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

#15: [quote] So how can A collapse B to one variant, if both have infinite or near infinite variants going at the same time? [end quote] Under MWI, the terminology "collapse" makes it seem as if something is actually happening to "B", whatever "B" is; the term "collapse" really means (if I'm not mistaken) that one version of "B" is "chosen" as the perception "A" is having. "Whatever A is" correlates in some way to what version of B is selected. All the other versions of B still exist, but not in that particular "A"'s world. The other versions of B might be selected in the universes/experiences of other versions of A. [quote] And if there is no collapsing mechanism, than we have conscious existences going in a nearly infinite number of places, all at the same time!! So how does everything appear so consistent, how does it square with our experiences? [end quote] The collapsing mechanism is the "state of A" that exists in correspondence to a "state of B". Nothing is really collapsing under MWI, I believe. The universe appears consistent because such a universe corresponds to that particular version of the observer. Other conscious entities may not correspond to so consistent a set of experiences.William J. Murray_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT}

#14: [quote] In other words, no matter what combination of evidence exists within this universe, it does not falsify the multiverse. [end quote] MWI is a hypothesis that can be used to formulate predictive and retro-dictive theories that will either prove useful or not, and are/have been/will be falsifiable. If such predictive theories are not useful, then MWI becomes a fun bit of sophistry and nothing more; if such predictive theories are useful, as in quantum computing and other applications, then MWI is much like "a Designer" in I.D.; you might never be able to prove there are in fact other universes, but you can certainly prove that phenomena in this universe behaves as if there are.William J. Murray_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

nullasalus, What I like about the concept is pointing out that someone can be the biggest booster of the multiverse in the entire multiverse and still not lose his chance at tenure :-) I think few of us here are really bothered by the notion. I think those, however, who are pushing it as a way of cutting the odds of a universe fine-tuned for life happening without design have not considered the metaphysical ramifications.tribune7_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

No, one doubts that materialism will easily abandon Natural Selection and place all bets on Many Worlds. Physics, as Phillip Johnson observed from the start, can relegate the Designer to the other side of the Big Bang and therefore not be as immediately threatening to materialism as biology. Many Worlds, me thinks, was devised to avoid certain uncomfortable implications (uncomfortable to materialists?) of Quantum Theory, later it was invoked against Fine Tuning, and now it’s there in case Darwin becomes too discredited. Anyway, folks, what do you think—can physics be rescued from absurdity without agency (i.e., the source of design) being seen as fundamental, not emergent or ultimately created but a “sky-hook” as Angus Menuge argues? But if agency is fundamental then what about time? Perhaps Euclid was right—space and time are as immutable as the laws of arithmetic. For if time is a created phenomenon, then within what time frame did the event of time’s creation occur? OK, I keep harping, but don’t y’all think it’s absurd that there is no such thing in modern physics as the present? that “now” is considered a subjective illusion? Am I wrong when I sense that physics suffers because the most fundamental aspect of reality—agency—was ruled out by Einstein? In doing away with the present and simultaneity and the direction in which agents act Einstein made blind determinism basic. No, not that we’re smarter, but could the Zeitgeist have induced Einstein and his age to err?Rude_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT}

tribune7, Oh, I'm not a fan of multiverse thoughts either. Not in physics anyway - metaphysics, perhaps. I just was pointing out that someone else had weighed in on this topic from a Christian point of view. For me, there's not much bite - if it's true, it hardly affects my faith. But it doesn't seem to be falsifiable, so it's only metaphysically interesting at best.nullasalus_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

If there are a near infinite number of universes (or domians)then every logical possibility will be actualized in at least one. It is logically possible that a maximally great being exist and therefore there must be at least one universe in which such a being exists. But if this being is maximally great then it must exist in every possible universe, including ours. On the other hand, it is also logically possible (perhaps) that a maximally great being does not exist, in which case there must be at least one universe in which such a being does not exist. But if a maximally great being fails to exist in one universe it must not exist in any universe. The upshot of this, at least it seems to me, is that the idea of a near infinite number of worlds is incoherent.Dick_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

nullasalus -- My understanding of multiverses are places where our physical laws and constants don't apply. So how could you show they exist as per the standards of science if our laws can't measure them? You can only surmise they exist because of the observation of phenomena that can't be explained by science, or even contradict what we think of as hard and fast physical laws. As a Christian, I'm OK with that:-) But ID is much better grounded.tribune7_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

nullasalus, What ID brings to the table with regard to biology and the source of biological information speaks for itself. I'm more interested in what ID in physics brings to the table. I look forwards to what Denise has to say on the design perspective in physics - perhaps the people working in physics are more logical, less emotional people, and so more able to be convinced by rational argument regarding design? Would you agree?Bennith Karlow_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

Bill Dembski can take some measure of comfort in knowing that somewhere in the infinity of multiverses there is a planet called "Dembski" that exhibits exquisite intelligent design in all aspects of its existence. Of course, to be fair, there is also the possibility that somewhere in the infinity of multiverses there is a planet called "Dawkins"...but I'd rather not consider that!DonaldM_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

As an aside, Don Page (Born-again Christian physicist, I believe) has talked about the multiverse interpretation of QM recently, and has offered up a defense of it within a Christian mindset. I don't have a link to the paper onhand, but it should be easy to find - I think he was working with Templeton regarding it. Also, as someone has already brought up Stephen Barr, it's worth pointing out that he gave a rundown of the various interpretations of QM over at First Things' website - I think this may be still available to read. And finally, I'm glad to see Denyse's coverage expanding into physics. It's interesting to read up on from a design perspective.nullasalus_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
10:31 AM
10
10
31
AM
PDT}

You don’t know that it exist. . . .Well, if you say so. If you are saying they exist you are making a statement of faith.tribune7_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

Thanks, Denyse, for the kind quote. My point wasn't just that your friend is bringing philosophy to the table (as you point out, we often do this), but that his resulting position about the possibility of life in the universe is clearly a false dichotomy. Do we have a sample size of one? Indeed. But that does not mean that life is either common in the universe or absolutely unique to earth. Therefore, it seems something else might be driving your friend's view besides the observation that we currently have a sample size of one. BTW, the link is broken (there are some extra characters after the html).Eric Anderson_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT}

The Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum theory has been around a long time and has been the favorite interpretation of many leading physicists long before the I.D. debate drove some evolutionary biologists to theorize MWI as an explanation for problematical biological sequences. It would be an error to see MWI as a response to the I.D. challenge.
If it was never widely accepted as a consensus among the secular community and it gets accepted by them after ID became popular, perhaps it's a secular response to ID.Bettawrekonize_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

William Murray, My apologies, I did not mean it as derision. I was attempting to allude to another issue. If what we observe can have concurrent dimensional variants, than the thoughts in our minds, if they actually have material existence, would also be subject to the same phenomenom, would it not? So how can A collapse B to one variant, if both have infinite or near infinite variants going at the same time? And if some collapsing mechanism or factor exists and comes into play, it also, if material, may have variants, which means layers of mechanisms all the way down. And if not, then the collapsing mechanism is immaterial, and we are back to a spiritual reality!! And if there is no collapsing mechanism, than we have conscious existences going in a nearly infinite number of places, all at the same time!! So how does everything appear so consistent, how does it square with our experiences? One other dilemma. If we started with the big bang, then the number possible variants must have increased, and continue to do so, exponentially. While I suppose this in not impossible in theory, it seems a bit suspect. This is much like the problem with reincarnation -- since the number of living organisms is increasing or decreasing across time, than the number of souls or whatever must also be fluctuating, which seems to pose a bit of a logical problem as well.Ekstasis_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

It might be interesting to note that a subjectively-collapsing wave-function universe might be entirely indistinguishable from a universe inhabited from a personal, omnipotent God; it would also account for miraculous, transcendental phenomena, life after death, and even the actual (in any meaningful sense of the word) existence of God.
Lets apply the multiverse to the criteria required for something to be scientific: falsifiability. The criteria to falsify ID is rather straight forward, so I'm not going to go over that here (since we've gone over it several times in the past). The problem with the multiverse is that, no matter what combination of evidence exists within this universe, no matter how this universe is oriented, no matter what we can and can't observe, no matter what happens, this just happens to be a universe with this combination of evidence. In other words, no matter what combination of evidence exists within this universe, it does not falsify the multiverse.Bettawrekonize_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

There was an interesting Discovery Magazine article a few years ago about the multiworld interpretation of quantum mechanics. It acn be found here: http://discovermagazine.com/2005/jun/cover/?searchterm=many%20worlds%20quantum However, I have not read enough about the current multiworld hypothesis to know if the current ideas concur with the original idea from QM. Murray is right in that the original MWI was used to explain how a photon could appear to be in two places at once.DrDan_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

"You cannot observe the multiverse. You cannot measurably apply it to anything. You don’t know that it exist." Well, if you say so.William J. Murray_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

#9: As far as I know, MWI isn't a theory of many separate universes, but rather of an overarching multiverse where every potential historical sequence is present in a decoherent state until observed. The copenhagen interpretation describes an ontologically objective collapse for each universe, making each such universe distinct and without need for communication. Since MWI describes a branching "multiverse", every universe will have at least one point of communication - where they branched, and potentially more intersections. If - as Barbour hypthesizes - all such universes are manifest already in their entirety (including through time), then wave-collapse is like choosing cards out of complete, virtually infinite deck, and such universes can interact and communicate as restricted by the frame of reference (or nature) of the observer.William J. Murray_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT}

It depends on what you mean by the terms observable and applicable. That sort of like saying that "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." :-) You cannot observe the multiverse. You cannot measurably apply it to anything. You don't know that it exist. We can observe design. We make hundreds, if not thousands, if not tens of thousands, of decisions every hour based on these observations. We know design exist. But I grant that if the multiverse exist and we find that they are places we have been calling Heaven and Hell, then they will certainly be applicable to our existence.tribune7_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT}

Physicist Stephen Barr (who has written that in physics there lies between the crazies and the dreamers a broad and well-populated spectrum of crackpots) makes a distinction between versions of the many worlds idea: quote: "Before examining this idea critically, one must distinguish two versions of it. In the version that physicists take seriously, the many “universes” are not really distinct and separate universes at all, but domains or regions of one all-encompassing Universe. The domains are far apart in space, or otherwise prevented from communicating with each other. Conditions are assumed to be so different from one domain to another that they appear superficially to have different physical laws. However, at a deeper level all the domains are really controlled by one and the same set of fundamental laws. These laws also control what types of domains the universe has, and how many of each type. The other version of the idea posits the existence of a large number of universes that really are universes, distinct and unconnected in any way with each other. Each has its own set of physical laws. There is no overarching physical system of which each is a part. One can understand why this version is not discussed among scientists. At least in the many-domains version all the domains are part of the same universe as we, so that, even if we cannot in practice observe them directly, we might hope at least to infer their existence theoretically from a deep understanding of the laws of nature. In the many-universes version, this is not the case. "steveO_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
06:31 AM
6
06
31
AM
PDT}

Quote: "The multiverse is neither observable nor applicable." It depends on what you mean by the terms observable and applicable. If true, their effects on this universe are both observable and applicable in many and various situations, and might even have practical applications for the individual. It might be interesting to note that a subjectively-collapsing wave-function universe might be entirely indistinguishable from a universe inhabited from a personal, omnipotent God; it would also account for miraculous, transcendental phenomena, life after death, and even the actual (in any meaningful sense of the word) existence of God. But, that's philosophy and spirituality. Quote: "....regardless of the foundational establishment of the idea — as an excuse to do whatever they want." They make the same argument about I.D. #7: Derision isn't much of a conversation, and only demonstrates the depth of one's preferential bias when discussing an idea/hypothesis.William J. Murray_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT}

William Murray says: "Everything exists, in other wor[l]ds." Fantastic, so no doubt each of us exist in each of these other worlds, played out in different scenarios, depending on how the direction of the old quantum waves collapse. And since the motion of a butterfly's wings in Brazil may or may not create a perfect storm somewhere in the Atlantic, the possibilities are truly tremendous!! So, ladies and gentlemen, there is a world out there where Richard Dawkins is actually a Pentecostal born-again Fundie, busy studying the bible, speaking in tongues, and performing miraculous healings, on a daily basis! Why not? Of course this all deserves an explanation. What happened in this other universe is that he received a whole lot more love from his mother, and his father was more supportive and communicated a positive vision of his future, and they taught him about the love of Christ, and he saw authentic Christian modeling, and he was won over. His heart, in this other world, just like the Grinch's, is three times the size that it is in this universe. Is this not glorious beyond belief? By the way, has anybody sent a memo to Mr. Dawkins informing him of his mirror self? He will be truly stunned and impressed, will he not? I was thinking about laying out a scenario for Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris, but I thought I would spare you.Ekstasis_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT}

First, perhaps we shouldn’t make claims that the hypothesis can’t be tested; that’s what they said about I.D. Maybe a better way of looking at it is that ID can be -- is actually -- applied and observed and what is occurring in the movement is the search for the most definitive way to quantify this undeniable phenomenon. The multiverse is neither observable nor applicable. Of course most of us Christians will agree that there is a dimension beyond the temporal. The concept of the multiverse certainly doesn't bother me or affect my faith. The concern, as with anything that seem to contradict tradition, is that some will point to a possibility of a multiverse -- regardless of the foundational establishment of the idea -- as an excuse to do whatever they want.tribune7_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
05:39 AM
5
05
39
AM
PDT}

First, perhaps we shouldn't make claims that the hypothesis can't be tested; that's what they said about I.D. Second, the idea shouldn't be dismissed because one doesn't like the implications. There is some experimental evidence (depending on how one interprets the data) that multiverses exist - not sequential oscillating universes (I'm not sure what that wuold even mean, considering that time itself is a product of and within a single universe, and would behave differently in each universe), but rather concurrent dimensional variants that explain certain aspects of photon double-slit experiments. One view is that there is no "objective" wave collapse at all of quantum field phenomena, but rather that it is subjectively experienced and that there are virtually infinite potential iterations. The Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum theory has been around a long time and has been the favorite interpretation of many leading physicists long before the I.D. debate drove some evolutionary biologists to theorize MWI as an explanation for problematical biological sequences. It would be an error to see MWI as a response to the I.D. challenge. The intersting thing about some MWI views is that it fully supports I.D. theory, but just doesn't imply a God, and so many I.D.ers dismiss it outright. They shouldn't, because MWI can fully support I.D. theory. In Julian Barbour's book "The End of Time", he outlines a reality that has every potential simultaneously coexistent, with time being simply another directional (dimensional) axis. Everything exists, in other words. That humans exist would be a given in such a situation; the question is, what kind of Universe would humans "observe" both currently and as they investigate their history? It would be one they "collapse" out of quantum potential, and as such it would necessarily be "intelligently designed" to achieve their existence via a sorting process of "past" events. Either way - via subjective wave-collapse of quantum phenomena (which includes historical references as part of the quantum matrix), or created by God, you have a universe uniquely designed by intelligence to accommodate human existence. The implication might not be what most I.D. supporters want, but if one is going to dismiss a hypotheses because it doesn't implicate what one would like, then one is really no different from the anti-I.D.ers.William J. Murray_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT}

Denyse, Thanks for the hat tip. (You missed the proper spelling of the last name, but, believe me, that's not the first time. Not to mention that I blew Allen MacNeill's first name once.) If people can just understand the parallel between those two statements, the teeth of the "no scientific controversy" argument would be pulled, and the argument could be seen for the opportunistic propaganda that it is.Paul Giem_{May 23, 2008
May
05
May
23
23
2008
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

The universe does appear to be "rigged" (as my brother -- a very bright physicist, engineer, mathematician, computer programmer, and no friend of ID -- has noted). I like the word rigged. One can accept the the prima facie evidence that the universe is rigged, or one can postulate that an infinitude of in-principle undetectable universes exists to explain away the obvious. I'll opt for one rigged observable universe over an infinitude of unobservable unrigged universes until I can be shown that the latter option is more credible than the former.GilDodgen_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
11:08 PM
11
11
08
PM
PDT}

Disclaimer: I don't know if this has already been discussed, or is correct, but I think it's interesting to think about. -------- While the multiverse hypothesis (and, I think it will have forever remain a hypothesis, never to be tested :/) allows non-design explanations a chance to account for the fine-tuned nature of our universe, how does the multiverse hypothesis explain the existence of...well, existence? We have two explanations for 'existence': 1) design. 2) natural ("always was/is/will be") If we choose option number 1, then there is no need for multiverse theory. But if we choose #2, then the best hypothesis at the moment is an oscillating universe (at least, from what I've heard - feel free to inform/correct). However, if we choose to have an oscillating universe, there is no NEED to have a multiverse theory either! If we have a universe that has been and shall oscillate for eternity, then we have infinite time and just need to wait for our current universe to appear, with it's fine tuned laws of physics and that happened to produce life. So there is no grounds/need for a multiverse theory, regardless whether you choose a design or natural explanation for existence. ------------- However, one problem however is: if we induce the possibility of an oscillating universe in order to account for our current fine-tuned universe, what laws govern the oscillation, such that they continue forever? Is there an over/underlying set of physics laws that maintain the eternity of this oscillation, but within these oscillations all other natural laws can do what they like with each swing of the universe? I.e. natural laws fluctuate with each oscillation, but never affect the overlying laws of the oscillation. Then my question is: how did those laws of the oscillation eventuate? ...there is more to be typed but this is getting long-winded. Any body have any thoughts?Avonwatches_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
09:50 PM
9
09
50
PM
PDT}

All things are possible through the scientist who postulates very large numbers? Especially unimaginable things, I am sure. It's a shame that under the perspective of a multiverse, Dawkins will believe in just about anything as long as it's not God. Suppose the probability trump cards that evolutionists play (such as the notion that the way atoms are arranged in the universe is highly improbable, or the possibility of a multiverse) are true, doesn't that make the likelihood of a supernatural all-governing entity even more likely?F2XL_{May 22, 2008
May
05
May
22
22
2008
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply