Joining The Dots - Day 7

Good evening, everybody. My name is William Haines, and I hope you've been enjoying these few days together. This is the second week now, and yesterday we looked at evolution, Darwin, and related topics. At the end of that discussion, I posed the question: where does God fit into all this? The theory of intelligent design doesn't seem to make much sense and isn't accepted by regular scientists. Those associated with the Discovery Institute, who promote intelligent design, haven't had articles published in any respectable science journals. We started off with Plato, who introduced the idea of design, suggesting that matter is eternal and inanimate. He argued that the only way to explain the living phenomena around us is through a Demiurge, akin to an angel, that shapes this lifeless matter. This notion of design has influenced both Greek philosophy and Christian theology.

We also discussed William Paley and his argument from design, which doesn't hold up very well anymore. Darwin stated that he never denied the existence of God and believed that the theory of evolution is fully compatible with faith in God. He argued that the greatest argument for God's existence is the impossibility of demonstrating that the immense universe and humanity are merely the result of chance. So, let's explore how this works. Think back to your school days. You might have walked down the same corridor every day without paying much attention to it. But if one day you encountered something unusual, like a large piece of metal in the middle of the corridor, you would stop and question its origin. This illustrates how we often take our surroundings for granted, failing to notice the extraordinary aspects of our world because they are so familiar.

Philosopher Wittgenstein noted that the most important aspects of things are often hidden due to their simplicity and familiarity. We don't notice significant things because they are part of our everyday lives. This raises the question of existence itself. If something has always existed, we may not feel the need to explain its origin. For instance, a tree that has been in your garden for centuries might not prompt you to wonder who planted it. Similarly, if the universe has always existed, we wouldn't need to ask where it came from. A well-known scientist once suggested that if God is eternal, then why not conclude that the universe is eternal as well? This idea has roots in philosophy, with Plato arguing that prime matter has always existed, as nothing can come from nothing. Aristotle, Plato's disciple, also posited that God is eternal and unchanging, leading to the belief that the world is eternal and uncreated.

Up until the 1950s, scientists generally believed in a steady state theory of the universe, which posited that the universe had always existed. However, Judaism, based on Genesis, has always maintained the belief in creation out of nothing. Maimonides, a significant Jewish philosopher, synthesized Aristotle's ideas with Jewish theology, suggesting that it is possible for the universe to have always existed, but he ultimately leaned towards the belief that God created the universe out of nothing. In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies are moving away from each other, indicating that the universe is expanding. This phenomenon, known as redshift, led him to conclude that the universe must have had a beginning. He likened the universe to a balloon inflating, where all parts move away from each other as air is added.

If the universe is expanding, it must have started from a single point. Hubble's findings suggested that the universe had a beginning, which raised questions about its origin. Some physicists at Bell Laboratories discovered background radiation that seemed to come from a single source, leading to the conclusion that it was a remnant of the Big Bang. This background radiation is akin to ripples in a pond after a stone is thrown in. They calculated that about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe began from a singularity—something infinitely small, dense, and hot. Many scientists are uncomfortable with the idea of a universe having a beginning, as it implies the need for a creator. If the universe has a beginning, we must ask why it started and where the energy came from. This brings God back into the conversation, which some people struggle with.

When people say they don't believe in God but believe in the Big Bang, they are missing the point. The Big Bang suggests the existence of God, as it raises the question of how such a vast universe could emerge from nothing. The Big Bang is a more complex phenomenon than pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose discussed the Big Bang, noting that time and space began with it. They argued that there was no time before the Big Bang, and thus, the concept of 'before' is meaningless in this context. Hawking wrestled with the implications of the Big Bang, trying to explain it without invoking God. He recognized that the idea of no boundary suggests a timeless state where nothing exists. When asked who created God, it's essential to understand that creation occurs in time. Since time began with the Big Bang, there was no time before it, and therefore, God, as an eternal being, is not created. Hawking acknowledged that while science could predict the universe must have had a beginning, it could not explain how it began without appealing to God. Wittgenstein's observation that the existence of the universe itself is mystical highlights the profound nature of our reality.

Why is there a universe? This question is much deeper and more profound than simply asking how it came to be. When we think of the Big Bang, we might expect chaos, disorder, and randomness. However, when we observe the universe, we find it to be incredibly beautiful, complex, and orderly. This is why we refer to it as a cosmos. The images captured by the Hubble Space Telescope reveal extraordinary beauty and order across billions of light years, showcasing stunning shapes and galaxies. So, how do we explain this remarkable order and beauty?

To understand this, we must examine the conditions at the time of the Big Bang. Typically, when constructing a house, one requires various materials such as bricks, timber, nails, and glass. You would need a significant amount of energy to transform these materials into a beautiful structure. If one were to use dynamite to hastily assemble the house, the result would be chaos rather than order. Similarly, if the Big Bang had been too chaotic or ragged, the universe would have been filled with turbulence and black holes. Scientists suggest that the probability of a smooth beginning, which allowed for the orderly expansion of the universe, is 1 in 10 to the power of 10123. This is an astronomically low chance, indicating that the universe's existence as we know it is highly improbable.

Moreover, the universe had to expand at an incredibly precise speed. If it had expanded even one part in a million more slowly, it would have collapsed within a fraction of a second. Conversely, if it had expanded even one part in a million faster, galaxies would never have formed, leaving only a vast expanse of dust. The delicate balance of atomic forces also plays a crucial role. For instance, if the weak nuclear force were slightly stronger, all matter would have turned into helium, eliminating the possibility of water and life. A change in just one part in 10 to the power of 40 could affect star formation significantly. These vast numbers illustrate the improbability of the universe existing in a manner that supports life and consciousness.

Many scientists have noted these extraordinary coincidences. Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, discusses six critical numbers that must be precisely what they are for the universe to support life. He presents a thought experiment: if you were the intended victim of a firing squad, and all ten shooters missed, you would likely wonder if something special had been arranged for you. This analogy raises questions about the extraordinary nature of the universe's fine-tuning. Are we aware enough to recognise the significance of these numbers?

Paul Davis, a physicist, also explores these questions in his writings. He discusses the concept of the 'Goldilocks zone', where conditions are just right for life. To illustrate this, imagine being blindfolded and sent into a dark kitchen to bake a cake without knowing where the ingredients are. If you managed to bake a perfect cake under such circumstances, it would be seen as an extraordinary fluke rather than mere skill. This analogy highlights the improbability of the universe's existence and the conditions that allow for life.

Stephen Hawking, a renowned physicist, suggested that the universe can and will create itself from nothing due to the laws of gravity. However, this raises further questions about the origin of gravity itself. Is gravity eternal? Is it a manifestation of a divine force? While Hawking's perspective is intriguing, it does not fully address the issue of fine-tuning. He speculated whether the universe's beginnings were chosen by God or determined by scientific laws. Many religions provide explanations for the creation of the universe, which Hawking may not have considered. Furthermore, he assumed that a personal relationship with God is impossible, overlooking the countless individuals who claim to have such experiences.

Lawrence Krauss, another physicist, proposed that quantum fields created the universe, asserting that the total energy of the universe is zero. He described these quantum fields as unstable, with particles constantly appearing and disappearing at the quantum level. This perspective aligns with a materialistic view of the universe, but it also raises questions about the deeper implications of existence and the nature of reality.

He said the universe then appeared as a quantum fluctuation, just like that, out of nothing. The question is, well, a quantum vacuum is not nothing, as it assumes the existence of quantum fields, which create matter. So again, it's not starting off with nothing; it's starting off with the existence of something. True nothing would be no fields, no quantum fields at all. So how do we explain the existence of the universe without assuming the existence of quantum fields? Where do the fields come from? Are quantum fields eternal? Are they God or an aspect or dimension of God? We could say quantum fields are an expression of the universal primary G of God. So how can we explain all this? Einstein said the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible at all. It is really surprising that it is possible to make sense of the universe, and we can use mathematics to do so.

This is from Paul Davies. He said, well, what are the options? You could say the universe is absurd; it just is, and it just happens to be like this. We can't ask any questions about it; we can't explain it; it's just there. That's a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with the question. Another way is to say the universe is unique. You could argue there's a deep underlying unity in physics, which necessitates the universe being the way that it is. It's some kind of principle that we don't understand yet. Some theory of everything will explain why the various features of the universe must have exactly the values that we see now. Scientists are trying to discover a theory of everything that will reconcile the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.

Another way of dealing with this is to say that multiple universes exist, which I'll look at in a moment, having all possible combinations or characteristics, and we find ourselves within one that allows us to exist. If you assume there's an infinity of universes, then you could claim that one of them should have a Big Bang exactly like ours. That's another way of dealing with it. Now, there are ways of intelligent design, a creator designed the universe with the purpose of supporting complexity and the emergence of intelligence. You could say maybe the creator of the universe is like a cook who put together the recipe with precisely these ingredients, precisely this amount of energy, precisely this temperature, and everything else. In that sense, all those numbers were designed by an incredibly intelligent being who worked out all the maths to create a universe that would lead to the kind of universe we're living in.

Another idea is something called a life principle or some underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life. We don't know which means the universe is going to evolve towards Earth. Also, there's the idea of a self-explaining universe. I'm not sure I understand this to be honest. Perhaps only a universe with the capacity for consciousness can exist. Or you could say, well, it's fake; we're all just living in the matrix, in some virtual reality simulation, and there isn't really a universe; it's just all living in that kind of matrix. The multiverse is kind of interesting; this is also the conclusion that Hawking came to. He said the fine-tunings and the laws of nature can be explained by the existence of multiple universes. People through the ages have attributed the beauty and complexity of nature to God, but just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a Supreme Being, the multiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of the physical laws without the need for a benevolent creator.

The argument of the multiverse theory holds that there are many different universes, each with its own system of physical laws. Hawking's argument is essentially one from the laws of probability: there are enough universes that one or more of those universes is suitable for the evolution of intelligent life, and it's more or less bound to occur. However, there's no evidence for the existence of other universes. If there were, they would be in our universe. We often take the approach of one of the medieval schoolmen, because somebody is not a musical agent; they move themselves. Please just make sure you're muted. Maybe you came in late and you're not new. Thanks. Akhom said among many competing hypotheses, the one which makes the fewest assumptions should be selected. This is the principle often used: the simplest explanation is probably the truest explanation, as opposed to one which has all kinds of extra bits.

Even if there are multiple universes, the point is it doesn't explain why they exist. Okay, maybe there are an infinite number of universes, but it doesn't answer the question: why are there all these universes in the first place? Where did the energy for all these universes come from? Is it just magic? Did they just appear out of nowhere, out of nothing? We're still stuck with the same problem: how to explain. You can't explain one universe; how can you explain multiple universes? It's just an assumption; it's just a way of trying to get around the problem but not really dealing with the problem. Alternatively, I go along with the idea that maybe there's an intelligent creator who designed the initial conditions to support the development of complexity, life, and consciousness. This is called the anthropic cosmological principle. A couple of decades ago, some professors of physics and mathematics, along with quite a few others, came up with this idea that there is some kind of intelligent creator behind this.

In other words, the universe is designed so that it makes it possible for the development of complexity, life, and consciousness. Which is more likely: God or chance? Einstein said, and again he wasn't a traditional believer; he was Jewish by background, but he didn't believe in a personal God. He said, when I see all the glories of the cosmos, I can't help but believe that there's a divine hand behind it all. That was the conclusion he came to; he couldn't help but believe there was more to it than meets the eye. So does God exist? Well, I'm not going to go into this bit now. I think it's time to stop really and have a little break. I hope you found that interesting. Even though I think bringing God in terms of intelligent design in explaining why living creatures are the way they are, I don't think that's a valid use of that argument. I think it's just a God of the gaps kind of argument, but I think it works here in terms of trying to explain the initial starting conditions for the Big Bang. That's where it's valid because otherwise, what's the alternative?

The alternative to intelligent design for the eye and for all living creatures is the science of evolution, where all the gaps are being closed, and eventually, there will be a comprehensive explanation. I think, but I don't think there's anything that's an alternative comprehensive explanation that can explain the start, the fine-tuning of the initial conditions for the Big Bang. A lot of people have tried to do that, like Hawking and others, and you can see them wrestling with it but unable to come up with something that works convincingly. I hope you all had a good coffee break and a good chat. If so, have you joined the groups? What I want to look at now, or what I want to show you, is a video called 'Secret Life of Chaos'. It brings up lots of themes about order and chaos, particularly about a lot of the modern developments within science that have taken place over the last 50 years or so. Most of us don't know about these things.

We talk about self-generating order; we talk about things evolving. It is really hard to get our heads around it. In this video, things are impossible. If I were just trying to explain these things to you, you either wouldn't be able to understand them, and you certainly wouldn't believe it. That's generally speaking the response that these scientists received in their own lives. Their ideas were dismissed as being off the page because they were impossible. But actually, they were just coming up with a much better understanding of the nature of reality. I want to show you this, and then when it comes to look at the principle, understanding the nature of reality, they may be able to understand what the principle is saying. We read the principle over and over again, but we don't understand what its implications are; we don't understand what it means.

The principle is supposed to explain the nature of reality. A good theory is able to explain the way things work. There should be a correspondence between the theory and reality; it's not an arbitrary thing. What I like about the principle is that it corresponds to nature reality. It's the best explanation of reality, the human condition, and the way the world works that I've ever come across. I've read a lot of philosophy from different religious thinkers, and to me, the principle is the best explanation of nature reality I've ever encountered. What are the Bible stories? I've learned lots of other stuff from other people as well, but in terms of the philosophical aspect, I would say this is the best. Often, we don't understand the nature of reality, so we can't really understand the nature of the principle. We're just stuck in our own world, which is shaped by the culture in which we grew up, which is a philosophical culture of Platonism, Hellenism, and Christian theology, which itself is shaped by Platonism, more so also by Aristotle, but mostly by Platonism.

For me, I'm interested in what the implications of the principle are. I'm going to share; I've never done this before, so we're going to watch a video. We're going to do it through Dropbox because if I were just to play from my own computer, it just wouldn't work. I hope you enjoy it; it's well worth watching more than once. I've watched this many times; there's so much there which is really interesting. I've put the direct link from YouTube in the chat if you want to watch it. I'm going to try and play it now from my Dropbox to you and see if it works. I hope you enjoy it; it's really interesting and well worth watching more than once. Hi, those of you who stayed with it, I hope you enjoyed that. The music was a bit loud; the quality wasn't great, but I hope you could catch something from that and pick up some of those themes about order and chaos, the idea that matter is inanimate. I have explained that, and of course, the principle view of the nature of reality is not that matter is inanimate; it's that everything has an inner and outer aspect, and the inner invisible aspect is actually subject. That's what I can look at tomorrow to understand. What can the principle then form a philosophical basis with this modern science?

As he acknowledged, traditional science and traditional theology cannot explain that; they don't fit within traditional philosophy and traditional theology. But I think the principle does work with the principle, and I think if you understand the principle correctly, this is what you would expect the world to actually be like. Anyway, it's gone eight. I hope you can find a better one to look at on YouTube, one which hasn't got this loud music.