Hello. Hi. Oh, Penny, this is Dr. Plimpton...A leading expert on quantum cosmology.

你好 嗨 佩妮 这位是普林顿博士 量子宙论权威专家。

We used to think that the theory of the universe could be divided into two parts.

过往我们都认为宙论可分成两部分。

If economics was physics, macro would be cosmology and relativity while microeconomics would be Newtonian mechanics.

如果经济学是物理，宏经济学是宙论和相对论，经济学是牛顿力学。

500 BCE In On Nature, Heraclitus discourses on ethics, theology, and the universe.

公元前500年，赫拉克利特在《论自然》中探讨了伦理、神学及宙论。

But this is hard to believe, given the other details of his cosmology.

但考虑到他宙论的其他细节，这很难令人信服。

That could mean the teleological argument and the design argument, or it could mean the straight cosmological argument, or it could mean something more like what sort of Aristotelian.

那可能指的是目的论论证和设计论证，也可能是纯粹的宙论论证，接近亚里士多德式的某种论证。

And so he has put forward this idea, this conformal cyclic cosmology, I think is the official title, although I could be getting that wrong.

因此， 他提出了这个想法，我认为官方名称是“保形循环宙论” ，虽然我不确定是否记得正确。

And generally speaking, they're hypothesized not really to talk about the end of the universe, but to talk about the beginning of ours.

一般来说， 这些循环宙论的假设并非真正讨论宙的终结，是探讨我们宙的起源。

13-4-6Proofs of God's Existence With this critical estimate of the capacities and scope of human reason, it was inevitable that Kant would reject the traditional proofs for the existence of God, namely, the ontological, cosmological, and teleological proofs.

13-4-6上帝存在的证据 凭借对人类理性的能力和范围的这种批判性估计，康德不可避免地会拒绝上帝存在的传统证明，即本体论、宙论和目的论证明。

That's not a straight ahead cosmological argument.

那不是一个直接的宙论论证。

Given the new empirical findings, it would be against the spirit of Aristotle's methodology to continue upholding his cosmology.

鉴于这些新的实证发现，继续坚持亚里士多德的宙论将有悖于其方法论的精神。

Continuing his skeptical analysis, Hume criticizes both the cosmological and design arguments for God's existence.

休谟继续他的怀疑分析，批评了关于上帝存在的宙论和设计论点。

I think the reaction that we're having, Wes, is that, in a way that makes a lot of sense to you, have translated the weirdness that we're seeing here into the very familiar, oh, we know ontological argument, we know cosmological argument.

我觉得我们现在的反应，韦斯，从某种角度来说对你很有道理：我们把这里看到的怪异现象，转化成了非常熟悉的东西——哦，我们知道本体论论证，我们也知道宙论论证。

So he's gonna say the cosmological argument works the argument from causality works But the ontological argument doesn't that's all this section is about st. Anselm's ontological argument He wants to say it does not work.

所以他会说，宙论论证是成立的，因果论论证也成立，但本体论论证不成立。这一部分的内容全都是关于圣安瑟伦的本体论论证，他想说的是这个论证并不成立。