>OUR UNIVERSE MUST BE JUST SO
IN ORDER FOR LIFE AND MIND,
FOR HUMAN BEINGS, FOR US,
FOR ME, TO EXIST.
JUST SO IS CALLED
"FINE-TUNING" AND IT CRIES OUT
FOR EXPLANATION.
FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD,
A FINE-TUNED UNIVERSE REVELS
AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.
FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE
IN GOD, PERHAPS THERE IS ONLY
ONE WAY THE UNIVERSE CAN BE.
OR PERHAPS THERE ARE INFINITE
NUMBERS OF UNIVERSES SO THAT
ANYTHING THAT CAN HAPPEN,
MUST HAPPEN.
DOES THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
UNIVERSE MEAN THAT LIFE
AND MIND ARE INEVITABLE IN
THE UNIVERSE?
I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND
CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY
TO FIND OUT.
THE FINE-TUNING OF THE
UNIVERSE, GENERATING LIFE
AND MIND IN THE UNIVERSE,
IS A DEEP CONUNDRUM.
DOES FINE-TUNING MAKE LIFE
AND MIND INEVITABLE?
OR IF WE START WITH THE
UNIVERSE THAT INCLUDES LIFE
AND MIND, WHICH WE MUST
BECAUSE IT DOES, DOES THAT
SOMEHOW REQUIRE FINE-TUNING?
I BEGIN IN PRINCETON WITH A
COSMOLOGIST WHO OFFERS FRESH
IDEAS ABOUT THE ORIGINS AND
ENDS OF THE UNIVERSE --
RICHARD GOTT.
CAN HE ALSO OFFER FRESH IDEAS
ABOUT FINE-TUNING?
OR AT LEAST GET ME STARTED.
RICHARD, THE SO-CALLED
"ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE" IS USED
BY PHYSICISTS, PHILOSOPHERS,
THEOLOGIANS, TO ADVANCE THEIR
OWN CONCEPTIONS OF THE WORLD.
HOW DO YOU SEE IT?
>>INFLATION SAYS THAT WE HAVE
A MULTI-VERSE THAT WE HAVE
MANY DIFFERENT UNIVERSES THAT
ARE FORMED OUT OF ONE
INFLATING UNIVERSE, GIVES
BIRTH TO MANY INFLATING
UNIVERSES.
SO THERE IS THE POSSIBLY FOR
THE LAWS OF PHYSICS IN THESE
DIFFERENT UNIVERSES TO BE
DIFFERENT.
SO YOU HAVE TO LIVE IN A
UNIVERSE THAT IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF
INTELLIGENT BEINGS BECAUSE
THAT HAPPENS IN OUR UNIVERSE.
AND THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
SAYS WE MAY LIVE IN A SPECIAL
PLACE IN THE MULIT-VERSE --
THERE MAY BE UNIVERSES THAT
ARE NOT HABITABLE.
>LIKELY.
>>BUT WE WOULDN'T LIVE IN
THEM, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO LIVE
IN ONE THAT IS CAPABLE OF
INTELLIGENT LIFE.
>SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE VERY
SPECIAL.
>>WELL, WE ARE SPECIAL IN THE
SENSE THAT THERE MIGHT BE LOTS
OF UNIVERSES THAT WERE
UNINHABITABLE.
>IT WOULD SEEM THAT MOST
OF THEM WOULD BE.
>>WE OBSERVE THIS TO BE
THE CASE.
I MEAN, WE ARE ON THE EARTH,
THE EARTH IS HABITABLE,
PLUTO DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE
HABITABLE, SO THERE IS MAYBE
LOTS OF PLANETS - WE ARE NOT
LIVING IN THE CENTER OF A
STAR, THAT IS TOO HOT, WE ARE
NOT LIVING IN THE BEGINNING OF
THE BIG BANG, SO WITHIN THE
MULTI-VERSE, WE HAVE TO LIVE
IN ONE OF ITS HABITABLE ZONES.
>BUT DOES THIS SPECIALNESS
THAT WE NOW HAVE, A FIGHT
AGAINST THE COPERNICAN
PRINCIPLE?
>>THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE SAYS
YES, IN THE MULTI-VERSE YOU
MAY LIVE IN A SPECIAL PLACE
BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE
HABITABLE.
BUT THE COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE
TELLS YOU THAT OUT OF ALL THE
PLACES FOR INTELLIGENT
OBSERVERS TO LIVE, YOU ARE
LIKELY TO LIVE IN ONE OF THE
NON-SPECIAL PLACES.
>WHAT DO WE THEN CONCLUDE
ABOUT OUR EXISTENCE?
>>WE HAVE TO LIVE IN A
HABITABLE PLACE, SO WE ARE
LIVING IN A HABITABLE EPIC IN
THE UNIVERSE WHEN STARS ARE
BURNING BEFORE THE UNIVERSE
HAS THINNED OUT TOO MUCH AND
NOT AT THE VERY EARLY UNIVERSE
AND SO FORTH.
BUT OUR LOCATION WITHIN THAT
REGION, WE DO -- BY THE
COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE, FIND
OURSELVES GOING AROUND AN
ORDINARY STAR, IN AN ORDINARY
GALAXY AND SO FORTH.
>RICHARD EXPLAINS OUR
FINE-TUNED EXISTENCE BY THE
SPECIALNESS OF THE ANTHROPIC
PRINCIPLE WHICH SAYS THAT IT'S
NO SURPRISE THAT WE CAN LIVE
ONLY IN HABITABLE PLACES.
AND BY THE COMMONNESS OF THE
COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE, WHICH
SAYS THAT AMONG HABITABLE
PLACES, WE LIKELY LIVE IN
AN ORDINARY PLACE.
THIS SEEMS RIGHT, BUT STILL
I WORRY, IS A STEP MISSING?
A GIANT LEAP?
HOW DID THE LAWS OF NATURE,
THE LAWS THE PHYSICS,
GET FINE-TUNED?
I GO TO MIT TO ASK A PHYSICIST
WITH A DEEP SENSE OF HOW THESE
LAWS REALLY WORK.
NOBEL LAURITE, FRANK WILCHEK.
FRANK IF YOU TALK ABOUT
ENLIGHTENMENT AND KNOWLEDGE
AND IGNORANCE AND THEN
TEMPTATION -- HOW DOES THAT
HELP US WITH FINE-TUNING?
>>WELL, IN OUR PRESENT
FORMULATION OF THE LAWS OF
PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY, WE HAVE
TO PUT IN SOME NUMBERS,
PARAMETERS, THEY CALL IT,
TO GET THE DESCRIPTION OF OUR
UNIVERSE.
SO THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT
QUESTIONS YOU CAN ASK ABOUT
A PARAMETER THAT APPEARS.
YOU CAN ASK, IS IT IMPORTANT
FOR THE EMERGENCE OF LIFE
OR NOT?
SOME OF THEM DON'T MATTER.
AND THE OTHER QUESTION YOU CAN
ASK IS, DO WE HAVE A GOOD IDEA
ABOUT WHY IT MIGHT BE
CONSTRAINED OR NOT?
TWO QUESTIONS.
YOU CAN ANSWER YES OR NO TO
EITHER ONE, THAT MAKES FOUR
POSSIBILITIES.
SO ONE CLASS OF THINGS IS
THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO
LIFE AND WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD
IDEA OF HOW WE MIGHT EXPLAIN
THEM IN TERMS OF FUNDAMENTAL
IDEAS.
THAT I CALL "ENLIGHTENMENT".
ANOTHER CLASS IS THINGS THAT
AREN'T IMPORTANT TO LIFE THAT
WE HAVE GOOD IDEAS ABOUT,
THAT I CALL "KNOWLEDGE".
IT'S GOOD TO KNOW, BUT NOT
CRUCIAL FOR MOST PURPOSES.
THEN THERE IS ANOTHER CLASS OF
THINGS THAT AREN'T IMPORTANT
FOR LIFE AND WE ALSO DON'T
KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN IT AND
THAT IS JUST IGNORANCE.
AND THEN FINALLY, THERE IS
THIS CLASS OF THINGS THAT ARE
VERY IMPORTANT FOR LIFE AND WE
DON'T KNOW A FUNDAMENTAL
EXPLANATION OR HAVE A GOOD
IDEA EVEN FOR WHAT A
FUNDAMENTAL EXPLANATION FOR
WHY THEY HAVE THE VALUES
THEY DO.
AND SOME OF THESE HAVE TO BE
QUITE PRECISE IN ORDER FOR
THINGS NOT TO GO BADLY WRONG.
>AND THAT IS YOUR IGNORANCE
CATEGORY.
>>NO, THAT IS TEMPTATION.
>TEMPTATION, RIGHT, RIGHT.
>>BECAUSE FOR THOSE THINGS
THERE IS A TEMPTATION TO SAY,
THE REASON THEY HAVE THE
VALUES THEY DO, IS THAT IF
THEY DIDN'T, WE WOULDN'T
EXIST.
AND THAT TEMPTATION CAN BE
TAKEN EITHER OF TWO WAYS, OUR
EXISTENCE IS THE CENTRAL FACT
OF THE WORLD, SO THAT
DETERMINES THE PHYSICAL LAWS.
OR ANTHER SLIGHTLY MORE MODEST
REASONABLE VERSION OF IT IS
THAT THERE COULD BE
ALTERNATIVE PLACES IN THE
UNIVERSE OR ALTERNATIVE
UNIVERSES IN WHICH THEY HAD
DIFFERENT VALUES, BUT WE
COULDN'T LIVE IN SUCH A WORLD.
SO THE QUESTION IS, DO WE
SUCCUMB TO THE TEMPTATION TO
EXPLAIN THE LOOSE ENDS, THE
REMAINING PARAMETERS OF OUR
STANDARD MODELS OF PHYSICS
AND COSMOLOGY IN TERMS OF THIS
SELECTION PRINCIPLE OR
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE IF YOU
LIKE.
MAYBE WE WILL HAVE TO,
BUT IT'S QUITE A COME DOWN FROM
THE KIND OF PRECISE, FRUITFUL,
ESSENTIALLY MATHEMATICAL
EXPLANATION OF THINGS THAT HAS
SORT OF BEEN THE GOLD STANDARD
IN THEORETICAL PHYSICS AND OUR
INSPIRATION FOR A LONG TIME.
>ENLIGHTENMENT, KNOWLEDGE,
IGNORANCE, TEMPTATION, THAT'S
FRANK'S FRAMEWORK FOR
UNDERSTANDING HOW THE LAWS OF
NATURE ENABLE LIFE TO EMERGE.
NICE, ESPECIALLY TEMPTATION.
HERE IS WHAT'S TEMPTING.
TRAVELING THE EASY ROAD OF
TYING UP LOOSE ENDS, NOT WITH
PHYSICS BUT WITH A SELECTION
PRINCIPLE, SIMPLY BECAUSE WE
ARE HERE TO ASK THE QUESTIONS,
SELECTS THE KIND OF COSMOS IN
WHICH WE CAN BE HERE.
BUT THAT IS QUITE A COME DOWN,
FRANK SAYS, FROM HIS GOLD
STANDARD OF MATHEMATICAL
CERTITUDE.
SO IS THIS SCIENCE OR
PHILOSOPHY?
IF SCIENCE, WHERE IS THE
EXPERIMENT?
I GO TO STAMFORD TO MEET A
NOBEL LAURIAT WHO INSISTS ON
EXPERIMENT -- ROBERT LAUGHLIN
IS NOT TEMPTED BY MULTIPLE
UNIVERSES.
BOB, MANY PHYSICISTS ,
COSMOLOGISTS, TALK ABOUT
MULTIPLE UNIVERSES AND A
SO-CALLED ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE,
WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THIS
ARGUMENT?
>>I THINK IT'S VERY AMUSING.
NOW, WHAT DO I MEAN BY THAT?
WELL, THE LARGER IDEA IS ALSO
VERY ANCIENT, IT'S HINDU
COSMONOGY.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS
ENTIRE IDEA IS NOT SCIENCE
BECAUSE IT FUNDAMENTALLY DEALS
WITH SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN'T
MEASURE.
I PERSONALLY THINK THAT AS
A SCIENTIST I HAVE NO RIGHT
TO SPECULATE ABOUT THINGS LIKE
THAT IN ANY WAY DIFFERENT FROM
ANYONE ELSE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T
DEAL WITH EXPERIMENTAL FACTS.
MY ONLY EXPERTISE IS WITH
EXPERIMENTS.
>WELL, I MEAN, IT'S A REAL
PROBLEM BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT
WILLING TO ACCEPT THIS AS A
METHODOLOGY OF THINKING, YOU
HAVE TO HAVE YOUR OWN KIND
OF ANSWER TO EXPLAIN THE
FINE-TUNING OF THE UNIVERSE
BECAUSE THAT IS PRETTY MUCH
A FACT.
>>THERE IS A LOGICAL FLAW
IN THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT CAUSE
AND EFFECT.
WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT
CAUSES THINGS, WHY THE
UNIVERSE IS THE WAY IT IS
AND THE ANSWER IN THIS CASE,
PROPOSED ANSWER, IS THAT IT'S
BECAUSE IT'S CONGENIAL.
THIS QUESTION IS A WONDERFUL
AND FASCINATING PIECE OF
PHILOSOPHY, BUT IT ISN'T
PHYSICS.
NOW, YOU SAY WE MUST HAVE
ANSWERS TO THAT QUESTION -
I TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT.
I LIVE EVERY DAY WITH MANY,
MANY QUESTIONS I CANNOT
ANSWER.
REMEMBER I REMARKED ABOUT
HINDU COSMOGONY?
WHY DON'T WE CONSIDER THAT
TOO?
>MAYBE WE SHOULD.
>INDEED, MAYBE WE SHOULD,
IN WHICH CASE WE ARE HAVING
A RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION,
NOT A PHYSICS DISCUSSION.
NOW I LOVE RELIGIOUS
DISCUSSIONS AND I'M HAPPY TO
ENGAGE IN THEM, BUT I DON'T
WANT TO MIX THEM UP WITH
SCIENCE, IT'S A DIFFERENT
THING.
THE IDEA THAT THE CONSTANTS OF
THE UNIVERSE ARE FINELY TUNED
TO MAKE THINGS CONGENIAL FOR
US IS IN FACT AN ARTIFICIAL
CREATION OF THE MIND.
THERE IS NOTHING NATURAL ABOUT
IT AT ALL.
THE PREMISE OF THE QUESTION
IS FALSE.
THE PREMISE OF THE QUESTION
IS THAT THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC
ISSUE AND IT ISN'T.
SO IN SUMMARY THEN,
MY RESPONSE TO THE ANTHROPIC
IDEAS IS THAT THEY ARE VERY,
VERY INTERESTING, LIKE MANY
OTHER RELIGIOUS IDEAS AND
I PAY ATTENTION TO THEM,
BUT WHEN I REALLY WANT TO
UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE, I
WALK AWAY FROM THOSE QUESTIONS
TOWARDS QUESTIONS THAT HAVE
CONCRETE EXPERIMENTAL ANSWERS.
>BOB REJECTS MULTIPLE
UNIVERSES AND THE ANTHROPIC
PRINCIPLE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT
RESIDE IN THE DOMAIN OF
SCIENCE.
BUT MUST EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE
BE DETERMINED BY EXPERIMENT?
THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE FINDS
PROFOUND QUESTIONS, MOVING
FROM PHILOSOPHICAL SPECULATION
TO SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT.
BUT WILL ALL QUESTIONS
ULTIMATELY MAKE THIS ONE-WAY
JOURNEY?
THE FINE-TUNING OF OUR
UNIVERSE IS REAL, I HAVE NO
DOUBT, BUT HOW DID OUR
FINE-TUNING HAPPEN?
HOW ELSE TO EXPLAIN
FINE-TUNING OTHER THAN
MULTIPLE UNIVERSES OR GOD.
I HEAR THE FUTURIST RAY
KURZWEIL HAS A RADICAL
EXPLANATION.
A STARTLING PROJECTION OF WHAT
WILL HAPPEN AS TECHNOLOGY
GROWS EXPONENTIALLY.
>>IT IS REMARKABLE THAT THE
DESIGN OF THE UNIVERSE IS
EXQUISITELY FINE-TUNED WITH
ALL THE DIFFERENT CONSTANTS OF
WHICH IS A FEW DOZEN AT LAST
COUNT, AND ALL THE DIFFERENT
FORMULAS ARE SO PRECISELY SET
TO ALLOW FOR THE EVOLUTION OF
COMPLEXITY.
BECAUSE IF CERTAIN CONSTANTS
WERE A LITTLE BIT OFF,
NOTHING WOULD HAVE GELLED.
HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?
SOME PEOPLE SAY THERE WAS AN
INTELLIGENT DESIGNER WHO SAT
DOWN AND DESIGNED IT.
THAT IS ACTUALLY --
A CORRELATE TO THAT THAT
IS NOT THEOLOGICAL IS THAT
MAYBE THERE WAS ANOTHER
UNIVERSE AND THERE IS AN
INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, BUT SHE
IS A TEENAGER IN A JUNIOR HIGH
SCHOOL IN SOME OTHER UNIVERSE
AND CREATED OUR UNIVERSE IN
SOME SCIENCE FAIR EXPERIMENT.
THERE IS ANOTHER THEORY THAT
THE CONSTANTS AND THE WHOLE
FORMULAS OF THIS UNIVERSE
EVOLVED.
SOME THEORIES OF STRING THEORY
HAVE A -- ALMOST UNLIMITED
NUMBER OF SOLUTIONS AND SO
THERE COULD IN THEORY BE OTHER
UNIVERSES THAT HAVE DIFFERENT
FORMULAS, DIFFERENT CONSTANTS,
MOST OF THOSE WOULD NOT EVOLVE
INTO ANYTHING INTERESTING.
SO BY THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE,
WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TALKING
ABOUT THIS ISSUE ON ONE OF
THOSE UNIVERSES BECAUSE NO
LIFE WOULD HAVE EVER BEEN
CREATED.
ANOTHER APPROACH IS THAT MAYBE
IT'S ACTUALLY NOT SO UNLIKELY
THAT ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT
SEEMINGLY ACCIDENT HAPPY
ACCIDENTS OF THE CONSTANTS
BEING JUST SO, ALL DERIVED
FROM SOME VERY SIMPLE
PRINCIPLE, SOME MATHEMATICAL
PRINCIPLE AND IT ALL WORKS OUT
THAT IT HAS TO BE THE WAY
IT IS.
WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE ANY
UNDERSTANDING OF SUCH
MATHEMATICAL PRINCIPLES.
>WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
EXPEDIENTIAL GROWTH OF
TECHNOLOGY, DOES THAT GIVE YOU
A DIFFERENT WAY TO LOOK AT THE
FINE-TUNING OR THE SO-CALLED
ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE WHICH
SEEKS TO ANSWER THAT?
>>IT DOES GIVE CREDENCE TO THE
POSSIBLY, IF YOU LOOK AT OUR
DESTINY, WE WILL BECOME
EXTRAORDINARILY INTELLIGENT.
WE WILL EXPAND OUR
INTELLIGENCE BY TRILLIONS AND
TRILLIONS AND IF IT'S POSSIBLE
IN FACT TO ENGINEER ANOTHER
UNIVERSE AND BASED ON WHAT WE
KNOW ALREADY, IT DOESN'T SEEM
TO BE IMPOSSIBLE, THEN SUCH
EXQUISITELY INTELLIGENT
CIVILIZATIONS IN THE FUTURE
WILL ACTUALLY FIGURE THAT OUT
AND PROBABLY DO IT AND
THEREFORE CREATE A UNIVERSE
AND IT'S LIKELY TO CREATE ONE
THAT WORKS WELL.
IT'S NOT GOING TO CREATE
A DEGENERATE UNIVERSE THAT
JUST SORT OF SPIRALS INTO
NOTHINGNESS.
SO WE WILL CREATE ONE THAT CAN
IN FACT EVOLVE INTO SOMETHING
INTERESTING AND MAYBE THAT
WILL BE AN EXPERIMENT IT
WATCHES.
SO IF YOU HAVE THAT
OBSERVATION, YOU COULD THINK,
WELL MAYBE IN FACT WE ARE IN
SUCH A UNIVERSE.
THAT SOME OTHER SIMILARLY
EVOLVED CIVILIZATION IN
ANOTHER UNIVERSE THEN CREATED
OUR UNIVERSE.
>TO EXPLAIN FINE-TUNING, RAY
IS NOT OPPOSED TO INTELLIGENT
DESIGN, IT'S JUST THAT HIS
INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS ARE
SUPER ADVANCED NATURAL BEINGS,
NOT SOME SUPERNATURAL GOD.
I GUESS THAT IS POSSIBLE, BUT
DO THESE SUPER ALIEN CREATORS
CONFIRM OR DENY THAT LIFE
AND MIND IS INEVITABLE?
NO.
THEY ONLY PUSH THE PROBLEM UP
A LEVEL.
THESE SUPER ALIENS CAME FROM
SOMEWHERE, WOULDN'T THEIR
WORLD TOO HAVE HAD TO BEEN
FINE-TUNED?
GO BACK INTO THE PAST WITH
CYCLES OF SUPER ALIEN
CREATORS.
AT SOME POINT, THE MUSIC
MUST STOP AND WE MUST ASK
ABOUT THOSE FIRST BEINGS --
WAS THEIR LIFE
AND MIND INEVITABLE?
THEN I THINK, SINCE
FINE-TUNING IS CONSISTENT WITH
INTELLIGENT DESIGN, I CANNOT
IGNORE THE THEOLOGICAL
EXPLANATION.
I SPEAK WITH A MINISTER WITH
A DOCTORATE IN PHYSICS,
ROBERT JOHN RUSSELL.
BOB SEEKS CREATIVE INTERACTION
BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION.
IS FINE-TUNING SUCH AN
INTERACTION?
>>I DON'T USE FINE-TUNING
AS AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD.
WHAT A LOT OF FOLKS DO, YOU
CAN ARGUE ONLY ONE UNIVERSE
AND THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC
REASON FOR WHY THE NATURAL
CONSTANTS HAVE THE VALUES THEY
HAVE AND SO ON.
AND THEN YOU HAVE A SORT OF
EVIDENCE FOR A DESIGNER, A
GOD, AND YOU CAN MAKE A SORT
OF CASE, BUT OF COURSE THE
RESPONSE IS, WELL, THE MANY
UNIVERSES.
AND FOR A LONG TIME THERE WERE
NO SCIENTIFIC REASONS FOR
BELIEVING THAT, IT WAS A
PURELY METAPHYSICAL REASON
TO KIND OF DODGE THE CART.
BUT NOW THERE ARE TONS OF
BRAND NEW UNIVERSES,
MULTI-VERSES AND SO ON.
SO UNLESS YOU WRITE OFF ALL
OF THOSE AS NOT SCIENTIFIC --
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, WHICH
SOME PEOPLE SAY.
I THINK IT'S NOT QUITE TRUE.
I THINK YOU CAN MAKE A PRETTY
GOOD CASE THAT WE ARE PART OF
A MUCH LARGER MULTI-VERSE.
MY POINT IS THAT I NEVER WAS
INTERESTED IN THE FINE-TUNING
AS AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD IN THE
FIRST PLACE AND I THINK THAT
IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD
CREATES THE UNIVERSE OR THE
MULTI-VERSE OF WHICH OURS IS
PART, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
BRINGING ABOUT LIFE AND
COVENANT AND NEW CREATION,
THEN THE FINE-TUNING GIVES US
A NEW SENSE OF OUR BEING AT
HOME IN THIS UNIVERSE.
IT ENHANCES OUR SENSE OF
HOWEVER GOD GOT THIS UNIVERSE
TO BE EITHER FROM T EQUALS
ZERO ON FINE-TUNING OR FROM
A MULTI-VERSE.
THIS UNIVERSE REALLY IS GOD'S
INTENTION.
IT REALLY IS A UNIVERSE WHERE
A LIFE IS AT HOME.
SO IT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR
GOD, IT'S A ILLUMINATION OF
GOD'S PURPOSES IN CREATING
THIS UNIVERSE.
THAT IS, IT REALLY IS TUNED
FOR LIFE.
WE ARE A SIGNATURE OF WHAT THE
UNIVERSE IS ABOUT, SO FOR
THOSE SCIENTISTS THAT SAY THE
UNIVERSE IS PURPOSELESS AND
LIFE IS JUST A PHENOMENA,
MY POINT IS THAT IT'S QUITE THE
OPPOSITE, LIFE ILLUMINATES
THE KINDS OF PHYSICS YOU HAVE.
>SO THIS IS THEN A QUESTION OF
APPRECIATION AS OPPOSED TO
DEMONSTRATION?
>>IT GOES FURTHER THAN THAT.
BUT FIRST OF ALL, IT IS.
IT IS TO THE GLORY OF GOD,
THE HEAVENS PROCLAIM.
IT'S SAYING WE AS
PSYCHOSOMATIC UNITIES,
WE AS BIOLOGICAL, PHYSICAL,
PSYCHOLOGICAL, SPIRITUAL
CREATURES ARE VERY MUCH A PART
AND PARCEL OF THIS UNIVERSE,
NOT JUST ANY PHYSICAL
UNIVERSE.
IN FACT, THE MORE THE
MULTI-VERSE IS DISPLAYED,
THE MORE IT SHOWS HOW UNIQUE
AND EXTRAORDINARY THIS UNIVERSE
IS.
IT BRINGS TOGETHER DIFFERENT
DOMAINS OF DISCUSSION THAT ARE
SO IMPORTANT FOR THEOLOGY AND
ETHICS, DOMAINS AROUND HUMAN
FREE WILL, HOW DO I ACT FREELY
IN THE WORLD IF THE WORLD WERE
A MACHINE?
I COULDN'T BUT WITH QUANTUM
MECHANICS, THEN MAYBE I CAN.
IT BRINGS AROUND QUESTIONS
ABOUT HOW DID EVOLUTION OCCUR?
YOU NEED GENETIC MUTATION, THAT
IS ALL THE QUANTUM MECHANICAL
PROCESS.
SCIENCE GIVES YOU A COMMON
TEMPLATE THAT THE WAY QUANTUM
MECHANICS PROVIDES A
CONNECTION BETWEEN OR THE
POSSIBILITIES OF THESE
DIFFERENT FIELDS OF DISCOURSE
WHICH HELPS SHOW THEIR
INTEGRITY AS ALL PART OF
A FINE-TUNING PROJECT.
>TO BOB, FINE-TUNING DOES NOT
PROVE GOD'S EXISTENCE, BUT IT
DOES ENRICH OUR UNDERSTANDING
OF GOD'S WORKINGS.
BECAUSE THE COSMOS WAS CREATED
BY GOD, BOB SAYS, LIFE AND
MIND WOULD SURELY BE
INEVITABLE.
MANY BELIEVERS DO USE
FINE-TUNING TO SUPPORT, IF NOT
TO PROVE GOD'S EXISTENCE.
THEY CLAIM THAT FINE-TUNING IS
THE "SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE"
THAT LIFE AND MIND ARE
LITERALLY WOVEN INTO THE
FABRIC OF REALITY.
IS THIS ARGUMENT JUSTIFIED?
I GO TO NOTRE DAME TO ASK A
TOUGH-MINDED PHILOSOPHER WHO
HAPPENS TO BE A BELIEVER,
PETER VAN INWAGON.
>>SOME PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED
THE FINE-TUNING REFERS TO THE
APPARENTLY VERY PRECISE VALUES
THAT THE CONSTANTS AND THE
LAWS OF PHYSICS HAVE, JUST THE
RIGHT ONES TO ALLOW LIFE TO
EXIST.
BUT SOME HAVE SAID THAT THAT
SHOULDN'T BE SURPRISING.
WE DON'T NEED TO LOOK FOR AN
EXPLANATION FOR THIS FACT,
BECAUSE AFTER ALL, A, THEY HAD
TO HAVE SOME VALUE.
B, THAT ANY GIVEN SET OF
PRECISE VALUES, IS AS
IMPROBABLE AS ANY OTHER.
WHY BE ASTONISHED, BECAUSE ONE
PARTICULAR IMPROBABLE SET OF
VALUES TURNED UP?
SUPPOSE IT'S YOUR REGULAR
THURSDAY NIGHT POKER GAME
AND A STRANGER COMES INTO
THE TABLE AND GETS FOUR ROYAL
FLUSHES AND FOUR SUITS IN A
ROW, COMPLETELY CLEANS OUT
EVERYBODY AT THE TABLE AND
THEN STICKS THE MONEY IN HIS
POCKET AND PREPARES TO WALK
AWAY.
YOU MOVE TO RESTRAIN HIM AND
HE SAYS, LOOK, YOU SHOULDN'T
THINK THAT I CHEATED BECAUSE
FOUR ROYAL FLUSHES IN A ROW
HAS EXACTLY THE SAME
PROBABILITY AS ANY FOUR GIVEN
HANDS IN A ROW.
NOBODY WOULD ACCEPT THAT THAT
AS A PIECE OF REASONING.
I DON'T SEE WHY ANYBODY SHOULD
TAKE ANY MORE SERIOUSLY THE
IDEA THAT THESE CONSTANTS AND
THESE PARAMETERS IN THE LAWS
OF PHYSICS ARE JUST AS
IMPROBABLE AS ANY OTHER --
OR ANY OTHER SET OF VALUES
IS JUST AS IMPROBABLE.
I DON'T SEE HOW ANYBODY COULD
TAKE THAT ARGUMENT SERIOUSLY.
WE HAVE THIS PHENOMENON,
FINE-TUNING, WHAT IS THE BEST
EXPLANATION FOR IT?
WHY A FINE-TUNER?
THAT IS, AN INTELLIGENT BEING
WHO WANTED THERE TO BE
SOMETHING, PRESUMABLY LIFE OR
ORGANIC LIFE OR INTELLIGENT
LIFE OR LIKE US, SO THAT BEING
SET, THOSE PARAMETERS TO THOSE
VERY PRECISE VALUES, THAT IS
AN INFERENCE TO THE BEST
EXPLANATION.
THIS BEING IN THIS CASE,
AN EXTERNAL DESIGNER OF
THE UNIVERSE.
>NOW, AS YOU KNOW, THE LARGE
BODY OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION
FROM COSMOLOGISTS THAT THE
LAWS OF PHYSICS SEEM TO
SUGGEST MULTIPLE UNIVERSES
AND IF YOU UNITE A MULTIPLE
UNIVERSES WITH THE LAWS OF
CHANCE AND ASSUME THAT
MULTIPLE UNIVERSES CAN RESET
THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ALL THE
TIME, THEN THAT WITH
OBSERVATIONAL SELECTION THAT
WE ONLY CAN BE IN UNIVERSES
THAT WE EXIST IN, ELIMINATES
SUCH AN INFERENCE TO THE BEST
EXPLANATION AS TO AN
INTELLIGENT DESIGN.
>>IF THE PHENOMENON IS THAT WE
OBSERVE OURSELVES, WE OBSERVE
THE EXISTENCE OF A PLACE IN
WHICH THE LAWS ARE SET LIKE
THIS, THEN I THINK THAT IS AN
EQUALLY GOOD EXPLANATION.
I DON'T SEE THAT ONE OF THESE
TWO EXPLANATIONS IS BETTER
THAN THE OTHER.
NATURALLY, AS A THEIST I'M
PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE WITH ALL
THIS FINE-TUNING GOING ON,
JUST WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT.
BUT IT'S A PHILOSOPHICAL
ARGUMENT.
I MEAN, I THINK I HAVE TO
ADMIT THAT AS A PHILOSOPHER,
YOU WOULD BE CRAZY TO BELIEVE
ANYTHING OF ULTIMATE
SIGNIFICANCE ON THE BASIS OF
A PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT.
>YOU'D BE CRAZY TO BELIEVE
ANYTHING AT ALL SIGNIFICANT ON
THE BASIS OF A PHILOSOPHICAL
ARGUMENT.
YES, I SUPPOSE PETER IS RIGHT.
HOW THEN DOES ONE BELIEVE?
SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT?
CERTAINLY.
ANALYTICAL ARGUMENT?
OFTEN.
SPIRITUAL FAITH - IF YOU LIKE.
WHAT THEN OF FINE-TUNING
AND OF LIFE AND MIND?
IN THE COSMOS, WHICH COMES
FIRST?
DOES EITHER MAKE THE OTHER
INEVITABLE?
SOME SEE THE HANDIWORK OF
INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, WHO FINE
TUNED THE UNIVERSE FOR THE
PURPOSE OF GENERATING LIFE
AND MIND.
OTHERS SAY THERE IS NO NEED
FOR GOD, BECAUSE WITH VAST
NUMBERS OF UNIVERSES, IT IS NO
SURPRISE THAT OUR UNIVERSE
SEEMS AS IF IT IS FINE-TUNED.
FINE-TUNING DOES NOT CAUSE
LIFE AND MIND, ATHEISTS ARGUE.
RATHER, WHEN LIFE AND MIND
DEVELOP ACCIDENTLY, THE
UNIVERSE APPEARS TO BE
FINE-TUNED, WHEN IN REALITY,
IT IS NOT.
BECAUSE THE TUNING IS RANDOM.
SO, ARE LIFE AND MIND
INEVITABLE?
YES, BUT ONLY AFTER THEY
HAPHAZARDLY EXIST.
AS FOR ME, I SHALL NOT TIRE OF
EXPLORING FINE-TUNING.
NO MATTER THE ULTIMATE ANSWER
FOR LIFE AND MIND, INEVITABLE
OR NOT, GOD OR NO GOD,
FINE-TUNING PROBES THE DEEP
MEANING OF EXISTENCE.
IF THERE IS MEANING, COMING
CLOSER TO TRUTH.
