Or against fine tuning of our universe. God could have created countless universes on various principles for a variety of reasons:
New Scientist’s executive editor Richard Webb, a “recovering particle physicist,” offers a look at the current state of the idea that there might be an infinity of universes out there. Why believe it? Mainly, it turns out, to avoid believing something else:News, “Multiverse cosmology is not a good argument against God” at Mind Matters News (November 21, 2021)
Many people assume that the idea that ours is the only universe must be a religious one. Webb quotes cosmologist Paul Davies: “‘You have to decide if the origin of the universe is a natural, or a supernatural, event,’” says Davies. “‘If it is a natural event, you wouldn’t expect it to happen just once.’”
Perhaps not. But we can just as easily theorize that a Divine Mind created an infinity of universes. Perhaps ours is one of the few that was “chosen” to produce life. True, one could simplify cosmology by showing that natural laws would randomly produce countless universes, a handful of which may work. But what, exactly, are those laws? As they are outside our universe, we must take them on faith.
The problem with the multiverse doesn’t lie in issues around a role for God. The problem opponents cite is that there is no serious evidence for any universe other than our own. Acceptance of theories without evidence (perhaps to evade a logic problem of some kind) is bad for science in principle.
Although popular science magazines might imply that physics is pointing us to the reality of a multiverse, there is much opposition from within the discipline. Prominent proponents of the multiverse have included well-known cosmologists such as Max Tegmark and Alexander Vilenkin, Brian Greene and Neil Turok,Alan Guth and Stephen Hawking,as discussed in online science magazines. Opponents include theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder( “Why the multiverse is religion, not science”), cosmologist Paul Davies (“it also leads to a fake universe with fake physics”, which undermines arguments from physics) and cosmologist George Ellis (“beyond the domain of science”). Well-known science writer John Horgan considers them “bad for science” and mathematician Peter Woit thinks that it “has left conventional science completely behind.”
A mathematical argument against the multiverse: More.
Takehome: The key argument against the multiverse is that there is no evidence for it; it takes us outside the realm of observable science — a choice with consequences.
You may also wish to read: In an infinity of universes, countless ones are run by cats… Daniel Díaz notes that most of the talk about the multiverse started to appear once it was realized that there was fine-tuning in nature. Robert J. Marks points out that even 10 to the 1000 th power of universes would only permit 3,322 different paths. Infinity is required but unprovable.
28 Replies to “At Mind Matters News: Multiverse cosmology is not a good argument against God”
But alas, for the committed Atheist, especially for the committed Darwinian Atheist, fairy tales, in and of themselves, are what constitute scientific proof.
It is a crying shame that Atheists constantly confuse their imaginary speculations with actual empirical science.,,, Empirical science, specifically the inductive methodology behind modern empirical science, was championed by Francis Bacon, (a devout Christian), precisely because “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.”
In short, Empirical science was championed by Francis Bacon precisely because it offered a powerful check and balance against the “self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions” that man is prone to. And yet here we have Atheists, in their conjecture of a multiverse, disregarding all the checks and balances of empirical science, and postulating, basically, an infinitude of “flights of fancies”.
As should be needless to say, this is not science. In fact, as Bruce Gordon has pointed out, the multiverse conjecture “entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.”
Of supplemental note: The inability of the committed atheist to differentiate what is imaginary from what is real runs far deeper than many people realize.
Thus, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), 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.
I’d like to see someone support the assertion that there is no evidence for the multiverse. When people say “there is no evidence” or “There is no serious evidence,” what they are saying is that they don’t consider what evidence exists to be “enough” evidence for them personally. Or, they are saying they are not personally aware of any such evidence.
I think the whole multiverse discussion is too thick with atheism/materialism vs Christianity subtext and context to be examined and discussed rationally.
There is no need to say that universes are generated “randomly” to avoid the idea of God and/or intelligent design unless you’re an atheist; there is no need to say that only one universe exists unless it’s some sort of religious ontological commitment. The multiverse can exist and it not be a “random” generation of universes, and it can still be something intelligently produced by what might be called “God.”
But, two opposing ideological factions have swallowed up the entire discussion.
The main ideological notion pushing for a multiverse is atheism. They cannot admit a creator. But the fine tuning is devastating for them. It is not Christianity or any other religion that is ideologically against the multiverse because their God is all powerful. He could easily create as many universes as He wants. It is logic that is against the multiverse. It must be an infinite number for the atheist. Anything less leaves open the fine tuning dilemma.
However, ID says nothing about Christianity or any other religion. Those who bring it up are just trying to divert any discussion on the obvious.
Christianity depends on the creator being Christ or sending Christ to this world. Something way beyond the purview of ID.
Yet on an ID site asking for some to not discuss what they like to discuss the most is apparently against human nature. It’s an irresistible impulse.
I’d like to see that logic. Can you direct me to the logical argument against the multiverse?
Easy, it has been presented many times.
The only multiverse theory accepted by atheism is the infinite scenario. But the infinite scenario leads to absurdities. Any possible instance must have happened and must have happened an infinite number of times including this specific conversation
Including the fact that I left off the ending period of the previous paragraph. An infinite number of times but included it an infinite number or times in other universes.
Then, our particular universe must exist an infinite number of times where there is zero evidence on how things happened. It must be one of the infinite universes of hidden causes.
Of course absurdities are the essence of many and they like to believe in anything. But that is taken care of too by the multiverse theory. There is also an infinite number of universes in which there is a Tooth Fairy. And let’s not forget the Easter Bunny and red nosed reindeer.
Oh, and Alice in Wonderland is a true story in an infinite number of universes.
Nothing but one absurdity after the other.
But in our particular universe the logic against multiverses will be ignored an infinite number of times because people in our universe have an irresistible impulse to deny logic and be contrarian. So they will continually bring up the possibility of a multiverse.
“Can you direct me to the logical argument against the multiverse?”
How would one know which -verse they were in as opposed to some other -verse? Logically impossible.
I forgot to present some of the critical findings of the multiverse.
Since there will be no limit on learning by an infinite number of entities in the infinite multiverse scenario, there will be an infinite number of universes with entities of infinite intelligence.
In an infinite subset of these universes these entities with infinite intelligence will create new universes by saying “Let There Be Light.” And in an infinite subset of these universes the words will be spoken in English.
And in an infinite subset of these, there will be an entity named Jerry that says this is absurd and an infinite subset in which a entity named Murray that says Amen.
There is a difference between something seems absurd to think, and a true logical absurdity. A true logical absurdity is an essential self-contradiction, like a square circle. There is nothing logically absurd with the infinite multiverse theory, other than that to someone it seems like “that’s too many universes” or “too many variations.” There’s nothing logically impossible (true absurdity) about it.
Not knowing which universe I’m in doesn’t make the multiverse logically impossible, or even logically unlikely.
If what the two of you are saying is that it is logically less likely that a multiverse exists than one universe, what is the premise of that argument? How is “likelihood” determined?
What is the premise of the logical argument against the multiverse? What are the inferences that are drawn from that premise? How is the conclusion “there is no multiverse” reached?
Let’s see if I can get this started:
1. Premise: Multiverse exists.
X. Conclusion: Therefore can only be one (or a limited number of universes. ( I don’t think that argument can be made.)
or, alternatively: Therefore, there is no reason to consider the idea of a multiverse.
or, alternatively: The idea of a multiverse is therefore necessarily irrational.
I don’t think anyone can make the argument that only one universe can exist.
Let me start with a different premise:
1. At least one universe exists.
2. With the existence of any one possible universe, all other possible universes simultaneously co-exist as potential or, IOW, as logical comparatives (A & not-A).
3. Potential is information.
4. That potential information exists.
5. The information for all possible universes therefore exists.
6. All possible universes therefore exist at least as information.
7. If, as quantum research indicates, our universe experience is actually informational potential being acted upon by consciousness,
8. It follows that any other potential universe (as information) can be acted upon by consciousness, because ….
9. If information cannot be acted upon or experienced by consciousness, it is not information by definition.
10. Consciousness can therefore experience any possible universe, unless something is preventing it from doing so.
I mean, that’s just a rough, top-of-my head sketch of a logical argument FOR the existence of an infinite multiverse .
“Not knowing which universe I’m in doesn’t make the multiverse logically impossible”
It does. If one can’t ever differentiate between -verses, there could only ever be the -verse one is in.
Murray believes in the Tooth Fairy
You have refuted not one of the absurdities. So I assume you accept them including the Tooth Fairy.
Then you accept the infinite number of entities with infinite intelligence but you accept that there must be some reason these infinite number of entities has not let themselves known to our universe. This refutes the infinite scenario because you ad hoc have arbitrarily limited these infinitely intelligent entities.
Reductio ad absurdum
The root of the problem is “universe.”
What is it?
Thus the Multiverse does not exist.
(1.) The Multiverse exists.
(2.) There is a finite amount of Multiverse-producers.
(3.) A finite amount of Multiverse-producers contain a finite amount of energy.
(4.) The Multiverse-producers need to contain an infinite amount of energy to be able to produce an infinite amount of universes (the Multiverse).
from (2.), (3.) and (4.)
5. The Multiverse does not exist.
Asauber @11 said:
Or, perhaps this is something we all experience every day, and we just call it something else, and so are unaware that we have access to all these other universes.
All the infinite universes where the Tooth Fairy exists.
I think you should publish a book on the Tooth Fairy in all these other universes. It should be a winner.
“we have access to all these other universes”
“we have access to all these other universes” … we just need some teleportation machines.
Imagine an infinite amount of universes, an infinite amount of teleporatation machines and an infinite amount of people using them to go back and forth between universes …
Murray has this covered. Ask him about astral travel. He uses it all the time to go to other universes.
It is impossible for something that can infinitely create blindly NOT to create something that could destroy us or itself.
To say that the multi-verse can’t affect itself it’s just an attempt to explain why there is no evidence of it at all
But there is nothing that would stop such a ginormous universe creating engine from creating a cosmological black hole and destroying everything in it
There would be nothing from stopping another universe from colliding with our own or even merging with it
Cosmological wormholes would also be an issue connecting to universes to one another, yet we don’t see this either with something that sports infinite possibilities.
a. the multi-verse doesn’t exist
b. the multi-verse isn’t infinite
c. Something very powerful and infinite keeps the multi-verse from imploding
By the way I read the article and I could’ve sworn that Neil Toruk is not a big supporter of the Multiverse theory infact criticizes it frequently
I mean he was one of the people that held a meeting in Waterloo after the nonsense with the bicep2 results
And I’m only saying this because I noticed he was listed under proponents and I thought he was not exactly a proponent in fact he blames the standard model for the overly complex stupidity of the Multiverse
Cool I found something we post here on it
:))) The existence of multiverse change absolutely nothing because it’s impossible for the functional information to appear by chance . In the absence of a Creative Mind the chances to exist functional information are 0+0+…+0=0
I was wondering about that too. An infinite amount of universes but somehow not one of them collides with ours for quite some time. Why is that?
Jerry @18 said:
That’s probably the one time you’ve ever been exactly accurate about something I’ve said 🙂
All of this discussion is still suffering under the problem pointed out by Asauber: what do we mean when we say “universe?”
Several of you, and many other philosophers, are raising/have raised energy, spatial, logical and logistical objections when it comes to infinite universes as if that word necessarily entails matter and energy – universes “bumping” into each other, or the “energy” requirements, or one universe creating something that would physically devour or disrupt other universes.
All of those objections are entirely based on a hypothesis of what the “universe” is that cannot be supported, even in principle, a hypothesis that has long since been disproved. Yet, here you are, still applying Victorian-age materialist objections from materialist assumptions in a post-materialism age.
But, here’s the thing: all of those other universes necessarily already exists as abstract information (potential) because this universe exists. If this was not the case, we wouldn’t be able to talk about their potential existence.
Under an MRT, what does it mean to say that there is a multiverse? If we take “universe” to mean an experience of what appears to be a consistent, phsyical, “waking reality” world around us, then it means that the abstract information is available for a conscious mind to access and translate into that “physical world” experience. Has this occurred – people accessing that abstract information and visiting these other universes in the above-described sense?
We already know the information exists (in abstract, as potential.) It cannot not exist. The only question would be, is there any evidence that this occurs, or has occurred? The answer to that is: yes. There is an enormous amount of evidence that this actually occurs because countless people throughout history have reported these kinds of experiences – of other universes, or other realities, however you want to phrase it. Such as, universes where their dead are alive, and there are other versions of things in this world, operating under different “physical laws.”
No worries I got this covered the tooth fairy universe collided with the tooth decay universe and they ceased to exist or at least the tooth fairies did because there where no teeth left
Argument Against Solipsism
(1.) I am able to understand & find the truth
(2.) This ability implies that all aspects of my mind work in concert.
(3.) If there are aspects of my mind opposing others, then I won’t be able to understand & find the truth.
(4.) If Solipsism is true, then there are aspects of my mind opposing others.
From (3.) and (4.)
(5.) If solipsism is true, I won’t be able to understand & find the truth.
From (1.) and (5.)
(6.) Solipsism is false