The idea of the multi-verse is often
used to hand-wave away difficulties with a naturalistic explanation for our
universe. Unfortunately, all the
multi-verse does is move the goal posts back a level; the questions in this
universe do not go away by adding an infinite number of universes. There are many scientific and philosophical
implications or unanswered questions with the idea of the multi-verse without a
designer, so here’s a short list:
The laws of physics are independent of the
universe
The laws of physics are needed to
allow a universe to form prior to the universe forming, if not temporally then ontologically. As Alex Vilenkin said in this interview,
“The same laws that describe the evolution of
the universe also describe the appearance of the universe; its coming into
being. This seems to suggest that the
laws were there prior to the universe itself…..The laws of physics have some platonic
existence which is independent of the universe.” – Alex Vilenkin
A platonic existence is the idea that
abstract objects, like numbers, shapes, truth statements, etc exist in an
independent reality as opposed to being ideas that do not really exist. Vilenkin is saying the laws of physics exist
in an independent reality. Appealing to
a multi-verse does not explain away the laws of physics, since it too needs
laws of physics to exist. The next
question is, are the laws of physics brute fact (exist out of necessity),
chance, or is there a mind behind the math?
I’ll deal with chance next. If
the laws of physics are brute fact, then it is impossible to have a universe
with different laws of physics. I don’t
know of any scientist that holds this view, but even if true, does not explain
how the constants within those laws are fine-tuned for a life-permitting
universe. The fine-tuning of the
universe for life still cries out for an explanation.
Using the multi-verse to escape a designer is
a logical fallacy
The reason the multi-verse has gainedpopularity in scientific circles is due to the fine-tuning problem, which many
(not all) atheists acknowledge as the most compelling evidence for a designer,
although not compelling enough. In order
to avoid a designer or appealing to the Anthropic Principle (it has to be that
way or we wouldn’t exist aka “just have faith”), atheists are now appealing to
the idea of an infinite number of universes to increase the probability/chance
that a universe tuned to 10-120 is closer to 1. There are a couple of issues with this:
1).
In order to have an infinite number of universes with different physical
constants and early universe conditions, a constant scrambler or some other
mechanism must exist to set these different constants prior to these universes
forming. Where does the randomness come
from? Is this cosmic slot machine also
tuned to randomly spit out universes with different constants?
2).
This commits the Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy which is “the fallacy of
concluding, on the basis of an unlikely outcome of a random process, that the
process is likely to have occurred many times before.” In other words, simply saying that ‘the odds
are extremely low that a universe such as ours would form; therefore, there
must be an infinite number of universes’ is a logical fallacy.
Occam’s Razor
Occam’s Razor is a principle that
states that when there are competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest
assumptions should be selected. This is
not a principle that refutes logic or science, nor does it prove/disprove
anything. What it does implicate is that
one should not posit an infinite number of universes just to explain one
universe when the simple explanation of a mind fits the data for the
fine-tuning and other discoveries that have been made.
The multi-verse also had a beginning
In this video, Alan Guth describes his
theory of eternal inflation, which is the leading theory for what happened just
prior to the Big Bang (the Big Bang is the result of inflation). It is not a complete theory, as the he
acknowledges, but has made some predictions that have been confirmed. One of the predictions of this theory is that
once inflation starts, the universe expands forever into the future and can
repeat by creating more universes. The
caveat to the theory of eternal inflation is that the “eternal” part only goes
one way; the future. Something had to
start the first inflating universe.
“….we’ve been able to “prove” mathematically
that it’s in fact not possible to extrapolate arbitrarily far into the
past. Somewhere if you extrapolate
backwards into the past [], somewhere [was] the beginning of inflation.” – Alan
Guth
Eternal Inflation is only one of
several theories for the origin of the universe and is compatible with some of
them like string theory; however, the BGV theorem says if a universe has an
average state of expansion, it had a beginning.
Alan Guth is the G in BGV. This
also applies to the multi-verse. If the
multi-verse is expanding, it too had a beginning. Is it possible the multi-verse is not
expanding? It’s difficult to imagine a
multi-verse full of expanding universes that is not also expanding, but if the
multi-verse is not expanding it must be infinitely large which leads toproblems.
Another reason to believe the
multi-verse had a beginning is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As Vilenkin explained, the laws of physics
had to exist prior to the universe to allow the universe to form at all. If our universe was formed out of the
multi-verse and the laws of physics were already in place, there is no valid
reason to believe the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not also apply
to the multi-verse. This also suggests a
beginning since the multi-verse should have hit thermal equilibrium an infinite
time ago.
If the multi-verse does exist, it also
had a beginning and requires a cause.
Our universe would not be an isolated system
Many of the equations used in the laws
of physics are based on the assumption that the universe is an isolated system
and have been repeatedly confirmed. If
the multi-verse exists and has interacted with our universe in any way, our
universe would not be an isolated system.
This would call into question many things we have observed and think we
know about our universe. Should the
multi-verse be discovered our laws of physics may not need adjusting, but I
think observational confirmation of our equations lends credence to the idea
that our universe has not been impacted by an outside universe.
Multi-verse of the gaps
I don’t know if there are an infinite
number of universes or not. No one does;
there isn’t any evidence for or against it.
The issue I have with the multi-verse is that it is being used to
hand-wave away evidence for a designer.
It provides an intellectual escape by allowing people to ignore the
problems with naturalistic explanations and then claim there is no evidence for
a designer. It’s the “multi-verse of the
gaps” argument. With an infinite number
of universes, anything and everything can be explained away. A theory that can explain anything explains
nothing.
Why is there something, rather than nothing?
The multi-verse does not answer one of
the fundamental questions, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
The multi-verse can substitute for religion
The multi-verse can be used as a
religion substitute. One of the benefits
to having an infinite number of universes is the comfort of knowing that you
will live again in another universe. Tommaso
Dorigo laments this new trend in this article where he says,
“Indeed, long ago man invented religion as a
way to explain what he could not figure out by logical methods, as well as to
accept his own mortality: religion made acceptable the concept of death, as
well as give an explanation to other natural phenomena. And man is now
inventing the multiverse in what appears to me a new, albeit well disguised,
attempt in the same direction. One as reassuring and sweet as the idea of an
almighty entity….We might be immortal after all….if we accept that the universe
is a multiverse unlimited in time, with bubbles continuously regenerated, we
must conclude that we are bound to live again not one, but an infinite number
of times.”
Your evil twin is wreaking havoc somewhere
One of the fun implications of an
infinite number of universes is the reality that every individual exists in oneor more other universes. There are an
infinite number of me!
“some calculations suggest that a reality with
infinite space and infinite universes would necessarily have to repeat itself
sometimes, leading to the conclusion that copies of Earth and everyone on it
exist somewhere else out there.” – Daniel Mortlock
Could one of these copies be my evil
twin? Maybe in another universe I’m an
anti-theist, or apologist for atheism…..or a super hero or super villain!
The multi-verse is best explained by God
A transcendent mind is still the best explanation
for our laws of physics, the fine-tuning of those laws, the unreasonable effectiveness
of mathematics, the origin of the multi-verse, and why there is something
rather than nothing. Adding an infinite
number of universes does nothing to explain these and is an intellectual leap without warrant.
The idea of multiple universes does
not pose a threat to Christianity. God
is free to do as he pleases. The
multi-verse may or may not exist. We
don’t know one way or the other, but using an infinite number of universes as
an escape for a designer is not a rational counter-argument to the arguments
for theism.
“To postulate a trillion trillion
other universes, rather than one God, in order to explain the orderliness of
our universe, seems the height of irrationality.” – Richard Swinburne, Is There a God?
