Do you have any thoughts about this question, Phil?

Yeah, I mean, I guess from my perspective, what was interesting was sort of reading about people's attempts to analyze the Big Bang using quantum gravity or, or maybe semi-classical gravity.

So basically, if you think about it this way, from the history perspective, mid-60s to around 1970s, you have the, the establishment, uh, of the singularity theorem, and some people interpret that as, okay, that's the, the beginning of time, and the Big Bang's proven there's a beginning to the universe.

And but Hawking, I think, I mean, I actually interviewed Penrose and Hawking, and Penrose was just like one- once they came up with the singularity theorem, Dennis Sciama, who people might know who that is, but he was, but if they don't, he, he was the sort of mentor to sort of Penrose and Hawking and many other leading cosmologists who are now like big, big names in, in, in physics.

And Sciama said, "Well, what you've actually done is just found the point where general relativity breaks down.

You've shown that general relativity is, you know, put here," if you like- Um, so people have known, you know, well, we're gonna need to get some better physics.

So basically, in the early 1980s, sort of two models came out, and people often refer to these as like quantum cosmology, where they try to introduce like quantum mechanical, um, principles.

So what are your thoughts about this idea, Phil?

It's not like an annual thing? This is like a one-time thing?

As far as I know, it's a one-time thing.

It was called The Black Hole is Inside and Out conference.

So it got everyone together in black hole physics.

So whether it's numerical relativists or theoretical physicists or observational astronomers, you know, all, all kinds of people that work in the black hole area.

And so they, they had a lot of people, and there was a lot of big names in the field.

And so the thought occurred to me that, oh, this would be a good opportunity to actually survey, do, do a bit of sociology of science, you know, survey people on controversial topics in the field and see, you know, is it true that this is consensus, you know, X, Y, Z? Uh, because people say, "Well, this is consensus," but actually, unless you've actually done some sociology, you don't really know that it is.

In Texas?

Where does the conflict lie, if there is one?

So, and, and let me give you another common ground between Stephen and I. There's this thesis that historians of science use called the Draper-White thesis, and it says that the relationship between science and religion is, is one of perpetual conflict, and I think that's false.

I, I think that's obviously false.

Um, so I don't sign up to the Draper-White theory, and I don't think there's, um, you know, any conflict between being a religious scientist.

That's fine.

Um, but I do think there are-- what I would call is a probabilistic conflict.

So let me try and unpack what that means.

But, okay.

Yeah.

You know? So that's the game.

Come up with something better, and that's what they've tried to do.

They, Paul is very critical of inflation.

As, as many people will know, he w- he was, uh, one of its leading defenders.

What, what happened was when Alan Guth first proposed inflation, there was this issue called the graceful exit problem, uh, and that is they couldn't get inflation to end.

Um, Paul and his student, uh, Andy Albrecht, they came up with a solution.

There you go