Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Multiverse Scam

arroba Email

MultiverseAs atheists scientists like Stephen Hawking or Leonard Susskind are confronted with the undeniable twin improbabilities of both Darwinist Evolution (DE) and the chance Origin of Life (OOL), they have floundered about like passengers on the Titanic, clinging to every piece of driftwood as if it were a lifeboat. Somehow they think that if life is so incredibly unlikely in our universe, multiplying by an infinite number of universes will solve their problem.

I am reminded of the man who said he started a company selling widgets at a loss, but he’s planning to make up for it in volume.

With all due respect, the concept of infinity has caused more than one person to go insane. The paradoxes multiply without any need to invoke metaphysics or multi-verses. But if we take a very sane mathematical approach, we can handle small amounts of infinity the way mathematicians since Archimedes have handled it, by taking the limits as numbers approach infinity. So let’s see if Stephen Hawking is right, that multiverses solve the Darwinian dilemma.

Let’s start with a textbook example:

Read More …

I decided to give up studying medicine in NZ, when I saw they were bandying infinity around like so much confetti. Gnuff's gnuff! Axel
Reminds me of mung's RPS sat nav system - for locating the mind, in response, I believe, to some earnest but daft question. Axel
@ your #6, homerjt1, 'The multiverse theory is the Atheist Concession Speech. I love it when they have to resort to it.' Absolutely brilliant, homerjt1! Partly because absolutely true, and partly because hilariously elliptical thinking. Another of our number with a wonderful corkscrew mind, to banjax the enemy! Axel
Um, my point about the Easter bunny was that it does not exist. It is Nothing, not infinity. There are no hierarchies of nothing. There are no quantum fluctuations in the Easter bunny. Ever. While in mathematics comparing infinities, indeterminates as in L'Hopital's rule, and the theorums in non-Euclidian geometry are legitimate, "real" non-physical universes are sorta like the concept of kosher ham. Or, ahem, the place in the New Testament where Paul mentions the seven heavens. [smirk] Querius
#1 Granville, I'm honored to have a *real* mathematician read a physicist's attempt to do statistics! You are in good company if you think infinity is merely a mathematicians conceit. Georg Cantor didn't think so, however, and I'm inclined to believe him. On the one side, he had all the Ernst Mach deniers, and on the other side the Platonist idealists. The deniers said nothing that couldn't be constructed was real, and the idealists reserved infinity for God alone. But what Cantor had found was a hierarchy of infinities, I suppose, like St Paul's 7 heavens. And this heirarchy had important properties, that allowed him to make progress on mundane, and very real, problems in mathematics. His point was that heaven does touch earth, which the deniers hate; and that earth touches heaven, which the idealists hate. I like to think of Cantor as the Martin Luther of Mathematics. The point of many of these calculations, is that they suspend the laws of physics. What is logical in one universe, ought to be logical in another, or otherwise why are we logically trying to make something probable by invoking so many universes? Wouldn't one illogical universe do the trick? Just as Cantor said about hierarchies of infinity, there is one infinity associated our type of "physical" universe, an even bigger infinity associated with unphysical universes, yet a bigger one associated with illogical universes, and so on. Conflating these universes to make some sort of point about OOL shows that nothing has been learned from Cantor. #13 Collin It is not that a finite number of universes are an easier sell than an infinite number of universes, but that the concept of infinity is being twisted into unrecognizable shapes. It is being abused. Heaven's infinity is there, and we can access it, and it does make a difference on Earth. But let us not debase it with incoherent babble of Easter bunnies or atheist nirvanas. Robert Sheldon
But that's just my point, William. Your empty post is not Nothing! You caused a field to come into existence where there was none before, a field that can host characters in a Sequence (roughly equivalent to our concept of Time) that obey The Laws of ASCII and HTML. And the existence of a multiverse of previous comments depends entirely on a higher order of existence. Thus, ultimately, you must face either an infinite regression of existence, or an uncaused Cause who tells us that in the beginning was the Word . . . Querius
William J Murray
What I don't understand is the tacit assumption made by people who are regarded as highly intelligent scientists that before there was a universe, time and space existed. But without time and space, chance and quantum fluctuations do not exist. So, they are not starting with Nothing. To put it a different way, let's consider something that we know doesn't exist. Let's consider the Easter bunny. Would, for example, Stephen Hawking suggest that given enough time in a different universe, the Easter bunny could be the source of a completely new universe? Querius
It's like saying, 'I know how a thermos flask (an old friend of mine in physics...) works: you pour hot stuff in it.' Axel
You got that right. Just observed patterns of behaviour, not indicating their origin or the origin of their subjects in any way, shape or form. Axel
And the laws of nature ain't nuttin'! OldArmy94
Hawking would presumably nail it as, 'the laws of nature'. Axel
Ah, theoretical physics: the field of science where it's difficult to discern between what's profoundly scholarly and what's just plain silly. I remember reading of a quantum model of the universe, similar to that of Edward Tryon, which states that there is a "mother" universe (which is made up of a quantum vacuum where fluctuations occur) and these fluctuations become "baby" universes (ours is one). Our "baby" universe is expanding, but the "mother" universe is infinite and eternal. However, this model does not explain where the quantum vacuum comes from. A quantum vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy. What accounts for its beginning? Barb
I think that it is easy to argue against infinite multiverses but harder to argue against many multiverses. Do they claim infinite multiverses or just a whole bunch? If there are infinite multiverses, then there must be a planet just like our somewhere where the Christian god is true. And Santa Clause. Collin
Design as a very concept does not and cannot exist, if we can blind ourselves to the grandest, most sublime and most complex designs imaginable. And call them the product of happy accidents that somehow seem to be infinitely purposeful and, indeed, resourceful. WAKE UP atheist noggin-heads! Go an have a good cry. Then get over it. You LOSE! Axel
If there was/is no design in the fashioning of the universe, there is no design, period. In comparison with the design manifested throughout the universe, man's efforts at design are so puny, that to impute the design of the Hadron Collider to a group of creatures closer to catatonia than cretinism, would be no exaggeration. Axel
Does the Bible point to a Tripleverse? Christ was, and is, and is to come. Why not more? littlejohn
My favorite dialog to have with a true believer in the multiverse - for sake of discussion let's call the true believer Smith - I will be Jones Smith: "I believe in an infinite amount of universes so that the chances of OOL are not just possibility, but that it has to eventually happen in at least one" Jones: "So since you believe in the multi-verse any event we describe must occur eventually in at least one of the infinite amount of universes." "So in on of those universes, Jones comes up to Smith and asks him, 'Would you like to accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?' and Smith answers, 'Yes'. Why is this not that universe? JDH
Granville in #1
I think it’s funny when people appeal to an infinite number of universes to explain OOL but still argue that Darwinism explains evolution from that. Why do you need Darwinism if you can explain anything by pure chance??
Indeed! One of the recurring themes among the anti-ID crowd is the notion of special creation. The thinking goes something like if evolution didn't the diversity of life into existence, then God must have specially created each species. Now, if chance probabilities are at infinity, then why couldn't chance alone account for, say, a bacterial flagellum appearing all at once from one generation to the next, fortuitously? Intuitively, Darwinists know that such a system that exhibits such a high level of CSI must be explained in a step-by-step fashion. But, as Granville notes, why is that necessary if probabilistic resources are infinite that the assembly could just fortuitously come to be? If saying "God did it" is throwing in the towel on science, so is saying "chance did it"! This is a no win for atheists!! DonaldM
Actually the multiverse would just give them more things that need to be explained that they cannot explain. Seriously, what's the thinking? "Well we cannot explain this universe so we will conjure up a multiverse that we also cannot explain." Joe
The multiverse theory is the Atheist Concession Speech. I love it when they have to resort to it. homerj1
Also of note: Dr. Sewell stated at post #1
I think infinity is a concept that exists only in mathematics, I don’t believe an infinite amount of anything could actually exist.
Well to try to flesh that concept out a bit,,, with God all things are possible (even an infinity of 'things'), but without God infinite regress does rear its ugly head time and again:
Can We Have a 'Now' or a 'Today' if Time is Actually Infinite? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg0pdUvQdi4 William Lane Craig - Hilbert's Hotel - The Absurdity Of An Infinite Regress Of 'Things' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994011/ Not Understanding Nothing – A review of A Universe from Nothing – Edward Feser - June 2012 Excerpt: A critic might reasonably question the arguments for a divine first cause of the cosmos. But to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place. So when physicist Lawrence Krauss begins his new book by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well. ,,, ,,, But Krauss simply can’t see the “difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.” The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing "The ‘First Mover’ is necessary for change occurring at each moment." Michael Egnor – Aquinas’ First Way http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/09/jerry_coyne_and_aquinas_first.html Aquinas' Third way - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V030hvnX5a4
And indeed the math of space-time itself has shown that there is not an infinite regress of the universe,,:
"Every solution to the equations of general relativity guarantees the existence of a singular boundary for space and time in the past." (Hawking, Penrose, Ellis) - 1970 Big Bang Theory - An Overview of the main evidence Excerpt: Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548. http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
Apparently Hawking did not like that answer because it necessitated God
"A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God," - Stephen Hawking, 2012
Yet despite Hawking's philosophical druthers, infinite regress was further refined by Vilenkin to show:
“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” - Cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston - paper delivered at Stephen Hawking's 70th birthday party (Characterized as 'Worst Birthday Present Ever') https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/ Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning - April 2012 Excerpt: Cosmologists use the mathematical properties of eternity to show that although universe may last forever, it must have had a beginning.,,, They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. "Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past," they say. They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. "A simple emergent universe model...cannot escape quantum collapse," they say. The conclusion is inescapable. "None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal," say Mithani and Vilenkin. Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place). http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27793/
Thus, as I think Dr. Sewell holds, an actual infinite must be based on a transcendent reality not a material one. bornagain77
And it turns out that out of a 'infinite variety of mathematical descriptions' we have 'only' two basic equations that describe this entire universe; General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Two equations that, like two jealous siblings, refuse to play nicely with each other. But, perhaps not so surprisingly, it is found that the main reason the two eqautions will not play nicely with each other is an 'infinity problem' that prevents the two equations from being reconciled into a 'theory of everything':
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video – with notes as to plausible reconciliation that is missed by materialists http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6597379/ THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today's physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. "The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common - and what they clash over - is zero.",, "The infinite zero of a black hole -- mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely -- punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.",, "Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge. http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/edit01_02/edit6_mar02.htm
Of related interest Dr. Dembski states
The End Of Christianity - Finding a Good God in an Evil World - Pg.31 William Dembski PhD. Mathematics/Theology Excerpt: "In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2009.05.end_of_xty.pdf
Of important note: I hold 'growing large without measure' to be a lesser quality infinity than a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The reason why I hold it to be a 'lesser quality infinity' is somewhat stated at the 4:30 minute mark of the following video:
Can A "Beginning-less Universe" Exist? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8YN0fwo5J4
As well, the reason why 'growing large without measure' would be a lesser quality infinity than 'a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero' can be partially be grasped in this following video which I listed earlier:
Georg Cantor – The Mathematics Of Infinity – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4572335
i.e. if the 'absolute transcendent infinity' of God were to be reached from a finite material system, then that 'reach to the absolute transcendent infinity' of God would have to look very much like what almighty God accomplished in Christ: Quote of note:
The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.” – Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed) http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians
Verses, song, and video:
Philippians 2: 5-11 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross. Citizen Way - Should've Been Me - Acoustic Performance - Music Videos http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=0JB90FNU The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462
Dr. Sheldon as to this comment of yours:
"the concept of infinity has caused more than one person to go insane. The paradoxes multiply without any need to invoke metaphysics or multi-verses."
This following video 'Dangerous Knowledge' which is on 'the mathematics of infinity' gets its name from that tendency of infinity to drive people over the brink,,,
BBC-Dangerous Knowledge - Part 1 https://vimeo.com/30482156 Part 2 https://vimeo.com/30641992
The preceding video looked at the lives of Georg Cantor, Ludwig Boltzmann, Kurt Gödel & Alan Turing Georg Cantor's part in getting the infinity ball rolling is noted here:
Georg Cantor - The Mathematics Of Infinity - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4572335
Kurt Godel's part in bringing the incompleteness theorem to fruition, from 'the mathematics of infinity', can be picked up here
Kurt Gödel - Incompleteness Theorem - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821
Alan Turing's part in helping 'put meat on the bones' of Godel's incompleteness theorem is picked up here:
Alan Turing and Kurt Godel - Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition - video (notes in video description) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/ "I don't see any reason why we should have less confidence in this kind of perception, i.e., in mathematical intuition, than in sense perception, which induces us to build up physical theories and to expect that future sense perceptions will agree with them and, moreover, to believe that a question not decidable now has meaning and may be decided in the future" Kurt Godel - What Is Cantor's Contiuum Problem? - pg. 483
Chaitin states one of the implications of incompleteness here:
The Limits Of Reason - Gregory Chaitin - 2006 Excerpt: an infinite number of true mathematical theorems exist that cannot be proved from any finite system of axioms.,,, http://www.umcs.maine.edu/~chaitin/sciamer3.pdf
Also of note from Chaitin's work:
Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test - Douglas S. Robertson Excerpt: Chaitin’s Algorithmic Information Theory shows that information is conserved under formal mathematical operations and, equivalently, under computer operations. This conservation law puts a new perspective on many familiar problems related to artificial intelligence. For example, the famous “Turing test” for artificial intelligence could be defeated by simply asking for a new axiom in mathematics. Human mathematicians are able to create axioms, but a computer program cannot do this without violating information conservation. Creating new axioms and free will are shown to be different aspects of the same phenomena: the creation of new information. http://cires.colorado.edu/~doug/philosophy/info8.pdf
In perhaps the most precise way I've ever seen the problem stated, Dr. Gordon clearly states the implications of all this here:
BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010 Excerpt: Rather, the transcendent reality on which our universe depends must be something that can exhibit agency – a mind that can choose among the infinite variety of mathematical descriptions and bring into existence a reality that corresponds to a consistent subset of them. This is what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe.” Anything else invokes random miracles as an explanatory principle and spells the end of scientific rationality.,,, Universes do not “spontaneously create” on the basis of abstract mathematical descriptions, nor does the fantasy of a limitless multiverse trump the explanatory power of transcendent intelligent design. What Mr. Hawking’s contrary assertions show is that mathematical savants can sometimes be metaphysical simpletons. Caveat emptor. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/1/hawking-irrational-arguments/
The multiverse, what a brilliant idea conjured in the minds of men! My father in law told me the other day that the local priest gave a lecture on billions of universe's. I then asked "Really? Did he see them?" The answer was of course no but that they exist is nonetheless true. I want to take a stab at this, it may not be from a scientific point of view but the reasoning is good enough for me. If God is true and Christ is true then there can only be one universe and there can only be life on one planet in that universe. A God that became a man to go and die for the sins in many or billions of universes and on billions of planets inside one universe is illogical it makes the resurrection a natural event because it just happens everywhere. 1 God 1 Universe 1 planet, a 1 time event! Andre
Robert, I think infinity is a concept that exists only in mathematics, I don't believe an infinite amount of anything could actually exist. (Of course I could be wrong!) I think it's funny when people appeal to an infinite number of universes to explain OOL but still argue that Darwinism explains evolution from that. Why do you need Darwinism if you can explain anything by pure chance?? Granville Sewell

Leave a Reply