[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:05] Speaker B: The Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
[00:00:12] Speaker C: Welcome to ID the Future. I'm your host, Brian Miller. This is part two of my interview with Rabbi Aaron Zimmer and Rabbi Ellie Feder 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?
[00:00:36] Speaker A: You know, the one that really impacted the scientific world was the cosmological constant. It was in 1998 when scientists met the distant supernovae 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 would never have galaxies develop or it would have expanded way too quickly. Again, you never have galaxies develop 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 realize they're more and more fine tuned. 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, Martin Reese, Leonard Suskine, 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?
[00:02:14] Speaker C: 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?
[00:02:34] Speaker D: Right. So science typically does is that we have observations, we try to explain the cause of these observations and sometimes, we sometimes call it 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 see. And the laws themselves are the way we'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 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 has shown is not, is 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, a universe with planets and galaxies and atoms and molecules and life, is the cause of the form of the laws. 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 intrinsic in terms of the beauty or simplicity of the laws themselves, but is 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. 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 that's why we said the term the 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 results that will end up coming, coming out from those laws. And that's something which requires a paradigm shift. That's science doesn't explain, in general, 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, we argue, is the implied solution, which is that what we call a teleological cause is that the logical cause actually does work in the opposite direction. A person has a carpenter has an idea of a table in his head, and he has this objective, this purpose of having a surface to eat on. And he makes a table in order to bring about 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 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, ordered, structured, beautiful universe. That's one solution, which we're arguing is the applied solution, indicated solution. The other solution is also a paradigm shift. And this is 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 coincidental relationship, which is that in truth, even though we only observe one universe, there are actually infinitely many universes out there. 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 going to happen to have a few, or actually infinitely many, which are going to have just the right constants which are necessary to produce this complex universe and intelligent observers. And if that's the case, we're going to have to be on that universe. The fact that we exist means that there's an 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 order. Instruction universe which has intelligent. The dermis.
[00:07:25] Speaker A: Yeah, I just, just want to 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, what we call efficient causes, the carpenter builds the table, and teleological causes. The purpose of the table 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 Newton and just focus entirely on efficient causes and not to remove purpose from the universe, that there is no purpose to the laws there. They just operate blindly. The famous. In biology, again, that's a little bit outside our area, but, you know, biology, the blind watchmaker 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. 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, and this is. This is really the only explanation, except for multiverse, that infinite 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 creating 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're not discussing morality and religion. We don't. We don't get into that. But for the purpose of your podcast, Brian, I'll go into 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 I think it's. MacIntyre made this point that you lost purpose, you lost teleology. You don't say human being doesn't have a natural purpose. That's an Aristotelian concept. In the modern scientific framework, you can't make recourse to be in line with your nature, 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 the malaise 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 on 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 implication of what does. What does objective purpose, the implications in areas of ethics and other areas that.
[00:10:02] Speaker C: 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?
[00:10:21] Speaker D: I guess we're following just following the line of reasoning here is that the question is how do we define intelligence and intelligence? One definition which seems to 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.
That's Feynman's 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 the initial conditions of our universe.
And what's inferred. And we see, when we see teleology, we infer an intelligence. And this intelligence is indicated is like the intelligence is what we call infinite intelligence. It's like intelligence. When we are intelligent, we select from the choices that are in front of us. But there's like a finite potential choice that's in front of us. 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 constants, the initial conditions were all set up in a way which is bringing about our amazing universe. And in that sense, without any framework, God 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.
[00:11:56] Speaker C: Are seemingly endless, 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 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 alluded to the fact that you have a response to that, what would be your response?
[00:12:23] Speaker A: So, you know, that's a question that just, you almost have to take up. We always want, you know, we have a whole series about God that we're going to take it up in depth, but you have to deal with it even now when we're just discussing. 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 supercomputer, this huge brain, super intelligent 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 would be a problem. That begs the question, then you would need a designer for God. Somebody would have to fine tune God. But if you realize that this whole argument points to the ideal, 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 design God? Who fine tuned God? Is the idea of a simple, absolutely simple existence. And that in fact is the argument of how, you know, God must be absolutely simple. Because if he was complex, if he had multiple parts, 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, the line of questioning of who fine tuned God is? The idea of the simple God with no part.
And that we did, we're going to develop that in much more, you know, much more detail by using analogies from physics. That's what we're going to do on our separate miniseries on God. We're going to 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 is a fundamental particle. It's not made up of anything else. It doesn't have any parts. That's the whole idea of a fundamental particle. But a quark is a fundamental particle, an atom, a proton is not. It's made up of other things. But there are, when you get down to it, you can keep, 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 asked if you asked the physicists what's inside of an electron. No, there's nothing. It has zero dimensions. It's a point particle. So it's a perfectly simple existence here 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 going to do that in our series on God. We're going to show how the very same categories that physics used 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 a fundamental existence. And we're going to use those very categories to explain the idea of the most fundamental existence, which is God.
[00:15:42] Speaker C: 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 underlying principles of quantum mechanics, inevitably the science intersects with the philosophy and theology. And you're illustrating that very beautifully. 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 want to just ask you, what do you believe personally about this intelligent agent, just from your background, your experience, other knowledge bases you're drawing from?
[00:16:16] Speaker D: 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 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, from whether it's again 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 another random 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 leaves you with that as an open question.
You could go either way on it. And we believe is that man is part of it because God revealed himself at Mount Sinai. He, part of man is part of the plan of the universe. And 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 our unbelievable, amazing, wise universe, he's also the source of the Torah and what we study in 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 Torah. And that's part of what we. In our lives, this is what we do. We study the wisdom of God and any source which we find that, whether it be in physics or whether it be in the Torah which he gave us.
[00:17:58] Speaker A: Yeah. So maybe just to develop that point a little bit, a little bit more, to just develop this, there's this tension between does God relate to man? So again, we're Orthodox rabbis, we do believe that. But if you think that science has 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 thoughts for religion, one set of thoughts for science. That's what we want 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. I know now, you know, you like Richard Feynman now, Brian. So one is expressed by Feynman of. I think he said, I forgot where. And I love Feynman also. I've read all his books. 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 grandeur. And it's. It's the. It's 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 people. It just doesn't. It just. It just doesn't make any sense. It doesn't seem to ring true because, again, the universe is so much grander than just mankind. On the other hand, to say that man is nothing. There's nothing special about a 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 Earth or as far as we know, in the solar system, or even in the galaxy, as far as we know. To say that a human being is nothing special, that's also a mistake. That 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 a sense, it's now going with psychology, in a sense. I think that comes from your 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? 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 while 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 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.
[00:20:24] Speaker D: Yes. To spell out what Aaron's actually saying about these two ways of looking at man is can't be expressed better than by King David in Psalms. This is Psalms 84. And a few verses later he says, when I behold your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have established, what is man, that you're 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 have 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 Feynman's point is that the state is too big for the actors. And on the one hand, man does seem to be small. What is man that you should pay heed 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 to perceive the small part of his Unbelievable universe.
[00:21:34] Speaker A: And a lot of what we're doing with the podcast and Physics to God is where 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 going to 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're not going to 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. I 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 could be an integrated person. And that door is open now. You can investigate that appropriately in the right philosophical way.
[00:22:18] Speaker C: Thank you. So you 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 just want to thank both of you for coming on our podcast. That was. It was really a very insightful conversation, and it was such a pleasure.
[00:22:38] Speaker D: It was our pleasure, Brian. We really enjoyed it.
[00:22:40] Speaker A: Thank you. Yeah, we enjoyed it very much, Brian. Yes, thank you.
[00:22:45] Speaker C: And again, if you want to listen to their podcast and hear more of their episodes, you can go to physicstogod.com that's physics to God, not physics to God. And for ID the future, I am Brian Miller. Thank you for listening.
[00:23:01] Speaker B: Visit
[email protected] and intelligent design.org this program is copyright Discovery Institute and recorded by its center for Science and Culture.
