The Multi-Verse: Part III – The Height of Irrationality

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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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?

 

 

The Multi-Verse: Part II – Where’s the Evidence?

 

Theists are often told that there is no evidence for God’s existence, which we obviously disagree.  The evidence is the same, but the conclusions drawn from the evidence are different.  However, there are times when a claim is made that should have evidence for it and the absence of that evidence renders the claim highly improbable and not worthy of belief.  An example of this is the idea of a multi-verse.   If there is a multi-verse, our universe should look very different.

 

 

 

In 1929, Edwin Hubble observed that every galaxy in our universe was moving away from Earth.  It was like a giant balloon was being blown up.  The galaxies that were twice as far away appeared to be moving away twice as fast and galaxies that were three times as far away appeared to be moving away three times as fast.  The diagram on the right is a model of what it looked like.  The white is for the initial observation and the red is the observation at a later time.  When the red and the white are laid on top of each other, the red galaxies are offset from their original position.  The blue and green galaxies are the fixed points to show that the visual is consistent no matter where in the grid your observation point is.  The observation Hubble made could mean one of two things: 1)  The Earth is the center of the universe or 2)  The universe is expanding.  As cool as Geocentrism sounds, the logical conclusion is that the universe is expanding.

 

In order to discuss the a naturalistic view of the multi-verse, I must assume that an infinite number of actual things, causes, time, etc. can exist in reality as opposed to just mathematical concepts.  I explained why I don’t believe this is possible in a previous post, but for the sake of argument, I’m assuming that I’m wrong.  A real infinity is necessary because in order for there to be a natural cause to the origin of our universe, the cause must extend into the infinite past either as an uncaused cause or an infinite series of causes. 

 

If there is a multi-verse and no creator, it has an infinite past and a non-zero probability of producing universes.  With an infinite amount of time the probability of a possible event, no matter how low the probability is, becomes irrelevant as long as that event is truly possible.  At a bare minimum, we know an expanding universe such as ours is possible.  In an infinite amount of time, there would be an infinite number of expanding universes produced at every possible location within the multi-verse.  Even the idea that different universes with different fundamental constants would be produced is irrelevant because you have an infinite amount of time, so there would be an infinite number of expanding universes just like ours and an infinite number of every other possible universe. 

 

 

The multi-verse would be full of universes because every possible space that can form a universe would form a universe, even if there is an infinite amount of space, because there is an infinite amount of time to fill that space.  The multi-verse would be a literal Hilbert’s Hotel; it would be full, yet have more room for infinitely more universes.  Our universe would have collided with many other expanding universes; some formed an infinite time ago.  It would be like a giant fireworks show; the ultimate grand finale.  We would not be able to tell that our universe is expanding because galaxies from other universes would be coming at us and moving away from us from all directions.  The universe would appear random and chaotic because it would have been formed randomly out of chaos.

 

 

Some say that the multi-verse is outside of our visual range and the other universes are somewhere outside of our universe.  If this is true, there will never be evidence for a multi-verse and the idea of the multi-verse can never be proven true or falsified.  It becomes a claim based on blind faith, which is counter to the ideals held by the scientific community that preaches we should only believe in things that can be empirically verified. 

 

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it does make belief in the multi-verse a leap of blind faith.  There are other philosophical and scientific problems with a naturalistic concept of the multi-verse and I hope to cover these in a future post.  Ironically, if the multi-verse does exist, the best explanation for its existence is a designer.  In trying to escape faith in a designer, atheists have posited an idea that requires faith…and also a designer.

 

 

The Multi-Verse: Part I – Desperate to Avoid God

I really don’t know why I remember this conversation, but I do.  I had just started my freshman year of college and was talking to one of my classmates on a break.  He seemed like a hippie- type, so for him to say that our universe could be one of an infinite number of universes wasn’t surprising to me.  What is surprising to me is how the idea of a multi-verse is now part of mainstream science.  Just about every recently made program I watch regarding the universe preaches the possibility of the multi-verse as if it is true.  Even Nova made a video on the multi-verse.  Let’s be clear; it is only an idea.  It’s not a scientific theory.  A theory has evidence supporting it.  It’s not a scientific hypothesis.  A hypothesis is testable.  The multi-verse has neither supporting evidence nor is it testable, so why is it discussed (preached) in science?

The idea of the multi-verse has been around in science for decades, but it wasn’t taken seriously.  Scientists try to avoid theories that have no evidence and cannot be falsified.  Many claim to reject the existence of God for this reason, but now scientists actively discuss an idea that has no evidence and cannot be falsified.  Why has this changed?  The reason for the change is because the universe appears to have been fine-tuned to allow for life.  What does this mean?  The laws of physics have several constants contained in their equations that, should they vary in the slightest amount, our universe would not have been life permitting, if it had formed at all. 

The most extreme example of fine tuning is the Cosmological Constant which has been tuned to 1:10¹²⁰ (120 decimal places).  If this had been a slightly smaller value, the universe would collapse on itself to form a giant black hole.  If this value had been slightly bigger, the universe would have flown apart so fast that atoms would not have formed.  Just for a scale reference, we’ve had 10¹⁷ seconds since time began and it’s estimated the all of the particles in the observable universe total around 10⁸⁰.  I’ve included more examples below of finely tuned constants.

What is the best explanation for this?  As Leonard Susskind says in this video, “nobody thinks that’s accidental….that is not a reasonable idea that something is tuned to 120 decimal places just by accident”.  The more discoveries scientists make, the more it becomes clear that a designer is required to set these constants into the extremely narrow range.  If one were following the evidence, then a designer is the simplest explanation.  Yet many atheist scientists don’t allow for the option of a designer.  Sandra Faber explains how they get around the evidence:

“Faber declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer.  “The only other approach that makes any sense is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said.”

This Discover Magazine article discusses if there is an alternative to a creator, since the ‘fine-tuning problem’ indicates intelligence.

“Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.”

“Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non­religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.”

“if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.””

The probability that all of these constants and early universe conditions could be randomly set so precisely and accurately is so low that it is beyond comprehension.  Atheists often claim that there is no evidence for a designer, yet when they discover such evidence, they postulate an idea that has no evidence; an infinite number of universes.  The multi-verse is a faith-based claim, not a scientific hypothesis.  Good science does not come up with theories based on the need to avoid God. 

The fine-tuning of our universe was either caused by a designer or there are an infinite number of universes; one has evidence and the other has to be taken on blind faith.  As Bernard Carr said in the Discover Magazine article, “If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”  Christians are free to follow the evidence where it leads; atheists must hold on to blind faith. 

Examples of fine tuning:

Cosmological Constant – 1:10¹²⁰ – This is the energy of empty space (dark energy) that is causing the universe to expand.  If it were too high the universe flies apart so fast that atoms cannot form, too low and the universe collapses into a black hole.

Critical Density – 1:10¹⁵ – This is the density of the universe required so that it would neither expand nor contract (the density without the Cosmological Constant).  It’s value determines the shape of the universe; open, closed or flat.  If it were too high the universe flies apart, too low and the universe collapses into a black hole.

Universe Density – 1:10⁶² – The density of the universe is tune to 10^-62 of the critical density required for a flat universe.  This has become known as the Flatness Problem.  Life requires an almost flat universe.

The Weak Force – 1:10¹⁰⁰ – The weak force is what allows radioactive decay.  If it were too strong, only heavy elements (like iron) could form; too weak and only light elements (like hydrogen) could form.

Electromagnetic Force to Gravity – 1:10⁴⁰ – If this ratio varied by 10^-40, stars would only form either small red dwarfs or giant blue stars, neither of which can sustain life.

The Amplitude of Primordial Fluctuations (Q) – 1:10⁵ – Q is a measure of the mix of atoms, dark energy, and radiation at the various points in space after the Big Bang (the distribution of the ‘stuff’).  The results are ‘ripples’ throughout space.  If the amplitude of these ripples were larger than 10^-5, the resulting chaos would prevent star formation; smaller than 10^-6 and the universe would collapse into black holes.

Hoyle Resonance – 1:10⁵ – The Hoyle Resonance is a property of carbon-12 that allows both carbon and oxygen to be produced from stars.  A change in this state by 10^-5 would result in either no carbon production or no oxygen production.  The Hoyle Resonance allows for both to be produced.

The mass of hydrogen converted into energy in stars – 0.007% - This is the percent of a hydrogen atom’s mass that is converted into energy from the nuclear reactions of stars.  If that percent were 0.006%, the universe would be full of hydrogen and nothing else.  If that percent were 0.008%, there would be no hydrogen which results in no stars like our sun or water.

Entropy – 1:10¹⁰¹²³ – This is the low entropy value Roger Penrose estimates our universe had at the Big Bang.  Entropy is the amount of order in the universe and never decreases over time.  You could literally take a zero from this number and put it on every particle in the observable universe with many zeroes left over. 

 

Click here for a list of 93 finely tuned constants.

Sources

 

Paper on fine Tuning

InspiringPhilosophy on theTeleological Argument

Reasonable Faith on the Teleological Argument

The Flatness Problem

Roger Penrose on entropy

Leonard Susskind quote – Full Video

Intelligent Design of the Cosmos

List of constants