00:41:16,239 --> 00:41:21,279
Speaker 2: of science that's from Kuhn's structure of scientific revolutions, and

655
00:41:21,320 --> 00:41:24,880
Speaker 2: that is that the proliferation of models is not the

656
00:41:24,920 --> 00:41:28,040
Speaker 2: sign of a healthy research program, but it's the sign

657
00:41:28,360 --> 00:41:31,160
Speaker 2: of a degenerate research program. Lac of TOAs I think,

658
00:41:31,200 --> 00:41:36,160
Speaker 2: said the same thing, and so I don't. When I

659
00:41:36,200 --> 00:41:39,520
Speaker 2: had the debate with Halper, when I would critique one model,

660
00:41:39,560 --> 00:41:41,120
Speaker 2: he'd tell you, ah, but there are these other models,

661
00:41:41,120 --> 00:41:42,560
Speaker 2: And I'm not saying any one of them is right.

662
00:41:42,600 --> 00:41:44,279
Speaker 2: I'm just saying the very fact that there are all

663
00:41:44,360 --> 00:41:48,600
Speaker 2: these models suggest that we can't be asserting that the

664
00:41:48,680 --> 00:41:52,240
Speaker 2: universe did in fact have a beginning. Well, my counter

665
00:41:52,320 --> 00:41:55,440
Speaker 2: would be, first of all, the proliferation of models is

666
00:41:55,480 --> 00:41:59,040
Speaker 2: the sign of an unhealthy, degenerate research program, not a

667
00:41:59,040 --> 00:42:02,759
Speaker 2: healthy one. If the community can't congeal around one of

668
00:42:02,800 --> 00:42:05,040
Speaker 2: the models as being clearly the best, or one or

669
00:42:05,080 --> 00:42:11,240
Speaker 2: two is having great promise, then then in fact f Shorty,

670
00:42:11,280 --> 00:42:14,719
Speaker 2: and describing his variable speed of light model, in which

671
00:42:14,719 --> 00:42:18,239
Speaker 2: he suspends Einstein's limitation on the speed of light from

672
00:42:18,280 --> 00:42:20,799
Speaker 2: special relativity as part of his model and a few

673
00:42:20,800 --> 00:42:23,719
Speaker 2: other very fundamental things in physics, he says, well, it

674
00:42:23,719 --> 00:42:26,320
Speaker 2: may seem counterintuitive, but it's no worse than all the others.

675
00:42:26,760 --> 00:42:28,640
Speaker 2: You know, so that kind of a defense is not

676
00:42:28,680 --> 00:42:37,239
Speaker 2: really compelling. So and I lost my train of thought here.

677
00:42:37,239 --> 00:42:42,560
Speaker 2: Where was that going with that? Anyway, the degenerous proliferation

678
00:42:42,640 --> 00:42:44,920
Speaker 2: of models is generally seemed to be a sign of

679
00:42:44,960 --> 00:42:47,879
Speaker 2: a degenerate research problem program, not a healthy one. Oh

680
00:42:47,920 --> 00:42:50,120
Speaker 2: and then and then the second thing is that if

681
00:42:50,120 --> 00:42:55,360
Speaker 2: the models collectively are subject to the same types of problems,

682
00:42:55,880 --> 00:42:59,440
Speaker 2: then proliferating many of them doesn't solve that problem. Okay,

683
00:42:59,760 --> 00:43:01,480
Speaker 2: and this is our claim, and we're going to be

684
00:43:01,480 --> 00:43:04,640
Speaker 2: coming out my colleagues and I Discovery with a series

685
00:43:04,640 --> 00:43:09,239
Speaker 2: of blogs and podcasts on this showing that as you

686
00:43:09,280 --> 00:43:12,920
Speaker 2: go through the different models that were actually and I

687
00:43:12,960 --> 00:43:17,200
Speaker 2: did this in preparation for my debate with helper Is,

688
00:43:17,280 --> 00:43:21,520
Speaker 2: I just developed little little scorecards. You can score these

689
00:43:21,560 --> 00:43:29,920
Speaker 2: models to what extent do they proliferate pure theoretical entities,

690
00:43:30,960 --> 00:43:34,560
Speaker 2: to ad hoc theoretical entities, To what extent do they

691
00:43:34,680 --> 00:43:38,160
Speaker 2: violate known principles of physics? To what extent do they

692
00:43:40,360 --> 00:43:44,040
Speaker 2: involve themselves in some mathematical sleights of hand, And to

693
00:43:44,080 --> 00:43:48,080
Speaker 2: what extent do they invoke unexplained fine tuning. Invariably, they

694
00:43:48,120 --> 00:43:51,680
Speaker 2: invoked unexplained fine tuning, and many of the other problems

695
00:43:51,719 --> 00:43:56,080
Speaker 2: were present in various combinations in each of the different models.

696
00:43:56,560 --> 00:44:01,360
Speaker 2: So I don't think the mirror the mirror volume of

697
00:44:01,480 --> 00:44:08,400
Speaker 2: output of the naturalistic cosmologists in formulating past eternal, infinite

698
00:44:08,480 --> 00:44:13,560
Speaker 2: universe cosmologies is evidence of a healthy research program, or

699
00:44:13,800 --> 00:44:16,719
Speaker 2: evidence that the problem has been solved, that they have

700
00:44:16,960 --> 00:44:19,319
Speaker 2: come up with a better model for the origin of

701
00:44:19,320 --> 00:44:22,239
Speaker 2: the universe than a model which affirms that there was

702
00:44:22,280 --> 00:44:22,800
Speaker 2: a beginning.

703
00:44:23,400 --> 00:44:25,520
Speaker 1: Okay, so tell till we were at in a minute.

704
00:44:25,520 --> 00:44:27,399
Speaker 1: I'm going to give people three things. In fact, I'll

705
00:44:27,440 --> 00:44:28,640
Speaker 1: do it right now and then I'll come back to you.

706
00:44:28,719 --> 00:44:30,520
Speaker 1: I think three things people can do. Fawn up with this.

707
00:44:31,080 --> 00:44:33,680
Speaker 1: Number one, we're going to have an in depth response

708
00:44:34,080 --> 00:44:38,520
Speaker 1: to the Penrose model and the claim that you misrepresented it,

709
00:44:38,560 --> 00:44:40,799
Speaker 1: and we're going to walk through that. So look for

710
00:44:40,840 --> 00:44:43,160
Speaker 1: that to come out second.

711
00:44:42,760 --> 00:44:45,279
Speaker 2: And Sean, I would interject there that that because our

712
00:44:45,360 --> 00:44:47,440
Speaker 2: conversation was so rushed when we had it, it was,

713
00:44:47,560 --> 00:44:52,080
Speaker 2: it came at the end. It was. It was a

714
00:44:52,120 --> 00:44:55,839
Speaker 2: slightly confused discussion on our party mine mine more so.

715
00:44:56,239 --> 00:44:59,480
Speaker 2: And I did get one thing wrong, but the most

716
00:44:59,480 --> 00:45:03,640
Speaker 2: fundamental thing which I claimed about the unexplained fine tuning,

717
00:45:03,840 --> 00:45:07,960
Speaker 2: I absolutely got right, but I want to make sure

718
00:45:07,960 --> 00:45:11,799
Speaker 2: that we represent sir Rogers' work accurately so that I'm

719
00:45:11,920 --> 00:45:15,239
Speaker 2: grateful to you for agreeing to do a separate conversation

720
00:45:15,400 --> 00:45:18,640
Speaker 2: just on this. And also I'm in touch with Phil

721
00:45:18,840 --> 00:45:21,880
Speaker 2: and what we can send him the link to it

722
00:45:22,000 --> 00:45:23,680
Speaker 2: and they can come back at us and we'll just

723
00:45:24,160 --> 00:45:26,680
Speaker 2: we're here not to win, not to win the argument,

724
00:45:26,719 --> 00:45:29,640
Speaker 2: but to get to the truth and to clarify things.

725
00:45:29,640 --> 00:45:32,120
Speaker 2: So I mean this is we've reached a point, a

726
00:45:32,120 --> 00:45:36,200
Speaker 2: really fascinating point in the in the cosmological discussion, because

727
00:45:36,239 --> 00:45:38,680
Speaker 2: that there is now a battle for the Big Bang

728
00:45:38,680 --> 00:45:42,520
Speaker 2: and there are all these new attempts to preserve an

729
00:45:42,520 --> 00:45:46,000
Speaker 2: infinite universe cosmology in the face of the evidence. I

730
00:45:46,040 --> 00:45:49,880
Speaker 2: think it's just a fascinating turn in the conversation and

731
00:45:49,960 --> 00:45:53,400
Speaker 2: one which we're very happy to engage. So thank you

732
00:45:53,440 --> 00:45:56,000
Speaker 2: for being willing to getting willing to do that. I'm

733
00:45:56,000 --> 00:46:03,279
Speaker 2: not claiming to be always right or infallible in this,

734
00:46:03,719 --> 00:46:07,960
Speaker 2: but I think that a subsequent discussion which we clarify

735
00:46:08,040 --> 00:46:11,960
Speaker 2: the conversation, make very clear what Penrose is arguing, and

736
00:46:12,000 --> 00:46:15,960
Speaker 2: then offer our critiques much more systematically, we'll be clarifying

737
00:46:16,280 --> 00:46:18,239
Speaker 2: for all sides in the discussion. Love it.

738
00:46:18,280 --> 00:46:19,600
Speaker 1: By the way, this is a win win. I told

739
00:46:19,640 --> 00:46:21,919
Speaker 1: my wife, was like, I'm interviewing my friend Stephen Meyer,

740
00:46:21,960 --> 00:46:23,879
Speaker 1: and I was trying to explain the models and this

741
00:46:23,960 --> 00:46:27,040
Speaker 1: debate that's going on. So Number one, look for that

742
00:46:27,200 --> 00:46:30,040
Speaker 1: video to come out. We'll do part two. Number two,

743
00:46:30,040 --> 00:46:32,839
Speaker 1: you've got a series of podcasts and articles coming out

744
00:46:32,880 --> 00:46:36,840
Speaker 1: of Discovery where you'll respond to a bunch of these models. Third,

745
00:46:37,040 --> 00:46:40,400
Speaker 1: check out your debate by Justin Brierley will with Phil Helper,

746
00:46:40,440 --> 00:46:44,640
Speaker 1: which will be about three hours in length, which is great.

747
00:46:44,480 --> 00:46:46,920
Speaker 2: Broken up into three hour three separate hours, but it

748
00:46:47,080 --> 00:46:49,960
Speaker 2: was I think Phil and I both thought it was

749
00:46:49,960 --> 00:46:50,600
Speaker 2: sort of brutal.

750
00:46:51,640 --> 00:46:56,120
Speaker 1: So what should we know going into that watching that

751
00:46:56,160 --> 00:46:58,000
Speaker 1: because a lot of this we can talk here and

752
00:46:58,040 --> 00:47:01,319
Speaker 1: we can make our argument, but we're not being cross examined, right,

753
00:47:01,400 --> 00:47:04,440
Speaker 1: Propers eighteen seventeen says, the first speaking a court sounds

754
00:47:04,520 --> 00:47:08,160
Speaker 1: right until the cross examination begins. What should we keep

755
00:47:08,160 --> 00:47:10,480
Speaker 1: in mind when we watch that debate?

756
00:47:11,480 --> 00:47:14,880
Speaker 2: Well, I think first of all that there is a

757
00:47:15,000 --> 00:47:19,239
Speaker 2: new phase in the discussion of cosmology and what it

758
00:47:19,280 --> 00:47:23,080
Speaker 2: means for these big metaphysical questions, and I think that

759
00:47:24,680 --> 00:47:28,640
Speaker 2: it's an exciting development that I agree that this is

760
00:47:28,680 --> 00:47:34,160
Speaker 2: happening on both sides. Secondly, I think from my point

761
00:47:34,200 --> 00:47:37,319
Speaker 2: of view, the thing that may have been a bit

762
00:47:37,360 --> 00:47:41,239
Speaker 2: difficult to get across in a conversational framing is that

763
00:47:42,640 --> 00:47:46,280
Speaker 2: in a conversational setting, is my framing of the argument

764
00:47:46,880 --> 00:47:51,040
Speaker 2: Phil kept in the discussion trying to position me as

765
00:47:51,600 --> 00:47:55,600
Speaker 2: the arch defender of the singularity. Okay, and I think

766
00:47:55,880 --> 00:47:59,640
Speaker 2: the singularity theorems are highly suggestive. I don't think they

767
00:47:59,680 --> 00:48:04,239
Speaker 2: provide a absolute proof, but we don't require proof in

768
00:48:04,320 --> 00:48:09,880
Speaker 2: science to affirm something as a best explanation or the

769
00:48:10,160 --> 00:48:15,319
Speaker 2: the go to model or the best theory. And uh so,

770
00:48:15,480 --> 00:48:17,839
Speaker 2: I think my argument has been as best we can

771
00:48:17,880 --> 00:48:22,840
Speaker 2: tell the universe at the beginning for multiple reasons. But

772
00:48:23,040 --> 00:48:26,000
Speaker 2: if you don't want to accept that, and you want

773
00:48:26,040 --> 00:48:32,560
Speaker 2: to model the universe alternatively as having an infinite, infinitely

774
00:48:32,600 --> 00:48:36,920
Speaker 2: long history, that it is past eternal, that the cost

775
00:48:36,960 --> 00:48:40,800
Speaker 2: of such modeling has its own theistic implications. That's that's

776
00:48:40,880 --> 00:48:44,200
Speaker 2: the framing that and that, and the key element there

777
00:48:44,320 --> 00:48:48,120
Speaker 2: is that look to the where are you finding unexplained

778
00:48:48,120 --> 00:48:51,040
Speaker 2: fine tuning in the models? At the end of the debate,

779
00:48:51,280 --> 00:48:54,719
Speaker 2: Justin asked us each to say what we had learned

780
00:48:54,760 --> 00:48:57,600
Speaker 2: from the other guy. You know, that's great, and and

781
00:48:57,640 --> 00:49:00,120
Speaker 2: he kept checking throughout the debate to make sure we

782
00:49:00,120 --> 00:49:05,000
Speaker 2: were feeling that the other guy was representing. But no,

783
00:49:05,080 --> 00:49:07,239
Speaker 2: he did. He did a fabulous job. A job and

784
00:49:07,520 --> 00:49:11,080
Speaker 2: Phil was a great interlocutor. Okay, but I don't think

785
00:49:11,160 --> 00:49:14,719
Speaker 2: that he got this overall. I don't think he understood

786
00:49:14,760 --> 00:49:17,080
Speaker 2: what I was trying to say. But one thing he

787
00:49:17,120 --> 00:49:20,319
Speaker 2: did acknowledge was that that he said at the end

788
00:49:21,000 --> 00:49:24,319
Speaker 2: he would have to think about Meyer's argument about the

789
00:49:24,400 --> 00:49:27,520
Speaker 2: unexplained fine tuning. That's something he needed to think more about.

790
00:49:27,960 --> 00:49:29,919
Speaker 2: And so I think that point I did at least

791
00:49:29,960 --> 00:49:35,040
Speaker 2: get across. In any case, none of these really deep

792
00:49:35,080 --> 00:49:40,960
Speaker 2: issues in cosmology and metaphysics, as especially as to which

793
00:49:40,960 --> 00:49:44,040
Speaker 2: worldview best explains what we're finding in the sciences, are

794
00:49:44,080 --> 00:49:46,880
Speaker 2: settled by podcasts and debates. They really have to be

795
00:49:46,920 --> 00:49:49,799
Speaker 2: settled in each person's own mind as you as you

796
00:49:50,080 --> 00:49:54,160
Speaker 2: lay out the competing cases before you and begin to

797
00:49:54,200 --> 00:49:57,920
Speaker 2: think about it. So these these conversations that we're starting,

798
00:49:58,000 --> 00:50:00,600
Speaker 2: I think are invitations to other people who are interested

799
00:50:00,600 --> 00:50:04,839
Speaker 2: in these ultimate questions to begin your own investigation of this,

800
00:50:05,440 --> 00:50:10,400
Speaker 2: and we'll be in service of that, writing and blogging

801
00:50:10,480 --> 00:50:13,920
Speaker 2: and podcasting more about this at the Discovery Institute. And

802
00:50:13,920 --> 00:50:15,880
Speaker 2: I appreciate you opening this up here.

803
00:50:16,080 --> 00:50:18,239
Speaker 1: Oh absolutely. I think if someone had told me when

804
00:50:18,239 --> 00:50:22,080
Speaker 1: I really started the channel, yes, Sir Roger Penrose, who

805
00:50:22,239 --> 00:50:25,880
Speaker 1: did work with Hawking and one of the most recognizable

806
00:50:25,960 --> 00:50:29,759
Speaker 1: and remarkable scientists of our day, would do a response

807
00:50:29,800 --> 00:50:32,040
Speaker 1: to one of my YouTube videos, I'm not sure I

808
00:50:32,080 --> 00:50:34,720
Speaker 1: would have believed. But I'm also encouraged.

809
00:50:34,840 --> 00:50:37,000
Speaker 2: You may not want to lay too much stress on that.

810
00:50:37,040 --> 00:50:38,320
Speaker 2: They may not want to do it again.

811
00:50:38,480 --> 00:50:41,239
Speaker 1: You know, well, I think it's I think it's led

812
00:50:41,239 --> 00:50:44,760
Speaker 1: to great continued conversation, which is what we all should

813
00:50:45,080 --> 00:50:46,360
Speaker 1: want moving forward.

814
00:50:46,680 --> 00:50:50,279
Speaker 2: It certainly led to the debate with Helper. It led

815
00:50:50,280 --> 00:50:53,960
Speaker 2: to Helper's video response to me that he put out

816
00:50:54,000 --> 00:50:56,319
Speaker 2: after the debate, which has now led to our conversation

817
00:50:56,760 --> 00:51:01,320
Speaker 2: responding responding to Phil and maybe it'll result in another debate.

818
00:51:01,360 --> 00:51:01,799
Speaker 2: Who knows.

819
00:51:02,080 --> 00:51:04,400
Speaker 1: That would be amazing. Did I miss anything part of

820
00:51:04,400 --> 00:51:05,840
Speaker 1: the story that you wanted to share?

821
00:51:08,560 --> 00:51:15,640
Speaker 2: Well, on one thing, Okay, in addition to there are

822
00:51:17,680 --> 00:51:20,080
Speaker 2: I'm going to get back into the weeds. Let's leave it.

823
00:51:20,000 --> 00:51:23,439
Speaker 1: There, Okay, all right, fair enough, So check out part two. Yeah,

824
00:51:23,800 --> 00:51:26,719
Speaker 1: we'll get into the weeds with your response to Penrose,

825
00:51:27,239 --> 00:51:30,200
Speaker 1: and I will have some fun doing it. Doctor Stephen Meyer.

826
00:51:30,280 --> 00:51:32,920
Speaker 1: Love your book, Return of the God Hypothesis, and it's

827
00:51:32,920 --> 00:51:36,359
Speaker 1: pretty remarkable. As I look at when this was published,

828
00:51:36,400 --> 00:51:39,640
Speaker 1: this says twenty twenty, so it's twenty twenty one.

829
00:51:39,880 --> 00:51:43,719
Speaker 2: Twenty twenty one is hardback, revised paperback twenty twenty three.

830
00:51:44,480 --> 00:51:47,200
Speaker 2: That's when I had the epilogue in which I responded

831
00:51:47,239 --> 00:51:49,839
Speaker 2: to to Penrose and Steinhardt a couple of the other

832
00:51:49,960 --> 00:51:55,240
Speaker 2: newer cosmological models. What Halper and f Shorty have shown

833
00:51:55,320 --> 00:51:58,600
Speaker 2: is there's a whole lot more models to respond to,

834
00:51:59,160 --> 00:52:03,399
Speaker 2: and the series of blogs we're doing it discovery with

835
00:52:03,440 --> 00:52:07,920
Speaker 2: my colleagues Bruce Gordon and Brian Miller, may result in

836
00:52:07,960 --> 00:52:11,160
Speaker 2: another book. Who knows. So it's an ongoing discussion, but

837
00:52:12,000 --> 00:52:15,560
Speaker 2: I would say we feel quite confident that the theistic

838
00:52:15,640 --> 00:52:18,800
Speaker 2: take on this is far superior to the naturalistic or

839
00:52:18,880 --> 00:52:23,759
Speaker 2: materialistic one. The epistemic cost of philosophical naturalism is very,

840
00:52:23,840 --> 00:52:26,840
Speaker 2: very high. You can hold it if you want, but

841
00:52:27,800 --> 00:52:31,120
Speaker 2: you're going to end up with some very complicated, convoluted

842
00:52:31,520 --> 00:52:34,600
Speaker 2: kind of cosmological models that are equivalent to the sort

843
00:52:34,600 --> 00:52:37,440
Speaker 2: of epicycles that people held when they were trying to

844
00:52:37,480 --> 00:52:40,440
Speaker 2: hold on to the geocentric model in the face of

845
00:52:40,480 --> 00:52:42,640
Speaker 2: the evidence that was coming out in favor of the

846
00:52:44,320 --> 00:52:47,200
Speaker 2: heliocentric solar system model. This is one of the things

847
00:52:47,200 --> 00:52:50,120
Speaker 2: about philosophy of science you learn is that it's always

848
00:52:51,400 --> 00:52:56,239
Speaker 2: if you're willing to hold enough auxiliary hypotheses, you can

849
00:52:56,239 --> 00:52:59,560
Speaker 2: hold on to almost any idea, but the epistemic cost

850
00:52:59,600 --> 00:53:01,160
Speaker 2: of that gets hire and hire and hire, and a

851
00:53:01,239 --> 00:53:03,919
Speaker 2: certain point people finally say, Okay, enough is enough, Let's

852
00:53:03,920 --> 00:53:06,719
Speaker 2: go with the simpler, more elegant hypothesis. And I think

853
00:53:06,800 --> 00:53:12,120
Speaker 2: theism is precisely that it's the elegant hypothesis that explains

854
00:53:12,520 --> 00:53:14,920
Speaker 2: why the universe, as best we can tell, has a beginning,

855
00:53:15,239 --> 00:53:18,560
Speaker 2: Why the uni universe is finely tuned, why we see

856
00:53:18,640 --> 00:53:23,480
Speaker 2: information embedded in living systems, why we act as though

857
00:53:23,480 --> 00:53:26,560
Speaker 2: the moral law is not optional, why we can trust

858
00:53:26,560 --> 00:53:29,040
Speaker 2: the reliability of the mind, and on and on and on.

859
00:53:29,160 --> 00:53:34,640
Speaker 2: Theism has broad explanatory power across both scientific and philosophical

860
00:53:34,719 --> 00:53:35,600
Speaker 2: categories of thought.

861
00:53:35,920 --> 00:53:37,920
Speaker 1: As a great note to end, on. Appreciate you come

862
00:53:37,960 --> 00:53:41,640
Speaker 1: down here in person, Appreciate your work, your friendship personally

863
00:53:41,680 --> 00:53:43,960
Speaker 1: as well as for Bio and Talbot, and I'm looking

864
00:53:44,000 --> 00:53:47,600
Speaker 1: forward to our deep dive response to Sir Roger Penrose.

865
00:53:48,080 --> 00:53:50,160
Speaker 2: Thanks very much, Sean. Good to be with you.

866
00:53:50,560 --> 00:54:01,520
Speaker 1: Fun. Hey friends, If you enjoy this show, please hit

867
00:54:01,600 --> 00:54:04,279
Speaker 1: that fall button on your podcast app. Most of you

868
00:54:04,360 --> 00:54:06,719
Speaker 1: tuning in haven't done this yet and it makes a

869
00:54:06,800 --> 00:54:09,760
Speaker 1: huge difference in helping us reach and equip more people

870
00:54:09,800 --> 00:54:13,919
Speaker 1: and build community. And please consider leaving a podcast review.

871
00:54:13,960 --> 00:54:17,640
Speaker 1: Every review helps. Thanks for listening to the Sean McDowell Show,

872
00:54:17,760 --> 00:54:21,560
Speaker 1: brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at Biola University,

873
00:54:21,600 --> 00:54:24,960
Speaker 1: where we have on campus and online programs and apologetic

874
00:54:25,000 --> 00:54:28,279
Speaker 1: spiritual formation, marriage and family, Bible and so much more.

875
00:54:28,360 --> 00:54:31,320
Speaker 1: We would love to train you to more effectively live, teach,

876
00:54:31,440 --> 00:54:34,279
Speaker 1: and defend the Christian faith today and we will see

877
00:54:34,280 --> 00:54:36,120
Speaker 1: you when the next episode drops.