Fine tuning Intelligent Design Multiverse

Logic vs. the multiverse: Gunter Bechly offers some insights

Spread the love

Readers may remember Gunter Bechly as the accomplished paleontologist who disappeared from Wikipedia because he thinks that life forms show evidence of design.

A friend wrote to ask about an Ethan Siegel piece from Forbes (2017) that is getting recycled through Medium: “The Multiverse Is Inevitable, And We’re Living In It: If you thought all we could see is all that’s out there, prepare to rethink everything you knew.”

Yeah. Right. Out there is Out There to the Power of Infinity. And all the universes are “causally disconnected from one another.” If they are causally disconnected, who dare ask for evidence that the multiverse theory is true? The money shot is that the multiverse can be used to falsify otherwise entirely rational assumptions about our own universe. Hence its allure.

Bechly, to whom the question was put, turns on the cold water:

Well, this is pretty much standard inflationary cosmology. What the author does not mention is two little problems with it, of which one has been called the biggest crisis of modern cosmology by cosmologist Max Tegmark:

1.) the measure problem: how to partition an infinite multiverse so to arrive at the finite probabilities we observe and require (e.g. for quantum mechanics) because in an infinite multiverse everything that can happen happens an infinite (with the same cardinality) number of times.

2.) this also implies that Boltzmann brains and other freak observers (generated by random vacuum fluctuations) outnumber normal observers. Based on the Copernican principle we should not expect to be special, thus we should be Boltzmann brains. But since the vast majority of Boltzmann brains would no experience consistent memories and observations, we are obviously not Boltzmann brains.

In summary: eternal inflation undermines any rational discourse and thus science itself. It is also empirically refuted by our continuous consistent experiences. There must be something wrong with it. Why was it invented? To get rid of the incredible knife-edge finetuning of the initial conditions of the Big Bang, that would have implied a creator. Eternal inflation is an artifact of methodological naturalism, and funny thing is: it is self-refuting and also takes naturalism with it into the abyss.

The abyss must feel like welcoming arms for post-modernists.

See also: Gunter Bechly: New Human Find In The Philippines = New Headache For Darwinism

Gunter Bechly: Ediacaran Fossil Paper Is “Junk Science”

Gunter Bechly is the researcher who got erased from Wikipedia for doubting Darwinism (not for doubting that Dickinsonia is an animal).

See also: Researchers: Dickinsonia (571–541 mya) could have had a mouth and guts Associate Professor Jochen Brocks commented, “These fossils comprise our best window into earliest animal evolution and are the key to understanding our own deep origins.” Yes, in the sense that sudden emergence rather than a long, slow Darwinian process seems more likely all the time.

Gunter Bechly: Dickinsonia Is NOT Likely An Animal (September 2018)

Cosmic inflation theory loses hangups about the scientific method

and

What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

13 Replies to “Logic vs. the multiverse: Gunter Bechly offers some insights

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    You are quoting a paleontologist on questions in cosmology? Should we consult Neil deGrasse Tyson about the latest issues in paleontology?

  2. 2
    ET says:

    Seversky:

    You are quoting a paleontologist on questions in cosmology?

    The multiverse. Cosmology is concerned with the origin and development of this UNIVERSE.

  3. 3
    AaronS1978 says:

    Logically speaking the multiverse destroys itself including us, infinity is a difficult thing to deal with.
    If you have a brainless universe engine capable of creating an infinite number of universes to statistically make our universe come into existence, then it is equally possible to create something that could destroy our universe that has an infinite possibility of destroying our universe. It is an inevitable effect. So if there is even 1/10^1000 chance that an event can happen that would end us, then it would happen, and it would happen an infinite number of times.

    We shouldn’t exist even after coming into existence if the multiverse with infinite statistical power exist. The moment you start making rules to prevent that event from happening it is no longer random and it is no longer the statistical universe generating engine. It is something more.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    So God can only Create a universe? An Intelligent Designer is limited to a universe?

    The multiverse strengthens ID for the very reasons AaronS1978 points out in 3.

  5. 5
    EDTA says:

    >Should we consult Neil deGrasse Tyson about the latest issues in paleontology?

    I’m sure if that if you got him started, he’d be glad to talk about it for hours…

  6. 6
    hazel says:

    My comment #4 on the Rob Sheldon thread applies here also. It is not true that in an “infinite multiverse everything that can happen happens an infinite (with the same cardinality) number of times” if by “can” you include the constraints of what rules might underlie the universes.

  7. 7
    AaronS1978 says:

    And you are remarkably wrong. The fact of the matter is the only thing that is impossible is impossibility itself

    For things to work out the way you want them to would mean that there were rules in place to begin with to prevent that from happening, however when it comes to things involving chaotic inflation, any level of physics and any outcome can actually take place

    If you use a statistical model to make our own most impossibly perfect universe to come into existence you also have to take into consideration the possibility of its infinite destruction

    By the way saying that it’s just not true is just not good enough

    Statistics are statistics and if there are no rules and everything is entirely random and unintelligent then a lot of crazy stuff can happen Period End of story

  8. 8
    AaronS1978 says:

    Sorry I came across as a jerk in the last post I apologize

  9. 9
    OLV says:

    Why is this obsession with multiverse ?
    What does the multiverse buy?
    Does it explain away the fine tuning thing?
    Ok, but does the fine tuning explain the OOL or the appearance of eukaryotic cells?
    It may be a necessary condition but it’s far from being sufficient.
    So let’s say this universe is one of an infinite number of universes. It happen to have the fine tuning all set. Ok. But then what?

    The origin of the prokaryotic or the eukaryotic cells is not the same as throwing dice. It’s not an statistic issue. It’s a Humpty Dumpty problem on steroids. No infinite number of attempts would do it. Had that been the case, scientists would have figured out by now how to put it together having all the components. They haven’t and they don’t even have a clue.

    First let’s get to work and try to understand exactly how the biological systems work, let’s figure out the complex functionality of the functional complexity that is observed. The fast technological progress allows scientists to see deeper into the biological systems in real time. Let’s take advantage of that and study seriously what is observed to understand it well. That’s serious science with valid purpose.

    We have many important medical questions waiting to get resolved. We need more biology-related research.
    And it must be scientifically directed, so that they don’t make the mistakes that have been made before, that have squandered so much valuable time and resources barking up the wrong trees following wrong assumptions based on biased unproven claims associated with particular worldview positions. Some neo-Darwinian ideas kept biology researchers ignoring things that later were found very important. Humble open mindedness must be the basic attitude in serious evidence-based scientific research.

    Leave the multiverse stuff to the folks that enjoy science fiction and fairytales. Some folks don’t know how to use their available time productively. They get bored easily. Perhaps multiverse can be their entertainment. That’s ok. Let it be. Maybe someday they’ll wake up and smell the flowers too.

  10. 10
    ET says:

    hazel:

    It is not true that in an “infinite multiverse everything that can happen happens an infinite (with the same cardinality) number of times” if by “can” you include the constraints of what rules might underlie the universes.

    The whole point of infinite multiverse is that anything can indeed happen and will.

  11. 11
    Charles Birch says:

    Surely the multiverse is an inadequate strategem for demolishing fine tuning.

    If the multiverse exists, then either it’s existed ad infinitum (Steady State) or it suddenly appeared (Big Bang.)

    If the latter, then there must have been some fine tuning to enable the multiverse to exist.

    Some sort of exploding infinite-fractal-generating event must have got going; so what caused it? How was reality fine-tuned to give rise to an infinite-fractal-generating event?

    I’ll stop now as my brain is starting to hurt, and because I’m starting to think that Dr. Thomas Stark might be right!

    https://www.amazon.co.uk/God-Mathematics-Proofs-Eternal-Existence-ebook/dp/B07FNHSYGY/ref=sr_1_10?qid=1560710173&refinements=p_27%3ADr.+Thomas+Stark&s=digital-text&sr=1-10

  12. 12
    kairosfocus says:

    Folks, there are two key multiverse speculations breakdowns, even not counting unobserved & likely unobservable (so, not science) . . . sci fi on interuniverse portals notwithstanding. B/D 1: the observed cosmos sits at a locally deeply isolated operating point so unlikely to be found at random. B/D2: far more likely is a boltzmann brain world, which brings in overwhelming likelihood this cosmos is a delusion, i.e. grand delusion. KF

  13. 13
    john_a_designer says:

    Even if we assume for sake argument that a multiverse exists, does it really solve the problem it claims to solve? I would argue that it does not. An appeal to the multiverse is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to chance.

    It is not unlike the so called gambler’s fallacy. For example, suppose a gambler appears to have a winning streak playing roulette. Starting out with small bets he proceeds to win on every spin of the wheel using all his winnings on every succeeding bet. Soon his winnings become so great that the casino management, who have been watching him with their ceiling mounted “eye-in-the-sky” video surveillance cameras, fears that if his streak continues they may not be able to pay. They have also become suspicious that just maybe the gambler has somehow been able to rig the wheel. They decide to contact a mathematician they have retained as a consultant. He advises them that the gamblers winning streak is unrealistic. He agrees with his client that the player has somehow been able to rig the wheel.

    A manager intervenes, stops the game and then, accompanied by security guards, escorts the gambler out of the casino explaining to him that they will only settle with him pending an investigation. The gambler protests that he has done nothing wrong. The manager explains to him that they don’t believe anyone could be as lucky he had. The gambler then counters that with all the other roulette wheels in the world and all the games that have been played someone, somewhere was bound to get as lucky as he had.

    Does he have an argument? I don’t think he does. It’s a fallacy to believe that some past spin of the wheel (or roll of the dice or flip of the coin etc.– if we consider other games) has an influence over the next spin of the wheel. It does not. Every spin of a fairly balanced roulette wheel is independent of the proceeding spins—and therefore all other roulette wheels. Streaks (winning or losing) have no influence over the next spins probability. The fact that other roulette wheels exist and millions, if not billions, of games have been played have no more influence over the wheel’s next spin or on a long winning or losing streak. The existence of other roulette wheels certainly cannot be said to be the cause of a winning streak. In the same way, the existence of other universes have no influence over the probabilities of the fine-tuning that exist in our universe.

    The appeal to the multiverse is even more fallacious because we have no evidence that other universes even exist. Furthermore, you cannot infer the existence of other universes simply because the existence of our universe appears to be so improbable.

    On the other hand, is it fallacious for the casino management to suspect someone might be cheating if he/she is on a winning streak? After all highly improbable streaks have occurred. The answer, none the less, is no, because a cheater can only win by appearing to beat the odds. While past experience tells us that games of chance result in there being big winners, it also informs us that cheaters do in fact exist. Casino owners would be naïve if they were not on the lookout for these kind of people—which is why, after all, they have those eye-in-the-sky cameras. So it’s perfectly rational to suspect people who appear to be “too lucky” of cheating.

    In the same way it is perfectly rational for the theist to argue that the “highly improbable” fine-tuning we observe in the universe is the result of design. It is exactly what we would expect from a theists perspective. The multiverse “hypothesis”, on the other hand, is fallacious, because it really doesn’t solve the problem.

    Nonetheless, I am willing to concede that fine-tuning could all be the result of chance. Technically one cannot rule out the possibility of such a super fantastically improbable event, because no one can prove that it is impossible. My point is simply that appealing to unknown universes doesn’t help the atheist here. So if he wants to argue that our universe is the result of one super incredible lucky roll of the cosmic dies—like a throwing bucket full of dice onto a floor and betting that they all come up with the same number, all sixes for example– be my guest. However, I think we will find very few rational atheists who are willing to take me up on that kind of wager—at least one involving some real money, like your life savings.

    Again, if the fine-tuning of the universe is the result of design that implies that the universe has some kind of meaning and purpose. That’s not a problem for the theist. It is, however, for the naturalist.

Leave a Reply