At What Cost? Stephen Meyer Assesses the Conformal Cyclic Cosmology of Sir Roger Penrose

Added: 2026-05-25

[00:00:00]As best we can tell, the universe has a beginning. The best explanation of that likely fact is that something beyond matter, space, time, and energy brought the universe into existence. And that something has attributes that correspond to those that Jews and Christians or traditional theists have have assigned to God. Transcendence, volition, power, and even intelligence. when we start to look at the the degree to which the universe has to be fine-tuned from the beginning >> whether they've pieced it all together and applied it to the Penrose model would agree these are pretty standard critiques that you're making Dr. Steven Meyer, welcome back to part two of our conversation. It turns out fascinatingly that there is a battle that is emerging over the Big Bang and the preeminent Sir Roger Penrose responded to a video of mine in which I interviewed you. He raised some challenges. In our last video, we talked about why his critique is so important, who he is, kind of where we stand in this debate. We promised we'd come back and do a deep dive specifically responding to his model because the question is, does the science point towards the universe having a beginning or not? If it does, that cries out, as we both agree, for a supernatural explanation. And he has one of the most preeminent models challenging that the universe had a beginning in the way that we would understand it. We're going to do a little bit of a deep dive and I'm going to turn the reigns over to you. I want our audience to know >> be a big mistake, Sean.

[00:01:30]>> No, no, no chance.

[00:01:32]>> But I want people to know this might be one you listen to two or three times and if you don't get a particular point, see the big picture of it. That's what's most important. But before we dive in, did I miss anything about how we want to frame this conversation? Well, it's what you said was perfect, but there's a an additional element we should add. And just reminding that our your audience that last time we talked about how uh these new cosmological models, these infinite universe uh models are possible, but they come at a very high cost, especially to those who hold to a philosophical to philosophical naturalism or materialism. So the the the basic structure of of my argument in return of the God hypothesis is a kind of either or pick your poison argument uh uh in challenge to scientific materialism. Either the universe has a beginning and my contention and that of several of my key colleagues is that uh and and I I would say the the majority of the the physics and cosmology community is that as best we can tell the universe had a beginning. But I also acknowledge that it's possible to model your way out of that. You can with very clever mathematical modeling, you can conceive of the universe as h as being infinite in duration and and make your model consistent with the data though not I would say not motivated by the data. Okay.

[00:03:03]>> Um and so in that first instance if if as best we can tell the universe has a beginning. The best explanation of that that uh likely fact is that uh that something beyond matter, space, time and energy brought the universe into existence and that something has attributes that correspond to those that Jews and Christians or traditional theists have have assigned to God.

[00:03:26]Transcendence, volition, power, and even intelligence when we start to look at the the degree to which the universe has to be fine-tuned from the beginning. Um, uh, alternatively, if you don't if if you want to say, well, maybe the universe didn't have a beginning, and here's a bunch of models that propose an alternative, it it the the our claim, my claim is that those models always come at a very high cost, particularly to naturalism, they first come at a high cost to the coherency of physics, that invariably to model the universe as having as having infinite duration in the past, there's uh very often times the modelers are having to posit physical properties or processes that have no precedent in our experience or which even violate known principles of physics.

[00:04:14]>> They often will involve some level of mathematical slight of hand uh as in Hawkings use of imaginary time for example >> the idea is that there is a quantum origin of the universe and imaginary time is a way of approximating the properties of this quantum origin. So that's the proposal that Haron Hawking had.

[00:04:34]>> Um and they all almost always involve um violations of AAM's razor in the sense that they needlessly multiply new theoretical entities. There they have a very a number of very ad hoc postulations. But finally and most importantly, every single model that I and my colleagues have looked at involves introducing unexplained new levels, new u new new unexplained finetuning and a great deal of it. And so that that new fine-tuning provides support for a different form of theistic argument, the argument from contingency or the argument to uh a design argument.

[00:05:16]And so you can get around the cosmological argument, but only at the cost of of going right into the teeth of an even stronger fine-tuning argument.

[00:05:26]>> And this was actually first first illustrated by by Einstein when in the 19s he realized that his theory of general relativity implied the need for an outward pushing force to compensate for gravitation to create empty space in the universe. That outward pushing force he dubbed the cosmological constant >> and so far so good. But then he assigned to the cosmological constant a very precise in fact finely tuned by Einstein value in order to depict the universe as being in a kind of balance between the outward push of the cosmological constant and the inward push of gravity.

[00:06:04]So that that's that was in a sense the first uh cosmological model that illustrates this point we're making. you can get around the the evidence for a beginning, but only at the cost of of an exquisite and uh degree of of fine-tuning, unexplained fine-tuning that provides grounds for theism on provides uh other grounds for for theism, supports a theistic argument for other reasons. So, it's kind of a it's a it's either a cosmological or a fine-tuning argument or both is is the situation that the naturalists are are confronting. So either the universe has a beginning which has theistic implications or we maintain an eternal universe but it takes a mind to do so fudging with the physics so to speak which would also imply theistic implications.

[00:06:52]>> Yes. And the it it is often the modeler will often introduce the fine-tuning and and often be somewhat aware unaware of what they're doing. In in in Sir Roger's response to our comments, my comments and our discussion last time he he said what well where is this finetuning? I don't see we didn't introduce any fi there's no finetuning involved.

[00:07:12]>> I have no idea what he's talking about.

[00:07:14]There isn't any finetuning of this sort.

[00:07:17]The main material in the universe is dark matter. And the dark matter comes about through gravitons. And it's not a question of any fine-tuning. There's nothing there isn't any finetuning. It I don't know what he's talking about.

[00:07:31]Well, he didn't calculate any finetuning, but he introduced it in order to make his model work. So it he modeled the need for fine-tuning and quite a a a great amount of additional fine-tuning beyond what's already there in in our in our normal discussions of cosmology.

[00:07:49]>> So that distinction between modeling and introducing if people listening right now are going, I don't understand. Well, you're in the exact right place because that is a part of what we're going to unpack.

[00:07:58]>> We're going to break it down. You put together a very careful, thoughtful PowerPoint, and we're not going to read all of that here, but we're going to give a link to it so people can follow, they can study it, they can assess it, see the documentation.

[00:08:11]>> We'll have some pictures jump up.

[00:08:13]>> But if Sir Roger Penrose watches this and says, "You know what? I'm up for a conversation. We would love to host him here at Talbot School Theology. You agreed to fly back down or the two of us would fly somewhere to meet with him."

[00:08:24]>> Well, he he's in Britain. we would probably allow him to come remotely I suppose right >> we would do that in a heartbeat if he wanted to have a conversation >> he's a wonderful scientist and a wonderful man and I I welcome the conversation and in in in fairness there we had a very rushed conversation about his model at the end of of a rather long discussion of the the situation in cosmology and the cosmological argument so part of the reason we're doing this is so that we can kind of tidy that up a little bit clean that up and clarify the points there are a couple things that I I got wrong, but uh I think the substance of our critique stands and we're going to we're going to try to show that this morning.

[00:09:02]>> All right. Well, I'm honored that one of the preeminent scientists of our day cares about what is covered on this podcast and weighed in. So, I'm going to turn the reigns over to you. I'm only going to jump in now and then maybe to clarify or ask a question, but take it away.

[00:09:16]>> Well, well, why don't we start with a discussion of the three great cosmological models of the 20th century.

[00:09:22]Uh the first is was uh coming into the 1920s with the discovery of the expanding universe. The first idea was the idea of the it was now known as the hot big bang model. The idea that the universe had a beginning and it has been expanding outward from that beginning.

[00:09:38]And your audience will see on the screen a depiction of these three models.

[00:09:43]Starting on my far left uh the the picture of the hot vig bang where you have the beginning and the expanding universe outward. sometimes depicted as what's called a light cone.

[00:09:53]>> Mhm.

[00:09:54]>> The second model uh that that came along to challenge that was the idea of the steady state and that was the idea proposed by Fred Hy and Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold. Uh I was oddly fortunate enough to meet all three of those men at different points in my my young career.

[00:10:11]Uh but in any case their idea was that yes the universe is expanding but there is a uh but it's been always expanding and there's a force that h oily called the creation force that as the universe expanded expands and stretches because there is a in his view he postulated that there was a need for constant density in the universe this was a pure pure theoretical postulate but he proposed this that then as the universe expands then new matter must be created.

[00:10:41]to to maintain that constant density and so it kind of pop into existence. So he attempted to account for the ex the expansion of the universe but within an infinite universe cosmology. Okay.

[00:10:53]>> No beginning point.

[00:10:54]>> No no no beginning point. It's expanding now but it's always been expanding. It's getting bigger now but it's always been getting bigger. And but but what's m remaining constant is the the amount of of matter per unit volume its density.

[00:11:06]>> Gotcha. uh that model uh uh came in for hard times in particular with the discovery of the cosmic background radiation which was a direct prediction or something that was expected on the basis of the big bang but was not expected on the basis of the steady state. Steady state never envisioned a place where all the matter in the universe would be would be congealed into one place rather it was popping into existence in little little little localized areas all the time. So by the 1960s pretty much all physicists mid mid1 1960s study state kind of goes by the boards. Hy holds on for a while maybe all the way to the end of his life but u uh the model did not >> uh in the in the 70s and 80s another model came about and this kind of illustrates the way you can model your way out of what seems to be the primmaaccia implications of of of cosmological or astrophysical evidence.

[00:12:02]So again have to account for the expanding universe. And so the oscillating universe and this is the third picture. This is one on the far right. The oscillating universe suggests that the universe is expanding now >> and then collapsing >> in a crunch >> into a crunch and but then it will bounce and expand again and recolapse add infin item. So yes, we're in an expansion, but it's only one of an infinite number of expansions and contractions. That model ran into a couple of problems. First, empirically was determined that there wasn't enough matter in the universe to cause a gravitational recolapse, even taking into account dark matter. And secondly, even a more fundamental concern was the the realization, this was something Alan Guth showed at MIT in the 80s, that there that with each successive cycle, there would be less and less and less energy available to do work. So if you think of a ball bouncing, it will bounce and bounce and bounce. The total mass energy of the system when you consider everything around the ball is the same.

[00:13:04]But the energy available for the ball to have another bounce is is is uh is going to dissipate with each cycle.

[00:13:09]>> So the equivalent of a hand that's pushing it down. The universe wouldn't have such a hand.

[00:13:13]>> Yeah. Exactly. And and there were other other problems with this model as well.

[00:13:17]But this idea of the the buildup of entropy, disorder, a disorderly arrangement of matter means less energy available to do work to cause something good in the next cycle.

[00:13:29]And so it also if if there's if there's a finite number of cycles, there must have been a beginning to the universe.

[00:13:35]All right? So um so this is essentially where where sir Rogers model comes in because he's trying to solve this problem of the buildup of entropy where entropy is essentially disorder and a loss of of energy available to do work.

[00:13:52]And so he has a kind of five or sixstep scenario whereby he attempts to to to to solve that problem and to and to depict the universe. So now I have I have another picture that your audience will will see here. It's the second one up.

[00:14:07]And this is this is from a 2018 paper that he wrote. And this is one of the things I I got slightly wrong in our discuss wrote.

[00:14:16]>> Yes. That Penrose wrote. This is our second um the second picture here. And it's it shows a series of big bangs, big bangs and expansions of the universe followed by a new big bang and a new expansion. So it's not like the oscillating universe where it goes big small big small. It goes big and then um and then gets bigger. Although there's a twist in all this in that he rescales or resizes the universe at each what he calls a crossover event where you move from one eon of cosmic expansion into into the other. The picture is slightly misleading. I I got it from uh it was in his 2018 paper, but he later acknowledged that it didn't quite capture the model. Okay. And and that's understandable because it's kind of hard to envision the model.

[00:15:08]>> Sure. Uh I took in our conversation this picture a bit too literally and this was a mistake I made. The new universe and the new eon does not come out of a patch of the old universe. It comes out of the whole thing where the whole of the universe has been rescaled or resized from big to small.

[00:15:27]>> The sense you get is that is that you have an expansion and then there's a out of some out of somewhere in that existing universe there's a patch of that universe. That's just plain wrong.

[00:15:38]The next eon just describes the whole universe and it comes from the whole universe previously. There's no little patch anywhere in it. That's not part of the story.

[00:15:49]>> Maybe he kind of watched this video that we had that there is a little patch that comes up. Uh because that's the only uh that's the only reference to a little patch that I know of. Uh and of course our video is just I think an animation.

[00:16:03]We shouldn't take it too seriously in that sense because really the entire universe maps to entire universe in all versions of CCC this entire universe that maps to the entire universe. Uh it's just that it loses a sense of a scale uh or is this what Roger calls conform scaling uh because the theory becomes a scale-free at some point in the far future and near the big bang.

[00:16:29]It's a little mindblowing and mindbending but that's what's meant by conformal cyclic cosmology. The conformal resizing is something we'll explain. Okay? Because but that's that's that's in a sense uh one of the essential elements of his model. Okay.

[00:16:46]So now if we just we can now if we keep in mind that problem of we've got a very big at the end of the expansion of this universe >> we've got a very big cold dark disordered in universe disordered in the sense that the matter and energy is very diffuse and it's not any longer available to do work. And so if you're going to get a new expansion phase, you're going to have to somehow get that reduce that entropy, that disorder, make it more orderly and and therefore create the conditions for doing work. Okay.

[00:17:21]>> So that's the problem he's trying to solve essentially. So he does it in several steps and and I'm I'm available to stop talking and let you uh clarify anything. Are we okay so far?

[00:17:31]>> So are are we on to a multiverse scenario? because the first three are one universe that's oscillating or steady state.

[00:17:40]>> I would say I mean you could think of it that way but I would say no this is not really a classic multiverse model. Okay.

[00:17:45]These are all multiverses are are causally disconnected from each other and they're they're really separate in that sense. These are this is these are different eons of expansion that are all connected in a in a series going back >> infinitely into the past and continuing infinitely into the future. That's the model. So, so now notice again his model like all the other models we've seen before >> captures the is consistent with the the idea of the galaxies moving away from us as indicated by >> we talked last time about the red shift data the the the way in which the light from coming from distant galaxies is stretched out. Okay. So, we've got we've got data showing that galaxies are moving outward in a way the universe is expanding. He's he's capturing that in this model because he's saying look in our present universe that's what's happening and it's going to happen again and again and again but there's this going to be this way in which the universe is going to be resized so that it can start that cosmic expansion over again. It doesn't go >> kind of goes big small but it's not the same way as the oscillating universe. We Okay, fair enough. Let's jump in. So the idea is that at the end of a period of cosmic expansion, >> Penrose envisions that all the black holes that are in the universe and black holes being dense >> concentrations of matter so dense that not even light can get out of them.

[00:19:08]Okay. Um the black holes would have evaporated by a process known as Hawking radiation.

[00:19:13]>> Stephen Hawkings discovery that black holes evaporate.

[00:19:17]>> That's where all the entropy goes into the black holes. So I don't know how deep to go into this but Hawking radiation is idea that you've got these virtual particles that form uh uh one with negative energy, one with positive energy and the one with the the negative energy gets absorbed into the black hole and the one with the positive energy then escapes and goes out into the into the universe. And as this process goes on then the black hole is going to start to lose mass and it will eventually evaporate. Okay? And Hawking m or sorry Penrose maintains that as a result of this process the not only the entropy of the black hole but the entropy of the entire universe will reduce and that there will be a loss of of information that this process destroys the information about the internal state of the black hole and therefore reduces entropy of the black hole reduces the the disorder of the black hole and of the entire universe.

[00:20:15]Now there's a reason he wants to get rid of the mass and we'll get to that. The mass of the black hole and he's going to have another process he invokes to do that. But this is actually quite contentious proposition among among physicists.

[00:20:27]>> Physicists accept that Hawking radiation would reduce the entropy the disorder of the the black hole. Okay. But they don't accept that it would uh reduce the entropy of the universe as a whole or that that it would uh destroy the information about about the internal state of the black hole. So okay, what's what's the big picture here? The big picture is that the Hawking radiation mechanism is getting rid of the mass of the black hole little by little and in the process, Penrose says reducing the entropy of the universe, which is what he wants, right? because you want to get to a low entropy state which is capable of doing work. All right.

[00:21:10]>> Um >> okay. So that that's that's the that's the first step. But this is this is uh highly controversial among other physicists quantum physicists. It violates something called the unitary principle of of quantum mechanics that affirms that information is conserved not lost. Okay. And so it's a big deal >> to to to violate that. And so this is a contentious proposition, but there is debate about this. Okay.

[00:21:37]>> Okay. All right. Fair. Okay. That's the first part. That's the first step. And u in the in the uh PowerPoint, we will have quotes from Sir Roger showing from his in particular from a 2018 article and then a later one he co-authored in 2025 showing that we're representing his his view accurat accurately. I I always taught my students um Bob Dylan uh which is most important quote from Bob Dylan.

[00:22:02]You can't criticize what you don't understand. So we're gonna >> simply yet profound.

[00:22:06]>> Okay. All right. So we want no straw men here.

[00:22:09]>> And okay. So now the second pro the second step in Penrose's >> in Penrose's um >> model and again his his model is called the conformal cyclic cosmology. That was one of the mistakes I made. I called it the cyclical the cyclic conformal cosmology. I re reversed the two terms and Phil Halper who interviewed him uh was uh I've debated Phil so we've got a little history here and he's he's a good guy but he he uh got a little snide about that you know condescending >> what that something was in Penrose's view is a cyclic model and that's what Mia is now attacking but can he even get the name of the model he criticizes correct >> uh the Penrose uh cyclic conformal cosmology model is its formal name, the CCC.

[00:22:57]>> It's not quite right. It's conformal cyclic cosmology.

[00:23:00]>> They both begin with C, don't they?

[00:23:02]>> Now, that's not too bad. We all make mistakes. But what's worse is when Maya describes how CCC actually works.

[00:23:10]>> Okay, Phil. Fair enough. Phil, simple mistake.

[00:23:13]Switch the two C's there. So, it's the conformal cyclic cosmology. Now, here's the second step that that you've got all the matter that's that's bunched into the black holes, but there's a lot of other matter in the universe. Okay? And and again, we're talking about the at the end of a cosmic cycle when you've got a things have really things are really diffuse, very disordered, no energy available to work. And Penro says, "Well, now what what about all the rest of the matter? How are we going to get rid of that?" And and we'll get to why he wants to get rid of the matter in a in a minute. But you got to get rid of the matter to do the trick he's going to do. And the remaining matter, he says, is going to is going to disappear as a result of radiation. um that he asserts that all other particles of mass will eventually decay in by radiation and this is sometimes called the mass fade out hypothesis. Okay. And the problem with this is that the standard model of particle physics provides no basis for saying that all all matter will convert be converted into radiation. In fact, in the case of electrons, we know that there's no known or even hypothesized mechanism by which electrons could decay in into radiation in this in this way.

[00:24:21]So, this is a pure postulation. It's pure posit that this would happen with no empirical basis. And so, that's that's also contentious. But you're going to see the audience will see now in the next step why he's doing this because you got to get rid of the matter, okay? in order to resize the universe. Then this is the third the third thing once mass disappears there's no longer a scale for measuring length.

[00:24:48]>> But a brief summary of CCC is that it says that with no mass in the early or late universe there's no way to build a ruler or a clock. So there's no scale and big and small become equivalent.

[00:24:59]>> Okay. Now this is the in other and then the universe can be treated as if it were very small.

[00:25:06]This is this is the there's a little bit of I'm going to critique this and say there's a bit of mathematical slight of hand. So if you're immediately saying wait wait wait wait that doesn't that doesn't seem to follow you're you're not you're not wrong you're not off with that intuition.

[00:25:18]>> This is something but Penrose claims this is justified by something called conformal geometry. So let's let's break this down a little bit. First part first part of this to understand this is that mass in quantum mechanics or in in physics generally defines an intrinsic length scale. uh that's uh that acts as a kind of ruler in the universe. There's something called the Compton wavelength where that defines a sort of minimal length by which you can measure everything else in the universe. And it's it's uh that that wavelength that Compton wavelength is um it's it's it's expressed as an equation. It's the plon constant divided by the mass in the mass of the particle in question times the speed of light. And so then you get a kind of for every particle there's a a a a a corresponding minimal length measure that goes with it. And so if you have mass you have a kind of built-in ruler that can be computed with this Compton wavelength. That's that's the sort of idea. Okay.

[00:26:19]>> If you get rid of the mass you can't compute the Compton wavelength. All right. And so you you've lost your ruler for measuring the universe in for for corresponding to each particle the kind of the smallest unit of of length corresponding to each each elementary particle. So you lose the you lose those rulers. All right.

[00:26:39]>> Now Penrose then claims that the absence of mass eliminates this in by eliminating this intrinsic measure of length. He then says that allows for what's called conformal rescaling.

[00:26:51]Okay, a little heavy here, but let me let me give it a go. Okay, give it a shot. So, in a in a conformally rescalable or what's called a conformally invariant system, one can change the um the length of something without changing angular relationships.

[00:27:09]So, imagine an isosles triangle. uh you could shrink all the the length, but you're not you get as no matter how how big the how big it is in size, you're not going to change the relationship between the angles. They're all going to be 60° at each one of the three angles.

[00:27:26]>> So just the scale is what changed, not the ratio.

[00:27:29]>> You could have a you know, you have a big elephant, a little elephant, the shape is going to remain the same irrespective of changes in size. Okay, so that's a conformal rescalable conformally invariant system. Mhm.

[00:27:40]>> So he then further claims that if the universe is conformally invariant because and he he says it is now because you've lost your length scale that would justify treating the universe as if it were very small. But a brief summary of CCC is that it says that with no mass in the early or late universe there's no way to build a ruler or a clock. There's no scale and big and small become equivalent. Switching to this scale-free or conformal geometry removes the singularity. And according to Penrose implies a series of cyclic eons where the universe forgets how big it is. In a related periodic time cosmology developed by Afroy and Gord the same thing happens but the future and the past are glued to each other to form a loop. Both use conformal rescaling. And it's this that our intelligent design guru Maya seems not to understand. My view is that the big bang was something that you can explain by conformal geometry. In conformal geometry, the big bang was nice and smooth and it joined onto something else nice and smooth which was the remote future of a previous cosmological eon.

[00:28:50]>> Okay, now you got to chew on that a little bit to see if you buy that. Uh and I will tell you that most physicists don't. Okay. So, this it isn't just um the uh the guys like uh you know, Bill Craig or me or others making cosmological arguments. This this is this is highly contentious now within physics. And in the PowerPoint, we'll have a couple slides from with Penrose describing this move. Okay. So, we're people can be sure we're representing him right.

[00:29:19]>> So, but here's our here's our basic critique of this and I think most people will follow this >> in a um the universe here's the first point. The universe does not become small simply because we no longer have a way of measuring it.

[00:29:32]>> Okay.

[00:29:32]>> Okay.

[00:29:33]>> Makes sense.

[00:29:34]>> Or or because we have performed more precisely a mathematical transformation that obscures the reality of length of the object under investigation. Okay. In this case, that object would be the universe as a whole.

[00:29:49]Okay. So just because we can't measure it doesn't mean we we um that it it itself has become smaller.

[00:29:57]>> All right. Um here's an illustration.

[00:30:00]>> Mhm.

[00:30:00]>> Let's say we think it's very hard to hike to the top of Mount Everest. It's 31,000 whatever feet. Okay. But let's say we're just going to we're going to rescale Mount Everest. We're going to say it's not 31,000 feet tall. It's one mountaineering unit.

[00:30:22]Oh. Oh, that's so much easier. Just one unit. It's pretty small now. Okay.

[00:30:28]>> So, this is a You're a philosopher. This is an epistemology ontology >> problem. Okay. That's really helpful.

[00:30:34]>> Okay. So, epistemology is the study of how we know what we know. It involves how we describe things, how we depict things. It's our knowledge of something or the way we represent something.

[00:30:45]>> And we're confusing our representation of something with the reality, the ontology of the something. Okay.

[00:30:52]>> Now, there's an even more precise critique that comes out of a deep understanding of conformal cosmology.

[00:31:00]And I'm going to just say it and see if it makes sense. Okay. And I'm I'm going to read this to get this right. I I I crafted this but in conformally invariant systems one can change length without changing angular re relationships. think that isocoses triangle right okay >> but it doesn't follow that one can change length without changing length >> because when you change the length you've changed the length okay >> so um so and and therefore overall size even if even if one doesn't have a a way of measuring so just because something is conformally invariant invariant doesn't mean you can arbitrarily assign a new length or size to the system without having to actually change the size of the system and Sir Roger does nothing to change the size of the universe.

[00:31:46]>> He's only changing the way we're describing the size of the universe >> and his model depends upon the universe's size itself changing. That's a necessary component.

[00:31:56]>> It's a necessary condition of getting that new gettingon a new eon of expansion after what he calls crossover. And I'm going to now the next step in his scenario will make that even more clear why that's the case. Good.

[00:32:09]>> Okay. So this is his the fourth this is the fourth step in his scenario in the PowerPoint that people will see. I have I have six assertions, okay, of of his model.

[00:32:18]>> And it sounds like as you start this one, for each one there's an assertion that he recognizes that's built in. And you're contesting each one of these assertions or at least saying a lot of scientists contest >> maybe less so in the very first case although there's plenty of physicists would that would cont but but what second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth that it all gets very contentious. Okay. Um or in the case of the sixth, the final one, uh you'll see that if it's true, it has theistic implications.

[00:32:47]>> All right, good. Can't wait.

[00:32:48]>> All right. Now, so here's the fourth one. Here's the fourth one. Once the universe can be treated or rescaled as being very small, the available energy to do work in the universe will appear to be very large.

[00:33:02]Okay? Now, here's why. According to quantum mechanics, the amount of energy associated with a particle is inversely proportional to its wavelength. So if the wavelength is small, the energy is high is is higher. If it's if the energ and the converse is true.

[00:33:21]>> So if the universe now can be treated as if it's very small, >> the wavelengths associated with the remaining radiant energy will be much shorter. they will be effectively not redshifted stretched out longer wavelengths they'll be blues blue shifted okay >> so this implies that then the amount of energy associated with the remaining radiation will be much greater in this new effectively smaller universe this universe we're treating as small so if we treat it as small we can also treat it as having more energy available to do work >> and now we're we're we're solving that buildup of entropy entropy problem now this This is why and and this uh this is why getting rid of the mass is so important because this conformal uh rescaling that he does will only work if there's no mass. You got to get rid of to to have even to make this even remotely plausible. You've got to get rid of the intrinsic length scale, the intrinsic ruler.

[00:34:21]>> Uh and so and that's dependent on the existence of mass, the mass. So if he gets rid of the mass, he can rescale. If he can rescale, he can treat the universe as as effectively very small.

[00:34:34]If it's effectively very small, the energy is effectively >> you have more energy >> available to do work.

[00:34:39]>> Got it. That makes sense.

[00:34:40]>> All right. Okay. So, so there's that that that's that's that's uh step four or assertion number four in the >> in the um >> in the scenario. Now, we've got a critique of that, of course, and it's very similar to the critique of of of assertion three. It's again an an epistemology ontology problem. Okay.

[00:34:59]>> Okay. And before you add this critique, you might say it's a double critique because the first one still stands.

[00:35:04]>> Yes, it does. It stands. Yeah. We we we really can't just say that the universe is actually small because we no longer have a way of measuring length. Okay.

[00:35:14]>> Got it. But if we were to say let's concede for the sake of scenario that is smaller, I have an additional >> well and it follows directly from the other because it's the same type of problem. Okay. Yeah. So changing the scale by which one measures length or volume of a space occupied by radiant energy does not change its wavelength or frequency.

[00:35:34]>> Okay? It's the same problem. Just because we can't measure it doesn't mean that it's now magically smaller.

[00:35:40]>> All right? Or conversely that the energy is now magically greater. Right? Mhm.

[00:35:45]>> Um the absence of a physical ruler does not entail the absence of a physical extent in the case of or or a smaller physical extent and and greater energy associated with it. Conformal rescaling is an equivalence between ma of mathematical descriptions. It does not change the entity being described. Okay.

[00:36:07]So again, this is the ontology epistemology problem. We're confusing our description. Oh, we're going to call it one mountaineering unit. Uh, that doesn't change Mount Everest. It only changes the way we're describing it or the way we're going to deep or the measuring scale that we might apply to it or not apply. Okay. So, the same problem that we had with length, we now have with energy. Just simply having treating the universe as if it's small and then treating the universe as if it had more energy available to do work is a form of it's a slight of hand. Okay?

[00:36:40]because we haven't changed anything about the length scale the length itself the size of the universe itself or the energy available to do work within the universe.

[00:36:49]>> So effectively his model requires this scaling down >> right >> and more energy >> and a corresponding increase in in energy available to do work >> because it's smaller and both of those are not accounted for themselves. We're accounting for measuring them, but a change in measuring doesn't change the energy and the size itself. Exactly.

[00:37:12]That latter point is exactly the right way to say. Yeah, that's good. Okay. So, again, all of this um is is confusing our description with the reality of the thing being described >> and we've got the notes and the points here. People can go back and work through. Okay. Good.

[00:37:27]>> Yeah. And in in this with with the specificity of this critique this of the fourth proposition is if we change the scale by which we measure wavelength we will change the we will not change the actual wavelength and its associated energy. Okay. So that's the very similar to the critique of proposition 3. Good.

[00:37:45]>> Okay. Now in in the PowerPoint we have a nice uh a couple of slides where we we are quoting Sir Roger showing that we we're we're we're being accurate. We're we're we're respecting the Dylan principle here, the VA principle. Okay. Now, here's where it gets really interesting.

[00:38:02]>> The energy generated by conformal rescaling.

[00:38:05]>> Okay. Now, the in Sir Roger's model >> uh provides the basis for a new field, >> an energy-rich field capable of generating mass uh particles with mass >> called Arabonds. And Arabs is his own coinage. All right. Now, he used to call this a phantom field. And one of the the things he critiqued me for in our conversation is I was still calling it a phantom field. But he's gotten rid of that designation the phantom field. He used to call it a phantom field because the field really had no physical presence or it wasn't activated until it was needed.

[00:38:36]>> Forget the phantom field. There's nothing in the description. Probably did use the term phantom field at one stage, but it doesn't feature in the in the modern scheme. That's not the ex the term that I would use now. There's no such thing as a phantom field in the scheme.

[00:38:54]>> It was kind of ghostlike. I I in our conversation said that's sort of um imputing to a physical field uh properties of mind that no known physical field has. Okay. Um but he he he's adjusted his model a little bit now and he c and he says that we got this this energy available to do work. It creates a field that creates uh uh particles or um that uh they're called arab bonds.

[00:39:23]>> And this is assertion five.

[00:39:24]>> This is assertion five. Now we're into assertion five.

[00:39:27]>> Um so he's since retired the name of phantom field, but now he claims he's got this this field that can create arabonds. And these arabonds he further proposes only interact with gravitational field and that they eventually near the end of the eon will decay into gravitons.

[00:39:44]>> It needs a better theory than that. It needs a theory which explains in detail why this happens. I'm just giving you the overall picture which is incomplete at the moment. I agree it needs more calculations. It needs how to describe the aerobonds properly in the theory.

[00:40:01]Why they decay into gravitons into a pair of gravitons would be the argument and why do those gravitons survive until the next and then things are the other way around. They start to collide again and produce more air bonds. So the airbonds come back as the gravitons start to run into each other and as in the highly hot dense new universe it's enough gravitons running around hitting each other in a certain sense I mean it's hard for gravitons to hit each other but there is a an amplitude if you like for the graviton to make an air bomb. Now um part of the critique here is that no known particle possesses these properties. So whereas before he had a field that had no that corresponded to known no the properties he had a field for which that had properties that had no precedent in other physical fields.

[00:41:01]Now he's got particles that have properties with that are not similar to any known known particles. Um okay. Um well again we've got a nice quote from Sir Roger about the universe at crossover. How it's important that we get a huge amount of new matter. Now we got rid of the matter. This is this is what he's trying to achieve.

[00:41:23]>> He got rid of the matter to do the rescaling.

[00:41:25]>> But now to get a universe that's going to expand and form galaxies, you got to have matter again. So the the new energy-rich field produced by the low entropy state with lots of energy available to do work is going to prod produce these arabonds that are eventually going to um well they're actually going to be the dark matter but they'll be part of the equation of the they'll be part of the the the situation as the universe begins to expand again.

[00:41:52]>> Okay. So this is not like the steadystate theory where matter is coming into existence so to speak that didn't exist before. Is this a shift in state?

[00:42:02]>> Yeah, good question. It's it's the the matter is going to arise in the new eon as a result of the energy that's available to do work and concentrated or and present in this new field. Okay.

[00:42:17]Okay. and that that matter now and this is the his crucial next move and this is um this is the last assertion. Okay, the last part of the the scenario >> at the crossover event, Penrose assumes rather than deres a near perfect uniformity of the gravitational field.

[00:42:37]Okay, so that's a kind of fine-tuning that he's going to introduce.

[00:42:40]>> I have no idea what he's talking about.

[00:42:42]There isn't any finetuning of this sort.

[00:42:45]The main material in the universe is dark matter. And the dark matter comes about through gravitons. And it's not a question of any fine-tuning. There's nothing there isn't any finetuning. It I don't know what he's talking about.

[00:42:59]>> He doesn't call it finetuning, but he assumes a near perfect uniformity in the gravitational field. It's something called zero uh uh vial curvature. All right. in physics terminology.

[00:43:12]He then asserts that the arabond producing field generates the right number of arabonds with the right collective mass so that as the universe expands they are perfectly balancing the cosmological constant which is which is active in every every one of his eons. That's that's a constant is continuing this outward push. But now he wants new matter to be introduced so that it doesn't expand too quickly and we get a new dissipation of of of mass energy.

[00:43:45]Instead he wants the universe to be expanding at the at the right somewhat sedate pace so we can get get galaxy formation. M >> so we've got to have the right number of arabonds with the right amount of combined mass to generate just the right amount of gravitational attraction to counter the outward push of the cosmological constant. So he's got a very beautifully finely tuned system in mind.

[00:44:11]>> Okay. And and that um that gravitational attraction will counter the cosmological uh constant. The other forces responsible for the initial rate of expansion. so that galaxies can form. Okay.

[00:44:26]>> Okay.

[00:44:27]>> Okay. So, it's fine-tuned for galaxy formation. So, >> can I jump in for clarification? If this is too simplistic, just say it's too simplistic.

[00:44:35]>> One of the critiques I've heard of the oscillating universe is not only that it needs more energy, >> but that each, you know, expansion and contraction would need to be fine-tuned with something like say a cosmological constant.

[00:44:50]>> That's a critique of that model. It sounds like there's at least similar critique. Even though his model is very different than oscillating, requires some fine-tuning.

[00:44:59]>> And this is what we're finding in time and time again with all these new infinite universe cosmologies. This is illustrative of a pervasive problem.

[00:45:07]Going back to this is why I cited the Einstein example example. And in in my debate with Phil Halper, I started to explain that and it the the debate was very skillfully moderated by Justin Brierley, >> the best. Yes. Uh but I wasn't able to really uh unpack that example to to illustrate I think as we're doing now how uh encouraable um pervasive this type this need for fine-tuning is in these in these infinite universe cosmological models that there's always some there's always a cost. Okay. And right now we're seeing I'm going to summarize the cost but one of the costs is going to be um >> okay so hold the thought before a >> whole lot of new finetuning. Okay.

[00:45:51]>> Okay. New fine tune. Sorry I didn't cut you off. I want to make sure people understand this 2 to threeh hour friendly debate with Halpin is on Justin Brley's podcast.

[00:46:01]>> Yeah. Help her is it? Yeah.

[00:46:03]>> Help her. Thank you. Around the same time we we released this intentional around that time so people could watch both >> push the conversation forward.

[00:46:11]Absolutely. But if people are going, "Wait a minute, we want some push back from skeptic." Watch that longer dialogue.

[00:46:16]>> Yeah. Phil and his his u uh co-author uh Professor F. Shorty uh have written this new book called Battle for the Big Bang.

[00:46:25]And they do a wonderful job >> of exposition of these new models. They have about 25 in there. We Bruce Gordon and I working on this with >> our colleague Brian Miller um at at Discovery Institutes. We've actually found 41 models and we're Oh, wow.

[00:46:41]>> we're we're writing up critiques of all of them and >> and uh well we're we're writing up a generalized critique that applies across all of them. There's just the proliferation of these things is you know kind of like rabbits but >> so keep us posted when you have all those here let's >> but this discussion of sir Rogers model is very uh is illustrative of of of common problems with all these models and it's it it is an I found this pattern first in critiquing what's called quantum cosmology and that that critique is in chapters 17 and 18 of return of the god hypothesis and that's where I developed this idea that where I of the pick your poison. Either way, naturalism has a problem kind of argument. Philosophers call that a robust argument where you get to the same conclusion irrespective of of two or more different factual predicates where you start with different set of facts but end up the same conclusion either way.

[00:47:41]>> Um and the different facts are the universe was finite which I think is what is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. The other the other factual predicate would be no it's infinite. it it is infinitely old but even if you start with that predicate you end up with a theistic conclusion.

[00:47:57]>> Okay.

[00:47:57]>> So so this is this is what we're and and we talked I think in the in the previous conversation >> that that's where I felt I had been misrepresented. Phil has been put out a video saying Meyer is wedded to a singularitybased apologetics. Removing the singularity unsettled those who had built theological arguments based on its notion that physics breaks down at the big bang. And unsurprisingly, intelligent design advocates like Steven Meer in his recent bestselling book have attacked Hawings work. But as we'll show, these attacks miss the mark. The singularity refers to the singularity theorem of of Hawking and Penrose. Um and I very carefully explained that the singularity theorem does not provide an absolute proof of the beginning but I think it points decisively in that in that direction that if we combine general relativity with our understanding from observational astronomy of the expansion of the universe it's giving us a picture in the reverse direction of time of the universe is getting smaller and smaller and smaller and spatial curvature getting tighter and tighter and tighter and it's it's approach it's approach approaching almost asmmptoically a a a a a limiting case where you can't go back any further. There's a way to get around that. Well, there's a when you get small enough, we can't close close it right to the final the final singularity.

[00:49:23]>> Uh and but that's where quantum cosmology comes in and then I show that quantum cosmology itself has theistic implications. So if you want to get around I think there's a strong pointer to a beginning. No, we just we we rarely expect absolute proof in science to come to a conclusion. I think the postulation of a beginning provides the best overall explanation of the observational astronomy and the results from theoretical physics. But we don't have an absolute proof of it. I concede that.

[00:49:51]But then say if you want to invoke you want to develop these models to to give us a picture of an infinite universe, you're going to have other problems if you're a philosophical naturalist.

[00:50:02]>> Makes sense. Yeah. Okay. So, assertion six was you've got to have this energy rich producing field >> generating the right number and of arabonds with the right collective mass >> to essentially slow down that that cosmic expansion so you get things balanced right to make galaxies. So absent such fine-tuning, the universe in the new phase of expansion would either collapse back onto itself in a big crunch >> or expand too rapidly and we get the heat death problem. Okay. Um so clearly Penrose's model is introducing extensive new sources of unexplained fine-tuning, thus providing additional basis for a theistic argument.

[00:50:47]>> Fine-tuning pointing to a finetuner.

[00:50:49]>> Yep. Um so now just in summary to sum draft the whole thing up this is our idea that >> yes you can model your way out of the the beginning but only at a very high epistemic cost and especially at a high cost to philosophical materialism or philosophical naturalism. First of all you have violations of of of established physics asserting that and I'm going to enumerate them now in summary. Yeah.

[00:51:13]asserting that black hole evaporation ultimately reduces entropy contradicts what's called the unitary principle of quantum mechanics. So that's a big deal to contradict that. Now there are physicists who agree with with Penrose.

[00:51:25]I kind of see some of his rationale on this but overall this is this to assert what he's asserting about the the loss of information um and the reduction of information of the whole universe does run counter to very established physics.

[00:51:42]>> Okay. The claim that all ordinary matter will convert into radiation that was his second proposition >> has no basis in the standard model of particle physics or any known nor in any known physical phenomenon. So that's a pure kind of postulation that's that's uh at least not has no basis and maybe even is contradictory to to some of the things we know in physics. The mathematical slight of hand is the whole idea that uh that treats that a change in the measurement scale >> can be treated will result in a change in both the length and the energy of the entity i.e. the universe being measured.

[00:52:21]Okay. So that's the ontology y >> epistemology confusion >> more problems ad hoc postulations or violations of AAMS razor. Remember Aam's razor says uh you all the things being equal we want to avoid needlessly postulating uh new theoretical entities.

[00:52:38]Okay don't don't don't postulate uh additional theoretical entities um as as much as possible avoid that. So he's got a number of new theoretical entities, new things for which we have no precedent. That's they're purely ad hoc.

[00:52:50]First is his ma mass fade out hypothesis. The idea that all mass in the universe will be converted converted into radiation. That's um not only inconsistent with known physics, it then is a kind of ad hoc postulation. We're just going to say that this happens. um uh the existence of aerobond producing fields. In other words, fields that can produce these particles that have properties that no other known prop particles have.

[00:53:16]>> Um the in particular the properties of arabonds, the ability of massive particles to decay into gravitons.

[00:53:23]That's a that's a purely ad hoc ad hoc postulation.

[00:53:26]>> Um and then finally we get to what for us is the key thing and that is the the two sources of unexplained finetuning.

[00:53:33]the idea of a perfectly uniform gravitational field which called zero uh uh veil uh vial curvature and then the the fine-tuning of the number of uh number of and the collective mass of the aerabonds so that we do indeed get stable galaxies rather than gravitational recolapse or heat death of the universe. So that's a very a lot of each of those four problems um uh contradictions of known physics >> mathematical slight of hand violations of Acham's razor and postulations of unexplained finetuning are characteristics in some combination of all the models that we've looked at of this >> Oh that's interesting when you say all like all 41. Well, we haven't gone through all 41 yet, but we've we've been looking at the at the the most popular >> uh uh models within physics where this infinite unit quantum cosmology is one of those. Okay? And I that's where I first got turned on to this, but you you find it in the Steinhard model. You find it in in the book. They they they they proposed suspending the um the the limitation on the speed of light, which is a fundamental part of special relativity. Um they I I think they they also propose uh the idea that causality is not um a pervasive feature of the universe. Well, you start suspending very fundamental things like that. You can prove almost anything. Not prove you can you can formulate a consistent model but the cost is very high. That's that's the idea. um either to coherency of the physics or uh plausibility of the math or especially uh the cost is very high with respect to the the need to postulate new unexplained fine-tuning and therefore providing thereby providing alternative support for a theistic argument uh an argument for for theism the argument from for theistic design based on finetuning >> okay so let me take a step back I some of in all honesty is above my pay grade.

[00:55:40]But I tracked with your point. I think you made it very well and very clearly would it seems like your critique is rooted in not saying well I'm an outsider from the scientific community and I'm going to quibble with these small points. You're saying physicists whether they pieced it all together and applied it to the Penrose model would agree with the challenges. These are pretty standard critiques that you're making.

[00:56:07]>> There are many other physicists that have critiqued the conformal cyclic cosmology. In the PowerPoint that we'll provide to your your viewers, okay, I have uh several extended quotes from people prominent physicists uh critiquing this. At one point uh uh professor Penrose in his uh very self- aacing way uh described his model as the conformal crazy cosmology. Okay. So he's aware that you know this is a bit of a walk on the wild side. And when I debated Phil >> Halper >> uh and I would critique specific models he would say well we're not saying this model is right. Um we're just saying that it's a possibility. The very fact that there's so many that are possible means we can't say that there was in fact a beginning. Our counterargument to that is that because of these pervasive multiple uh the pervasive problems that we find in all the models that we've examined that simply, you know, throwing a whole bunch of of of mud at the wall and hoping it sticks doesn't mean that that, you know, that's an effective strategy. the the the the standard hot big bang model that that explains that suggest so powerfully suggested by the evidence for the expanding universe for by the cosmic background radiation by so many other empirical results and by the the the the proofs that come out of theoretical physics the singularity theorems which don't absolutely prove a beginning but point decisively toward one and I think an even more compelling proof the board Link uh theorem which again like all proofs is predicated on certain assumptions. Yep.

[00:57:51]>> Okay. Every everything is predicated on on postulate assumptions but they are fewer. They don't require um uh that meeting the same energy conditions that the singularity theorem does. it only the the only u assumption that's necessary is that is that you for for any universe which is on average expanding they show that there must have been a finite beginning and so and that that so that's based on special relativity not general relativity it's not subject to the problem of getting inside the plon time and then you have the quantum effects becoming dominant don't have to worry about that in in this other proof so there's a number of very powerful indicators of a So I think the best overall explanation of our cosmological history is that there was a beginning. But I acknowledge that there are these other models that every proof has preconditions and that if you want to suspend those or challenge those you can model your way out but then you have this this big epistemic cost and it leads you right back to theism.

[00:58:55]>> So we have about four or five minutes at most. What would critics have to do to respond to say your model or strengthen Penro's and where do you see this going from here?

[00:59:10]>> I I think what we're proposing is not so much a model but a a framework for understanding.

[00:59:15]>> Okay. and and and saying, "Look, we're put we're we're wrapping a framing around this that says either way you go, philosophical, materialist, or naturalist, you've got you've got trouble for your metaphysical uh belief system." The the the evidence for the beginning, I think, is best explained by the postulation of something like a theistic or deistic creator. Um, but if you don't if if you you want to say you don't like that beginning and you're gonna we're gonna go back to an infinite universe cosmology, then likely you've got something that's got a fair amount of incoherence to it. It's contradictoring a lot of known physics.

[00:59:53]>> But even if you set that aside, you invariably have to to have a system that's that's very intricately finely tuned >> and then you're back to the an argument from contingency or a fine-tuning design argument. So, and and I think to so to to refute what we're saying, people are going to have to show that they can they can develop an infinite universe cos cosmological model that doesn't come at the high epistemic cost that we are are saying is inherent to the enterprise.

[01:00:22]>> Gotcha. That makes sense. One of the critiques of intelligent design is that it doesn't make predictions and it's not testable. You have 41 models. You've seen this pattern show up again and again and again and also see it in your critique of Penrose. Is it a prediction that as we work through the rest of these 41 models, you will see >> they're going to have one or more of these problems? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

[01:00:47]>> All right. Well said. Well, as you work through those, maybe when you get through the 41 to get closer, we will have you back to take a look and kind of assess us on where this discussion and this debate is. Uh, Sir Roger Penrose, if you happen to see this, we would love to get a response from you. We'd love to have a conversation with the two of you and it wouldn't have to be a debate, just clarifying and getting your sense on >> I would say too, yeah, just in all in all um modesty here, this is one of the great scientists of the 20th century, 21st century, um, I have tremendous respect for him, and if I got something wrong, I'm I'd love to have that clarified. The whole reason we did this is that there were a few things I got wrong. In fact, I failed to mention um >> one one of them was about the picture.

[01:01:33]Okay, the idea of the the universe coming out of the patch. I also misstated the um the the the name of of the theory. There were a couple other things in the way I described his views about entropy that we've tidied up in just this presentation. Um but the the the the central critique about the unexplained fine-tuning which he objected to because I I don't think he was I think this happens a lot in all kinds of simulations both in prebiotic simulations of origin of life and also cosmological simulations of the origin of the universe. Often the the theoretician forgets what they themselves are adding to to the model. Yeah. And so I think this is clearly he's postulating the need for unexplained finetuning. So, I think that that part of the critique holds, but but I'm very I I very much welcome the opportunity to uh improve my own understanding of this. These papers are hard to and you have to really really go through them carefully to make sure you're getting it right. And I've got I've got a good group. We have a good uh physics and philosophy physics research group at Discovery and several of us really carefully combed this stuff and if if there's further need for refinement in our understanding, we want to make sure that's the basis of any further discussion.

[01:02:42]>> Love it. he was willing to sit down with William Lane Craig not long ago and just a wonderful insightful respectful conversation something like that with Dr. Steven Meyer would be wonderful, I think, for people on all sides of this conversation. Thanks for all your work on this. I could tell this took a ton of time and a ton of thought to really clarify and make your case. I think you made it well. I'm going to go back and listen to this myself a few times to make sure it sinks in. I was tracking with the big picture. This might be one that people want to go back through and maybe grab a physicist friend and say, "Walk through and explain this to me."

[01:03:14]When you get it, the lights really go on because you made some important responses and critiques. So, thanks for coming back on.

[01:03:21]>> Thanks for having me, Sean. A great conversation and uh bit of a walk on the wild side, but we got through it, right?

[01:03:27]>> Loved it.

[01:03:27]>> Yeah.