Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
The idea is that we will now discuss the issues-
-as Professor Krauss raised.
Why is there something rather than nothing ?
Can science answer these questions-
or do we need other explanations?
I'll introduce the panelists-
and ask them to comment on lecture. They get three minutes.
Professor Krauss will respond, and then the word free.
But first I introduce the panel.
Stefan Gustavsson is theologian at Credo Academy in Stockholm.
He is also the General Secretary for Swedish Evangelical Alliance-
and author of several books about Christian faith.
Ulrika Engstrom is science journalist and author.
She has published a book on the history of astronomy -
and she works for SVT and the "world of science".
Professor Krauss you have met.
Asa Wikforss is professor of philosophy at Stockholm University.
She conducts research on the relationship -
- between mental states and the external world.
Bengt Gustafsson is astronomer and professor of theoretical astrophysics-
-at Uppsala University. He is a Christian and science writer-
and has written the book "Cosmic journey".
It may come in the future, we'll see.
I want to let you comment lecture.
You may begin, let's go in order.
Thank you, and thanks for the book. It is very welcome.
We have nothing like it in Swedish.
-In English, there are a few. -But they are not as good.
But John Barrow has actually written a good book about nothing.
The advances cosmology 've done in my lifetime-
-has been absolutely outstanding.
We know much more today than we did 40-50 years ago.
And I am even older than that.
But when I read your book, I get the impression -
-that much of this is due to some individual efforts.
They appear to be quite romantic, the 1800s explorers.
You talk with several anecdotes-
-like using adjectives as "brilliant".
I just want to remind that we depend-
-Thousands of engineers and other scientists-
-who have developed detectors and rocket technology
control of telescopes and adaptive optics and more.
This is not mentioned very often.
I would like you the next popular science book
-emphasize these anonymous masses that we are so dependent.
They have been necessary for our success.
Then I think enough that there is a problem.
It applies what we know with certainty-
-what is conjecture or hypothesis-
and what is more farfetched and speculative.
This is a problem in all popular petitions-
-but I'm afraid that sometimes goes too far.
We can take omega as an example. Omega is about 1 -
-plus or minus one percent.
But it could be 1.01 -
or 0.99.
You might want to have a closed universe.
It is 1.000000000000000000001.
He hopes so. - But in your presentation-
-is not clear this uncertainty. There may be 1.01.
In this case, your thesis about that no energy is needed-
-at risk.
-But it is not so. -This is interesting.
Theorists know that the cosmological constant must be 0 -
and that Omega must be 1.
But we empiricist like to start from data
-that can not extrapolate too far.
There is a general sense. Then I see the problems.
The problem is some thing very interesting, namely multiversumhypotesen.
For me it is a metaphysical hypothesis-
-used to explain why our universe is so unique.
The problem is that we do not see them, and the question is whether we can do it.
If we can not, get this thought...
... Not only problematic but also... a little eerie.
It becomes too much metaphysics.
Thank you. We let Professor Krauss answer last. - Asa, please.
-You want a bigger piece of paper? -This is good enough.
-Shirts, Asa. -The philosophers have been unkind to you.
Some. Only the bad ones.
Then can I be a good philosopher.
It is interesting to philosophers has reacted like this.
Philosopher The reaction in the reviews and debates -
-acted on false advertising.
He does not answer the question why there is something.
He answers the question why something is -
-based very few assumptions about why the universe exists.
It's interesting, but it was not the question we wanted to answer.
Some philosophers seem not to have read book so carefully, for there are three steps.
You showed the first kind of nothing, which is fluctuating quantum field.
We got to see an amazing animation of energy in them.
But for philosophers is nothing lack of everything, even the quantum field.
Step two involves-
-to place, perhaps with time, can be created without the quantum field.
It can be shown with a theory of everything and a quantum theory of gravity.
If we have it, we might reach.
For philosophers, it is not nothing, need for the laws of physics.
Why should the theory be true?
It will be the next issue for them.
But as you say that there is a third step-
and it's multiverse.
Why are the laws of nature and constants as they are?
It just happens-
-that there are many universes.
In one of them it will be like this, and where we are and asking the question.
But according philosophers is not nothing.
The multiverse and assumptions about the laws of nature.
If they are random with us, , there must be meta-laws.
We are not satisfied with the answers.
I wonder if you think that we are butting against nothing.
Is it a pseudo issue? Some say it.
Finally, we reach an eternal universe, eternal primordial matter or something.
Or should we simply declare that we can not even think of anything?
Thinking requires something. The question might not be formulated.
Parmenides was inside of it.
Have philosophers had reached the end or down the one fundamental question-
-which is legitimate, but that science can not or do not want to answer?
This is my question.
Ulrika, what is your comment?
You said that we live in this universe-
-because we can not see anything else. We are here by chance.
It's like no matter where I come from-
-because it is only a coincidence to Ulrika Engstrom happened to be born.
But why would Newton ask questions about gravity?
He saw it and understood it, but he still wanted to know what controls it.
If you stop asking questions do you make it easy for themselves.
Then we would not want a science, so why stop there?
It becomes almost a religious thought.
You could say that we do not know anything else, God is-
or that we can not say anything more...
... Because we would not be able to observe it otherwise.
Those were my thoughts in outline.
Stefan?
Welcome to Sweden, and thanks for a very stimulating lecture.
I have three questions I want to discuss.
Definition of nothing, definition of knowledge-
and the creation of a human culture.
How do you define nothing? I read your book with great interest-
-but I did not find it nothing as the title promised.
Instead, it seems Professor Krauss redefine nothing-
-To always be something.
The book has nothing properties and is unstable.
There is always something-
and this is something all the time increasingly immaterial.
Movement against the intangible seems to confirm that:-
-that literally understood nothingness has created the cosmos.
It's similar to the argument that since the can live on less food-
-you have to be able to live without food.
-But it's probably an unsound conclusion. -I agree.
My question is similar to Jane's. We have to define anything.
Then the view of knowledge.
If I understand Professor Krauss right-
-is the only knowledge we have about the world empirical knowledge.
He denies the obvious principle that nothing comes from nothing-
-because it "lacks scientific basis."
That's right-
, but it applies to all the laws of logic.
Science must take the laws of logic for granted.
I am a bit surprised.
Professor Krauss seems to connect to the logical positivism-
- that only accept what can be proven scientifically.
Principle refutes itself, then can not be verified scientifically.
It's my second question: Do we need a broader conception of knowledge?
And so the creation of a human culture.
The advertisement for the lecture used the slogan-
- "We are more trivial than we can imagine."
I agree with Professor Krauss on that truth is our goal-
-whatever we think about it. I would like to reflect on-
-new atheist gospel. And Professor Krauss is one of them.
In 2000 years, Christianity taught each new generation -
-that we are more important than we can imagine.
What happens to a culture that in 2000 years saying to each new generation:
"You are more insignificant than you can imagine."
That's my three questions. -It would be our greatest gift to the peace.
-All right, Professor Krauss. -Thanks! But I'll take them in order.
It will be good to finish with your, for then I will be mean.
You are absolutely right in that research is a collective activity.
When writing a story To Find...
People like stories about people.
Research is a collective activity, and we make the mistake...
I try not to, but research result is sometimes described as the go-
-when in fact they are the result of myrsteg.
When reading about science in the papers are all Einstein.
But science is moving forward with myrsteg and based on past performance.
Large leaps are rare, and not even they are made by individuals.
They are totally dependent on engineers and employees -
-without colleagues. I work the same way.
I collaborate with students and scientists worldwide.
It is a part of science that should be hailed -
and I think I mention it.
I like to emphasize that science should be praised for that very reason.
Science is a human activity showing what is possible.
It teaches us to transcend culture, language and religion .
Large Hadron Collider, LHC, is a good example.
It's 2000s gothic cathedral.
Cathedrals took over a century to build -
and involved thousands of artisans, in several familjeled.
LHC was built by thousands of physicists from hundreds of countries.
They spoke different languages and had different religion-
-but all spoke the language of science.
It is only in science that people manage to co-
-toward a common goal.
Science is a fantastic example of-
-how many individuals contribute small contributions to a common goal.
It is important to emphasize this.
If I did not do it in the book so I can change that.
-You want to say something. A brief question.
Do you believe there should distribute Nobel Prize in physics for all groups?
A good question. We'll see what happens next time the prize is awarded.
It teaches go to the discovery of the Higgs particle.
We have made a bet, but someone else probably knows more than I do.
This is the first example of...
If the prize is awarded for the experiment, can not give it to an individual.
It may be time to give the prize to a group.
It would be contrary to the will of Alfred Nobel-
-but it is every year. The price is supposed to go to work last year.
It is an interesting question. I do not think...
It would be reasonable, for fewer scientific scientific progress made by individuals.
The main problems requires co-
-not only in physics but also in biology and climate research.
All science requires cooperation, and it's hard to pick out individuals.
Therefore it would seem it would be reasonable to do so.
-Does it take too long? Not at all.
Metaphysics is an interesting topic, so we can talk about it.
Is multiverse metaphysical?
Then the discussion of them be meaningless.
I'm not so fond of metaphysics.
And even less in theology, but we'll get to that.
But metaphysics still has some substance.
Okay, there was little public courtship.
The point is...
It is true that we do not detect other universes-
-but it can still be a science. Right now it's speculation.
I object to one thing you said.
In the book, I do everything I can to distinguish between speculation and evidence.
It's very important, and I try always distinguish between speculation and evidence.
How do I that it can become a science.
If we had a theory of inflation...
We have no good theory based on elementary particle physics.
If we can explain why the proton is 2,000 times heavier than the electron-
-why there are three families elementary particles, and so on...
Inflation must in theory have occurred in the early universe.
Inflation creates many universes.
With a theory, one could figure it out.
We might get a theory that can make predictions 100, where 99 is testable-
and demonstrate a multiple universe.
If it goes and sounds like a duck, it is a duck.
Then you can test as much of the theory that one can deduce the rest.
Then there would be metaphysics. Atoms existence was accepted-
-long before we had electron microscope.
Atomic theory was confirmed of so many experimental
-to accept their existence.
If we can not go in that direction it's just talk, I admit.
Another thing, related to a later question...
You brought it up, but I answer now.
Is the difference between multiverse...
It is probably forever, so we will questions of causality and nothing.
Cold gladly multiverse for God, but belief in the multiverse is well founded.
What we do not understand refer to God.
"I do not want to think.'s God."
Multiversumhypotesen will not from the question of nothing from something-
-but from particle physics. We have had to accept it.
I do not like multiversumhypotesen.
But the universe is not to for me.
If the evidence makes it likely - and they are - so I can live with it.
The theory is valid for completely different reasons than the desire to explain the universe-
and provide a context to philosophers ridiculous question.
Faith in the multiverse is well founded. Over to the question...
The question that interests philosophers is completely uninteresting.
-For you, yes. -This is great.
Then philosophers ask questions while we are making progress.
The point of this question is...
Choose which arguments to about ultimate causes-
-in Augustine or Aristotle.
The simple answer is that if the multiverse is, it could be forever.
It is actually likely.
"There is not nothing," said someone then, but who the hell cares?
The interesting and important question-
-is not about causality can be led back into the infinite.
The question is how the universe we see were created.
It is the miracle that we have wondered since the dawn of time.
It is the miracle which seems to require a god.
But I argue that the universe can be created out of nothing.
Low is embedded in something? Maybe. But who the hell cares?
It is incredible that there existed.
Nothing in our universe existed-
-neither space, time, matter or radiation.
Still, it can be created spontaneously.
Maybe inside a larger object, a multiverse, perhaps forever-
-but it's not interesting.
The question is whether universe may have been created out of nothing-
-without either purpose or intention-
and without intelligence as ultimate cause.
This is the fascinating question.
The question is not why but how.
How created a universe with 400 billion galaxies out of nothing?
The I try to answer. Philosophers may not find it interesting-
, but it gives me the hell in.
The question is not interesting. The question is how our universe arose-
and the physics helps us to understand it.
I agree, and I also write-
-that the fundamental issue an ultimate cause-
answer-not of physics.
Multiverse might answer it, if it's forever-
and it would also be a more reasoned explanation than God.
The question is of interest to philosophers, but not for physicists.
And it's really nothing. I dislike the opposition.
When an electron emits a photon
and throws light over your beautiful face...
Not mine.
Photon did not hide inside electron or atom.
It was created spontaneously.
No one objects to the idea that the photon was created out of nothing.
Same may be true for the entire universe.
And if you wonder what qualities a place like the universe should have-
-so it would have the same characteristics that our universe.
I have no answer, I'm just saying that it is reasonable.
Your question is not interesting to me.
As to the last question.
I try to answer your question of "luck".
Multiverse will not make us happy.
Hypothesis was driven by inflation theory and to some extent of string theory.
But the multiverse is an automatic result of inflation theory.
But that was not my question?
Maybe it's luck, but it's just.
But it means that we do not need to ask more questions?
The beauty of science is that all answers lead to new questions.
But one does not need ask more questions.
-Man is already satisfied. -That's what you are not.
It's not about to avoid having to ask questions.
Can a theory predicting the multiverse and its probability distributions
and it can be tested? If not, the theory is unusable.
We want a theory that makes predictions, but we have not yet.
And if we do not get it, it's just mental ***.
It's like the question of why the physical constants are as they are.
-It, we must be able to answer. -Maybe we can.
We might be a theory of everything, I have not given up hope.
Before the mental *** begins in earnest, I want...
Sorry, I can not help.
This is a way to answer the question.
Say we among string theory "landscape" -
-'ll find many different universes where the constants correlates.
All the universe with a small cosmological constant-
-maybe three families elementary particles and four fundamental forces.
This could be evidence of that we are special.
Can you X, you get Y even as a probability distribution.
Then we can draw interesting conclusions of the universe from an observation.
So we must find a universe like ours?
What is important - and it is also important of Philosophy and Theology-
-is that we are stuck in our universe.
There may be questions that we can never answer empirically.
We are stuck in our universe 14 billion years after the Big ***.
I did not address it here.
If our species were ten million years older we would have seen otherwise-
and we would do it of 100 million years.
We are stuck in time and space, and we must live with.
There may be questions that we can never answer empirically.
So it when you live in a universe.
Epidemiologists need two patients, but science does not work that way.
With a universe can not determine the probability distribution.
I'll answer your three questions, or at least two of them.
As I write, theologians have problems with my definition of nothing-
-as theologians are experts at nothing.
You found nothing, for you were not.
Theologian The definition of nothing is - and I have ältat issue for years-
-that nothing is out of the which only God can create something.
They never accept a nothing created without God.
A universe that did not exist before the created, is created out of nothing.
Could it have been created from something even bigger, with eternal laws?
Absolutely, it is the multiverse, and the belief is founded.
When it comes to knowledge I must say something-
-That will let rude.
But it's true, I think, because I've asked theologians.
I usually ask them-
-mentioning theological contribution to knowledge of the past 500 years.
I claim that theology, not should be a university subject-
-not contributed with someone new knowledge the last 500 years.
"Give me an example," I say, and everyone responds the same way:
"What do you know?"
It's interesting. If I had asked physicists, biologists, psychologists-
historians or economists, they would have given me examples.
The only knowledge that is important is the one we get from the universe.
The knowledge that originated in our brains are usually incorrect.
Which is why that all religious doctrines-
-contradicts what we see in the universe.
As I said in an earlier program so think most religious people-
-even those in here, I already have angered...
Catholics do not believe that a wafer transformed into the body of Christ.
They do not believe it or that Jonah was eaten by a fish and survived.
They skip the nonsense and think on what they want. They believe in faith.
People call themselves Catholics, Christians, Jews and Muslims -
and skip what they do not like and retain what they like.
We are programmed to believe in a higher power for good evolutionary reasons.
The last question was about culture.
Science can give us a much healthier culture
- than the culture that theology has given us.
It is based on reality, and its moral principles are laudable.
This is unlike religions moral principles which are despicable.
Gospels is in my is not worth living for.
My friend Christopher Hitchens said-
-that he was not an atheist, without anti-theist.
He did not know if there was a god-
-but he did not live in a universe where there was a.
Who wants to be a sheep during a cosmic Saddam Hussein?
That not only condemn you in this life but for all eternity-
-because you did not believe in him! I do not live in one of those universes.
Now it was many sidings.
You digress.
My definition of nothing is not theological, but philosophical.
It bothers me that you dismiss philosophy as a university discipline -
-while your lecture is crammed with philosophical assumptions.
You dismisses metaphysics but speculate about the multiverse-
-which then becomes probable and then likely...
Your objection is both interesting and justified.
I reject some aspects of philosophy. I discussed it recently in Oxford.
I doing philosophy - the philosophy is critical thinking and analysis.
But stuff like that does not require a philosopher, and philosophy will not science.
In order to ascertain the existence of the multiverse-
-we do not need logic, deduction or induction.
We need to figure out if it actually exists.
Obviously we all deal with every day philosophy -
-if we think critically and ask questions about the universe.
Philosophy is good at asking questions, science answer them.
-Asa? -Thanks.
I tried to be a nice and good philosopher.
I must comment this with knowledge.
Foundation of physics, mathematics, and it is a priori knowledge.
You rely on your amounts of a priori reasoning.
Maybe not metaphysics, but definitely mathematics and logic.
Why some a priori reasoning be excluded - a priori, as it were-
-from your worldview, I do not understand.
It does not surprise me to the questions that interest you-
-are scientific questions. You're a scientist.
I am interested in philosophical questions, and we should have many questions.
They are not the same questions, but that does not matter.
The book suggests you-
-we rephrase the question why is something rather than nothing.
Is why affairs bad questions? No, you can ask them.
-They're meaningless. -No.
Why-questions are really what matters.
Why-questions can be interpreted causally. Why did the window break?
You wonder how the the window broke. There was no purpose.
Why-questions do not imply purpose. There are many legitimate questions-
and to dismiss philosophical questions a priori sounds very dogmatic.
I think you mean...
Okay, a round of applause.
I do not dismiss them, I'm just saying that they are not interested scientists.
They are irrelevant when to get knowledge of the world.
The point is that philosophy-
-has been a very useful topic-
-when it comes to asking different questions.
It is inevitable that the philosophy of the subject area is shrinking.
I think that moral philosophy is interesting.
But that's because we do not have a full consciousness theory.
In this case, moral philosophy could reach in neurophysiology.
The philosophical question you ask can not answer.
Why does not that kind of philosophical questions to any progress.
Philosophers often want to interpret scientific results -
-t.ex. quantum importance, and putting it in a logical context.
It's very useful. But I dislike that philosophers say to scientists-
-they do not understand what they are doing without philosophy. Empirical research shows something else.
Scientists do not read philosophy, but they are doing great.
It may seem trivial, bigoted and narrow-
-but somehow explains the universe.
Perhaps therefore miss physicists the big question.
Cosmology've got problems.
Do you agree to cosmology have a problem?
There is much we do not understand, but is that a problem?
To reconcile quantum physics with gravity, for example.
We are not close to an answer. -That's what's exciting!
It might depend on that you miss some questions.
Some questions we can not answer, but they will probably not be answered by philosophy.
If we can not ask them, they learn not be answered by philosophy either.
When the universe...
You are right that we use math.
But mathematics is not reality.
Mathematics can create many different universe. Theoretical physicists do.
Usually I wrong, and sometimes it's because I'm counting wrong.
I can create infinitely many mathematical universe -
-but they are not real.
We need to understand our own universe. Everything depends on the experiment.
You need the right math to make calculations.
Yes, but the experiment is crucial. So yes, I am limited.
What can not be measured empirically, is not knowledge.
It's a very problematic position.
The view that science does not need philosophy is deeply problematic.
Epistemologerna rejected your of knowledge for many decades ago.
The is contradictory.
You need to postulate very much like science can not prove.
Why use contradictory epistemology?
Most scientists can not spell to philosophy.
We are philosophically ignorant. Are you proud of it?
Some are not. I have actually read philosophy.
"Physics and Philosophy" by James jeans got me interested in physics.
I am an empiricist. My empirical evidence for philosophical irrelevance -
-is that scientists can not be anything if philosophy, but look what happened.
Although we have not mastered the philosophy-
-we have gained knowledge of the universe, vaccines and evolution.
Our ignorance of philosophy upset us not.
Bengt wants the floor.
I'm trying to provoke. -You do well.
I try to keep myself awake.
I have several questions. Self venerate me philosophy Thread-
-although I believe that science has both the right and duty-
-exceed ingrained philosophical beliefs.
Science has progressed by challenging philosophical theses.
I am curious your view of mathematics.
Mathematics is a tool that predicts unreasonable universe-
-if you use the without empirical basis.
But mathematics can also make very interesting predictions -
-about phenomena that we do not even imagined before.
We have Eugene Wigner's famous essay...
- "The Unreasonable Effectiveness." Yes. What is mathematics?
I wrote a book about extra dimensions with that question in mind.
We are programmed to like things like extra dimensions.
But what is a product of our brains respectively of the universe?
Is mathematics a product of our brains or the universe?
It's a philosophical question. -Yeah.
And it is interesting to ask the question.
I do not mean that there is interesting philosophical questions.
It does. But that does not make them to interesting scientific questions.
The interesting philosophical questions-
-is not interesting scientific questions for us physicists.
There is nothing wrong with it, but I want to point out that-
-for some philosophers argue that their questions are scientifically interesting.
The question of mathematics created by our brains or not, is interesting.
The point is that we can determine it empirically.
On an empirical basis, not with logic, we have discovered that mathematics works.
Discovery that mathematics works is empirical.
This shows that mathematics exist in the external world.
The relationships that we have formed in our brains -
-responds to how the universe works, and it is an empirical discovery.
The central is precisely this empirical aspect.
I finish one of my books with a quote by mathematician Hermann Weyl.
Since he was more than mathematician physicist, he said:
"I am often forced to choose between the true and the beautiful."
"And I always choose the beautiful." He was a mathematician.
As a physicist, I am forced sometimes choose the true, even if it's not beautiful.
Stefan asked a question that you have not answered.
Although your naturalistic worldview based on metaphysical assumptions-
-such that there is an external reality-
and that the laws of logic do not contradict themselves.
They do! We can not rely on logic, we have to check if it works.
Quantum mechanics has shown on logic flaws.
The law of cause and effect is meaningless without time.
If time and the universe was created simultaneously -
-how can one talk about a cause?
We need new ideas, but that is how one learns again.
I see. But do you still disagree with-
, you must start from certain assumptions -
-which are not scientifically testable to pursue science?
-I defend Sean, interestingly enough. -Unexpected, but thank you very much.
Yes, but only in part.
I can not prove that there is an external reality.
I can not prove that we were here for three seconds late
or us and the memory of my nasty comments were not created just now.
I can not prove it.
But the point is...
You can say it and give up. But ask instead what is probable.
I can say that God created the universe for three seconds late
and assert that it is possible, but what's the point?
We can assume that it is not as and ask questions about the universe.
Earlier, I spoke with you and a few other journalists.
Stockholm might be a figment of your imagination, but it is highly unlikely.
Science can only determine what is probable and improbable.
It is unlikely that there is a God-
and to Stockholm exist only in my imagination.
So good imagination, I have not.
Therefore, I am not an architect. I could not have created all the beautiful buildings.
It is unlikely, and I act accordingly.
Then I can make good predictions-
and perform experiments and build technology that makes the world better.
You can not deny philosophy, for're doing the whole time.
-You have philosophized throughout the evening. -Yeah.
Why do you say that it is unimportant?
You can only choose between to be a good or bad philosopher.
No, a good or bad scientist.
But not without using philosophy.
Sure, but you can not be man without using philosophy.
We'll take it back. This reminds a debate in Oxford.
When I taught at Yale thought they close the Philosophy Department there.
-They had good reason. Yes, it was rejected.
Then I thought that it probably was not such a bad idea.
Logics can go to the Department of Mathematics.
Historian and klassicister can also go to other institutions.
What is it that is unique about philosophy?
I believe that philosophy is essential as a teaching tool-
-because it helps young people to learn critical thinking and logical analysis.
But it is not necessary.
One can learn the at many different institutions.
Philosophy included in all subjects.
One must not be a philosopher to engage in philosophy.
The philosophy I need-
-Is not the one I learned from Kuhn and Popper , although I read them.
I learned the philosophy of science by Feynman and other scientists.
It was the same for most of my colleagues.
I believe that philosophy topic of interest to philosophers-
and maybe good for teaching students how to think .
But the topic is not required in science.
Everything we do is of no use to science.
But there are many other topics.
You may not know much about philosophy. It is a very broad topic.
There's epistemology, consciousness- philosophy, metaphysics, semantics, and more.
The subject is huge and it is growing.
-Oh? Yes, absolutely.
Philosophy was our first way of thinking about the world.
The subject grew and became more sophisticated, and some disciplines fell away.
First fell physics from and became an empirical science.
More topics followed, last psychology in the 1800s.
Logic might amount in mathematics.
But philosophy will be, for there are general questions-
-as the specialized sciences not have time to investigate.
Philosophy will do it, even though you will not be helped by it.
-It is important for the knowledge. -I agree with that.
Knowledge fascinates me, and the history of science is interesting.
You are absolutely right. When students ask me what to study-
-I tell them to study what interests them.
But I dislike when philosophers say that science requires philosophy.
Physics left philosophy topic. The questions are of no interest to us.
-Ulrika first and then Bengt. We discuss theologians and philosophers.
-You do not like string theorists either. -They are almost philosophers.
-But why? -I do not dislike string theorists.
-They sit at the back. -Then it does not matter.
I dislike hype.
I wrote a whole book about string theory.
The only fair and balanced book available on string theory.
Fox News calls itself fair and balanced , but they are not.
String theory is eminently -founded, and I explain why.
But it has not proved or predicted anything at all.
The more we understand, the more clearly we realize that we do not know it can predict.
However, it is valuable.
Some of my best students is today prominent string theorists-
-but I do not want my daughter marry any of them.
I dislike the string theorists who argue that they have a theory of everything.
Most have heard of string theory, but they know nothing about real science.
I dislike hype and unsubstantiated claims.
Sånt get namely eat.
While making unsubstantiated claims...
I always point out science's limitations.
I know there are issues that science can not answer.
Every time science tries go beyond the empirically verifiable-
-so has it wrong, and people begins distrust science.
String Theorists get science resemble theology or philosophy.
They lack the empirical data, and then it's not science. It is misleading.
But string theory is worth researching.
It might produce results, but so far it has not.
Bengt, what do you think about string theory?
It gives us many universes.
But inflation theory is better at it.
I want to come back to Ulrika's question.
By thinking in terms of many-universe
-we get a "natural" explanation for why our universe is so homey.
I believe that it is also hype. Pure nonsense, actually.
-But many argue that. Yes, but they do not think philosophically.
Maybe you have answered my question.
When using that kind of explanations why our world is as it is-
-it reminds of Kipling's "Just-so stories."
All explanations are linked to our existence.
They are pretty superficial.
It's not even an explanation, for it is based on ignorance.
The anthropic principle not needed.
It has been used many times on things we do not understand-
and always completely false, because we have understood.
I want to emphasize that I am not at all sure-
-that void energy is that it is for us to be here.
But it is based on assumptions that lacks empirical basis.
Based on different assumptions becomes void energy another.
We know neither the variables or their probability distributions
-so we can not pursue science based on the anthropic principle.
Those who claim it promises too much.
Then we're agreed, but I have a supplementary question.
What hope accommodate you if us to understand nature-
-including fundamental constants-
-In our own universe, without help from other worlds?
As a scientist, I live in hope.
Every time we open a new window on the Universe we are surprised.
As long as we open new window guiding our thinking-
and based on empirical-
-will our world to become more perfect.
Nothing says we can not will understand the issues today...
I could not have written the book 30 years ago.
Then I had never imagined-
-that we would even be able to set these issues.
If we get a good particle theory, that the LHC can give us-
-so we can have a theory about how inflation happened.
Then we would have a theory of the multiverse.
I do not know if this is the case, but it is possible. We can only try.
When we stop asking questions and off the machines...
For me there is no scientific value in technology, but in the ideas.
The same ideas inspires philosophers and theologians.
It's about why we are here and where are we going.
Science, like art, forcing us to rethink our place in the cosmos.
When we stop asking the questions, , we are no longer human beings.
We need to stop soon, but Stefan has a question.
An open-minded person should reflect on both the issues and why questions.
We people are looking for answers to many questions -
-that science can not answer.
Your worldview seems to dismal response
-on the question of the human condition.
We are insignificant, and the future is miserable.
The Free thought's website, there was a movie with you and Richard Dawkins.
There is a new movie at the time.
It ended with an audience question: Do you believe in free will?
Both you and Richard Dawkins told that you did not.
This is another area where I have a problem-
-with your world view that is based on that there is someone God.
If my thoughts and arguments entirely caused by natural events-
-They are predetermined. So why sit we here to discuss?
Your worldview does not make human condition justice.
In a way, is my worldview bleak.
There is no free will, but the universe behave if it did.
I can predict what each particle to do, but I do not know.
The world is so complicated-
-that in practice we have free will.
But the differential equations of the second degree is deterministic-
and they control reality.
But we have practically a free will and are accountable for our actions.
But my world is far less bleak than the one you stand for.
According to your world view is that we get.
Our morals and our values determined by an outside entity.
I have not submitted my worldview. -True, I should not say "you."
You're right, it was presumptuous of me. You seem like a sensible theologian.
There are some.
According religions worldview-
-defined the meaning and purpose outside ourselves.
For me it is a meaningless universe more inspiring and less gloomy.
We create the meaning of life. It is not forced on us by something being.
It means that... -But it's predetermined.
No, in fact I have a free will. -But not in the last resort.
Ultimately determines the laws of physics my existence.
But I have a consciousness and the ability to use it.
So I give myself my life meaning.
My life depends on my actions.
To be insignificant in a meaningless universe is inspiring.
I want to get the most out of my existence -
and give my life meaning through my actions.
This belief makes me more humble-
- than the belief that the universe was created for my sake.
We have to stop here.
Panel facilitated my job.
I want to ask Asa about an epilogue.
A philosophical summation.
We should pay tribute to knowledge in all its forms-
philosophy, physics, biology and so on-
and keep raw time to anything that is not based on evidence.
In life we'll probably accept philosopher William James words:
"Here we are all beggars."
-It's probably the gist of it here. -I buy them.
Thank you. And thanks for coming.
Translation: Niclas Bali Weekender www.broadcasttext.com