<i>>OUR UNIVERSE MUST BE JUST SO</i> <i>IN ORDER FOR LIFE AND MIND,</i> <i>FOR HUMAN BEINGS, FOR US,</i> <i>FOR ME, TO EXIST.</i> <i>JUST SO IS CALLED</i> <i>"FINE-TUNING" AND IT CRIES OUT</i> <i>FOR EXPLANATION.</i> <i>FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN GOD,</i> <i>A FINE-TUNED UNIVERSE REVELS</i> <i>AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER.</i> <i>FOR THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE</i> <i>IN GOD, PERHAPS THERE IS ONLY</i> <i>ONE WAY THE UNIVERSE CAN BE.</i> <i>OR PERHAPS THERE ARE INFINITE</i> <i>NUMBERS OF UNIVERSES SO THAT</i> <i>ANYTHING THAT CAN HAPPEN,</i> <i>MUST HAPPEN.</i> <i>DOES THE FINE-TUNING OF THE</i> <i>UNIVERSE MEAN THAT LIFE</i> <i>AND MIND ARE INEVITABLE IN</i> <i>THE UNIVERSE?</i> <i>I'M ROBERT LAWRENCE KUHN AND</i> <i>CLOSER TO TRUTH IS MY JOURNEY</i> <i>TO FIND OUT.</i> <i>THE FINE-TUNING OF THE</i> <i>UNIVERSE, GENERATING LIFE</i> <i>AND MIND IN THE UNIVERSE,</i> <i>IS A DEEP CONUNDRUM.</i> <i>DOES FINE-TUNING MAKE LIFE</i> <i>AND MIND INEVITABLE?</i> <i>OR IF WE START WITH THE</i> <i>UNIVERSE THAT INCLUDES LIFE</i> <i>AND MIND, WHICH WE MUST</i> <i>BECAUSE IT DOES, DOES THAT</i> <i>SOMEHOW REQUIRE FINE-TUNING?</i> <i>I BEGIN IN PRINCETON WITH A</i> <i>COSMOLOGIST WHO OFFERS FRESH</i> <i>IDEAS ABOUT THE ORIGINS AND</i> <i>ENDS OF THE UNIVERSE --</i> <i>RICHARD GOTT.</i> <i>CAN HE ALSO OFFER FRESH IDEAS</i> <i>ABOUT FINE-TUNING?</i> <i>OR AT LEAST GET ME STARTED.</i> 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. <i>>RICHARD EXPLAINS OUR</i> <i>FINE-TUNED EXISTENCE BY THE</i> <i>SPECIALNESS OF THE ANTHROPIC</i> <i>PRINCIPLE WHICH SAYS THAT IT'S</i> <i>NO SURPRISE THAT WE CAN LIVE</i> <i>ONLY IN HABITABLE PLACES.</i> <i>AND BY THE COMMONNESS OF THE</i> <i>COPERNICAN PRINCIPLE, WHICH</i> <i>SAYS THAT AMONG HABITABLE</i> <i>PLACES, WE LIKELY LIVE IN</i> <i>AN ORDINARY PLACE.</i> <i>THIS SEEMS RIGHT, BUT STILL</i> <i>I WORRY, IS A STEP MISSING?</i> <i>A GIANT LEAP?</i> <i>HOW DID THE LAWS OF NATURE,</i> <i>THE LAWS THE PHYSICS,</i> <i>GET FINE-TUNED?</i> <i>I GO TO MIT TO ASK A PHYSICIST</i> <i>WITH A DEEP SENSE OF HOW THESE</i> <i>LAWS REALLY WORK.</i> <i>NOBEL LAURITE, FRANK WILCHEK.</i> 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. <i>>ENLIGHTENMENT, KNOWLEDGE,</i> <i>IGNORANCE, TEMPTATION, THAT'S</i> <i>FRANK'S FRAMEWORK FOR</i> <i>UNDERSTANDING HOW THE LAWS OF</i> <i>NATURE ENABLE LIFE TO EMERGE.</i> <i>NICE, ESPECIALLY TEMPTATION.</i> <i>HERE IS WHAT'S TEMPTING.</i> <i>TRAVELING THE EASY ROAD OF</i> <i>TYING UP LOOSE ENDS, NOT WITH</i> <i>PHYSICS BUT WITH A SELECTION</i> <i>PRINCIPLE, SIMPLY BECAUSE WE</i> <i>ARE HERE TO ASK THE QUESTIONS,</i> <i>SELECTS THE KIND OF COSMOS IN</i> <i>WHICH WE CAN BE HERE.</i> <i>BUT THAT IS QUITE A COME DOWN,</i> <i>FRANK SAYS, FROM HIS GOLD</i> <i>STANDARD OF MATHEMATICAL</i> <i>CERTITUDE.</i> <i>SO IS THIS SCIENCE OR</i> <i>PHILOSOPHY?</i> <i>IF SCIENCE, WHERE IS THE</i> <i>EXPERIMENT?</i> <i>I GO TO STAMFORD TO MEET A</i> <i>NOBEL LAURIAT WHO INSISTS ON</i> <i>EXPERIMENT -- ROBERT LAUGHLIN</i> <i>IS NOT TEMPTED BY MULTIPLE</i> <i>UNIVERSES.</i> 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. <i>>BOB REJECTS MULTIPLE</i> <i>UNIVERSES AND THE ANTHROPIC</i> <i>PRINCIPLE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT</i> <i>RESIDE IN THE DOMAIN OF</i> <i>SCIENCE.</i> <i>BUT MUST EVERYTHING IN SCIENCE</i> <i>BE DETERMINED BY EXPERIMENT?</i> <i>THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE FINDS</i> <i>PROFOUND QUESTIONS, MOVING</i> <i>FROM PHILOSOPHICAL SPECULATION</i> <i>TO SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT.</i> <i>BUT WILL ALL QUESTIONS</i> <i>ULTIMATELY MAKE THIS ONE-WAY</i> <i>JOURNEY?</i> <i>THE FINE-TUNING OF OUR</i> <i>UNIVERSE IS REAL, I HAVE NO</i> <i>DOUBT, BUT HOW DID OUR</i> <i>FINE-TUNING HAPPEN?</i> <i>HOW ELSE TO EXPLAIN</i> <i>FINE-TUNING OTHER THAN</i> <i>MULTIPLE UNIVERSES OR GOD.</i> <i>I HEAR THE FUTURIST RAY</i> <i>KURZWEIL HAS A RADICAL</i> <i>EXPLANATION.</i> <i>A STARTLING PROJECTION OF WHAT</i> <i>WILL HAPPEN AS TECHNOLOGY</i> <i>GROWS EXPONENTIALLY.</i> >>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. <i>>TO EXPLAIN FINE-TUNING, RAY</i> <i>IS NOT OPPOSED TO INTELLIGENT</i> <i>DESIGN, IT'S JUST THAT HIS</i> <i>INTELLIGENT DESIGNERS ARE</i> <i>SUPER ADVANCED NATURAL BEINGS,</i> <i>NOT SOME SUPERNATURAL GOD.</i> <i>I GUESS THAT IS POSSIBLE, BUT</i> <i>DO THESE SUPER ALIEN CREATORS</i> <i>CONFIRM OR DENY THAT LIFE</i> <i>AND MIND IS INEVITABLE?</i> <i>NO.</i> <i>THEY ONLY PUSH THE PROBLEM UP</i> <i>A LEVEL.</i> <i>THESE SUPER ALIENS CAME FROM</i> <i>SOMEWHERE, WOULDN'T THEIR</i> <i>WORLD TOO HAVE HAD TO BEEN</i> <i>FINE-TUNED?</i> <i>GO BACK INTO THE PAST WITH</i> <i>CYCLES OF SUPER ALIEN</i> <i>CREATORS.</i> <i>AT SOME POINT, THE MUSIC</i> <i>MUST STOP AND WE MUST ASK</i> <i>ABOUT THOSE FIRST BEINGS --</i> <i>WAS THEIR LIFE</i> <i>AND MIND INEVITABLE?</i> <i>THEN I THINK, SINCE</i> <i>FINE-TUNING IS CONSISTENT WITH</i> <i>INTELLIGENT DESIGN, I CANNOT</i> <i>IGNORE THE THEOLOGICAL</i> <i>EXPLANATION.</i> <i>I SPEAK WITH A MINISTER WITH</i> <i>A DOCTORATE IN PHYSICS,</i> <i>ROBERT JOHN RUSSELL.</i> <i>BOB SEEKS CREATIVE INTERACTION</i> <i>BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION.</i> <i>IS FINE-TUNING SUCH AN</i> <i>INTERACTION?</i> >>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. <i>>TO BOB, FINE-TUNING DOES NOT</i> <i>PROVE GOD'S EXISTENCE, BUT IT</i> <i>DOES ENRICH OUR UNDERSTANDING</i> <i>OF GOD'S WORKINGS.</i> <i>BECAUSE THE COSMOS WAS CREATED</i> <i>BY GOD, BOB SAYS, LIFE AND</i> <i>MIND WOULD SURELY BE</i> <i>INEVITABLE.</i> <i>MANY BELIEVERS DO USE</i> <i>FINE-TUNING TO SUPPORT, IF NOT</i> <i>TO PROVE GOD'S EXISTENCE.</i> <i>THEY CLAIM THAT FINE-TUNING IS</i> <i>THE "SMOKING GUN EVIDENCE"</i> <i>THAT LIFE AND MIND ARE</i> <i>LITERALLY WOVEN INTO THE</i> <i>FABRIC OF REALITY.</i> <i>IS THIS ARGUMENT JUSTIFIED?</i> <i>I GO TO NOTRE DAME TO ASK A</i> <i>TOUGH-MINDED PHILOSOPHER WHO</i> <i>HAPPENS TO BE A BELIEVER,</i> <i>PETER VAN INWAGON.</i> >>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. <i>>YOU'D BE CRAZY TO BELIEVE</i> <i>ANYTHING AT ALL SIGNIFICANT ON</i> <i>THE BASIS OF A PHILOSOPHICAL</i> <i>ARGUMENT.</i> <i>YES, I SUPPOSE PETER IS RIGHT.</i> <i>HOW THEN DOES ONE BELIEVE?</i> <i>SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT?</i> <i>CERTAINLY.</i> <i>ANALYTICAL ARGUMENT?</i> <i>OFTEN.</i> <i>SPIRITUAL FAITH - IF YOU LIKE.</i> <i>WHAT THEN OF FINE-TUNING</i> <i>AND OF LIFE AND MIND?</i> <i>IN THE COSMOS, WHICH COMES</i> <i>FIRST?</i> <i>DOES EITHER MAKE THE OTHER</i> <i>INEVITABLE?</i> <i>SOME SEE THE HANDIWORK OF</i> <i>INTELLIGENT DESIGNER, WHO FINE</i> <i>TUNED THE UNIVERSE FOR THE</i> <i>PURPOSE OF GENERATING LIFE</i> <i>AND MIND.</i> <i>OTHERS SAY THERE IS NO NEED</i> <i>FOR GOD, BECAUSE WITH VAST</i> <i>NUMBERS OF UNIVERSES, IT IS NO</i> <i>SURPRISE THAT OUR UNIVERSE</i> <i>SEEMS AS IF IT IS FINE-TUNED.</i> <i>FINE-TUNING DOES NOT CAUSE</i> <i>LIFE AND MIND, ATHEISTS ARGUE.</i> <i>RATHER, WHEN LIFE AND MIND</i> <i>DEVELOP ACCIDENTLY, THE</i> <i>UNIVERSE APPEARS TO BE</i> <i>FINE-TUNED, WHEN IN REALITY,</i> <i>IT IS NOT.</i> <i>BECAUSE THE TUNING IS RANDOM.</i> <i>SO, ARE LIFE AND MIND</i> <i>INEVITABLE?</i> <i>YES, BUT ONLY AFTER THEY</i> <i>HAPHAZARDLY EXIST.</i> <i>AS FOR ME, I SHALL NOT TIRE OF</i> <i>EXPLORING FINE-TUNING.</i> <i>NO MATTER THE ULTIMATE ANSWER</i> <i>FOR LIFE AND MIND, INEVITABLE</i> <i>OR NOT, GOD OR NO GOD,</i> <i>FINE-TUNING PROBES THE DEEP</i> <i>MEANING OF EXISTENCE.</i> <i>IF THERE IS MEANING, COMING</i> <i>CLOSER TO TRUTH.</i>
