Does a Fine-Tuned Universe Lead to God? | Episode 502 | Closer To Truth

Summary

The 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

• 🌌 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.
• 🤔 Fine-tuning is considered by some as evidence for a designer or God, while others propose alternative explanations such as the multiverse theory.
• 🔬 The three categories of fine-tuning discussed are the laws of nature, the constants of physics, and the initial conditions of the universe.
• 🧲 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.
• 🌟 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.
• 🤷‍♂️ Physicist Victor Stenger argues against the necessity of a supernatural explanation, suggesting that life could exist in forms entirely different from our own.
• 🎲 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.
• 🌱 The anthropic principle posits that the universe must have properties that allow for observers, like us, to exist and thus perceive the universe.
• 🌐 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.
• 🔮 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.
• 🔄 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 a筛选条件 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

00:00

🌌 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.

05:02

🔍 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.

10:03

🌱 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.

15:03

🤔 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.

20:04

📚 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.

25:05

🌟 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.

🔮 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.

Keywords

💡Fine-tuning

Fine-tuning refers to the precise adjustment of initial conditions, physical constants, and laws of nature to allow for the existence of life, particularly intelligent observers. In the context of the video, fine-tuning is central to discussions about the existence of God and the nature of the universe. The script mentions that if the laws of nature, such as gravity or the strong nuclear force, were slightly different, life as we know it would not be possible, suggesting a 'fine-tuned' universe for our existence.

💡Gravity

Gravity is a universal attractive force that, according to the script, must be 'just right' for matter to clump together after the Big Bang, forming planets and stars. It exemplifies the fine-tuning of the laws of nature, as without gravity or with a significantly different gravitational force, the universe would not have the structure necessary for life to develop.

💡Strong Nuclear Force

The strong nuclear force is what holds protons and neutrons together in an atomic nucleus. The video script uses it as an example of fine-tuning in physics constants. If this force didn't exist or was significantly different, atoms with an atomic number greater than hydrogen would not be possible, eliminating the possibility for complex chemistry and life as we know it.

💡Electromagnetic Force

The electromagnetic force is crucial for complex chemistry, as highlighted in the script. If it didn't exist, there would be no complex chemistry, which is essential for life. This force is part of the broader discussion on how the fine-tuning of physical forces contributes to the conditions necessary for life.

💡Cosmological Constant

The cosmological constant is mentioned in the script as a parameter that must be incredibly fine-tuned to allow for a universe that can expand at a rate conducive to the formation of galaxies and stars. It is an example of the fine-tuning of physical constants, where a slight change could result in a universe inhospitable to life.

💡Initial Conditions

Initial conditions refer to the state of the universe at the beginning of time, including its rate of expansion and the distribution of matter. The script discusses how these conditions must be precisely set for life to occur, such as the universe being in a low entropy state to allow for usable energy.

💡Design Argument

The design argument for God's existence is a philosophical and theological concept discussed in the video. It posits that the complexity and fine-tuning of the universe imply a designer, or God. The script explores this argument through the perspective of a Christian philosopher trained in physics, suggesting that the fine-tuning points towards a designer.

💡Atheism

Atheism is the absence of belief in God or gods. The script contrasts the design argument with atheistic views, particularly those of physicist Victor Stenger, who argues against the necessity of a supernatural creator by suggesting alternative explanations for the fine-tuning of the universe.

💡Multiverse

The multiverse theory suggests the existence of multiple universes, each with different physical properties. The script mentions this as a potential explanation for the fine-tuning of our universe, suggesting that we might just happen to live in a universe that is suited to our form of life among many others that are not.

💡Anthropic Principle

The anthropic principle is the idea that the universe appears fine-tuned for life because we are observing it. The script discusses this principle as a counterpoint to the design argument, suggesting that our existence in a life-supporting universe is not necessarily evidence of a creator but could be a result of our particular observational perspective.

💡Survival of the Fittest

Survival of the fittest is an evolutionary concept mentioned in the script in the context of a universe that evolves and spawns new universes. It suggests that universes with conditions conducive to intelligent life are more likely to 'survive' and propagate, creating a universe that appears fine-tuned for our existence.

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.