Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory

_{Mario Lopez

November 10, 2008

Intelligent Design, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.

by Tim Folger

Discover

published online November 10, 2008

A sublime cosmic mystery unfolds on a mild summer afternoon in Palo Alto, California, where I’ve come to talk with the visionary physicist Andrei Linde. The day seems ordinary enough. Cyclists maneuver through traffic, and orange poppies bloom on dry brown hills near Linde’s office on the Stanford University campus. But everything here, right down to the photons lighting the scene after an eight-minute jaunt from the sun, bears witness to an extraordinary fact about the universe: Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and—in this universe, anyway—life as we know it would not exist.

Consider just two possible changes. Atoms consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons. If those protons were just 0.2 percent more massive than they actually are, they would be unstable and would decay into simpler particles. Atoms wouldn’t exist; neither would we. If gravity were slightly more powerful, the consequences would be nearly as grave. A beefed-up gravitational force would compress stars more tightly, making them smaller, hotter, and denser. Rather than surviving for billions of years, stars would burn through their fuel in a few million years, sputtering out long before life had a chance to evolve. There are many such examples of the universe’s life-friendly properties—so many, in fact, that physicists can’t dismiss them all as mere accidents.

“We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” Linde says.

Comments

Junior Scientist: This multiverse theory is a bit flakey - seems to meet mystical criteria more so than scientific criteria Senior Scientist: What about the math? Junior Scientist: Not very convincing. Senior Scientist: Well, does the multiverse make our universe appear pointless and random Junior: yep Senior Scientist: And does it make the human race appear even more insignificant as an accidental by-product Junior Scientist: yep it does Senior Scientist: Well son, it looks like we got ourselves a theory !! ;-)steveO_{November 11, 2008
November
11
Nov
11
11
2008
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

A multi-verse could conceivably give rise to a world just like ours, but it would be frozen in time. There would be no mechanism for new information to enter the world after it had been created. All events would have to be predetermined, down to the blinking of an eye or a fleeting thought. Even consciousness would be predetermined, as my reflection on how my fleeting thought would be. I have reflected on this long enough, otherwise I may disappear into an infinite regression. Wait. That can't be right. Is it not a contradiction to have an infinite within an infinite?mad doc_{November 11, 2008
November
11
Nov
11
11
2008
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT}

Just a technical curiosity. As most ID supporters, I am obviously interested in statistical arguments, and the multiverse idea seems some form of extreme statistical argument. Like in darwinian theory, the occurrence of specified order is "explained" by random noise, only this time it is the "random noise" of universe generation. The problem here could be that, as nobody knows (and probably will ever know) how many universes are being generated, a calculation of probabilistic resources is impossible. In other words, we would really be affirming that "anything is possible and anything will happen" in the Babel's Library of reality. Well, I believe that even that kind of affirmation can (and will) be falsified, if not on empirical grounds, at least on logico-mathematical grounds, but I cannot certainly, at present, specify how. But there is a technical point in the above article which is interesting. Lacking other empirical evidence, the hypothesis of the multiverse seems to be at present strongly tied to theoretical considerations from string theory. The article states: "...the basic equations of string theory have an astronomical number of different possible solutions, perhaps as many as 101,000. Each solution represents a unique way to describe the universe... ...Susskind, a leading proponent of that interpretation, thinks the various versions of string theory may describe different universes that are all real. He believes the anthropic principle, the multiverse, and string theory are converging to produce a coherent, if exceedingly strange, new view in which our universe is just one of a multitude—one that happened to be born with the right kind of physics for our kind of life." Well, I am not a cosmologist, but I would definitely say that "perhaps as many as 101,000" does not really sound like "an astronomical number of different possible solutions". And if ot were true that "each solution represents a unique way to describe the universe", which seems to be the argument from string theory, then we should have as many as 101,000 possible different universes. Maybe cosmologists are impressed by that (after all, universes are not bacteria), but I am not. And I think anyone familiar with UPBs, and in general with statistics, should not be. 101,000 universes are, definitely, not a big probabilistic resource. And if you want to create the CSI of observed fine-tuning from the random noise of imaginary universes with that kind of chances, well, you are certainly an optimist... But again, I am not a cosmologist, and if anyone here has a more specific understanding of that aspect, I would be glad to know.gpuccio_{November 10, 2008
November
11
Nov
10
10
2008
11:32 PM
11
11
32
PM
PDT}

Joseph asks: "What I would like to know is how anyone can tell that if there are other “verses” that they are any different than the one we observe." The obvious answer: They cannot. If the word “universe” is defined as the cosmos we observe and can, in principle, experience, then by definition we can experience only the universe in which we live. We cannot know if there are other universes, or, if there are, what their properties are. The theory is sheer lunacy. It would have to get better to rise to the level of merely wrong instead of insidiously stupid. My best guess is that the we are witnessing the death throes of the materialist paradigm, and the “multi-verse” idiocy is an intellectual spasm, as it were. Alternatively (and this explanation, it would seem, would be favored if we were to apply Occam's razor), there are a lot of really stupid albeit highly educated people out there.BarryA_{November 10, 2008
November
11
Nov
10
10
2008
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT}

Back when I was a kid, friends of mine would occasionally indulge in certain illegal substances. Under the influence, imagination would become possibility, possibility would become certainty, and certainty would become fact. (Thus the acquaintance who checked herself into the hospital emergency room firmly believing she had swallowed her tonsils.) Sounds a lot like the reasoning promoted by some scientists today. It makes one wonder.sagebrush gardener_{November 10, 2008
November
11
Nov
10
10
2008
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

"Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved." So multiverse is not falsifiable. Isn't that the excuse that is used to say ID is not science. They can't have their cake and eat it too.geopet46_{November 10, 2008
November
11
Nov
10
10
2008
09:43 PM
9
09
43
PM
PDT}

I believe a multi verse theory means just that, an infinite number of universes in which all possibilities are possible. And one of those possibilities is an omniscient all powerful being. Damned either way.jerry_{November 10, 2008
November
11
Nov
10
10
2008
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

Please do not confuse speculative philosophy with 'science'bevets_{November 10, 2008
November
11
Nov
10
10
2008
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

Barry, What I would like to know is how anyone can tell that if there are other "verses" that they are any different than the one we observe. But anyway your premise is correct and I believe Berlinski discusses this in "The Devil's Delusion". That is "they" cannot afford to have the one universe with a distinct beginning.Joseph_{November 10, 2008
November
11
Nov
10
10
2008
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT}

*edit* On the above post, the last sentence describing the murder victim should be read as: "This man was just unfortunate enough that a knife popped into existence with chemical properties that looked like fingerprints, and then just so happened to fall into his back, killing him."Domoman_{November 10, 2008
November
11
Nov
10
10
2008
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

BarryA, A very interesting acknowledgement! Science should be about following the truth, no matter the implications, even if it supports a Designer. It's kind of like going to what would ordinarily be described as a murder scene. You see the man on the floor, with a knife stabbed into his back, and foreign finger prints on the handle. The investigators come investigate the scene and realize it obviously looks like a murder. They have seen other murders in other towns and cities, and this looks just like those. However, they decide that they don't like the idea of murder in this town. From this they conclude that the only possible option, aside from murder, is that of mere chance. They figure that somewhere in the wide wonderful universe there must be instances where material objects just randomly pop into existence. This man was just unfortunate enough for this to happen to him. Such thinking is what lands people into ridiculous, unproved, unphilosophical, and unscientific conclusions. Science isn't against religion. Science is about finding the truth, and it's hard time it acknowledge the truth! We aren't an accident and to suggest such is to ignore all the evidence!Domoman_{November 10, 2008
November
11
Nov
10
10
2008
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Jehu, I would say no, because it is not specific enough. Unless the hypothesis included details of how God created the universe it can not be scientific in my mind. Maybe strings are part of a cosmic computer, or whatever... Anyway, such a hypothesis would need more detail than "God did it."Collin_{November 10, 2008
November
11
Nov
10
10
2008
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

From the article: "Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable nonreligious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life." What an absurd statement. The author expressly admits that scientists have developed the multiverse theory for precisely religious reasons.BarryA_{November 10, 2008
November
11
Nov
10
10
2008
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT}

“In some other universe, people there will see different laws of physics,” Linde says
Science by decree! Just how can anyone make that declaration with a straight face?Joseph_{November 10, 2008
November
11
Nov
10
10
2008
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Doesn't occam's razor make God the more scientific choice?Jehu_{November 10, 2008
November
11
Nov
10
10
2008
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

I wish that guys like Linde would admit that it is faith that motivates them to research the multiverse theory. I don't have anything against that, I just wish that they would admit that they have faith in materialism and that motivates them to act.Collin_{November 10, 2008
November
11
Nov
10
10
2008
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply