Does a Fine-Tuned Universe Lead to God? | Episode 502 | Closer To Truth
Summary
TLDRThe video script explores the concept of fine-tuning in the universe, which posits that the precise laws and conditions of physics make life possible. It features discussions with experts like Robin Collins, Victor Stenger, and Michio Kaku, who offer various perspectives, from divine design to the multiverse theory. The conversation delves into whether fine-tuning is evidence of a creator or a natural outcome of cosmic evolution, touching on the anthropic principle and the search for an ultimate explanation for existence.
Takeaways
- ๐ The universe's fine-tuning refers to the precise balance of physical laws, constants, and initial conditions that allow for the existence of intelligent life.
- ๐ค Fine-tuning is considered by some as evidence for a designer or God, while others propose alternative explanations such as the multiverse theory.
- ๐ฌ The three categories of fine-tuning discussed are the laws of nature, the constants of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe.
- ๐งฒ Examples of fine-tuning include the necessity of gravity for matter to clump into stars and planets, and the strong nuclear force for the formation of atoms beyond hydrogen.
- ๐ The cosmological constant, which opposes gravity, is incredibly fine-tuned, and a slight change could result in a universe that couldn't support life as we know it.
- ๐คทโโ๏ธ Physicist Victor Stenger argues against the necessity of a supernatural explanation, suggesting that life could exist in forms entirely different from our own.
- ๐ฒ Stenger also suggests that playing with the constants of physics can lead to universes that still support long-lived stars, implying that fine-tuning may not be as critical as it seems.
- ๐ฑ The anthropic principle posits that the universe must have properties that allow for observers, like us, to exist and thus perceive the universe.
- ๐ The concept of a multiverse implies that many universes exist, and we happen to be in one that supports life, but this raises questions about the need for a fine-tuned universe generator.
- ๐ฎ Michio Kaku suggests that universes might evolve, with advanced civilizations creating new universes with specific physical constants, akin to a survival of the fittest on a cosmic scale.
- ๐ The fine-tuning problem may not have a single answer and could involve a combination of luck, necessity, multiple universes, and possibly divine design.
Q & A
What is the fine-tuning problem?
-The fine-tuning problem refers to the observation that the fundamental constants and laws of physics in our universe are remarkably balanced to allow for the existence of intelligent life. If these constants were only slightly different, the universe as we know it, including life, would not exist.
What are the three categories of fine-tuning according to Robin Collins?
-Robin Collins categorizes fine-tuning into three areas: the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, the fine-tuning of the constants of physics, and the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the universe.
Why is gravity important in the context of fine-tuning?
-Gravity is crucial for the clumping of matter in the universe post-Big Bang. Without gravity or a universal attractive force, matter would never form planets or stars, which are necessary for life as we know it.
What is the role of the strong nuclear force in fine-tuning?
-The strong nuclear force is essential for holding neutrons and protons together in atomic nuclei. Without it, protons would repel each other, preventing the formation of atoms with an atomic number greater than hydrogen, which is insufficient for complex life.
How does the electromagnetic force contribute to fine-tuning?
-The electromagnetic force is necessary for complex chemistry. Without it, the diversity of chemical reactions that form the basis of life would not occur.
What is the cosmological constant, and why is it significant in fine-tuning?
-The cosmological constant is a term in the equations of state of the universe that opposes gravity and controls the expansion rate of the universe. It must be fine-tuned to an extraordinary degree for life to exist, as even slight variations would result in a universe that either collapses or expands too rapidly for galaxies and stars to form.
What is the low entropy state of the universe, and why is it important?
-The low entropy state of the universe refers to its highly ordered initial condition. This is crucial for the availability of usable energy. High entropy would mean a universe in a state of thermal equilibrium with no energy gradients to drive the processes necessary for life.
What does Victor Stenger argue against the fine-tuning for the existence of God?
-Victor Stenger argues that life could take forms completely different from ours and that the fine-tuning argument only applies to one form of life. He suggests that changing the constants of physics significantly still allows for long-lived stars, which could potentially support complex life forms.
What is the 'God of the gaps' argument, and how does modern cosmology challenge it?
-The 'God of the gaps' argument posits that God is needed to explain phenomena that science cannot. Modern cosmology challenges this by providing plausible natural explanations for phenomena such as the origin of the universe, thus reducing the need for a supernatural explanation.
What is the anthropic principle, and how does it relate to fine-tuning?
-The anthropic principle suggests that the universe appears fine-tuned for life because we are observing it from the perspective of beings who exist within it. It implies that our existence is a็ญ้ๆกไปถ for the universe's parameters, rather than those parameters being specifically designed for us.
What alternative explanations for the fine-tuning of the universe does Michio Kaku propose?
-Michio Kaku proposes that universes may evolve, with advanced civilizations creating baby universes with specific physical constants, akin to DNA. He also considers the possibility of multiple universes, where our fine-tuned universe is just one of many, and the others may not support life.
Outlines
๐ Introduction to Fine-Tuning
The paragraph introduces the concept of fine-tuning in the universe, suggesting that the precise structure of atoms and galaxies allows for human existence. It presents the idea that this fine-tuning could imply a designer, and introduces the speaker Robert Lawrence Kuhn, who seeks explanations for such phenomena. Robin Collins, a Christian philosopher with a background in physics, explains that the universe's basic structure must be 'just right' for life to occur, particularly intelligent life. He outlines three types of fine-tuning: the laws of nature, the constants of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe.
๐ The Fine-Tuning of Constants
This section delves deeper into the fine-tuning of the universe, focusing on the constants of physics. Robin Collins explains how certain laws, like gravity, have critical numbers (constants) that must be precisely set for life to exist. For instance, if the gravitational constant were different, matter might not clump together to form planets and stars. The cosmological constant, which opposes gravity, is highlighted as being incredibly fine-tuned, with an estimated necessary adjustment of one part in ten to the twentieth power.
๐ฑ The Initial Conditions of Life
The discussion continues with the third category of fine-tuning: the initial conditions of the universe. Collins emphasizes the importance of a low entropy state for the universe, which corresponds to usable energy. Without this precise initial state, life as we know it would not be possible. The paragraph concludes with Collins' personal view that the fine-tuning provides strong evidence for a designer who set up the universe for the existence of conscious, intelligent beings.
๐ค Critique of Fine-Tuning
Victor Stenger, a physicist, challenges the fine-tuning argument for God's existence. He argues that life could take forms very different from our own, and that we cannot use our knowledge of our universe to predict other possible universes. Stenger suggests that even with significant changes to the constants of physics, stars could still exist for billions of years, implying that the fine-tuning argument is not as strong as it seems because it only applies to one form of life.
๐ Philosophical Perspectives on Fine-Tuning
Ernan McMullin, a philosopher of science, discusses the fine-tuning of the universe as a new kind of argument for God. He outlines four possible answers to the fine-tuning question: luck, a single underlying theory, the multiverse, or a creator. McMullin argues that the multiverse explanation requires a significant additional postulate, while the creator explanation is more straightforward and aligns with the ancient tradition of creation theology.
๐ The Goldilocks Paradox
Michio Kaku, a physicist with a background in Buddhism and Christianity, reflects on the 'Goldilocks Paradox,' pondering why Earth is just right in terms of its distance from the Sun, unlike many other known planets. Kaku considers the possibility of multiple universes and the idea that universes could evolve, with each new universe inheriting the 'DNA' of its predecessor. He presents four potential explanations for fine-tuning: luck, the universe being the only possible way, the existence of multiple universes, or a creator god.
๐ฎ The Quest for Ultimate Explanations
The final paragraph synthesizes the discussion on fine-tuning, suggesting that while multiple universes might explain our universe's fine-tuning, it does not account for the fine-tuning of the universe generator itself. It raises the question of where to draw the line in explanations, whether it ends with our universe, multiple universes, or something beyond. The paragraph concludes by emphasizing the importance of the fine-tuning clue in the riddle of existence.
Mindmap
Keywords
๐กFine-tuning
๐กGravity
๐กStrong Nuclear Force
๐กElectromagnetic Force
๐กCosmological Constant
๐กInitial Conditions
๐กDesign Argument
๐กAtheism
๐กMultiverse
๐กAnthropic Principle
๐กSurvival of the Fittest
Highlights
Humans exist between the infinitely small and the immensely large, requiring fine-tuning of both atoms and galaxies.
Fine-tuning is a strong design argument for the existence of God in modern theology.
The universe's basic structure must be precisely set for life, especially intelligent life, to occur.
The fine-tuning problem is categorized into the laws of nature, constants of physics, and initial conditions of the universe.
Gravity, if non-existent, would prevent matter from clumping into planets or stars post-Big Bang.
Without the strong nuclear force, atoms couldn't form beyond hydrogen, lacking complexity for life.
The electromagnetic force is essential for complex chemistry, a precursor to life.
The constants of physics, like Newton's gravitational constant, must be finely adjusted for life to exist.
The cosmological constant, which opposes gravity, is incredibly finely-tuned for the universe's expansion.
The initial conditions of the universe, such as low entropy, are critical for usable energy and life.
Robin Collins concludes that fine-tuning provides strong evidence for a designer or creator of the universe.
Victor Stenger refutes the fine-tuning argument, suggesting life could exist in different forms in varied universes.
Stenger proposes that changing the constants of physics could still allow for long-lived stars, implying life could arise.
The fine-tuning argument is criticized for applying only to one form of life and not considering other possibilities.
Ernan McMullin suggests that fine-tuning could be explained by luck, a single theory, or a multiverse.
McMullin argues for a creator as a plausible explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.
Michio Kaku discusses the possibility of universes evolving and being created by advanced civilizations.
Kaku suggests that our universe may be fine-tuned by luck or as a result of survival of the fittest among universes.
The fine-tuning problem demands an explanation, with options ranging from brute luck to a creator god.
Transcripts
>WE GO OUR WAYS AND LIVE
OUR LIVES.
ALL SEEMS ORDINARY, NORMAL.
YET ALL IS EXTRAORDINARY,
ASTONISHING.
WE HUMAN BEINGS SIT ROUGHLY
MIDWAY BETWEEN ATOMS
AND GALAXIES,
BETWEEN THE INFINITESIMALLY
SMALL AND THE IMMENSELY LARGE.
AND BOTH ATOMS AND GALAXIES MUST
BE SO PERFECTLY STRUCTURED FOR
THEM, FOR US, TO EXIST.
IT'S CALLED FINE-TUNING AND
IT'S ALSO BREATHTAKINGLY
PRECISE THAT IT CRIES OUT
FOR EXPLANATION.
TO SOME, IT MAY SEEM OBVIOUS
THAT GOD DESIGNED IT, THAT FINE-
TUNING LEADS TO GOD.
BUT OBVIOUS CAN MISLEAD AND
THERE ARE OTHER EXPLANATIONS.
I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN,
AND CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY
SEARCH FOR EXPLANATIONS.
FINE-TUNING IS PERHAPS MODERN
THEOLOGY'S STRONGEST DESIGN
ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE
OF GOD.
THAT'S WHY I START WITH
A LEADING PROPONENT:
ROBIN COLLINS, A YOUNG
CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHER TRAINED
IN PHYSICS.
ROBIN, I'VE BEEN FASCINATED BY
THE FINE-TUNING PROBLEM.
TELL ME WHAT IT IS, HOW IT
WORKS, AND WHAT ARE SOME
EXAMPLES?
>>WELL FOR ABOUT THE LAST FORTY
YEARS, SCIENTISTS HAVE
DISCOVERED THAT THE UNIVERSE,
THE, ITS BASIC STRUCTURE HAS TO
BE JUST RIGHT IN ORDER FOR LIFE
TO OCCUR, PARTICULARLY
INTELLIGENT, CONSCIOUS OBSERVERS
LIKE OURSELVES.
AND THIS FINE-TUNING PROBLEM
COMES DOWN TO BASICALLY THREE
DIFFERENT SORTS OF FINE-TUNING.
FIRST THERE IS THE FINE-TUNING
OF THE LAWS OF NATURE.
SECOND IS THE FINE-TUNING
OF WHAT SCIENTISTS CALL THE
CONSTANTS OF PHYSICS, AND THIRD,
THE FINE-TUNING OF WHAT THEY
CALL THE INITIAL CONDITIONS
OF THE UNIVERSE.
LET ME START WITH THE FIRST,
THE LAWS OF NATURE.
THE LAWS OF NATURE HAVE TO
BE JUST RIGHT IN ORDER FOR LIFE
TO OCCUR.
FOR EXAMPLE IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE
GRAVITY OR A UNIVERSAL
ATTRACTIVE FORCE, THEN MATTER
IN THE UNIVERSE WOULD NEVER
CLUMP WHEN THE UNIVERSE
BLEW OUT IN THE BIG BANG,
YOU WOULD JUST HAVE
SIMPLY MATTER DISPERSE,
NEVER CLUMPING TOGETHER INTO
PLANETS OR STARS.
IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE STRONG
NUCLEAR FORCE, THE FORCE THAT
HOLDS NEUTRONS AND PROTONS
TOGETHER, THEN ALL PROTONS WOULD
REPEL EACH OTHER AND YOU COULD
NOT GET ATOMS WITH A GREATER
ATOMIC NUMBER THAN HYDROGEN.
AND IN THAT CASE UNLIKE WHAT YOU
SEE IN STAR TREK, YOU CAN NOT
GET COMPLEX LIFE OUT OF
A HYDROGEN GAS CLOUD.
IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH STABLE
COMPLEXITY.
IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE ELECTRO
MAGNETIC FORCE, IF IT JUST
DIDN'T EXIST, THEN YOU WOULDN'T
GET COMPLEX CHEMISTRY.
>THOSE ARE LAWS?
>>THOSE ARE LAWS.
>THAT'S CATEGORY ONE.
>>THAT'S CATEGORY ONE.
>CATEGORY TWO ARE THE CONSTANTS.
>>THE CONSTANTS OF PHYSICS.
NOW WHEN WE LOOK AT THE, A LOT
OF LAWS LIKE FORCE LAWS, IN FACT
MOST LAWS, HAVE VARIOUS WHAT
THEY CALL FREE PARAMETERS.
LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
LET'S LOOK AT GRAVITY.
GRAVITY HAS, THERE IS NEWTON'S
LAW OF GRAVITY, AND IT'S FORCE
EQUALS G TIMES THE FIRST MASS,
THIS TIMES THE SECOND MASS
DIVIDED BY THE DISTANCE,
SQUARED.
THAT G IS A CRITICAL NUMBER.
IF I WERE TO MAKE IT ONE HALF OF
WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW YOU WOULD
WEIGH ONE HALF THE AMOUNT.
THEN THERE IS THE COSMOLOGICAL
CONSTANT.
>WHICH CONTROLS THE EXPANSION
OF THE UNIVERSE.
>>IT OPPOSES GRAVITY.
IN THE CASE OF THE COSMOLOGICAL
CONSTANT THERE IS A NATURAL
EXPECTED RANGE FOR IT TO OCCUR
IN.
DEPENDING ON HOW YOU CALCULATE
THIS RANGE ITS ANYWHERE FROM ONE
TO TEN TO THE HUNDRED
AND TWENTIETH POWER TIMES
WHAT IT IS NOW.
>WHICH IS MORE, IS A BIGGER
NUMBER THAN EVERY PARTICLE
IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE.
>>RIGHT.
SO IT'S, IT'S WAY, WAY LARGER
THAN EVEN THAT.
SO WHAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE, IT HAS
TO BE ADJUSTED JUST RIGHT.
THE ESTIMATE IS, IT HAS TO BE
ADJUSTED ONE PART IN TEN TO THE
HUNDRED AND TWENTIETH POWER.
>WHICH IS INCALCULABLE.
>>INCALCULABLE.
IF YOU HAD A RULER STRETCHED
ACROSS THE UNIVERSE AND YOU WERE
TALKING ABOUT FINE-TUNING AND
YOU THOUGHT OF IT AS A RADIO
DIAL, IT WOULD HAVE, IT WOULD
HAVE TO BE FINE-TUNED TO MUCH,
MUCH LESS THAN ONE TRILLIONTH
OF A TRILLIONTH OF AN INCH
AT THE VERY BEGINNING
OF THE RULER.
THAT'S HOW FINE-TUNED IT WOULD
HAVE TO BE.
>OKAY, NOW THAT'S THE SECOND
CATEGORY.
THE THIRD CATEGORY OF
THE INITIAL CONDITIONS OF
THE UNIVERSE.
>>CORRECT.
AND THE INITIAL CONDITIONS HAVE
TO BE JUST RIGHT IN ORDER
FOR LIFE TO OCCUR.
THE BIGGEST ONE OF THESE INITIAL
CONDITIONS IS THE VERY LOW
ENTROPY STATE OF THE UNIVERSE.
IF IT WASN'T IN THAT ORDER STATE
YOU WOULDN'T HAVE USABLE ENERGY.
LOW ENTROPY CORRESPONDS
TO USABLE ENERGIES.
>SO IF YOU CUT ACROSS ALL OF
THESE THREE AREAS, THE LAWS,
THE CONSTANTS, AND THE INITIAL
CONDITIONS, WHAT KIND OF
CONCLUSION DO YOU COME TO?
>>MYSELF, I COME TO THE
CONCLUSION THAT THIS PROVIDES
STRONG EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A
DESIGNER OR SOMEBODY WHO SET THE
UNIVERSE UP, STRUCTURED IT JUST
THE RIGHT WAY IN ORDER FOR
CONSCIOUS, INTELLIGENT BODIED
BEINGS TO COME IN TO EXISTENCE.
>IF I DIDN'T KNOW YOU, I WOULD
THINK THAT YOU HAVE JUST GIVEN
ME A WONDERFUL REDUCTIONIST
PRINCIPLE TO SUPPORT AN
ATHEISTIC VIEW OF THE WORLD,
BECAUSE EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE.
I DON'T NEED SOME EXTERNAL
ELEMENT, SOME GOD, SOME
SUPERNATURAL FORCE.
>>I THINK IT ACTUALLY GLORIFIES
GOD THE MOST TO SEE THAT HOW
WONDERFULLY CONSTRUCTED NATURE
IS, THAT EVERYTHING WORKS.
>AND THAT GOD NEED NOT
INTERVENE?
>>NEED NOT INTERVENE, IN FACT
IF GOD HAD TO INTERVENE ALL THE
TIME, IT WOULD BE SORT OF
A SLOPPY OR A BAD CREATOR,
OR A BAD ENGINEER OR
MATHEMATICIAN IF YOU WILL.
>THE LAWS OF NATURE.
THE CONSTANTS OF PHYSICS.
THE INITIAL CONDITIONS
OF THE UNIVERSE.
ROBIN MAKES A THREE FOLD,
FINE-TUNING CASE FOR GOD.
SURE, I'D LIKE GOD TO EXIST.
BUT I WOULD SHY DEFENDING GOD
WITH DESIGN.
I WOULD FEEL EVER VULNERABLE
TO SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY
AND THERE ARE OTHER NON-GOD,
NON-SUPERNATURAL, EXPLANATIONS
OF FINE-TUNING.
NO ONE KNOWS THEM BETTER THAN
PHYSICIST VICTOR STENGER WHO
MAKES AN AGGRESSIVE CASE
FOR ATHEISM.
AS FOR THE FINE-TUNING ARGUMENT
FOR GOD, VICTOR IS RARING
TO REFUTE IT.
VIC, HOW DO YOU, AS A PHYSICIST,
LOOK UP ON THE ISSUE
OF THE APPARENT FINE-TUNING
OF THE UNIVERSE?
>>WELL THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT
IF MANY OF THE CONSTANTS OF
PHYSICS WERE CHANGED, WE WOULD
HAVE A DIFFERENT UNIVERSE.
WE WOULD NOT HAVE LIFE AS
WE KNOW IT.
HOWEVER YOU HAVE TO REALIZE THAT
LIFE IS JUST BASICALLY ORGANIZED
SYSTEMS AND ITS PERFECTLY
POSSIBLE TO CONCEIVE OF FORMS
OF LIFE THAT ARE TOTALLY
DIFFERENT FROM OURS.
WE CAN'T REALLY USE OUR
KNOWLEDGE OF OUR OWN UNIVERSE
TO, TO PREDICT HOW SOME OTHER
UNIVERSE MIGHT, MIGHT LOOK.
I PLAYED A LITTLE GAME MYSELF
WITH A, WITH THE CONSTANTS OF
PHYSICS WHERE I'VE, I'VE CHANGED
THEM AROUND, AND SEEN WHAT KIND
OF UNIVERSE RESULTS,
AND I DISCOVERED THAT WHEN
I CHANGE THE EXISTING
PARAMETERS OF THE UNIVERSE
OVER TEN ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE
RANDOMLY, I STILL GET OVER HALF
OF THE STARS LIVING A BILLION
YEARS OR MORE, AND THIS
IS WITHOUT CHANGING ANY OF THE
LAWS OF PHYSICS, JUST CHANGING
THE CONSTANTS.
NOW TO ME THAT INDICATES THAT
THE AGE OF STARS, THEY'RE NOT
ALL THAT FINE-TUNED, THAT YOU
CAN IMAGINE LONG LIVED STARS
AND ONCE YOU HAVE LONG
LIVED STARS,
THAT SEEMS A PRIMARY NEED TO
HAVE SOME KIND OF COMPLEX LIFE
FORM BECAUSE AFTER ALL
COMPLEXITY DOES ARISE OUT OF
SIMPLICITY PRETTY NATURALLY AND
SO I THINK THE FINE-TUNING
ARGUMENT JUST FAILS RIGHT OFF
THE BAT BECAUSE IT ONLY APPLIES
TO ONE FORM OF LIFE AND WE HAVE
NO WAY OF SHOWING THAT IT RULES
OUT ALL CONCEIVABLE FORMS
OF LIFE.
>BUT WHEN YOU'RE TUCKED IN
YOUR BED AT NIGHT
THINKING ABOUT LIFE
AND REALITY AND EXISTENCE,
THE FINE-TUNING ARGUMENT
DOESN'T GIVE YOU PAUSE FOR
THOUGHT ABOUT MAYBE
YOU'VE MAYBE LEFT SOMETHING OUT
OF THE EQUATION?
>>NO.
BUT TAKING OUR UNIVERSE BY
ITSELF, YOU HAVE NO GOOD REASON
TO, TO CONCLUDE THAT THINGS ARE
SO FINE-TUNED.
AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER THING
ABOUT THE FINE-TUNING ARGUMENT
THAT KIND OF BOTHERS ME,
AND THAT IS THAT IF GOD MADE
THE UNIVERSE AND GOD IS
PERFECT, WHY WOULD HE HAVE TO
FINE TUNE IT AT ALL?
IF HE WANTED THIS LIFE TO BE AN
IMPORTANT INGREDIENT, ESPECIALLY
HUMANS, THEN WHY WOULDN'T HE
HAVE HUMANS BEING ABLE TO LIVE
ANY PLACE?
BEING ABLE TO LIVE ON EVERY
PLANET, LIVE IN SPACE?
HE COULD HAVE DONE THAT.
THE PLANET IS NOT SO GREAT WHEN
YOU THINK ABOUT IT.
WE CAN ONLY LIVE ON A THIRD OF
THE AREA ON THE PLANET, THE SUN
LIGHT, INCLUDING ULTRA VIOLET
RAYS CAUSE CANCER, AND THERE ARE
DISASTERS ALL THE TIME THAT KILL
MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.
IT ISN'T EXACTLY SUCH A GREAT
PLACE EITHER.
SO IF GOD REALLY CREATED THE
UNIVERSE FOR US, HE DIDN'T DO A
VERY GOOD JOB.
THE ARGUMENT FOR THE CREATION
REQUIRING, REQUIRING OUTSIDE
FORCES WAS A GOOD ARGUMENT UNTIL
COSMOLOGY CAME ALONG IN THE
TWENTIETH CENTURY AND SHOWED
THAT IT COULD BE PERFECTLY
NATURAL, AND WE DON'T KNOW
EXACTLY HOW IT HAPPENED,
WE CAN'T PROVE THAT IT HAPPENED
ANY ONE OF THESE WAYS BUT WE
CERTAINLY HAVE A PLAUSIBLE
EXPLANATION THAT SOLVES THE,
THE GOD OF THE GAPS PROBLEM,
THE GOD OF THE GAPS IS
THE ARGUMENT THAT IF YOU CAN'T
EXPLAIN SOMETHING IN
SCIENCE THEN THEREFORE YOU
NEED GOD TO EXPLAIN IT.
AND YOU ONLY NEED GOD TO EXPLAIN
IT IF YOU CAN'T COME UP WITH
SOME PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION
AND THE FINE-TUNING ARGUMENT
IS A SIMILAR ONE,
WHERE WE HAVE ANY NUMBER
OF WAYS OUT OF IT, NOT JUST
THE MULTI UNIVERSES, YOU HAVE
MANY UNIVERSES THAT IT'S
A NO-BRAINER, BECAUSE IT JUST
MEANS THAT WE JUST HAPPEN TO BE
IN THE UNIVERSE, THAT IT WAS
SUITED FOR OUR FORM OF LIFE BUT
EVEN WITHIN A SINGLE UNIVERSE
THERE IS NOTHING THAT REQUIRES
THAT ONLY OUR PARTICULAR FORM
OF LIFE IS POSSIBLE.
>VICTOR OFFERS FIVE NATURAL
REASONS WHY THE FINE-TUNING
OF THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT LEAD
TO GOD.
LIFE NEED NOT BE LIKE US,
FINE-TUNING IS NOT THAT FINE,
NEW THEORIES LIKE COSMIC
INFLATION SOLVE MYSTERIES,
GOD OF THE GAPS NEVER LASTS,
AND AFTER ALL, OUR LIFE
ON EARTH ISN'T SO GREAT.
OF THE FIVE I MAY AGREE WITH
FOUR.
BUT EVEN IF TRUE, NONE ARE
BULLS-EYE DEFEATERS OF GOD.
HERE'S THE ONE THAT COUNTS:
HOW FINE IS THE FINE-TUNING?
I GO TO ENGLAND TO CAMBRIDGE TO
MEET A PHILOSOPHER OF SCIENCE
FROM IRELAND.
ERNAN MCMULLIN IS A PHYSICS
EDUCATED PRIEST WHO ENVISIONS
FINE-TUNING AS A RADICALLY NEW
KIND OF ARGUMENT FOR GOD.
ERNAN, THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
UNIVERSE IS TODAY ONE OF THE
HOTTEST INTELLECTUAL SUBJECTS.
>>RIGHT.
>PHYSICISTS TALK ABOUT IT,
PHILOSOPHERS, THEOLOGIANS,
YOU'RE KIND OF ALL THREE SO HOW
DO YOU LOOK AT THE FINE-TUNING
OF THE UNIVERSE?
>>IN ORDER TO GET THE UNIVERSE
OF OUR KIND WITH MULTIPLE KINDS
OF ELEMENTS AND LONG LASTING
AND SO ON, THERE'S A LOT OF
REQUIREMENTS TO GET A LIFE
BEARING UNIVERSE.
IN ORDER TO GET THAT IT TURNS
OUT THAT THE LAWS OF NATURE HAVE
TO BE PRETTY MUCH WHAT THEY ARE.
NOW AT THAT POINT, THE QUESTION
WAS WHAT DO WE MAKE OF THAT?
WELL THERE ARE ONLY FOUR
POSSIBLE ANSWERS TO THAT,
IN MY VIEW.
ONE ANSWER WOULD BE TO SAY WELL
THIS IS A MATTER OF LUCK.
THE SECOND POSSIBILITY WHICH
I THINK HAPPENS TO BE TAKEN
SERIOUSLY, IS THAT THE THEORIES
THEMSELVES ARE AT THE GROWING
POINT I THINK MYSELF THAT THERE
ARE SO MANY COINCIDENCES
IN THE LAWS OF NATURE, SO MANY
DIFFERENT ONES, AND VERY
SPECIFIC, LIKE THE SPECIFIC
RELATIONS BETWEEN SPECIFIC
FORCES, THAT ALL OF THAT COULD
FOLLOW FROM A SIMPLE SINGLE
THEORY, IT'S POSSIBLE BUT
I DON'T THINK IT'S VERY LIKELY.
IT SEEMS TO ME AT THE MOMENT.
IT LEAVES US WITH ONLY TWO
ANSWERS.
ONE OF THEM SEEMS QUITE EXTREME,
AND IT'S THE MULTI VERSE, AS ITS
SOMETIMES CALLED, AND THAT KIND
OF SOLUTION WOULD MEAN
POSTULATING THE ACTUAL EXISTENCE
OF A HUGE NUMBER OF UNIVERSES TO
MAKE THIS WORK OUT, POSSIBLY AN
INFINITY IF THAT EVEN MAKES
SENSE, AN INFINITY OF UNIVERSES.
THERE IS ONLY ONE OTHER
ALTERNATIVE AS FAR AS I CAN SEE,
AND THAT IS TO HEARKEN BACK TO
A VERY ANCIENT TRADITION --
THE ANCIENT TRADITION OF THE
CREATION OF THEOLOGY, THE IDEA
THAT THE UNIVERSE IS THE WORK OF
A CREATOR AND THAT THAT CREATOR
HAS A SPECIAL, IF YOU LIKE, ROLE
FOR THE HUMAN WITHIN THIS
UNIVERSE.
BUT IF YOU CONTRAST THE
CHRISTIAN BELIEF HERE AND THE
BELIEF IN MULTI UNIVERSES, YOU
HAVE TO MAKE AN ENORMOUS
ADDITIONAL POSTULATE IN ORDER TO
PULL OFF THE MULTI UNIVERSE
VIEW.
>WELL PHYSICISTS WOULD SAY
ALMOST THE OPPOSITE.
THEY WOULD SAY TO POSTULATE A
GOD, HAS AN ENORMOUS COMPLEXITY,
AND SO IT LEADS TO POSTULATE
MULTIPLE UNIVERSES WHEN DEALING
WITH UNIVERSES.
BUT TO POSTULATE SOMETHING
TOTALLY NEW, SOMETHING THERE
IS NO EVIDENCE FOR AT ALL,
IS WISHFUL THINKING.
>>YES, ALL RIGHT WELL SEE MY
RESPONSE TO THAT WOULD BE QUITE
THE OPPOSITE.
HUMAN BEINGS HAVE, LONG BEFORE
PHYSICS DEVELOPED, FOUND IT
QUITE NATURAL TO POSTULATE
A BEING WHO IS A CREATOR.
THE NOTION OF CREATION ALREADY
INCORPORATES THE NOTION OF FINE
TUNING IF NEEDED,
WHERE AS PHYSICS DOESN'T.
THE PHYSICIST HAS GOT TO TAKE
THE UNIVERSE AS GIVEN.
I MEAN THAT'S SIMPLY NOT A
QUESTION THEY CAN ADDRESS.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND FROM THE
CREATION STAND POINT THE
UNIVERSE AS GIVEN REQUIRES A
REASON FOR ITS OWN EXISTENCE.
>NOW HERE'S WHAT THE GOD
HYPOTHESIS HAS TO ASSUME, NOT
ONLY DO WE HAVE TO POSTULATE
SOME BEING THAT THERE'S NO
EVIDENCE FOR WHAT SO EVER, SOME
ETHEREAL, SPIRITUAL BEING, BUT
WE HAVE TO POSTULATE THAT BEING,
BEING SO COMPLICATED AND SO
COMPLEX, THAT IT CAN CREATE
WHATEVER COMPLEXITY WE HAVE
HERE, SO WE MAKE THE PROBLEM
DOUBLY WORSE.
>>NO I DON'T.
I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT AT ALL.
FIRST OF ALL IT IS BY NO MEANS
NECESSARY THAT A BEING IS
SUFFICIENTLY POWERFUL TO CREATE
OUR UNIVERSE, WOULD HAVE TO BE
COMPLEX.
I MEAN SCIENTISTS IN FACT
THEMSELVES ARE ACCUSTOMED TO
FINDING SIMPLE ANSWERS TO VERY
COMPLEX QUESTIONS.
WE CAN ASK WHY THERE SHOULD BE
A UNIVERSE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THE QUESTION OF EXISTENCE IS
A UNIQUE QUESTION -- THAT'S A
QUESTION WHICH A SCIENTIST CAN'T
ADDRESS AND SHOULDN'T ADDRESS.
THIS IS NOT A GAP.
THIS IS SIMPLY A QUESTION THAT
IS OF A DIFFERENT SORT, BUT THE
POINT IS THAT THE RELIGIOUS
FLAVOR HAS ALWAYS ASKED IT AND
HAS ALWAYS GIVEN AN ANSWER TO IT
AND THE ANSWER IS THAT THERE IS
A BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FACT
THAT THE UNIVERSE EXISTS,
INCLUDING POSSIBLY AN INFINITY
OF UNIVERSES OR A LARGE NUMBER,
OR POSSIBLY A UNIVERSE WHICH HAS
ALWAYS EXISTED.
YOU HAVE A CHOICE BETWEEN TWO
ALTERNATIVES.
YOU EITHER STOP WHAT THE
UNIVERSE HAS GIVEN, AS A
PHYSICIST MANY OF THEM WOULD
WANT, WOULD SAY THAT YOU SHOULD,
OR YOU TAKE THE ONE STEP FURTHER
AND YOU POSTULATE A SINGLE BEING
WHICH, AND A SINGLE ACT OF
CREATION BRINGS OUR UNIVERSE TO
BE, WHICH ANSWERS THE QUESTION
OF WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE AN
OBJECT FOR PHYSICISTS TO WORK
WITH IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>BUT IT DOESN'T ANSWER WHY THERE
SHOULD BE THAT GOD IN THE FIRST
PLACE.
>>NO, NO, NO, NO, AND THAT'S
VERY IMPORTANT.
THERE HAS TO BE A STOP POINT.
THE QUESTION IS WHAT STOP POINT
DO YOU PRESERVE?
THE PHYSICIST MAY CHOOSE TO HAVE
HIS STOP POINT BE ONE STEP
EARLIER AND THE RELIGIOUS
BELIEVER SAYS UH UH, WE WANT TO
TAKE ONE STEP FURTHER.
AND SO WE STOP THERE.
NOW THE QUESTION IS, WHICH IS
THE BETTER STOPPING POINT?
>YOU'VE GOT TO STOP SOME PLACE.
>>YEAH.
SO I THINK MYSELF THAT IT'S AN
ISSUE THAT HAS NEVER COME UP
BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF THIS
DISCUSSION BECAUSE PREVIOUS TO
THIS, THE WAY IN WHICH GOD GOT
IN TO IT WAS USUALLY AS AN
ANSWER TO SOME SPECIFIC FEATURE
OF THE UNIVERSE, LIKE DESIGN FOR
EXAMPLE.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
THAT, SO IT'S NOT A SHORT COMING
OF SCIENCE.
IT'S NOT SAYING LOOK, THERE IS
SOMETHING SCIENCE CAN'T EXPLAIN,
WHICH WE CAN'T EXPLAIN.
THAT'S NOT IT.
THERE'S A, WHAT'S BEING
POSTULATED HERE, IS A REASON WHY
THERE SHOULD BE AN OBJECT FOR
PHYSICISTS TO STUDY IN THE FIRST
PLACE.
>TO ERNAN, FINE-TUNING IS
DIFFERENT IN KIND FROM
TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS FROM
DESIGN AND IT BORES TO THE CORE
OF THE ESSENCE OF EXISTENCE
ITSELF.
I'M EXHILARATED BY PROFOUND
INSIGHT BUT I FEAR SUPERFICIAL
SEMANTICS.
ERNAN'S FIRST A PRIEST, I REMIND
MYSELF, THEN A SCIENTIST.
WHAT ABOUT SOMEONE FIRST
A SCIENTIST, YET SENSITIVE TO
SPIRITUAL IDEAS, BUT NOT WEDDED
TO THEM.
SO I GO TO NEW YORK TO INQUIRE
OF PHYSICIST MICHIO KAKU,
WHOSE BACKGROUND INCLUDES BOTH
BUDDHISM AND CHRISTIANITY.
MECHIO, AS A PHYSICIST FROM A
BUDDHIST FAMILY, EXPERIENCED IN
THE CHRISTIAN WORLD VIEW, HOW DO
YOU, HOW DO YOU ANALYZE THIS
FINE-TUNING?
>>WHEN I WAS IN SECOND GRADE MY
TEACHER MADE A STATEMENT THAT
SHOCKED ME TO THE CORE.
I STILL REMEMBER IT AFTER ALL OF
THESE YEARS.
SHE SAID THAT GOD SO LOVED THE
EARTH THAT HE PUT THE EARTH JUST
RIGHT FROM THE SUN -- NOT TOO
CLOSE, BECAUSE THE OCEANS WOULD
BOIL, NOT TOO FAR, BECAUSE
THE OCEANS WOULD FREEZE.
I WAS FLOORED.
THAT'S RIGHT.
THE EARTH IS JUST RIGHT FROM
THE SUN.
VENUS DOES HAVE A SCORCHED
SURFACE.
MARS IS A FROZEN DESERT.
WE ARE JUST RIGHT FROM THE SUN.
THEN I GREW UP A AND OF COURSE
NOW WE LOOK AT STARS AND SEE
OVER TWO HUNDRED DEAD PLANETS
THAT ARE TOO CLOSE, THAT ARE TOO
FAR, FROM THE MOTHER SUN,
TO HAVE LIQUID OCEANS.
SO THE SOLUTION TO THE SO CALLED
GOLDILOCKS PARADOX, WHY IS THE
EARTH JUST RIGHT FROM THE SUN,
IS ANSWERED BY THE OBSERVATION
THAT THEY ARE DEAD PLANETS.
WELL HOW MANY GOLDILOCKS STARS
ARE THERE?
YOU START TO COUNT THEM AND YOU
REALIZE OH MY GOD, WE ARE JUST
RIGHT IN SO MANY DIFFERENT
AREAS.
IT'S LIKE A JET AIRPLANE BEING
RIPPED APART BY A HURRICANE
AND THEN SUDDENLY REASSEMBLED
INTACT, AFTER THE STORM.
THAT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN BY
ACCIDENT.
SO WE HAVE THIS PARADOX -- WHY
ARE WE IN SO MANY GOLDILOCKS
ZONES?
IS IT BECAUSE GOD LOVED
THE UNIVERSE, THAT HE PUT
THE UNIVERSE JUST RIGHT IN
THE GOLDILOCKS ZONE?
OR ARE THERE DEAD UNIVERSES?
I TEND TO LEAD TOWARD THE LATER,
THAT THERE ARE DEAD UNIVERSES
OUT THERE, THERE ARE MULTIPLE
UNIVERSES WHERE THE SUN NEVER
DID IGNITE, UNIVERSES WHICH
POPPED IN TO EXISTENCE
AND POPPED RIGHT BACK IN TO
EXISTENCE IN A BIG CRUNCH.
WELL THERE ARE TWO PHILOSOPHIES
YOU CAN TAKE.
THE COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE
SAYS THAT THERE IS NOTHING
SPECIAL ABOUT HUMANS, NOTHING
SPECIAL ABOUT US,
NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT
OUR PIECE OF THE UNIVERSE.
WE ARE VERY ORDINARY, WE EXIST
WITH BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND
TRILLIONS OF STARS, BILLIONS OF
PLANETS PERHAPS IN THE UNIVERSE,
WE ARE ALMOST INSIGNIFICANT,
WE ARE NOTHING.
YET ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
SAYS WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT A
MINUTE, WE ARE SPECIAL, WE ARE
SO SPECIAL THAT WE ARE THE ONLY,
PERHAPS THE ONLY UNIVERSE AMONG
THE WHOLE COLLECTION OF
UNIVERSES THAT HAVE INTELLIGENT
LIFE.
I THINK WE ARE SPECIAL.
WE ARE SPECIAL FIRST OF ALL
BECAUSE WE HAVE THE CONDITIONS
FOR LIFE, DNA, AND EVEN
CONSCIOUSNESS.
IT IS FINE-TUNED, PERHAPS
FINE-TUNED BY LUCK, BUT IT IS
FINE-TUNED NONE THE LESS.
OUR UNIVERSE, IN SOME SENSE,
KNEW WE WERE COMING.
WE ARE IN A UNIVERSE THAT MAKES
INTELLIGENT LIFE POSSIBLE.
>DOES THAT GIVE ANY
CORROBORATION, ANY CONFIDENCE,
ANY INCREASED PROBABILITY TO
SOME SORT OF A NON PHYSICAL
EXPLANATION FOR THE UNIVERSE?
>>THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO EXPLAIN
IT, AND THIS IS THAT PERHAPS
UNIVERSES EVOLVE, THAT AS THESE
UNIVERSES DIE, BABY UNIVERSES
ARE CREATED BY ADVANCED
CIVILIZATIONS AND THE DNA IS
PRECISELY THE PHYSICAL CONSTANTS
OF THE UNIVERSE.
>THIS WOULD REQUIRE A SUPER,
SUPER ADVANCED CIVILIZATION
TO BE ABLE TO CREATE.
>>UNIMAGINABLY ADVANCED,
BUT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
LAWS OF PHYSICS AS WE KNOW
THEM, AND THIS WOULD ALLOW
FOR AN EVOLUTION OF UNIVERSES.
IT'S NO ACCIDENT THAT IT HAS
THESE CONDITIONS, BECAUSE IT WAS
A SPIN OFF OF ANOTHER UNIVERSE,
AND WE ARE, IN SOME SENSE,
WINNERS NOT OF A COSMIC JACK
POT, WE ARE SIMPLY WINNERS OF
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST.
SO THINK OF A BUBBLE BATH WITH
BILLIONS OF SOAP BUBBLES, MOST
OF THEM DEAD, BUT THE SOAP
BUBBLES THAT HAVE LIFE, SPIN OFF
MORE SOAP BUBBLES.
MORE SOAP BUBBLES.
>SO OVER TIME THOSE WERE
PERFORATE.
>>THAT'S RIGHT.
SO ANOTHER IS THAT PERHAPS THERE
IS A REASON WHY WE ARE JUST
RIGHT FROM THE SUN, BECAUSE WE
HAVE BENEFITTED FROM SURVIVAL
OF THE FITTEST, GOING BACK
UNIMAGINABLE IONS IN TO THE
PAST, SO THAT EACH UNIVERSE HAS
THE DNA CONSISTENT WITH,
NOT JUST INTELLIGENCE,
BUT ADVANCED INTELLIGENCE.
>BUT EVEN SO, THERE HAD TO BE A
FIRST UNIVERSE, AND THERE THE
FINE-TUNING PROBLEM WOULD
REASSEMBLE AND REEMERGE,
STRONGER THAN EVER, NO?
THE FINE-TUNING PROBLEM DEMANDS
EXPLANATION.
HERE ARE FOUR.
ONE, BRUTE, FACT, AND LUCK.
THE ONE UNIVERSE THAT JUST
HAPPENS TO EXIST, ALSO JUST
HAPPENS TO SUPPORT LIFE.
TWO, THE UNIVERSE CAN BE ONLY
ONE WAY.
AND THAT ONE WAY WOULD GENERATE
LIFE.
THREE, MULTIPLE UNIVERSES, SUCH
THAT EVERYTHING WILL HAPPEN
SOMEWHERE, INCLUDING US.
FOUR, A CREATOR GOD WHO DESIGNED
THE UNIVERSE.
HERE'S WHAT I THINK.
MULTIPLE UNIVERSES WOULD EXPLAIN
FINE-TUNING OF OUR UNIVERSE, BUT
A FINE-TUNED UNIVERSE GENERATOR
FOR THE VAST ENSEMBLE OF
MULTIPLE UNIVERSES,
IS STILL NEEDED.
AS FOR SUPERNATURAL
EXPLANATIONS, A TRADITIONAL GOD
IS BUT ONE OF MANY UNTOLD
OPTIONS.
MORE OVER NEW KINDS OF PHYSICAL
LAWS MAY SEEM SUPERNATURAL.
WHERE DO WE STOP?
THAT'S THE QUESTION.
WHAT'S THE END OF ALL
EXPLANATIONS?
OUR UNIVERSE, MULTIPLE
UNIVERSES, OR SOMETHING BEYOND?
FOR THE RIDDLE OF EXISTENCE,
FINE-TUNING IS OUR BIGGEST CLUE.
THAT'S WHY WE STRESS IT ON
CLOSER TO TRUTH.
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)