Professor Marcelo Gleiser writes:
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- The Multiverse has been proposed as an answer to the question, “Why does our Universe exist?”
- Its proponents believe the Multiverse can explain our origins without having to reference God. But the Multiverse is in no way falsifiable, and the arguments in its support are nearly identical to the arguments for God.
- Not all questions need to be answered in order to be meaningful.
In the late 17th century, the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz said, “The first question that should rightly be asked is, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’” Leibniz was turning to this question to prove the existence of God.
Sliding into cosmic inflation
The very success of the science that emerged during the 17th and 18th centuries — Newtonian mechanics and gravity, optics, chemistry, and so on — created a distance between science and religion. The trend continued with force for 300 years, and now most people accept a clear separation between the two. Religion may inspire a number of scientists, but it is no longer part of the scientific discourse.
That was true, at least, until the advent of the Multiverse hypothesis in recent cosmology.
The Multiverse is a strange idea. Its roots are very old, dating back to Ancient Greece. (The interested reader should consult Mary-Jane Rubenstein’s excellent book.) There are two main inspirations for the modern version of the Multiverse: Inflationary cosmology and superstring theory. In inflation, the Universe undergoes a super-fast, exponential expansion very early on in its infancy, fractions of a second after the Big Bang. The expansion is propelled at such speed by a hypothetical field called the inflaton — basically a fluid-like presence that permeates the whole of space and has the unique property of pushing space apart. A simple picture is that of a child going down a slide. Why does the child go down? Since she is not at the ground (the lowest point), there is potential gravitational energy that is converted into kinetic energy (motion) as the child slides. When the child hits the ground, all that potential energy has been converted to kinetic energy. At impact, that energy is converted into friction and heat.
The inflaton is similar. It starts with its potential energy, and while it is sliding down, this is converted into kinetic energy. But since the inflaton fills the whole of space, this process makes space expand like a balloon.
The Multiverse comes in when we add quantum physics to this picture. In quantum physics, everything is jittery. The inflaton is jittery, too. This means that while it is going downhill, quantum effects may kick it upward a bit in some regions of space, or down a bit in others. Since the amount of potential energy determines how fast the Universe expands, the inflaton will cause regions of space to expand faster or slower. The Universe splits into many Universes, each with its own expansion rate. This collection of Universes, or cosmoids, is the inflationary Multiverse. We live, supposedly, in one of these bubbles.
Landscaping the Multiverse
In superstring theories, the Multiverse comes from the string landscape. Briefly, superstring theories require spaces with six extra dimensions. This means superstrings live in nine-dimensional spaces. But we do not. At some point very early in the history of the Universe (or maybe before, it is not clear), six of these nine dimensions balled up and remained very tiny, while the other three — the ones we live in — kept growing. My PhD thesis, in the mid-1980s, was about different scenarios that would keep these extra dimensions small so that we cannot see them.
Now, this extra six-dimensional space has a shape, a topology. In fact, it can have many different topologies, and each one of them generates a different three-dimensional Universe. The theory predicts that the reason the Universe is the way it is — why the electron has the mass it does, why gravity or electromagnetism have the intensity they do — is due to the shape and topology of this extra six-dimensional space. We can picture the string landscape as the set of all possible shapes this extra space can have. Each generates a different three-dimensional Universe, with different physical properties. Ours, the theory states, would be the only one that has physical variables with the values we measure in the laboratory.
The superstring Multiverse, then, is the collection of all these Universes that pop up in the string landscape. And what does this have to do with God? Well, proponents of the theory argue that our Universe is fine-tuned for being the way it is and for having the properties it has. These properties include the existence of observers that can make theories about it. Some would argue this fine-tuning needs a fine-tuner, i.e., God. If you do not want a fine-tuning God, having a plethora of possible Universes reduces the problem to a kind of cosmic lottery game. Out of a huge number of Universes, ours is just one. We won the cosmic lottery, at least if you consider our existence to be a win — and we did not need a God to win it.
Familiar philosophical framing
How reasonable is this argument? First, from a physical perspective, we need to accept that superstring theory is a fundamental “theory of “everything,” including its predictions of supersymmetry — an extra symmetry of nature that predicts that each particle has a supersymmetric partner — and of six extra dimensions of space. So far, we have zero experimental evidence for either of these two properties. We have found no supersymmetry, and no extra dimensions. Proponents argue that maybe the supersymmetric particles are just too heavy to be seen by our current accelerators, while the extra dimensions are too tiny to be detected. Maybe, but then we cannot ever falsify this theory: Particles can always be too heavy and extra dimensions can always be too small for any machine that we ever build to detect.
The same with the Multiverse. By construction, these extra Universes exist outside our own and thus are not directly detectable. They may cause indirect signals, possibly from past collisions, but no such signal has been detected. On physical grounds there is not much support for the string landscape and its Multiverse.
And what about philosophically? The whole “if you don’t like God you’d better have the Multiverse” argument is very similar to Leibniz’s, just carried out backwards. This may be surprising for Multiverse enthusiasts to hear. But it should be clear that the Multiverse, in a curious inversion, is playing the exact same role as the God-of-the-Gaps. God’s existence is not provable by observations. The Multiverse is not provable by observations. God explains the Universe. The Multiverse explains the Universe. The Multiverse, then, is a lot like God. Weird, right?
The false assumption is that something that exists requires an explanation, whatever the cost of this explanation. In the case of the Universe, this is the problem of the First Cause, the uncaused cause that causes the Universe to become. This transition from being (God or an uncaused Multiverse) to becoming has been twisting our logical arguments into knots for at least 3,000 years, and probably longer. The question, then, is this: What is the price we must pay to have an “answer”? Is the price a supernatural cause, or an untestable scientific explanation? And in the end, does accepting either make a difference? Does it offer a way out? We should instead accept that not all questions need to be answered in order to be meaningful.
Complete article at Big Think.
Gleiser concludes that the Multiverse theory falls into the category of a God-of-the-Gaps argument, but his conviction that it is also a God-of-the-Gaps cop-out to postulate God as the explanation for why there is something rather than nothing seems to suffer from a confusion of philosophy with science. As I argue in a previous UD post, “nothing” cannot give rise to “something,” which leads logically to the conclusion that an eternally existent something must be the cause of our physically observable universe. An eternally existent multiverse has zero evidence in its favor, whereas it can be argued that an eternally existent God has many types of evidence (not only from scientific observations, but also from history, philosophy, psychology, theology, and personal testimony) in its favor.
Multiverse is a distraction. The Universe can’t be explained, so let’s Multiverse. Now, the Universe still can’t be explained, and the Multiverse can’t be explained either, but we’ve wasted your time, so we win. Haha!
It’s the opposite of science.
Andrew
Evolution is as much a “god of the gaps” as any other theory ever was.
Multiverse has infinite cause, infinite probability, infinite potential, infinite growth, and infinitely stupid.
All the power of existence with no ability to direct it. Think about that. If it has infinite potential to do whatever, what’s stopping it from doing just that? Couldn’t it just destroy it’s self one day? Of all that infinite what ever there is no way for it not to have constant physical impact. Our universe won the godless lottery once only to loose it to a cosmological blackhole a minute later.
Marcelo Gleiser asks, “Is the price (for explaining the universe) a supernatural cause, or an untestable scientific explanation?”
In his question Gleiser is assuming that naturalistic explanations equal “scientific” explanations. i.e. He is assuming ‘methodological naturalism’ to be true. He could not be more wrong in his assumption.
Empirical science itself could care less if the most ‘reasonable’ answer to a question turns out to be a natural explanation or a supernatural explanation. (Shoot ‘reason’ itself cannot be reduced to naturalistic explanation.,, see, CS Lewis, ‘argument from reason’).
For atheists to try to claim that only naturalistic explanations can be considered ‘scientific’ is for them to try to rig the game in their favor beforehand. Load the dice, as it were, as far as empirical science is concerned.
Yet, in direct contradiction to the Atheist’s claim that only naturalistic explanations can be considered scientific, modern science itself finds its origins in Judeo-Christian presuppositions. Modern science was certainly not born out of naturalistic presuppositions. (thus the atheist certainly has no basis for his self-serving claim that science is limited to naturalistic explanations).
Stephen Meyer, (Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge), in his recent book, “Return of the God hypothesis”, lists the three necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe as such.
Moreover, science is certainly not to be considered a ‘natural’ endeavor of man but is, (since the practice of science by men is itself not reducible to any possible naturalistic explanations), to be considered a ‘supernatural’ endeavor of man
Verse:
In fact, directly contrary to what Gleiser has so casually assumed to be true, forcing science into providing only naturalistic explanations, (i.e. methodological naturalism), and forsaking God as viable explanation in science, drives science into catastrophic epistemological failure.
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly, and falsely, believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic/materialistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), yet the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Moreover, to put a cherry on top of all this, empirical science has now proven, via the falsification of ‘realism’ by Leggett’s inequality, that material particles themselves, (which Darwinist materialists hold to be the ultimate foundation for all of reality), are not ‘real’.
In short, and as far as Quantum Mechanics itself is concerned, material particles are not to be considered the primary reality from which all other reality comes forth.
Thus, as far as empirical science is concerned, the reductive materialism which undergirds Darwinian evolution is experimentally falsified.
Moreover, like the catastrophic epistemological failure that is inherent within the naturalistic/materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution, the Atheist’s ‘naturalistic’ postulation of the multiverse, once again, also drives his worldview Into catastrophic epistemological failure.
For instance, as Dr. Bruce Gordon explains, (in atheists trying to explain the finely-tuned 1 in 10^10^123 initial entropy of the universe), “we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.”
Thus, much like Darwinian evolution itself drives science into catastrophic epistemological failure, the multiverse itself also drives science into catastrophic epistemological failure.
And, in my honest opinion, these catastrophic epistemological failures that are woven throughout the Atheist’s naturalistic worldview, that render his worldview profoundly ‘unscientific’, all arise from the simple fact that atheists hold, as a primary presupposition, that there is no real rhyme or reason for why anything exists. In short, atheists, as a primary presupposition, deny teleology altogether, and therefore hold that there is no rational basis for the existence of the universe, nor for ourselves.
In short, atheistic naturalism denies the primary presupposition of ‘rationality’ that was necessary for the founding of modern science in medieval Christian Europe, and is still necessary for the continued success of modern science.
As Paul Davies himself pointed out, “even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
In short, in order for the atheist to even ‘do science’ in the first place, the atheist, in direct contraction to what his naturalistic worldview holds, is forced to assume the universe is rational and that it has a purpose, and/or reason, behind its existence. Science would simply be impossible without that essential Judeo-Christian presupposition of ‘rationality’.
i.e. For an atheistic naturalist to even practice science in the first place is for him to refute his own worldview!
And as to the true purpose, and/or reason, for the universe’s, and our, existence,
Ba77 at 4,
A fine reply but it changes nothing. The National Academies of Sciences not only insist that evolution happened but to allay any fears the religious may have, also show how various Christian denominations “accept” it. In other words, the atheist-materialist worldview must be accepted, even by Christians. Contrary to clear evidence that materialism is inadequate to explain reality.
A “natural” view of the universe and our own lives requires God. It requires recognizing that what we see was made and ordered by an intelligence, not random events. Taking this further, we are told to accept the behavior of LGBT people, with an emphasis on transgender. To treat pagan baby killing as no big deal and immoral sexual behavior as no big deal.
To quote from the opening song of a “cartoon” I will not name: “Those values on which we used to rely.” In other words, throw away those values. Spit on those values. One character is an atheist who has said nothing happens after you die.
So, just to be clear, atheist-materialism must take over the United States and Western Europe. If the evangelists for the atheist-materialist worldview do not continue their campaign, the feared alternative will fill the vacuum – Religion, and orderly, moral living. Two parent families and no abortion. Raising your own kids instead of the TV or the internet. These things are rejected by too many and civil, as in civilized, society is suffering for a lack of these things right now.
But, here, and elsewhere, are dedicated atheists who repeat the same falsehoods over and over, who try to influence others to believe wrong things and to cause confusion. Keep up the good work.
https://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/science-and-religion
BA77/4
Getting a little loose on what you categorize as “sin” let alone “original sin,” don’t you think?
ChuckyD asks, “Getting a little loose on what you categorize as “sin” let alone “original sin,” don’t you think?”
No. I was being very specific when I included the term ‘original sin’.
“Original sin’ was first and foremost in Francis Bacon’s mind when he championed the inductive reasoning of the scientific method over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks, which had been to the dominant form of reasoning up until that time.
As Emily Morales, via Professor Peter Harrison, noted, “It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology,,, Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement”,,,
Bacon’s inductive methodology, which he introduced as a check and balance against humanity’s fallen sinful nature, was a radically different form of ‘bottom up’ reasoning that was, practically speaking, a completely different form of reasoning than the ‘top down’ deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks which had preceded it. A form of ‘top-down’ reasoning in which people “pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
And indeed, repeated experimentation, ever since it was first set forth by Francis Bacon in his inductive methodology, has been the cornerstone of the scientific method. And has indeed been very, very, fruitful for man in gaining accurate knowledge of the universe in that repeated experiments lead to more “exacting, and illuminating”, conclusions than is possible with the quote-unquote, “educated guesses” that follow from the ‘top-down’ deductive form of reasoning that had been the dominant form of reasoning up to that time.
And, (in what should not be surprising for anyone who has debated Darwinists for any length of time), it turns out that Darwinian evolution itself is not based on Bacon’s Inductive form of reasoning, (which is too say that Darwin’s theory itself is not based on the scientific method), but Darwin’s theory is instead based, in large measure, on the Deductive form of reasoning that Bacon had specifically shunned because of the fallibleness of man’s fallen sinful nature.
As Dr. Richard Nelson noted in his book ‘Darwin, Then and Now’, Charles Darwin, in his book ‘Origin of Species’, “selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning.”
In fact, Richard Owen, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, had found that Charles Darwin, as far as inductive methodology itself was concerned, had failed to produce any “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.
In other words, Darwin had failed to produce any original experimental research that might support his theory for the “Origin of Species”.
And on top of Richard Owen’s rather mild rebuke of Darwin for failing to use inductive methodology, Adam Sedgwick was nothing less than scathing of Darwin for deserting, “after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.”
Moreover, Adam Sedgwick also called Darwin out for being deceptive in exactly what form of reasoning he was using in his book. Specifically Sedgwick scolded Darwin that “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”
And it was not as if Darwin was ignorant of the fact that he had failed to follow Bacon’s inductive methodology when he wrote his book.
Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, honestly confessed to a friend that “What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”
In fact, just two weeks before Darwin’s book was to be published, Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, told Darwin, “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”
And now, over a century and a half later, the situation of ‘the facts won’t fit’ still has not changed for Darwinists. To this day, Darwinists still have no experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true,
As Dr Richard Nelson further noted in his book’ Darwin, Then and Now’, “After 150 years of research,,, the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.”
In fact, in further proving that Darwinism is not based on Bacon’s inductive form of reasoning, there are now many lines of experimental evidence that directly falsify core presuppositions of Darwin’s theory,,,, empirical falsifications that Darwinists simply ignore.
Moreover, Darwinian evolution, (besides being falsified by many lines of empirical evidence ), is simply not needed as a guiding principle, and/or as a heuristic, in biology. (i.e. Darwinian evolution is not even needed as a primary presupposition within the ‘top-down’ Deductive form of reasoning of the ancient Greeks).
Scientifically speaking, Darwinian evolution has simply been a complete bust and has not led to any useful insights but has only misled researchers. Even Jerry Coyne himself admits as much
In fact, in so far as Darwinian evolution has been used as a guiding principle and/or heuristic in science, it had grossly misled scientists into blind alleys, such as with its false prediction of junk DNA, vestigial organs, with eugenics, i.e. ‘selective’ abortion, etc.. etc…
In fact, it is also very interesting to note that Francis Bacon, (who was, once again, the father of the scientific method), in his book “Novum Organum”, also stated that the best way to tell if a philosophy is true or not is by the ‘fruits produced’.
Specifically Bacon stated that, “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”
And in regards to society at large, and 150 years after Darwinian evolution burst onto the scene, (masquerading as a empirical science), and in regards to the ‘fruits produced’ by Darwinian ideology, we can now accurately surmise that Darwinian ideology has been a complete and utter disaster for man that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man.
In short, and to repeat, Darwinian evolution, instead of ever producing any ‘good fruit’ for man, (as true empirical sciences normally do), has instead been a complete and utter disaster for man that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man.
Verse:
Naturalism has several problems or “mysteries” that it dances around or pretends will be explained naturally some how, at some time. These include the origin of the Universe, the various fine tunings in physics and also in cosmology, the origin of life, the addition of biological information to create novel lifeforms, the origin and explanation of consciousness. There are probably others that could be added, but let’s use these six. Naturalism proposes separate TBD answers for these mysteries, with little or no supportive evidence other than wishful hand waving. Theism explains all of these (and more) with a single MYSTERY, AKA God, for whom there is considerable evidence, if naturalists will only open their minds. Thus, the Multiverse hypothesis and its broader Naturalist world view fail Ockham’s razor, by postulating several vague possible causes instead of one capable Theistic cause.
I would like to repeat that evolution must be promoted daily. People need to be convinced. The evangelists here for evolution are evidence of a long-term campaign to get people to only believe, followed by scientists. It doesn’t matter if it’s 15 year olds in science class. As long as they trust their teachers, and some scientists, that’s all that’s required. Sure, there will be tests. But who remembers Algebra from High school or uses it?
But the corrosive effects need to be mentioned.
Human beings are an accident.
No God.
Nothing happens after you die.
This leads to atheism, or agnosticism. This can encourage people to believe this life is all there is. We must remind them that God, not nothing, created everything.
Bornagain77 @4,
Thanks for the great comment–much appreciated. However, you might want to check into the broken link that you quoted: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
Even outside of a Christian worldview, I think it’s revealing that deterministic materialists cannot tolerate a probabilistic universe, quantum mechanics notwithstanding.
They still shoot themselves in the foot when when tracing mechanistic causality back to some starting point where it’s of necessity so finely tuned that all of the variation in the universe must have been present at the initial conditions.
And speculating about a multiverse only makes the problem of initial conditions worse. It’s simply a mental rug under which one can sweep all sorts of anomalies. Then there’s the question of the Mother of Multiverses (i.e. MOM), a giant cosmic turtle whose eggs are universes . . . it would have to have a deterministic beginning as well. So it’s turtles all the way up and elephants all the way down.
-Q
BA77/7
It has always been my suspicion that when Christians take over the world, everything will be a sin. BA77 confirms that suspicion, apparently “flights of fancy” and “jumping to conclusions” are not simply sins, but original sins. Apparently human beings can do absolutely nothing right. So, it is with trepidation that we look forward to the second inquisition……
Just some important stuff on the inquisition
Like the purpose of the inquisition was the state called on church officials to see if a heresy was committed by a person they accused, people would commit blasphemy to get out of state prisons and into an inquisition prison (Spanish) because the living conditions where much better. Most issues brought up about the inquisition where actually Perpetrated by the state that employed them
But the non-religious haters of religion will often, if not always, distort them into the maniacs you see portrayed in Hollywood or games like 40K
But if you want the Inquisition, it was a panel of fryers, usually three of them, that asked you questions on whether or not you committed a heresy against God. They were called upon by the state whom actually was the one doing the atrocities and hoping to find reasons to hurt a person they didn’t like
https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-inquisition
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/inquisition
https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/actually-everybody-expects-the-spanish-inquisition
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-myth-of-the-spanish-inquisition