Many worlds: Maybe easier to make pay than make sense?

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 22, 2008

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Bill Dembski wanted to know, re the multiverse (many worlds) theory: here:

Do many worlds present a business opportunity? Would it be possible, for a modest fee, for people to have worlds named after them? Are worlds, like genes, patentable?

A physicist friend figures that it’s better – or worse – than that. It might work for business but it would whack science cold because

Discovering the laws of our universe matters no more than noting the random tosses of dice. It certainly does not bring us closer to the heart of things. Think of any logically possible theory, and it probably holds true somewhere. Technology still makes sense in a multiverse, of course, but science as a pursuit of truth certainly loses some of its shine.

By the way, hat tip to Paul Glenn, commenter of the week, for noting in a comment to this post that there is no controversy over Darwinian evolution in North America in the same sense as there are no homosexuals in Iran.

Just up at Colliding Universes

All things are possible through the scientist who postulates very large numbers? Especially unimaginable things, I am sure.

Settled science chronicles: Reader disses “best science” boilerplate

Life could be just plain rare but not unique in the universe

Catholic Cardinal: Multiverse theory an “abdication of human intelligence”?

Just up at Overwhelming Evidence: Mostly about textbooks

More textbook chronicles: To Goodwill, to Goodwill, to buy us a materialist text cheaply

Textbooks: Unfortunately, Richard Feynman was NOT joking about textbooks!

Textbooks: Yet another journalist skeptical of Darwin lobby. I am rapidly developing a guest list for a Hacks’ Pub Nite!

Comments

John Redford: While I am semi-retired from this site, I cannot resist a temporary foray into the realm of physics, theology, and speculative cosmology. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that {A} because God’s mind is infinite and his creative power is unlimited {B} God must have created (infinite?) multiple universes. Obviously, that does not follow. Surely, I am missing something here. Also, in what way do those two passages from Hebrews (1:12 and 11:3) support the notion that God’s creative act implies more than one universe? To say that “the world was framed by the word of God” or that “from invisible things visible things might be made” is to say that spirit produced matter. It has nothing to do with multiple or unaccounted for universes and everything to do with an invisible creator made evident by his visible creation.StephenB_{May 28, 2008
May
05
May
28
28
2008
10:39 AM
10
10
39
AM
PDT}

The above should read: if galaxies are receding faster than C... Bennith Karlow
In addition, do you think there is any chance of implementing this experimental data via a computer program that would allow semi-automated design detection?
There are a lot of things that humans do well that computers don't (ie: pass the Turing test). Computer anti viruses can do a pretty decent job at detecting design (though they're not as good as a human).Bettawrekonize_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

One problem with my above hypothesis is that, if the universe is expanding faster than C, how are photons ever supposed to reach the end?Bettawrekonize_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

Cosmologists predicted that a wrap-around Universe would act like a hall of mirrors, with images from distant objects being repeated multiple times across the sky.
I came out with this completely crazy hypothesis a long time ago and some people at the time thought it was nuts. I'm not saying it's true (chances are that it's not), but I do think it's something worth considering. The reason I bring it up is because, while this quote does not directly support my crazy hypothesis, at least it doesn't contradict it (which kinda made me think that it might not be so crazy after all). My crazy hypothesis assumes the First Law of Thermodynamics is true across the universe. The universe is expanding at an increasing rate. This is often referred to as "spacial expansion" and it is assumed that space itself is expanding. The question is, where does all the energy "come from" to cause everything in the universe to move outward at an increasing rate? Well, all these photons are "exiting" the universe, or reaching the "end." When these photons reach the "end" of the universe, this energy is lost. That energy is replaced by accelerated spacial expansion. So part of the quantity of energy that is "gained" from "spacial expansion" is lost when photons reach the end of the universe. What we could try and do is see if we can calculate about how much 'photon energy' is reaching the end of the universe and about how much energy is required for everything in the universe to push outward at the acceleration rate that it does and see if they are roughly the same. Again, this crazy hypothesis is probably false, just something to consider.Bettawrekonize_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

So until at least 2003, the prevailing view has been that the universe is infinite? That's essentially what the article says: "The idea that the universe is finite and relatively small, rather than infinitely large, first became popular in 2003" "An infinite Universe should contain waves of all sizes, but cosmologists were surprised to find that longer wavelengths were missing from measurements " "Steiner’s team used three separate techniques to compare predictions of how the temperature fluctuations in different areas of the sky should match up in both an infinite Universe and a doughnut one" --------- I thought that the EF was predicated on a finite universe and a finite number of particle interactions therein. I suppose an infinite universe would equate to many worlds, because it would have infinite random variability. OTOH if an infinite universe could be finitely described accurately, then it wouldn't really be infinite. Just my ignorant stream of consciousness, here - nothing more. The article also said the finite models it described (donut and otherwise) aren't matching up with the observed data either: "Cosmologists predicted that a wrap-around Universe would act like a hall of mirrors, with images from distant objects being repeated multiple times across the sky. Glenn Starkman at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and his colleagues searched for the predicted patterns, but found nothing."JunkyardTornado_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

How about a dose of reality? See: Doughnut-shaped Universe bites back Zeeya Merali
Astronomers say Universe is small and finite. torusMmm... Universe. Calculations show it really might be shaped like the snack favourite. The doughnut is making a comeback – at least as a possible shape for our Universe. The idea that the universe is finite and relatively small, rather than infinitely large, first became popular in 2003, when cosmologists noticed unexpected patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) – the relic radiation left behind by the Big Bang....
DLH_{May 26, 2008
May
05
May
26
26
2008
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

Theb at least we both agree there is a problem to be solved and that it’s a serious attempt to do so.
I think that if we accept the notion that the evidence looks designed because it is designed, then there is no problem. I think the main problem here is that the evidence is one thing that stands in the way of being an intellectually honest atheist.Bettawrekonize_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT}

I have no prob with the multiverse. I wish you -- and others -- didn't have a problem with ID.tribune7_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
04:12 PM
4
04
12
PM
PDT}

Theb at least we both agree there is a problem to be solved and that it's a serious attempt to do so.Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
04:06 PM
4
04
06
PM
PDT}

Well, if it was discovered that in fact there were no additional dimensions would that not automatically mean there were no such places I should have accepted that we were using the literal definition rather than the one that is rather common in U.S. popular culture and is basically synonymous with "other planes of existence." But let's not lose track of what we are talking about. You are suggesting -- or seem to be --that the existence of places that don't follow our physical laws are required resolve issues in physics. Why would you think there would have to be a infinite number of them? That events considered impossible by traditional physics are observed. Ah, the details. Can you name such an event? Sure. How about you?tribune7_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

Hey Mavis, Just so you know, you are confusing issues. There is a difference between multiple dimensions and multiple universes.CJYman_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT}

Oh, if it was discovered that additional dimensions were not required would you then, Tribune, insist that in fact they did exist desipte the evidence, simply to support your idea of where Heaven is?Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

Why would ‘dimensions’ not apply?
Well, if it was discovered that in fact there were no additional dimensions would that not automatically mean there were no such places And why dimensions anyway? Will people get the ability to percieve and understand additional dimensions when they die? Where are you getting this from?
That events considered impossible by traditional physics are observed.
Ah, the details. Can you name such an event?
not by law or chance
What does that leave?Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Would that rock ever sprout wings? . . .No, but it might sprout a flagellum. not by law or chance.tribune7_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT}

I think yes, it’s talked about places like that but “dimensions”? Why would 'dimensions' not apply? What are those concerns that are addressed by finite numbers of dimensions (or universes) then? That events considered impossible by traditional physics are observed.tribune7_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

But Christianity has long held that there are dimensions in which our physical laws don’t apply
Has it? Are you sure about that? I think yes, it's talked about places like that but "dimensions"? No, I don't think so.
here does not have to be an infinite number of dimension to resolve the concerns of physics addressed by the multiverse.
Ah, now we're getting somewhere. What are those concerns that are addressed by finite numbers of dimensions (or universes) then? :) And what do you propose to replace them to address those same concerns?
And infinity does not mean anything is possible. Suppose you had a rock sitting on a table in a room for an infinite amount of time. Would that rock ever sprout wings?
No, but it might sprout a flagellum.Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

The multiverse solves some problems that are giving physics a headache at the moment. What is a reality is that those problems exist. The multiverse solves some of those problems in a elegant way. You seem to be saying that physics now finds it useful to assume that there are dimensions in which our physical laws do not apply. Sure the real answer might be something totally different but pooh-pooing the concept simply because it does not chime with theological beliefs strikes me as wrong. But Christianity has long held that there are dimensions in which our physical laws don't apply :-) And yes, if the multiverse did exist and was infinite then logically there would be an infinite number that were capable of supporting life. It’s not a statement of faith. It’s a statement of fact. There does not have to be an infinite number of dimension to resolve the concerns of physics addressed by the multiverse. And infinity does not mean anything is possible. Suppose you had a rock sitting on a table in a room for an infinite amount of time. Would that rock ever sprout wings?tribune7_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT}

Mavis Riley: "Why motivations then do you think the people proposing multiverse theory have?" To be honest, motivation for scientific discovery means little to me in the long run. Just "get the job done." Mavis Riley: "For what reason are they proposing it?" Because it is one way to interpret the approx. 10^400 differing string theories which may be void of empirical testability. Please read the article linked in my last comment. It provides some insight into the situation. Mavis Riley: "I don’t really understand what you are trying to say." I'm saying exactly what I've written. Multiplying probabilistic resources gives no ultimate explanation of the phenomenon that I've laid out. So multiverse "theory" is a no-starter in terms of explanatory power. Mavis Riley: "The origin of life is not the only puzzle that multiverse theory can speaks of." That's part of my point. It attempts to speak of everything but in the course explains nothing except to say that "of course everything that is logically possible happens." Mavis Riley: "Could you tell me what it is, exactly, that you think people are trying to prove when they invoke mutiple universes?" You can't prove anything by invoking multiple universes. The foundation of multiple universes is that "anything logical will and does happen." This removes the need for proof as the answer becomes "of course it happens somewhere, sometime." As a Prof. Haldane put it: "“The problem [of falsifiability of a probabilistic statement] has been dealt with in a recent book by G. Matheron, entitled Estimating and Choosing: An Essay on Probability in Practice (Springer-Verlag, 1989). He proposes that a probabilistic model be considered falsifiable if some of its consequences have zero (or in practice very low) probability. If one of these consequences is observed, the model is then rejected. ‘The fatal weakness of the monkey argument, which calculates probabilities of events “somewhere, sometime”, is that all events, no matter how unlikely they are, have probability one as long as they are logically possible, so that the suggested model can never be falsified. Accepting the validity of Huxley’s reasoning puts the whole probability theory outside the realm of verifiable science. In particular, it vitiates the whole of quantum theory and statistical mechanics, including thermodynamics, and therefore destroys the foundations of all modern science. For example, as Bertrand Russell once pointed out, if we put a kettle on a fire and the water in the kettle froze, we should argue, following Huxley, that a very unlikely event of statistical mechanics occurred, as it should “somewhere, sometime”, rather than trying to find out what went wrong with the experiment!’” I asked: "You know this how?" Mavis Riley, you responded: "Space is big. We do only take up a tiny part of observable space. I know that that how." Sorry for not being clear, but my question was in reference to your statement, "Yet somehow the universe was tuned just for us? No." In fact, that observation that the universe is so big and we are so small, yet so improbable (among other things), bolsters the case that the universe is fine tuned to "discover" the solution to human intelligence. I stated: " We are already extremely valuable in terms of rarity, configuration, and awareness of our universe and its structure, and capacity for understanding the beauty of logic and math and abstract reasoning which is essential to understanding the universe itself." Mavis Riley, you responded: "For all you know the rest of the universe’s population could have “ascended” to an energy only state billions of years ago and we’re in essentially a zoo for them to remember how it once was." I'm sorry, but I'm speaking in terms of science -- you know, observation and testability -- not wild speculation in order to keep one's faith afloat. Furthermore, I don't see how that would negate my conclusion that life is extremely valuable in terms of configuration, and awareness of our universe and its structure, and capacity for understanding the beauty of logic and math and abstract reasoning which is essential to understanding the universe itself. And, if your scenario is not the case, then "rarity" can be added back on to the list of reasons why life (and human intelligence) is valuable. Mavis Riley: "Are you speaking of “emergent behaviours”? No I'm speaking of the laws which govern matter and energy. Mavis Riley: "Who said anything about a bunch of random particles which configure themselves based on self-contained laws?" You did when you mentioned the formation of stars. I'm just explaining that no fine-tuning is necessary in that case. Matter with *any* law will create some type of configuration, no fine tuning necessary. However, matter will not just create life (and its non-law based high informational configuration) based on just any law. In fact out of all mathematically possible universes, an extremely tiny sliver are even capable of supporting life much less even causing it to form. The vast majority of mathematically possible universes either contain only hydrogen, or expand so rapidly that after a second all that's left is energy, or expand and then contract so fast that they only exist for a split second, etc.CJYman_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

CJYman Why motivations then do you think the people proposing multiverse theory have? For what reason are they proposing it? What are they trying to gain?
if you want to explain the existence of a few phenomenon that are not defined by the properties of the materials used, are extremely improbable, do not flow as a necessity from knowledge of laws of physics and chemistry, have “awareness,” and can be explained by recourse to previous awareness because of an observed information/intelligence loop
I don't really understand what you are trying to say.
I thought elegance and explanation was found in mathematical relationships and testability, not in “well shucks, stuff like that just happens given enough extra stuff.”
The origin of life is not the only puzzle that multiverse theory can speaks of. Could you tell me what it is, exactly, that you think people are trying to prove when they invoke mutiple universes?
You know this how?
Space isbig. We do only take up a tiny part of observable space. I know that that how.
. We are already extremely valuable in terms of rarity, configuration, and awareness of our universe and its structure, and capacity for understanding the beauty of logic and math and abstract reasoning which is essential to understanding the universe itself
For all you know the rest of the universe's population could have "ascended" to an energy only state billions of years ago and we're in essentially a zoo for them to remember how it once was.
Actually no, there really isn’t any tuning necessary to arrive at a bunch of random particles which configure themselves based on self-contained laws.
Are you speaking of "emergent behaviours"? Who said anything about a bunch of random particles which configure themselves based on self-contained laws?Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT}

Mavis Riley: "The multiverse solves some problems that are giving physics a headache at the moment." Yes, and fairies at the bottom of my garden also solve some problems. Check this out. It is extremely relevant: http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41 Mavis Riley: "The multiverse solves some of those problems in a elegant way." I guess it depends what you mean by elegant. If you want to explain the existence of a few phenomenon that are not defined by the properties of the materials used, are extremely improbable, do not flow as a necessity from knowledge of laws of physics and chemistry, have "awareness," and can be explained by recourse to previous awareness because of an observed information/intelligence loop, then is the most elegant solution one that really doesn't explain anything because it postulates that "given enough time and extra dimensions/universes/whatever-you-need, anything and everything logically possible will and does happen?" I thought elegance and explanation was found in mathematical relationships and testability, not in "well shucks, stuff like that just happens given enough extra stuff." Mavis Riley: "To be hard-nosed about it, the thought that this particular universes combination of constants and our location/configuration in this particular universe were put that way just so we could exist seems to me the height of self-importance." Nope, just the height of observation of physical constraints, informational structures, probabilities, and available options. Mavis Riley: "Space is very very big. We take up a very very small part of the universe. Yet somehow the universe was tuned just for us? No." You know this how? And what if it was fine-tuned just for us. We are already extremely valuable in terms of rarity, configuration, and awareness of our universe and its structure, and capacity for understanding the beauty of logic and math and abstract reasoning which is essential to understanding the universe itself. "If anything, the universe was tuned to create vast empty voids of space peppered with the very occasional star." Actually no, there really isn't any tuning necessary to arrive at a bunch of random particles which configure themselves based on self-contained laws.CJYman_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

The multiverse solves some problems that are giving physics a headache at the moment. What is a reality is that those problems exist. The multiverse solves some of those problems in a elegant way. Sure the real answer might be something totally different but pooh-pooing the concept simply because it does not chime with theological beliefs strikes me as wrong. And yes, if the multiverse did exist and was infinite then logically there would be an infinite number that were capable of supporting life. It's not a statement of faith. It's a statement of fact. To be hard-nosed about it, the thought that this particular universes combination of constants and our location/configuration in this particular universe were put that way just so we could exist seems to me the height of self-importance. Space is very very big. We take up a very very small part of the universe. Yet somehow the universe was tuned just for us? No. I don't believe so. If anything, the universe was tuned to create vast empty voids of space peppered with the very occasional star.Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

What exactly is it that you think I’m calling a “fact” here? What I took it to mean was that you were calling the multiverse a reality. Were you saying that if the multiverse did exist there would be at least one with different constants that could support life? To be hard-nosed about it, that's a statement of faith as well. As a theist, tribune, don’t you call something “fact” without really “knowing it exists”? Well, I know God exists. What I also know is that I can't demonstrate something to a doubter that by definition transcends our physical laws using those physical laws. :-)tribune7_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Tribune, The quote was
The reality is that an unknown (and unknowable) number of different universes (if they exist) with different constants can support life. We simply don’t know how many or of what type. It’s not a matter of faith. It’s a matter of fact. The fact is that it cannot be proven that this universe and it’s constants is the only set that supports “life”.
I've highlighed what you quoted. I think it means something different when not chopped up. What exactly is it that you think I'm calling a "fact" here? Is it not a fact that if the multiverse does exist and constants can be differenn, then other universes with different constants, could support life? Who could disagree with that? I'm not sure what you are objecting to. And I feel that you are responding to a point that I'm not making. As a theist, tribune, don't you call something "fact" without really "knowing it exists"?Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT}

The reality is that an unknown (and unknowable) number of different universes (if they exist) . . . It’s not a matter of faith. It’s a matter of fact. When you call something a fact without knowing it exist you are showing a degree of faith that far surpasses anything of which I, personally, am capable.tribune7_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT}

Tribune7, By jove, you've almost got it! The reality is that an unknown (and unknowable) number of different universes (if they exist) with different constants can support life. We simply don't know how many or of what type. It's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of fact. The fact is that it cannot be proven that this universe and it's constants is the only set that supports "life". Which brings me to another point. If this universe and it's constants are "fine tuned" for life why do we only see life on the merest speck of it? I.E Earth. Seems like the universe is positivly antagonistic towards what we would view as life. If the universe had been designed for the sort of life we see on this planet then I rather think it would be like a Larry Niven book, a gigantic gas filled universe where organic beings can fly around as required. 100% of the space available is available for life. WHereas in our universe the vast majority is empty space. Not very hospitable towards life. I know there is no requirement for design to be "optimum" but still, seems somewhat wasteful.Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT}

Until somebody proved the values in this universe are the only possible ones to support life them perhaps that argument will hold water for me. And obviously, that’s impossible. The reality is there is other known circumstances in which life can be supported. But by faith, you can believe that it still might be possible :-)tribune7_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

I'm always amused by the fine-tuning argument. What is says to me is that if we were sitting round in a universe where light was slower then sound and gravity was 1000 times stronger (as so us as lifeforms would be total different) then it currently is then people would still point to the constants that made it so as evidence of "fine tuning". I believe Douglas Adams also came up with a similar thought with his "puddle" that fit "exactly" to the shape of the hole it was in. Not a good fit, but "exactly". The puddle obviously read more into that fact then was warranted. Until somebody proved the values in this universe are the only possible ones to support life them perhaps that argument will hold water for me. And obviously, that's impossible.Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT}

I completely disagree with you that quantum non-locality completely verifies the materialistic based MWI. In fact Anton Zeilinger, a leading expert in quantum mechanics, has gone so far as to tentively reject this materialistic MWI scenario in favor of a totally new "information based reality. Excerpt: In conclusion it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thene the question why narture appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word". Anton Zeilinger Professor of Physics http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx For this reduction to a Information based reality is a much more reasonable proposition than postulating an infinite number of world's.bornagain77_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

cont. That is, the chance of life occurring by natural processes is 1 in 10 followed by 1018 zeros. Koonin's intent was to show that short of postulating a multiverse of an infinite number of universes, the chance of life occuring on earth is vanishingly small, and we can understand the practical import to be that life by natural processes in a universe such as ours to be impossible.bornagain77_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

Yet, At its core MWI is a materialistic postulation. And in fact materialists do try to undercut the overwhelming design inference with either a MWI or the Multiverse conjecture whenever they are corned, for example just recently this tactic was used here; excerpt: Peer reviewed and published in Biology Today, Koonin calculated the probability of the most simple life form arising by natural processes, with the following conclusion: The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of: - two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides - ~10 primitive adaptors of ~30 nucleotides each, in total, ~300 nucleotides - at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500 nucleotides (low bound) is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E bornagain77_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply