Speaker 1 00:00:05 ID the future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
Speaker 2 00:00:12 Welcome to ID the Future. I am your host, Brian Miller. This is part two of my interview with Rabbi Aaron Zimmer and Rabbi Ellie Federer about their podcast, physics to God, which can be
[email protected]. Do either of you have a favorite example of fine tuning that you like to quote? Is there particularly one that you find really makes this point very clear?
Speaker 3 00:00:36 You know, the one that really impacted the scientific world was the cosmological constant. It was in 1998 when scientists met the distant supernova and they realized that the universe is in fact not only expanding, but it's actually accelerating. And this was really due to a constant in general relativity called the cosmological constant. And it turns out that this constant has to be fine tuned to about 120 decimal places. And if had it been different by a couple decimal places, less or more, the universe would have contracted right away after the Big Bang. You never have galaxies developed or would've expanded way too quickly. Again, you never have galaxies developed or, or anything else for that matter. So until this point, there was a lot of other constants that were kind of fine tuned. And as scientists gained more and more knowledge about the constants, they start to realize they're more and more fine tuned.
Speaker 3 00:01:28 But it wasn't until 1998 where the cosmological constant was measured and they realized that this was fine tuned to about 120 decimal places where they basically said that this is impossible to be just lucky chance. And just a coincidence, this can't be, there has to be a deeper explanation for this. And again, this is something that scientists all agree with us on. The argument we have with scientists on our podcast essentially is what is the proper interpretation of this? Philosophically, what conclusions do you draw? But the fact that fine tuning is real is something that the top scientists all say, whether it's Max Tegmark or Martin Reese, Leonard Suskin, Stephen Hawking, they all, they all agree to this fact. The question is what is the proper interpretation? Is it an intelligent cause or is it a multiverse?
Speaker 2 00:02:14 That was a very nice example. Now, in another episode, you made a very, a really interesting comment. What you said is that the understanding, the fine tuning requires a paradigm shift. And could you explain what you mean by that? Like what is the shift needed in paradigms and what is the paradigm in general?
Speaker 4 00:02:33 Right, so science typically does is that we have observations and we try to explain the cause of these observations, and sometimes we, something's called an efficient cause. But basically we're trying to look for the laws to discover the underlying laws of physics and or to basically trying to understand the underlying laws which are responsible for these results, for the observations that we, we see. And the laws themselves are the way we, we, we, what they're looking for scientists look for in these laws. They're looking for laws which are beautiful, which are consistent, which are, you know, mathematical and, and they're principle, the laws which are, they're trying to discover the laws and they're kind of a certain simplicity and a beauty in the laws of physics, which scientists have discovered. And these laws are shown to be the cause of the resulting universe. And what fine tuning is shown is not, is, it's kind of the opposite, is where we ordinarily think that the laws and the particular form of the laws is what's responsible for the resultant universe in a certain sense, fine tuning has shown that the resultant universe, the complex universe, the universe with lx and galaxies and atoms and molecules in life is the cause of the form of the laws.
Speaker 4 00:03:53 The fact that the numbers are these numbers and not any other numbers. The significance of these numbers is because what these numbers will produce as the universe unfolds. And in a certain sense it's that they've discovered that the cause of the laws is not anything in intrinsic in terms of the beauty or simplicity of the laws themselves. But is the, that which the laws will produce. And that's something which is an anathema to scientists. That's not the way science usually works. Science usually works that opposite way where we find the laws, we discover the laws in the form of the laws, the laws are caused by whatever, we don't know what they're caused by and they result in the, we see how what results is a result. But here, and that's why we said the term efficient causes, but what's inferred is that it seems that somehow the form of the laws themselves is determined by the future, is determined by the result that will end up coming, at, coming out from those laws.
Speaker 4 00:04:50 And that's something which requires a paradigm shift. That's science doesn't explain in general, it doesn't typically explain the form of the laws of nature based upon what those laws are going to produce. That's, that's kind of what, what's what scientists realize that we have to now somehow come out with an explanation of how could you explain the form of a law based upon the future. It's not something which is in line with the scientific way of thinking. And that's what we have to somehow shift. And that's what motivated a paradigm shift. How do we explain that that was a real problem? And there are really two solutions to that problem. One solution is which we, we argue is the implied solution, which is that they, what we call it theological cause is that theological cause actually does work in the opposite direction. A person has a carpenter, has an idea of a table in his head, and um, and he has this, this objective, this purpose of having a surface to eat on.
Speaker 4 00:05:45 And he makes the table in order to bring about the, that table. So the final form, something's called the final cause. The final form of the table is what causes him to build the table in a, in a certain way. And that's what we're arguing is that there's a theological cause, there's a purpose. The idea of the constants are set at these values because they have, there's a purpose of these constants, which is to bring about our complex order structured beautiful universe. That's one solution which we're arguing is the implied solution, indicated solution. The other solution is also a paradigm shift, and this is the, the route which many scientists take, which is the multiverse solution, which is saying is the reason it's true there is a relationship between our laws and the ultimate objective, the ultimate complex universe. But that is in a certain sense, like a incidental relationship, which is that relationship in truth, even though we only observe one universe, there are actually infinitely many universes out there.
Speaker 4 00:06:39 Again, this is what they suggest. Each one of these universes has different constants, different laws of nature, different constants. And sure enough, if there's infinitely many universes with different constants, you're gonna happen to have a few, or actually infinitely many, which are gonna have just the right constants, which are necessary to produce this complex universe and intelligent observers. And if that's the case, we're gonna have to be on that universe. The fact that we exist means that there's observation bias that we must be in that universe which has the laws and constants just right. So ultimately these scientists also have a paradigm shift that they're explaining the form of the laws based upon the result. The laws are this way because these are the only laws which could possibly result in or instruction universe, which has indulgence observer.
Speaker 3 00:07:25 Yeah, I just, just wanna add something to why such a paradigm shift. So if you, in the history of science, Aristotelian science started off using both of these causes, um, what we call efficient causes. The carpenter builds the table and teleological causes the purpose of the table to, to eat, to be a surface, to eat on. And the big shift in modern science was to really get rid of teleological causes and Galileo and newan and just focus entirely on efficient causes and not, not to remove purpose from the universe, that there is no purpose to the laws there. They just operate blindly. The famous in, in biology, again, that's a little bit outside our area, but you know, in biology, the blind watch maker Richard Dawkins says that the laws don't know what they're doing, they don't see any purpose, they just operate in random ways and things happen to come out and complexity emerges and things like that.
Speaker 3 00:08:15 There's no purpose, there's no teleology. So to have something in physics where you could really see that these numbers, these constants, the only explanation that you can have for their specific values, and this is, this is really the only explanation except for multiverse and infant number of unobservable universes, is that there's a purpose to these numbers. You're bringing back teleology and purpose back into the universe and giving an objective justification for it. And that's very significant and it extends beyond physics. And this is, we don't discuss this on our podcast because our podcast is from physics to God. We don't, we're not discussing morality and religion. We don't, we don't get into that. But for the purpose of, you know, your podcast, Brian, I'll go into it just a little bit, is that ethics. One of the reasons that ethics has been such a mess for the past couple hundred years is because, you know, I, I think it's McIntyre may have made this point that you lost purpose, you lost teleology.
Speaker 3 00:09:06 You don't see human being doesn't have a natural purpose. That's an civilian concept in the modern scientific framework. You, you can't make recourse to be line with your nature to, to, to grow up and to develop in a certain way. And that led to this mess of, of ethics, all the different competing theories and a lot of, of the maise of the modern world of people thinking that the world is meaningless and it's bleak and what's the purpose to anything? It all comes from the fact that modern science has seemingly removed an objective justification for teleology and for purpose in the universe. Again, we don't go into the implications of our podcast, but once you see that there is a real justification from physics and science that teleology is built into the very fabric of the cosmos in terms of the constants of nature that opens the door for a much deeper and expansive, uh, implication of what does, what does objective purpose, the implications and areas of, of ethics and, and, and other areas.
Speaker 2 00:10:02 That was really well said. Now you also go into this idea that following the logic is that this leads to the idea of an intelligence behind the universe since purpose is something that's only produced by intelligence. And what do you believe that the scientific evidence suggests about this intelligence?
Speaker 4 00:10:21 I guess we're, we're following, just following the line of the reasoning here is that the question is how do we define intelligence and intelligence? One definition, which excuse the standard definition of intelligence is the ability to select one particular thing, plan, object for the purpose of bringing about some greater goal. And when we see a teleological, cause as you said, that indicates intelligence. We see that there's a sea of possibilities of what the constants in theory could have been. Let's see, the right that's fine as mystery is that these numbers seemingly could have been anything. And yet we see that the numbers are specifically, they're selected to be those numbers which bring about our unbelievable universe. And the same thing with the laws of nature and something with something called initial conditions of our universe. And what's inferred, and we see when we see teleology, we infer an intelligence.
Speaker 4 00:11:13 And this intelligence is indicated, is like the intelligence is what we call infinite intelligence. It's like an intelligence. When we are intelligent, we select from the voices that are in front of us, but there's like a finite potential curriculum in front of us. And we don't have that, we don't have a world of possibilities, but God created the world from nothing. The very laws that built into the very fabric of our universe. We see what's indicated is that the laws, the constant still initial conditions were all set up in a way which is bring it about our, our amazing universe. And in that sense, without any framework that created the world from nothing. And what indicates is that the degree of intelligence is mind boggling and it's beyond. We can't even put a number on it because the fact that the possibilities are seemingly endless.
Speaker 2 00:11:58 That made a lot of sense. Now, one response to that argument, and I think you alluded to this earlier, was that if you say that we see this order, this, um, design in our universe to explain the complexity and the purpose, someone might say, well how do you explain the designer? Because wouldn't a designer have to be even more ordered and more complex? And you, you alluded to the fact that you have a response to that. What, what would be your response?
Speaker 3 00:12:23 So you know that that's a question that just you almost have to take up. And we always want, you know, we have a whole series, uh, about God that we're gonna take it up in, in depth, but you have to deal with it. You know, even now when we're just discussing it, it's the natural question. So the answer to that question is that you're right, if we were trying to argue that God is this super computer, this huge brain, super intelligent, you know, artificial intelligence or something that designed this universe with the laws and the constants. So then you're right, you have that question, it begs the question, well, who designed God? Who fine tuned God, God has all these different parts, and why do they all work together in just the right way, you know, to make God work well in order that God can make the universe that wouldn't be a problem.
Speaker 3 00:13:08 That begs the question, then you would need a designer for God. Somebody would've to fine tune God. But if you, you realize that this whole argument points to the ideal, uh, the idea of a simple one, simple God. And the idea of a simple God simplicity, divine simplicity is that there's an idea of a God with no parts, with no complexity. And if, if God has no parts and no complexity, then you can understand why it doesn't make sense to ask, well, who put God together? Who fine tuned God if God doesn't have parts that he's not subject to fine tuning. So the only real idea of God that is going to ultimately be satisfactory and you can understand why it doesn't make sense to ask the question further, who designed God, who fine tuned God is the idea of a simple, absolutely simple existence.
Speaker 3 00:13:55 And, and that in fact is the argument of how, you know God must be absolutely simple. Because if he was complex, if you had in multiple parts, you are, it's a legitimate question to say, well, who made God? Why does it happen to be that God exists in this way where everything works together? The only real rational idea of God that ends the question in line of questioning of who fine tuned God is the idea of the simple God with no parts and that we di we're gonna develop that in much more, you know, much more detail by using analogies from physics. That's what we're gonna do. In, in, in, in on our separate miniseries on God. We're gonna show how these categories, they're not just these categories that we're making up to in order to justify our idea of God, but when physics deals with fundamental entities like an electron, an electron's a fundamental particle, it's not made up of anything else.
Speaker 3 00:14:40 It doesn't have any parts. That's the whole idea of a fundamental particle. A quark is a fundamental particle, an atom, uh, a proton is not. It's made up of other things, but there are, when you get down to it, you can, it keeps, you know, molecules are made up of atoms, atoms are made up of these fundamental particles, they're not made up of anything else. And I ask the ask the physicist, what, what, what, what's inside of an electron? No, there's nothing has zero dimensions. It's a point particle. So it's, it's a, a perfectly simple existence here that that isn't made up of anything else and it can't be broken down to other components. And that's when physics deals with the most fundamental existences. They use these very same categories. And we're gonna do that in, in, in our, in our series on God. We're going to show how the very same categories that physics use to, to deal with fundamental existences are those very same categories we're going to use, apply them to God and show how they really are. There's a reason physics uses them and they're appropriate categories to deal with the fundamental existence. And we're going to use those very categories to explain the idea of the most fundamental existence, which is God.
Speaker 2 00:15:41 Very nice answer. Thank you. I think you're really illustrating how when you're dealing with the boundaries of science, whether it be the start of our universe, the, um, underlying principles of quantum mechanics, inevitably the science intersects with the philosophy and theology. And you're illustrating that very beautifully. And I have one last question I wanted to ask. You've talked about the science, you've talked about this logical progression from the fine tuning to an intelligence to certain aspects of that intelligence. But I wanna just ask you, what do you believe personally about this intelligent agent, just from your background, your experience, other knowledge bases you're drawn from?
Speaker 4 00:16:16 Right, great question. So this is not something we don't discuss in the podcast, but it's a natural follow up, I guess from our podcast. And the idea is, is that the physics leads us to the conclusion that our universe was intelligently designed intelligently fine tuned by God, and the purpose of bringing about our universe in all its complexity from all levels of, uh, from whether it's, again, of atoms or molecules and stars and galaxies and planets and life. And when you see that argument, it naturally leads you to a question is life is man part of that plan that God did create the universe with all this in mind is man just a ran another random like by byproduct or is man part of the design and part of the plan? And that's as far as we could tell. The science itself leads you with that as an open question.
Speaker 4 00:17:06 You could go either way on it. And what we believe is that man is part of it because God, we, God revealed himself at Mount Sinai. He is part man, is part of the plan of the universe and he God's will is that man lives a moral, ethical life and pursuit of knowledge. And he revealed to us the way that we could live this life. And that's what we study. And the same way God is the source of an unbelievable, amazing, wise universe. He's also the source of the Torah and uh, what we study the Bible and the oral and the Talmud, and in a sense we see there's a unification that the same God, the God, the wisdom which God manifests himself, he manifests himself both in the universe and in the Talmud. And that's part of what we, in our lives, this is what we, we study the wisdom of God and any source which we find it, whether it be in physics or whether it be in, um, in the rah, which what she gave us.
Speaker 3 00:17:58 Yeah. So maybe just to develop that, that point a little bit, a little bit more to just develop this, this, there's this tension between does God relate to man? So again, we're orthodox rabbis, we do believe that. But if, if you believe, if you think that science is disproven God, so then to say, well, I also, I believe in God, you're forced to dichotomize your mind where you say, I have one set of theory, uh, thoughts for religion, one set of thoughts for science. That's what we want to avoid. Once you see that God exists, it becomes an open question. When you analyze that question, does God relate to man in a special way? I think there's really two sides here. One is, and and I know now you, I know you like Richard Feynman, now Brian, so one is expressed by, by Feynman of, I think he, he said, I forgot where, and I I love Als.
Speaker 3 00:18:45 I've, I've read all his books. Um, he said, I think something along the lines of the stage is too big for the actors. You look at the universe and it's all, its grande and it's, it's the, it's the, just the galaxy itself. It just doesn't make sense that man is of any significance when you compare him to the rest of the cosmos. And it's to say that the whole purpose of the universe is just for, for people. It just doesn't, it just, it just doesn't make any sense. It doesn't seem to ring true because again, the the, the universe is so much grander than just mankind. On the other hand to say that man is nothing, there's nothing special about the human being with an intellect, with who has the ability to perceive the great wisdom of God in the universe that nothing else, you know, on, on earth or as far as we know in the solar system or, or even in the galaxy as far as we know, to say that a human being is nothing special.
Speaker 3 00:19:30 That's also a mistake. That, uh, there is something clearly unique about the human intellect and the ability to comprehend the great wisdom of mathematics and science. There's something special about that. And to say that, that God doesn't care about man at all in, in a sense, again, it's, and again, we're now going a little psychology in a sense, I think that comes from, you're projecting a certain human egoistic fallacy onto God to say that God is so great, he's the creator of the whole universe. Why should he care about man? Like if a human being created a universe he wouldn't care about little, little ants in the universe because of an ego of a psychological thing. But there's no reason why we, we should project that. Well, we should assume that because God is so great that he should not care about anything else in the universe. Maybe he cares about everything you, that you have no real a priori knowledge that God doesn't care about man or that he does care about man. It's really an open question.
Speaker 4 00:20:24 He has to spell out what Aaron's actually saying about these two ways of looking at man is can be expressed better by than by King David In Psalms, it's in Psalms eight, four and his view verses later, he says, when I behold your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars that you have established, what is man that you are mindful of him and the son of man that you think of him, yet you have made him but little lower than the angels. And I've crowned him with glory and honor. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands. You have put all things under his feet and so on. So I think that's kind of expressing that the dual sentiment on the one hand that's Feynman's point, is that the stage is too big for the actors. And on the one hand, man does seem to be small.
Speaker 4 00:21:04 What is man that you should pay He to them? On the other hand, it does seem that man is somehow special. Man does seem to have dominion and have knowledge and is able to receive the wisdom in God's universe. And I think that again, that attests to this dual relationship, we, we have, on the one hand we're small and we have to appreciate our smallness in God's vast universe. At the same time, God did give us the ability to gain knowledge and to gain wisdom and to share that wisdom and, and to perceive the small part of his, uh, unbelievable universe.
Speaker 3 00:21:34 And a lot of what we're we're doing with the, the podcast and physics to God is we're at least getting you to the point where you see that God does exist. You should be convinced by the end of the podcast that you know God exists. And now it's an open question that you have to use. Other methods that we're not gonna go into on how you can try to answer that other question of whether God relates to man through providence, through miracles, through revelation. That's something we we're not gonna go into, but it's an open question that is right now. I think for a lot of people, religious people, they feel like it's not an open question from science. They feel like science has shut that door and they have to split their mind. We're trying to open up their mind and show you can be an integrated person and that door is open now. You can investigate that appropriately in the right philosophical way.
Speaker 2 00:22:17 Oh, thank you. Um, that, so you're really, you're really giving people the intellectual freedom to follow the evidence and have the, the capacity to explore the deeper questions of where it might lead. That's, that's really beautiful. Well, I I just wanna thank both of you for coming on our podcast. That was, it was really a, a very insightful conversation and it was such a pleasure.
Speaker 4 00:22:38 It was our pleasure, Brian. We really enjoyed it. Thank you.
Speaker 3 00:22:41 Yeah, we, we enjoyed it very much. Brian. Yes, thank you.
Speaker 2 00:22:45 And again, if you want to listen to their podcast and hear more of their episodes, you can go to physics to god.com. That's physics t o God not Physics two, God. And for ID the future, I am Brian Miller. Thank you for listening.
Speaker 1 00:23:01 Visit
[email protected] and intelligent design.org. This program is Copyright Discovery Institute and recorded by its Center for Science and Culture.
