Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Multiverse of the Gaps”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Irony again.  I love it.  How many times have ID proponents been accused of resorting to the “God of the gaps” to explain the hard questions? For years Darwinists have said, essentially, “yes, the questions are hard, but we’re working on them and the answer is just around the corner.  No need to invoke design, especially if you believe God may have been the designer.”  (O’Leary’s “promissory materialism”)

Now the Darwinists appear to be giving up and invoking a gap filler of their own.  I call it the “multiverse of the gaps.”  This article is an example:  http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/15

The author, an avowed Darwinist, gives up on Darwin to ever explain the origin of life.  He admits: “to attain the minimal complexity required for a biological system to start on the path of biological evolution, a system of a far greater complexity, i.e., a highly evolved one, appears to be required. How such a system could evolve, is a puzzle that defeats conventional evolutionary thinking.”

The problem is that, as Dembski and others have been arguing for years, in a finite universe there are simply not enough probablistic resources for even the most simple life to have arisen by chance.

His solution:  Get rid of a finite universe by invoking an infinite “multiverse,” because if there are infinite “chances” then everything not only can happen, but it must happen, no matter how improbable. In other words, if the only universe we know about does not give you enough probablistic resources, conjure up as much as you need out of thin air by positing that this universe in only one of an infinite number of universes.  Problem solved.

Comments
There is an aphorism, widely attributed to Chesterton,* that goes like this: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything." I think the "multiverse" falls within the "anything" people will believe. *While Chesterton said many things from which this statement may be inferred, there is no record he ever made this exact comment.BarryA
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
It's easier to believe in the giant spagetti monster :-)Robo
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Good grief, I mean post #3.StephenB
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
11:20 AM
11
11
20
AM
PDT
Russ, I hope you know that my comment on post #4 was about the multiverse theory and not your comment. I should have offered an introductory sentence.StephenB
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
My exact thought when reading your post was, “Gee, I wish I had said it as concisely and clearly as Apollos just did!”
russ, very kind of you to say.Apollos
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
10:05 AM
10
10
05
AM
PDT
You...you...you mean Captain Kirk, Spock, Bones, and Scotty really do exist out there somewhere? That's enough to make a Trekkie's head explode, gushing gooey fanboyism everywhere.Patrick
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Joseph, you never saw Firefly. Too bad. It was a great show, kind of a western set in the future. I inferred you had, because the characters refer to the universe as the 'verse. Maybe it's the 'verse next door in which you saw the show. BarryA
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT
Obviously to get life all you need is an improbiblity drive.Latemarch
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
BarryA: BTW, Joseph, when you say “verse” for universe, your Firefly is showing. Umm, in a multiverse scenario there isn't a "universe". I never heard of "Firefly". I looked it up and I can't even remember seeing any ads for the show- if that is what you were referring to. My point was and is that regardless of what the other multiverses resemble there is no way to exclude a deigner or designer(s) as the cause of those systems. And, as a matter of fact, there isn't any way to determine whether or not those other systems are any different from the one we find ourselves in.Joseph
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
Joseph, "A multiverse scenario does not exclude a designer or designers." Indeed, a multiverse guarantees that there will be one in which all life is designed. As mattghg points out, in a multiverse, every logically possible universe is actual. A designer is logically possible; therefore in a multiverse he/she/it is actual. The really fun question is, if the multiverese idea is true, are we living in the one where the designer is actual? BTW, Joseph, when you say "verse" for universe, your Firefly is showing. BarryA
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
07:55 AM
7
07
55
AM
PDT
I see that Koonin in his BBB (Biological Big Bang) article he reference many String Theory work. ("The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution" Biology Direct 2007, 2:21 doi:10.1186/1745-6150-2-21 Eugene V Koonin koonin@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)) I don't know much about string theory but the last I heard was that they are still not very strong on predicting anything - ("post-dicted" the graviton). What interests me more in the "real world" of quantum mechanics is the Casimir Effect - (see Wikipedia). This effect in itself is very detrimental in understanding any form of "infinite quantum fluctuations" in a vacuum. The Casimir Effect relies on the fact that "not all infinites are equal", which is one way of saying quantum fluctuations in a vacuum are not really infinite. What we can expect is that evolution will start to relay more and more on borderline "meta"-physics like string theory.mullerpr
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT

The Achilles heel of Darwinism is finally at least acknowledged. Reviewer 4: Itai Yanai (Harvard University) observes:

"In this work, Eugene Koonin estimates the probability of arriving at a system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution and comes to a cosmologically small number."

"Koonin specifically addresses the front-runner model, that of the RNA-world, where self-replicating RNA molecules precede a translation system. He notes that in addition to the difficulties involved in achieving such a system is the paradox of attaining a translation system through Darwinian selection. That this is indeed a bona-fide paradox is appreciated by the fact that, without a shortage effort, a plausible scenario for translation evolution has not been proposed to date."

" . . .despite much ingenuity and effort, it is fair to say that all origin of life models suffer from astoundingly low probabilities of actually occurring."

Yanai's "cosmologically small" and "astoundingly low" probabilities are rather British understatements considering that the universe is only about 10^60 Planck lengths across, using the smallest unit of measure. (The universe is estimated to be 156 billion light years or 1.47 * 10^25 m in diameter. Compare the diameter of a quark at 10^-18 m, and Planck's length is 1.616 252 * 10^-35 m.)

DLH
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
Sorry if I was just repeating russ. Note to self: read first, write later.
My exact thought when reading your post was, "Gee, I wish I had said it as concisely and clearly as Apollos just did!" ;)russ
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Hi Joseph, I think the key in their argument is the "infinity game". For some reason the anti-ID side think that if they can convince the public that some kind of "material infinite" can exist, there is no need for a Creator Inference. Talking about a physical instantiated infinity is a metaphysical statement that cause more problems than what it can solve in "any" material world. Even talking about God's infinite nature is difficult enough for "us-who-has-a-beginning" - to grasp. God's Uncaused Immaterial Nature is the only way to make sense of any type of infinity.mullerpr
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Check out the pdf version. They mention Intelligent Design. I just did a cursory look. Apparently the anthropic principle is the deathknell for ID. Saving that one to read more closely later.geoffrobinson
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
A multiverse scenario does not exclude a designer or designers. Another issue is there is no way of knowing that any of the other "verses" are different from ours. I don't see how a multiverse system helps the anti-ID side. With that scenario they need to explain how each arose- IOW it's not enough to just say they exist.Joseph
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
Thanks a lot, Barry. Now I have to come to grips with the idea that I'm a Boltzman Brain and you all are imaginary voices in my disembodied head.DaveScot
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
idnet.com.au: "In the discussion Koonin said there is a world in which Elvis is alive in 2007!" That would be our world. I just had lunch with him this weekend.mike1962
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
This is a treasure from Koonin and it is supplemented with more of his absolutely wonderful creativeness. The title is: "The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution" He has everything there. "Big Bang type inflation" for evolution etc. Just think what will happen if more biologists start to think they understand physics - man then there is no creative limit! It would be interesting to see the future of this attempt.mullerpr
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
02:30 AM
2
02
30
AM
PDT
If there's an infinite number of parallel universes, that means that every logically possible universe is actual. Those old sceptical chesnuts from Philosophy return with a vengeance. How do I know I'm not in the Matrix? If there's an infinite number of universes, this is just as likely as not! I remember Behe saying something similar in the last couple of chapter of Edge of Evolution. I agree with Australian IDnet and Shazard. This paper is a treasure trove of design arguments.mattghg
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
01:29 AM
1
01
29
AM
PDT
idnet, lol Elvis is alive?!!! Oh man!Mats
September 4, 2007
September
09
Sep
4
04
2007
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT
I am ID proponent BUT I would say that this is just a one step before aknowledgement of God, Darwinists just don't realize it. My argumetnation is as follows. If this "multiverse" is some system obviously "outside" of this finite material universe AND this system is capable of production of irreducably complex systems then we can freely aknowledge that we have dealing with superNatural (out of this universe) system which has passed Turing's test and by common consensus such systems are viewed as Intelligent agent. So in general, Darwinists aknowledged existence of God only they call it "Infinite Multierse"! Welcome to theology!Shazard
September 3, 2007
September
09
Sep
3
03
2007
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT
I have studied this paper and I think it is one of the gems we will use for a long time to come. I love Koonins frank admission that even without anything after the Big Bang (just cosmological fine tuning) we are compelled to believe in Multiverse to explain the anthropic principle. He also does a fun probability estimate of 10^-1000 for a complex capable of Darwinian evolution developing by chance! Read it through including the discussion and the appendicies. Koonin was gunned for giving ammunition to ID supporters. In the discussion Koonin said there is a world in which Elvis is alive in 2007! When you want to reject the obvious need for a Designer, you will believe in anything.idnet.com.au
September 3, 2007
September
09
Sep
3
03
2007
11:21 PM
11
11
21
PM
PDT
Classic Reductio ad absurdum. Ignore it. Forge ahead. Googleverse, Multiverse, Universe, or Fractedverse...it's the same Intelligence at work within. When the inevitable comes, chance won't have an argument against it.John Kelly
September 3, 2007
September
09
Sep
3
03
2007
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT
Sorry if I was just repeating russ. Note to self: read first, write later.Apollos
September 3, 2007
September
09
Sep
3
03
2007
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT
I mean as long as we can postulate a transcendent mechanism for our universe, then God isn't so much irrational as He is unpalatable -- and if a mechanism of far greater complexity is required, then Dawkin's objection about God's complexity goes right out the window.Apollos
September 3, 2007
September
09
Sep
3
03
2007
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
My favorite universe in the infinite multiverse is the one where an omnipotent God created everything in 6 days. I guess it had to happen.Apollos
September 3, 2007
September
09
Sep
3
03
2007
09:07 PM
9
09
07
PM
PDT
That's not a leap of faith--that's a pole vault.StephenB
September 3, 2007
September
09
Sep
3
03
2007
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
Richard Dawkins says that the more complexity we discover in biological systems, the more improbable they become, and therefore the more complex and still less probable a hypothetical designer would have to be. Does the multiverse hypothesis undo Dawkins since probabilities don't matter anymore?russ
September 3, 2007
September
09
Sep
3
03
2007
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
"His solution: Get rid of a finite universe by invoking an infinite “multiverse,” because if there are infinite “chances” then everything not only can happen, but it must happen, no matter how improbable." Yeah sure. Only problem with this is that it has no connection to reality whatsoever. We are free to believe in an infinite number of universes that may actually harbor evil Spocks with goatees or maybe one in which lois lane chooses clark kent instead of superman, but just mention "design" and you're labeled an anti-science nut! Incredible!shaner74
September 3, 2007
September
09
Sep
3
03
2007
08:35 PM
8
08
35
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply