Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Multiverse Mavens Hoisted on Own Petard

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Several factors are combining to increase belief (of the “faith” variety, not the “demonstrated fact” variety) in the multiverse among materialists. Two of these factors are relevant to ID at the biological and cosmological levels. At the biological level materialists are beginning to understand that the probability that life arose by random material processes is so low (estimated in this article written by materialists to be 10 raised to -1018) that infinite universes are required for it to have occurred, the implication being that we just happen to live in the ever-so-lucky universe where it all came together.

At the cosmological level, the probability that the fine tuning of the universe necessary for the existence of life arose by sheer coincidence is so low that again the multiverse is invoked to provide infinite “probabilistic resources” to do the job (see here).

Of course, there is another possible explanation for both the emergence of life and the fine tuning of the universe. These phenomena may be the results of acts of a super powerful being whom we might call God.

Obviously, the whole reason materialists have invoked the multiverse in the first place is to avoid resorting to agency to explain the emergence of life and cosmological fine tuning. But isn’t it obvious that given the very premises invoked by materialists in the multiverse scenarios that we can just as easily conclude that God exists.

Here is how the logic runs: The materialists says, “Yes, the probability that life emerged through random material processes is vanishingly small, but in an infinite multiverse everything that is not logically impossible is in fact instantiated, and we just happen to live in the lucky universe where life was instantiated. Similarly, we happen to live in the Goldilocks universe (which, again, is one of infinite universes) where the physical constants are just right for the existence of life.”

But the theist can play this game too. “The existence of God is not logically impossible. In an infinite number of universes everything that is not logically impossible is in fact instantiated, and we just happen to live in one of those universes in which God is instantiated.”

I do not believe in the multiverse. The entire concept is a desperation “Hail Mary” pass in which logical positivists and their materialist fellow travelers are attempting to save a philosophical construct on the brink of destruction. The point is that materialists’ own multiverse premise leads to the conclusion that God exists more readily than the opposite conclusion. Ironically, far from excluding the existence of God, if the multiverse exists, God must also exist.

Comments
Hi everyone, First of all, I'd like to thank Barry for a very interesting post. Although I think that there are some excellent arguments that can be made for God's existence even if there is a multiverse, I would have to concur with Pelagius' criticisms in #22 of Barry's version of the argument that God must exist, even in a multiverse: (i) as formulated, Barry's argument shows that God exists in some universes, but not that He exists in ours; (ii) the problem with saying that we live in a universe in which God is instantiated is that it makes God part of this universe, rather than its Creator. I'd also agree with Sotto Voce's comment in #12 that Barry's "multiverse" argument for God's existence implicitly assumes Tegmark's version of the multiverse, in which all logical possibilities are instantiated in some universe. Having said that, one could try to reformulate Barry's argument, using the notion of a world, defined as a set of entities that are able to interact causally with one another. Thus saying that God exists "in" this world simply means that God interacts with some entities belonging to this world, not that God is part of some bigger entity. Additionally, since God is by definition a necessary Being, it follows that God cannot exist in just one world; if He exists in one world, then God exists in all worlds. One could then argue: (1) The existence of God is not logically impossible. (2) In Max Tegmark's multiverse, everything that is not logically impossible is in fact instantiated. (3) Therefore God is instantiated in some world in Max Tegmark's multiverse. (4) But if God is instantiated in some world in Max Tegmark's multiverse, He is instantiated in all worlds (by definition of the term "God"). (5) Therefore God exists in our world, if we live in Max Tegmark's multiverse. This is of course a version of the ontological argument. However, an atheist could question premise (1). As we cannot fully understand the nature of God, we don't know for certain that God's existence is even logically possible. All we can say is that God's logical impossibility has not been demonstrated. The other problem with the argument is that Tegmark could make a smart counter-move: he could rule out the existence of entities that exist in more than one world, on the grounds that if any such entity existed, it could then interact with beings in more than one world, which would violate the definition of a world as a causally closed network of interacting entities. (If entity E can interact with A and B in world 1, and with C and D in world 2, then A, B, C and D all belong in the same world, since they can interact "via" E - which violates the initial stipulation that world 1 and world 2 are separate.) Thus Tegmark could argue that if there are multiple worlds, then there is no necessary Being: in other words, God's existence would be logically impossible. What does this prove? Absolutely nothing, except the truth of the old philosophical adage that one person's modus ponens is another's modus tollens. Or, as computer scientists are fond of saying: garbage in, garbage out. Staring with false philosophical premises, you are liable to derive false conclusions. In the next post, I'll argue that in fact, a good argument for God's existence can be made, even if there is a multiverse.vjtorley
March 7, 2010
March
03
Mar
7
07
2010
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
We are so very fortunate that there exist farmers and ranchers to bring forth food; caregivers to seek the humbled; engineers to make things work. It provides plenty of support for other fanciful endeavors.Upright BiPed
March 7, 2010
March
03
Mar
7
07
2010
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
Heinrich, There are in fact conceivable tests of contemporary versions of many-worlds interpretations of quantum mechanics, but these tests are basically impossible to realize given our current technology. The basic idea is that since the many-worlds interpretation denies that the wave function collapses, there will be possible measurements that would have different results if a collapse interpretation were true. However, it is important to note that the many-worlds interpretation is significantly different from multiverse theories. The former posits a branching structure to reality, so the separate "worlds" are not completely isolated. They have common pasts. In fact, there is even a very small probability that branching worlds will reconverge. The multiverse, on the other hand, consists of multiple universes that are completely causally segregated.Sotto Voce
March 7, 2010
March
03
Mar
7
07
2010
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
Sooner @ 14, My problem with the fine tuning argument is the same as yours, I think. I do not understand the rationale for placing a uniform probability distribution over the space of all possible values of the fundamental constants. The principle of indifference is a very useful rule for setting one's epistemic probabilities, but I regard this as an a posteriori fact about our universe. I see no justification for applying the principle to an ensemble of universes.Sotto Voce
March 7, 2010
March
03
Mar
7
07
2010
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT
Barry, Your argument depends on the assumption that in an infinite multiverse, all logical possibilities will be instantiated. As Sotto Voce pointed out, that assumption is false. Yet even if we grant your assumption arguendo, your conclusion does not follow, for the arguments you cite, one for the atheist and one for the theist, are not logically equivalent. We know that life exists in our universe, so we can conclude with certainty that the the physical constants of our universe permit life. We don't know that God exists in our universe. Therefore we cannot conclude that "we just happen to live in one of those universes in which God is instantiated." If your argument were correct, the most we could conclude is that God exists in some universes. We still wouldn't know that he exists in ours. Even without these two problems, your argument would still fail, because it assumes that God is part of the universe rather than its creator. A God who is merely part of the universe is not the God whose existence you are trying to demonstrate.pelagius
March 7, 2010
March
03
Mar
7
07
2010
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
That's OK Collin. I know things get a little partisan around here, so each side tends to automatically think the worst of the other.Heinrich
March 7, 2010
March
03
Mar
7
07
2010
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT
Sooner @8, The gist is that we get to objective probability only with repeatable experiments, and there is no way to regard the universe as the outcome of a repeatable experiment. At best, we can say that Dr Koonin was engaging in a Bayesian, not frequentist, probabilistic argument, correct?Nakashima
March 7, 2010
March
03
Mar
7
07
2010
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
Heinrich, sorry. I thought you were being sarcastic and snippy. It's hard not to misinterpret things online sometimes.Collin
March 7, 2010
March
03
Mar
7
07
2010
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT
Just to add - my impression (and this really isn't my area) is that the many worlds interpretation isn't open to empirical testing, i.e. it isn't verifiable. So surely logical positivists would exclude it from science? As I write, I'm not an expert, so I assume I'm missing something - all explanations welcome!Heinrich
March 7, 2010
March
03
Mar
7
07
2010
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
Thank you for your response, Barry. I'm genuinely surprised that logical positivism is being resurrected. However, from the link, I get the impression it's being done by philosophers, rather than by anyone involved in physics. So how are they relevant to the many worlds interpretation?Heinrich
March 7, 2010
March
03
Mar
7
07
2010
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT
Sooner Emeritus, Sotto Voce I agree. The fine tuning problem is not a real problem and it is meaningless to talk about the probability of our universe having the laws it does. Also delighted to see Hugh Mellor is still going - he taught me as an undergraduate in 1969. Although I don't accept his distinction between epistemic and physical probability. I think epistemic is just a subjective estimate of a physical probability.Mark Frank
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
11:44 PM
11
11
44
PM
PDT
Note to self: Education cannot kill rationality. I refuse to believe it. There are too many who are a contradiction to the idea. So, what can? What is the force that binds such educated people to utter stupidity? Let me know when I find out.Upright BiPed
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
10:24 PM
10
10
24
PM
PDT
Sotto Voce, I also do not see fine-tuning as a genuine problem, and I'd like to hear more from you on the matter.Sooner Emeritus
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
Also, if you think the multiverse picture is somehow associated with logical positivism, then you do not understand logical positivism. Positivists were vehemently critical of theories without clear empirically verifiable consequences. This is precisely the charge that is made against multiverse models, that it is unclear what would constitute empirical confirmation of these models. So it is the critics of the multiverse, rather than its proponents, who are making positivist arguments.Sotto Voce
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
Barry, You completely fail to understand the logical structure of multiverse arguments. The claim is not that everything that is logically possible will be instantiated somewhere in an infinite multiverse. An infinite sample space does not guarantee that every possible event must have non-zero probability. A simple example: Say you're picking a number at random from the set of all even numbers. This set has infinite members, yet there is no chance you're ever going to get a 5. Similarly, an infinite multiverse does not need to include every logically possible world. So what is the usual structure of multiverse theories? The claim is that you have an infinite number of universes instantiating different values for fundamental physical constants and different initial conditions. Crucially, the fundamental laws of physics will not differ between the different universes in this ensemble. So the multiverse does not contain every logical possibility. It contains (at most) every universe that can be generated according to our fundamental laws by varying the constants. It is quite plausible that no such universe will contain a God that fits anything like the Christian conception. For instance, since all the universes in the ensemble are bound by the same physical laws, they could not generate an omnipotent being (since such a being would, by definition, not be bound by physical laws). Your conception of a multiverse model seems to be based solely on Tegmark's Ultimate Ensemble, which is sort of close to what you describe. Tegmark's position is an extreme minority position even among defenders of the anthropic principle. I should say that I am pretty unsympathetic to the multiverse as a purported solution to the fine-tuning problem, mainly because I do no think fine-tuning is a genuine problem.Sotto Voce
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
Heinrick at [7], see "Reconsidering Logical Positivism" http://www.amazon.com/Reconsidering-Logical-Positivism-Michael-Friedman/dp/0521624762 Like I said above, just when you think its dead, it rises from the grave.Barry Arrington
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
What I have always wanted to ask a believer in the multiverse ( for sake of discussion we will call him Richard): Hello Richard, my name is John. You know if there are an infinite number of universes, there probably are an infinite number of times where believer John comes up to materialist Richard and engages him in conversation about belief in God. Probably in most of these conversations, believer John will get around to asking non-believer Richard if he wants to change his mind and believe in God. Is this one of the universes where Richard says "YES"!. If not why not.JDH
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington, All statements about the objective probability of the universe (multiverse) being the way it is are absurd. That such statements come from the mouths of well known scientists does not make them meaningful. The philosopher Hugh Mellor has spoken particularly well on this matter. The gist is that we get to objective probability only with repeatable experiments, and there is no way to regard the universe as the outcome of a repeatable experiment. We have no empirical access to a universe generator, or the universe is not what we mean by "universe." We can say, "What is the probability that process X yields outcome E?" But we cannot say meaningfully, "What is the probability that process Z results in universe U in which process X results in outcome E?" If we should develop a means of observing the hypothetical process Z, then the known universe will have expanded.Sooner Emeritus
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
How interesting that the multiverse materialists are willing to endorse a mathematically miraculous universe but not a theologically miraculous universe. Seems to me the multiverse scenario is not very helpful. Consider this: There is absolutely zero zilch nada positive evidence for a multiverse. Those who wish to avoid intelligent agency in origin of the universe models may also claim the same against them, no positive evidence for design of the universe. Wouldn't that mean that both are on equal epistemological footing?Bantay
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT
Can you point me to some contemporary logical positivists, Barry? I'm interested to see how they resurrected the Vienna Circle's ideas, and how they deal with Popper, for example. Collin - I'm genuinely curious about logical positivists, which is why I asked.Heinrich
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT
So we're still up in arms about the prospect of an infinite multiverse? Assuming a functionalist interpretation of the mind/body problem, do I have any reason to trust my own thoughts if the article is true?F2XL
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
Heinrich at [3]. LP's are like the psycho in a bad slasher film series. Every time you think he's dead he rises again to wreak more havoc.Barry Arrington
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Heinrich, I don't suppose you have something to say about the meat of Arrington's article do you? The multiverse could be real. I don't know. But so could fairies.Collin
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
I thought logical positivism died out years ago. Are there really any of them still running around?Heinrich
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT
Well said! Infinite universes is as crazy an idea as Hilbert's Hotel.Franck Barfety
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT
THe multiuniverse seems "plausible" only if you are a materialist determined not to "allow a DIvine Foot at the door".Mats
March 6, 2010
March
03
Mar
6
06
2010
11:22 AM
11
11
22
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply