Intelligent Design Multiverse

Rob Sheldon has some questions for the multiverse

Spread the love

Our physics color commentator Rob Sheldon, responding to Michael Egnor’s recent piece at Mind Matters News on the meaninglessness of the concept of the multiverse, asks some questions:


a) suppose there are infinite multiverses, and in one of them a smart being learns how to communicate between multiverses. By building computers in all of them and collecting the computing power of infinite computers, this being becomes infinitely wise. This is equivalent to the word “God”, so the multiverse proves the existence of God.

b) It is irrational to think that multiverses only differ in their physics. They should also differ in their biology, their chemistry, and their mathematics. Since the math varies in each multiverse, let us suppose there is a multiverse in which actual infinities are logically impossible. Then it disproves the existence of a multiverse. Therefore there are no multiverses.

Egnor just sums it up and says it makes no sense. And he is entirely correct.


Rob Sheldon is the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent and The Long Ascent, Volume II.

See also: Michael Egnor on why the multiverse is just a way of evading reality. Egnor: The fact that the universe is tuned — that is, the fact there is any consistency at all in the laws of physics — demonstrates God’s existence. This is Aquinas’ Fifth Way, which is the proof from design.

20 Replies to “Rob Sheldon has some questions for the multiverse

  1. 1
    BobRyan says:

    The multiverse makes for good fiction, but not good science. It has never been witnessed, which means there is no evidence to support it in any kind of scientific endeavor. Wanting something to exist is not the same thing as having evidence that it does exist. It is a very similar mindset to Darwinists who believe evolution exists without any evidence supporting Darwin’s fiction. The difference between fiction and theory is evidence or lack thereof. If something has not been witnessed, it cannot be a valid scientific theory.

  2. 2
    Bob O'H says:

    I don’t see any actual questions. And what if Sheldon’s suppositions about the multiverses are false?

    BobRyan – to be precise, there is theoretical evidence to support multiverses. But I agree that there’s no empirical evidence (at the moment). That’s what physicists would like to have.

  3. 3
    Concealed Citizen says:

    Bob O’H: there is theoretical evidence to support multiverses

    True, but your statement could be misleading. There is theoretical evidence to support several different competing types of multiverse scenarios. Nobody knows which the likely candidate could be, if any, because as you said, no empirical evidence.

  4. 4
    William J Murray says:

    Bob O’H said:

    It has never been witnessed,

    Can you support that claim?

    Concerned citizen said:

    Nobody knows which the likely candidate could be, if any, because as you said, no empirical evidence.

    Can you support that assertion?

  5. 5
    Concealed Citizen says:

    WJM: Can you support that assertion?

    How about I restate: Nobody knows which the likely candidate could be, if any, because no objective, empirical evidence exists, as far as I know.

    If there is any, I’d be happy to take a look.

  6. 6
    William J Murray says:

    People might want to actually investigate something before they make unsupportable universal negative claims, such as “there is no empirical evidence.”

    Literally, millions of people have visited alternate universes (or “realities,” if you prefer) and do so every day. Theories have been produced to model how this exists. People are in direct technological and non-technological communication with people living in those other “worlds,” receiving images, video and audio from them. Classes, book and video instructions detailing how to visit these other universes are available. There are countless credible first-person, empirical accounts of exploration of these worlds and interactions with those that inhabit them, including meeting and interacting with alternate versions of themselves.

    Physical objects have been permanently “ported” from those worlds directly into ours. Physical people have been ported – temporarily – from there to here and physically interacted with a team of people here including scientists. Teams of researchers from both sides have worked for years on methods of more easily bridging communication and interaction between their world and ours.

    I’ve done this myself several times. Several people I personally know have done it several times.

    Yet, “there is no empirical evidence.” Unseen evidence is not “no evidence.”

  7. 7
    Concealed Citizen says:

    WJM: Physical objects have been permanently “ported” from those worlds directly into ours. Physical people have been ported – temporarily – from there to here and physically interacted with a team of people here including scientists. Teams of researchers from both sides have worked for years on methods of more easily bridging communication and interaction between their world and ours.

    Who is doing this? Where can I get details?

    I’ve done this myself several times.

    Do tell.

  8. 8
    William J Murray says:

    CC @7: Just search for it yourself and find your own sources. It’s not hard to find especially in this age of the internet. Visiting these other universes is usually characterized as “astral projection” or “out of body experiences” that can serve as the beginning of other-universe experiences. One of the best training sources I found is a book by Michael Raduga called “The Phase.” It an entirely secular, no nonsense methodology for achieving this. He has taught classes and his students report a high success rate.

    One of the most prolific alternate-universe explorers is Jurgen Ziewe who has written books detailing his observations and experiences. I have met and talked with Jurgen; he’s one of the most credible people I’ve ever met. He does put a spiritual/religious spin on how he interprets these things, but that’s to be expected of most people. His books, like “Multi-Dimensional Man” and “Vistas of Infinity” are available on Amazon, and he has a video channel on YouTube where he answers questions and he has also recreated some of the imagery of the worlds he has visited in 3D format for the Oculus VR headset.

    Usually all of this is wrapped up in a bunch of religious or spiritual lingo, perspective and interpretation. I don’t see any of it that way. I’m entirely secular in my approach, experimentation and interpretation of results.

    The way I achieved it was via my personal methodology based on MRT, which can be compared to changing the channel on broadcast TV or radio. One second i was here, the next I was somewhere else entirely. There was no loss of consciousness or awareness on my part. It was exactly like I had just changed the channel. I had a fully physical body and I was in a fully physical world standing in a building I did not recognize. I walked outside, saw the buildings and the street, the grass in various areas between the buildings and the street. It had just rained. I could feel that same set of sensations you feel here after it rains. There were pools of water on the street.

    I walked outside of the building and looked back at it. I could see all the details but I didn’t know what it was or why I was in there. There were a few cars on the street, but they were all cars I haven’t seen before. There was one running, but empty, parked on the curb in front of the building I came out of.

    It was literally the coolest, most beautiful car I’ve ever seen, like some designer custom created a brand new retro version of a 50’s coup. The details and the aesthetics were amazing. I ran my hand across the damp metal of the body. I went over to the right rear passenger side, opened the door and sat in it, ran my hand across the texture of the leather seat, looked up in the front to check out the retro, classic instrumentation design in front of the driver seat. It was retro and futuristic all at that same time. It was gorgeous

    Some teenagers or young adults came from just up the street towards the car; one of them I recognized as my grandson. He just gave me a nod as the entered the car. I got out, let a young woman get in where I was sitting, and I shut the door for her. They all seemed to know me or at least not be surprised I was in the car.

    The whole experience (the above was just part of it) lasted for about 15 minutes. One of the things I did while I was there was find a pool of still rainwater, crouched over, and looked at my reflection – one of the techniques I learned from Raduga’s book to ground yourself into the alternate world (feeling textures is another method.)

    I’ve had dreams, lucid dreams, and many other kinds of altered state-of-consciousness experiences. This was 100% indistinguishable from my experience of this world.

    I’ve had several of these experiences. Millions of people have.

    I realize what this sounds like to most people, but when you can do what I can do, why would I care?

  9. 9
    William J Murray says:

    CC,

    If you want an example of the “porting” I mentioned, you kind find a documentary of a set of experiments where this occurred here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQvQ_WTtdHk

    That’s just one example, though probably the best document with photograhic, audio and visual evidence in the presence of multiple witnesses and with protocols implemented to eliminate any kind of fraud.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Stephen Meyer spoke last weekend on the ‘theoretical’ multiverses contained with String Theory and Inflation Theory, and found both of them wanting and found the Theistic model to be favored over the multiverse models

    Stephen Meyer at Dallas Conference on Science and Faith
    https://youtu.be/mTRfxu6BijY?t=1109

    And, empirically speaking, I also find both models to be wanting and the Theistic models to be favored.

    Specifically, in regards to empirical evidence and in regards to Inflation Theory, “If anything, the Planck data disfavored the simplest inflation models and exacerbated long-standing foundational problems with the theory, providing new reasons to consider competing ideas about the origin and evolution of the universe… (i)n the years since, more precise data gathered by the Planck satellite and other instruments have made the case only stronger……The Planck satellite results—a combination of an unexpectedly small (few percent) deviation from perfect scale invariance in the pattern of hot and colds spots in the CMB and the failure to detect cosmic gravitational waves—are stunning. For the first time in more than 30 years, the simplest inflationary models, including those described in standard textbooks, are strongly disfavored by observations.”

    Pop Goes The Universe – Scientific American – January 2017 – Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb
    Excerpt: “If anything, the Planck data disfavored the simplest inflation models and exacerbated long-standing foundational problems with the theory, providing new reasons to consider competing ideas about the origin and evolution of the universe… (i)n the years since, more precise data gathered by the Planck satellite and other instruments have made the case only stronger……The Planck satellite results—a combination of an unexpectedly small (few percent) deviation from perfect scale invariance in the pattern of hot and colds spots in the CMB and the failure to detect cosmic gravitational waves—are stunning. For the first time in more than 30 years, the simplest inflationary models, including those described in standard textbooks, are strongly disfavored by observations.”
    https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf

    Moreover, whereas inflation theory has utterly failed to predict exactly why our universe has the specific macroscopic properties that it does, namely, why the universe is as flat as it is and why the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) has almost at the same temperature in all directions,,, Whereas inflation theory has utterly failed in that endeavor, on the other hand Christian Theism ‘predicted those exact macroscopic properties for our universe thousands of years before those macroscopic properties of our universe were even discovered by modern science.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/astrophysicist-ethan-siegel-tells-us-why-a-multiverse-must-exist/#comment-725105

    Therefore, on observational evidence alone, the Theistic Model should be favored over and above the Inflation multiverse model.

    Likewise, in the String Theory multiverse scenario we also find that, in so far as we are able to test the predictions of String Theory, the empirical evidence itself has falsified the String Theory multiverse.

    As the following article states, “If supersymmetry (SUSY) is the solution to the hierarchy problem, then the lightest superpartners should definitely be accessible by Large Hadron Collider (LHC). The fact that it hasn’t found any, thus far, is enough to eliminate virtually all models of SUSY that solve the very problem it was designed to solve.”

    Why Supersymmetry May Be The Greatest Failed Prediction In Particle Physics History – Feb. 2019
    Excerpt: In theory, SUSY is a possible solution to this puzzle, where practically no other known solutions remain viable. However, just because it offers a possible solution doesn’t mean it’s correct. In fact, each of the predictions of SUSY are extremely problematic for physics.
    1. If SUSY is the solution to the hierarchy problem, then the lightest superpartners should definitely be accessible by the LHC. The fact that it hasn’t found any, thus far, is enough to eliminate virtually all models of SUSY that solve the very problem it was designed to solve.
    2. The strong force may not unify with the other forces. There’s no evidence for unification in our Universe so far, as proton decay experiments have come up empty. The initial motivation is flimsy here as well: If you put any three curves on a log-log scale and zoom out far enough, they will always look like a triangle where the three lines just barely miss coming together at a single point.
    3. If dark matter is truly made of the lightest SUSY particle, then experiments designed to see it such as CDMS, XENON, Edelweiss and more should have detected it. Furthermore, SUSY dark matter should annihilate in a very particular way which hasn’t been seen.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/02/12/why-supersymmetry-may-be-the-greatest-failed-prediction-in-particle-physics-history/?sh=374cb27669e6

    Moreover, as the following 2021 article points out, ‘After years of searching and loads of accumulated data from countless collisions, there is no sign of any supersymmetric particle. In fact, many supersymmetry models are now completely ruled out, and very few theoretical ideas remain valid.’ And the article even goes on to state that “Where will physics go from here, in a universe without supersymmetry? Only time (and a lot of math) will tell.”

    Where are all the squarks and gluinos?
    The future of supersymmetry is in serious doubt. – Jan 2021
    Excerpt: The ATLAS collaboration, made up of hundreds of scientists from around the world, have released their latest findings in their search for supersymmetry in a paper appearing in the preprint journal arXiv.
    And their results? Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Zero.
    After years of searching and loads of accumulated data from countless collisions, there is no sign of any supersymmetric particle. In fact, many supersymmetry models are now completely ruled out, and very few theoretical ideas remain valid.
    While supersymmetry has enjoyed widespread support from theorists for decades (who often portrayed it as the obvious next step in advancing our understanding of the universe), the theory has been on thin ice ever since the LHC turned on. But despite those initial doubtful results, theorists had hoped that some model of tuning of the theory would produce a positive result inside the collider experiment.
    While not every possible model of supersymmetry has been ruled out, the future of the theory is in serious doubt. And since physicists have invested so much time and energy into supersymmetry for years, there aren’t a lot of compelling alternatives.
    Where will physics go from here, in a universe without supersymmetry? Only time (and a lot of math) will tell.
    https://www.livescience.com/no-signs-supersymmetry-large-hadron-collider.html

    Thus, String Theory, via the falsification of supersymmetric particles, is found to be, basically, purely mathematical fantasy with no detectable connection to the real world.

    I go over the failure of String Theory in a bit more detail in the following video, and use the failure of String Theory as a launching pad to argue that Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead provides us with a more robust and plausible solution, (for the much sought after ‘theory of everything’), than String Theory does.

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://youtu.be/Vpn2Vu8–eE

  11. 11
    ET says:

    Materialism can’t even account for the universe. The multiverse just exacerbates their problems.

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM, you do realize that there is a profound difference between the multiverse models postulated atheists and the multiverse models postulated by Theists do you not? And that is what is being argued about?

    i.e. It is not that Theists deny the existence of other universes, (indeed Theists are very out in the open about their belief in Heaven and Hell), it is that Atheists are postulating a veritable infinity of other universes to try to get around God as the explanation for why this universe exists, or as the explanation for why any of the other infinitude of universes, that God Almighty may choose to create, may exist.

    It is the anti-theistic reasoning behind the multiverse conjectures of atheists that Theists are objecting to, not the supposed existence or non-existence of multiverses per se that Theists are objecting to.

  13. 13
    Bob O'H says:

    WJM @ 4 – you want to address that question to Bob Ryan, not me.

  14. 14
    Dick says:

    If there is a multiverse in which all logically possible worlds are instantiated then the ontological argument for God’s existence is sound: If all logically possible worlds exist then there is a world in which it is true to say that a maximally great being exists. If it is true to say that a maximally great being exists in some logically possible world it must, if it is maximally great, exist in every logically possible world. Since our world is obviously a logically possible world, this maximally great being must exist in our world. QED

  15. 15
    EDTA says:

    WJM,
    MRT sounds like a version of George Berkeley’s philosophical idealism. Was MRT informed by that, or inspired by it? Thanks.

  16. 16
    William J Murray says:

    My bad, Bob O’H.

    EDTA @15: No, I never heard of it.

    The version of MRT I argue for here is my particular version. I’ve read other versions but I’ve found they all suffer from the same ingrained patterns of materialism filtering into their interpretations and conclusions – plus, my MRT takes into account a whole world of information and sources that other writers are apparently oblivious to – such as what I’ve outlined above.

  17. 17
    William J Murray says:

    Dick @14,

    The concept of “maximally great” is far too vague a concept to be part of any sound reasoning.

  18. 18
    William J Murray says:

    BA77 @12,
    I don’t find either category of models logically sustainable, at least not how they are usually argued here. I think God defined as “universal (in an “all that exists” sense) mind” is a sustainable ground-of-being premise, but I don’t think the idea that God “created” stuff is rationally coherent. I think God “is” stuff is ultimately the more viable option.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    WJM, hmmm, the creation of the universe not withstanding of course?

    Well so much for Big Bang Cosmology. 🙂

    While I am certainly sympathetic, Something is definitely getting lost in translation in your model.

  20. 20
    asauber says:

    Just my 2 cents…

    If “universe” isn’t scientifically definable, “multiverse” won’t be either.

    Andrew

Leave a Reply