Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

More boldly go: Our entire universe is a mere Copernican blip

arroba Email

Evolution News and Views

Among the many fine products methodological naturalism* has given us, we can count the multiverse.

First, materialist atheists in science did not like the Big Bang because of its theistic implications. For the record, they said that; we didn’t.

They also decided that Earth couldn’t be unique or even unusual (Copernican Principle). Therefore, there must be billions of habitable planets and alien civilizations galore out there.

We don’t have to prove it; we can merely assert it.

Recently I asked, why is believing in space aliens “science” but believing in Bigfoot is “non-science” or “anti-science,” with the same level of demonstration? One likely reason is that believing in space aliens is an outcome of methodological naturalism, but believing in Bigfoot is not.

If the space aliens don’t exist (or are very rare), humans are special—and according to methodological naturalism, we are not supposed to be. If no Bigfoot exists, it makes no difference to the status of humans or of methodological naturalism. The giant northern ape is thus subject to the normal evidence tests.

Tests which the ape has so far flunked. But notice, he was put to such tests, and the space alien is conveniently not likely to ever be.

But all is not well. The very existence of a single universe like ours, apparently fine-tuned for life, with a Big Bang that has not so far been disproven, cries out for a solution, and one has been found: Boldly go. One step further:

What if not just Earth, but our whole universe, is seen as one mere Copernican blip?

The Copernican principle, as a principle of interpretation, obviates the need for evidence. New Scientist’s Marcus Chown explains how:

Should the fine-tuning turn out to be real, what are we to make of it? There are two widely-discussed possibilities: either God fine-tuned the universe for us to be here, or there are (as string theory implies) a large number of universes, each with different laws of physics, and we happen to find ourselves in a universe where the laws happen to be just right for us to live. After all, how could we not?

A large number of hitherto unnoticed universes? No sooner asked than granted: Nima Arkani-Hamed and others have proposed over 10^500 universes because fewer of them would not obviate fine-tuning. Why believe in them? As a New Scientist writer has explained

But the main reason for believing in an ensemble of universes is that it could explain why the laws governing our Universe appear to be so finely turned for our existence … This fine-tuning has two possible explanations. Either the Universe was designed specifically for us by a creator or there is a multitude of universes—a multiverse.

Cosmologists deserve credit for making the choice so clear. In that spirit, Discover Magazine offers the multiverse as “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator” (2008). More.

*(= nature is a closed system, all causes are material ones)

See also:

What has materialism done for science?

Big Bang exterminator wanted, will train

Copernicus, you are not going to believe who is using your name. Or how.

“Behold, countless Earths sail the galaxies … that is, if you would only believe …

Don’t let Mars fool you. Those exoplanets teem with life!

But surely we can’t conjure an entire advanced civilization?

How do we grapple with the idea that ET might not be out there?

Not only is earth one nice planet among many, but our entire universe is lost in a crowd

Nima Arkani-Hamed and others have proposed over 10^500 universes because fewer of them would not obviate fine-tuning.
I don't know why anyone bothers listening to string theory guys.There are many string theories and then they each have their own spacetime. For eg :Bosonic string theory alone has 26 spacetime.Most physisicts have been laughing for so long that now string theorists want to wittle down the whole thing to M theory and M theory is named 'Mother of all theories'- I swear I didn't make up that name! selvaRajan
Love the way they qualify the word, 'naturalism' with the word, 'methodological'! Sounds so esoteric and learned, doesn't it? Unfortunately, any methodology requires some kind of coherent, rational, intelligible subject to qualify. Naturalism no more lends itself to a methodology than a carrot. Indeed, merely from its appearance, we can observe that a carrot is very smartly designed, and its Creator could be no stranger to the concept of methodicalness. Axel
Where are these universes supposed to exist, in parallel realities that do not interact with our own? Or are they in the same realm as our universe, far, far away, in which case their laws would contradict the laws of this universe? This is all chicken feather voodoo science, of course, on a par with the flat earth hypothesis. The universe has its name precisely because it is ONE, not just ONE in the singular meaning of the word but, more importantly, in the sense that the same universal laws apply to every far flung positron, photon and electron. Furthermore, the universe is ONE in the yin-yang sense, that is to say, the total amount of energy in it, both positive and negative, is exactly zero. Yes, I do believe the physical universe was created from nothing because an ex-nihilo universe is the only one that does not lead to an infinite regress when trying to answer the question, "what is matter made of?" Having said that, let me add that I don't believe in the Big Bang because I think it's just more chicken feather voodoo from a bunch of clueless con artists. Mapou
Ms. O'Leary, I thought the final flourish, of your recent article on ENV, bordered on poetic:
"So Darwin can explain both the multiverse (Weinberg) and why we doubt it (Tegmark). Darwinism is more important in upholding multiverse cosmologies than many realize. But that makes sense. Just as humans are merely one accidentally evolved animal among many, our universe is simply one accidentally evolved universe among many. The Copernican Principle is similarly flexible: When conjuring habitable planets, it assumes ours is one among countless winners. Yet when conjuring a multiverse, it assumes that our universe is a lonely winner among countless flops. The choice seems to depend on which assumption is required as a defense against design. That feature, as we shall see, can once again transform speculation into orthodoxy. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/copernicus_not079601.html
Touche News! Touche! http://neonized.net/blog/wp-content/files/2011/12/serie_touche-23.jpg bornagain77
I wonder which is more unlikely - that random chemicals lying around spontaneously build a functional, self-replicating machine, or that an as-yet unverified new class of ape exists in the remote areas of the wilderness? William J Murray

Leave a Reply