Intelligent Design Multiverse Philosophy Science

The Unspoken Terror of Scientism

Spread the love

George Ellis recently spoke out again about the problems of thinking about multiverses in a scientific setting. Problems like their inability to be directly observed even in principle, the weakness of any hope even of indirect evidence, their engaging in what amounts to philosophy and metaphysics under the banner of science (oh, the irony), and so on.

Now, there’s one popular angle to approach the multiverse debate from – namely, the idea that the multiverse is being grasped for to avoid admitting even the possibility of a designer. Valid, I think, though a little more complicated than one would normally think, since multiverse speculation also includes speculation that there are numerous universes that are themselves creations (simulations and otherwise.) So while some theists argue that a multiverse doesn’t disprove a designer (true), there’s also the angle that a multiverse can actually be part of an ID theory.

But I want to put even the design v no-design idea aside. There is, I think, an underappreciated aspect of the multiverse debate that doesn’t get enough attention. The fear isn’t just that certain features of our universe require an explanation, and that explanation may be ‘design’.

It’s that there may be limits to science, and beyond those limits are answers to some tremendously important questions. Maybe the most important questions.

That’s not a very dramatic way of putting the situation, I know. There’s a certain amount of excitement that comes from viewing multiverse proponents as motivated by atheism in some way – and there’s also some truth to that, I’m sure. The Discover article itself touched on that, and you certainly see that page in the combox warrior playbook.

Putting the question that way – “God or multiverse, or maybe both! Which will science show us to be the explanation?” – is a little misleading. It sneaks in the assumption that these are conclusions that can be reached by science, and thus makes what threatens to be far more mundane scientific work – and the scientist working on it – look very important. Most people, especially people who typically rely on public funding, would much rather be “the guy shedding light on the existence or non-existence of God and our purpose in the universe” than “the guy who’s trying to figure out why Nebula 415a.21-B looks kind of like a baboon’s ass.”

But if George Ellis and others are right, that assumption is wrong: Whether or not a multiverse exists, science is incapable of showing this, and speculation about the topic is not scientific. Worse, such speculation may be thoughtful, even persuasive – but it’s going to be philosophy and metaphysics rather than science. Frankly, given the choice between being viewed as a philosopher or studying Nebula 415a.21-B, I think many scientists would go for the Nebula.

Since neither option is appealing, a third option is being pursued by some: Bluff. Engage in philosophy and metaphysics, but firmly insist that it’s science after all. Insist that if such speculation falls outside the scope of science, then the definition of science must be changed to allow for making inferences about that which cannot be directly observed, but which can explain some of what we can observe. Sharper ID proponents’ eyes should light up at what I just said.

But in the end, I find myself siding with George Ellis – and I think Ellis’ observation is what motivates more of the worry on the part of many multiverse proponents. It’s not just the possibility and inference of a designer that’s worrying, but the realization that not only does science have limits, but that one of those limits has already been reached.

18 Replies to “The Unspoken Terror of Scientism

  1. 1
    Joseph says:

    Excuse me- Just because something is outside the realm of science doesn’t make it uninteresting nor unimportant nor unanswerable.

    Meaning science is not the end of inquiry.

    And the worst thing any scientist can do is limit himself to the inside of the box.

    OK that’s it. Thanks.

  2. 2
    nullasalus says:

    Excuse me- Just because something is outside the realm of science doesn’t make it uninteresting nor unimportant nor unanswerable.

    Meaning science is not the end of inquiry.

    I agree entirely. But some people act as if science *is* the end of inquiry – and they’re not doing a good job of coping with the very real possibility that science has limits.

    I didn’t mean to give the impression that ‘if something can’t be settled by science it’s uninterested or unimportant or unanswerable’. Far from it.

  3. 3
    Joseph says:

    So you hate science and you think science is the worst thing on this planet.

    So there.



    (I still crack me up- it’s just been two of those daze)

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    That we can even know this universe has limits, and can even see the beginning of the universe (Cosmic Background radiation) from our privileged position, which is in itself of fine tuned ‘coincidence’, is another fact that argues forcefully that this universe was designed we us in mind, Indeed it was such a belief in a Creator who made a ‘comprehensible’ universe, that was the primary motivation for discovery of the Christian founders of modern science. Thus atheists who do not like the overwhelming implications for design not only must explain the fine tuning of the universe for carbon based life, but they also must explain the why this universe ‘suspiciously’ seems set up for us to discover and understand!

    notes;

    The Known Universe – Dec. 2009 – a very cool video (please note the centrality of the earth in the universe)
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4240304/

    Privileged Planet – Observability Correlation – Gonzalez and Richards – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5424431

    The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole.
    – Jay Richards

    Dr. Ross points out that the extremely long amount of time it took to prepare a suitable place for humans to exist in this universe, for the relatively short period of time that we can exist on this planet, is actually a point of evidence that argues strongly for Theism:

    Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity By Hugh Ross
    Excerpt: Brandon Carter, the British mathematician who coined the term “anthropic principle” (1974), noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years “preparing” for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survive no more than 10 million years (optimistically).,, Carter and (later) astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the inequality exists for virtually any conceivable intelligent species under any conceivable life-support conditions. Roughly 15 billion years represents a minimum preparation time for advanced life: 11 billion toward formation of a stable planetary system, one with the right chemical and physical conditions for primitive life, and four billion more years toward preparation of a planet within that system, one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life. Even this long time and convergence of “just right” conditions reflect miraculous efficiency.
    Moreover the physical and biological conditions necessary to support an intelligent civilized species do not last indefinitely. They are subject to continuous change: the Sun continues to brighten, Earth’s rotation period lengthens, Earth’s plate tectonic activity declines, and Earth’s atmospheric composition varies. In just 10 million years or less, Earth will lose its ability to sustain human life. In fact, this estimate of the human habitability time window may be grossly optimistic. In all likelihood, a nearby supernova eruption, a climatic perturbation, a social or environmental upheaval, or the genetic accumulation of negative mutations will doom the species to extinction sometime sooner than twenty thousand years from now.
    http://christiangodblog.blogsp.....chive.html

    We Exist At The Right Time In Cosmic History – Hugh Ross – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5708578/

    The Elements: Forged in Stars – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003861

    Michael Denton – We Are Stardust – Uncanny Balance Of The Elements – Fred Hoyle Atheist to Deist/Theist – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4003877

    One scientist is far more pessimistic about the ‘natural’ future lifespan of the human race than 20,000 years:

    Humans will be extinct in 100 years says eminent scientist – June 2010
    http://www.physorg.com/news196489543.html

    moreover appealing to a multiverse renders science itself ‘absurd’;

    BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010
    Excerpt: The physical universe is causally incomplete and therefore neither self-originating nor self-sustaining. The world of space, time, matter and energy is dependent on a reality that transcends space, time, matter and energy. This transcendent reality cannot merely be a Platonic realm of mathematical descriptions, for such things are causally inert abstract entities that do not affect the material world. Neither is it the case that “nothing” is unstable, as Mr. Hawking and others maintain. Absolute nothing cannot have mathematical relationships predicated on it, not even quantum gravitational ones. 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.,,, the evidence for string theory and its extension, M-theory, is nonexistent; and the idea that conjoining them demonstrates that we live in a multiverse of bubble universes with different laws and constants is a mathematical fantasy. What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale.
    For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....arguments/

    etc.. etc.. etc..

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    for further references to back up Hugh Ross’s extraordinary claims here,,,,

    We Exist At The Right Time In Cosmic History – Hugh Ross – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5708578/

    ,,,see this and index of same;

    Why the universe is the way it is
    http://books.google.com/books?.....38;f=false

  6. 6
    Bantay says:

    Nullasalus, I read the article in its entirety, as well as your opening post.

    From the outset, it appears to me that the author knows the natural world can reasonably be interpreted through a design perspective. It is a difficult position for the materialist/atheist/naturalist.

    On one hand our recent, so-called “new atheists” supposedly stand for a purely observable, testable, empirical science. But since that science is looking pretty friendly to the design folks, might as well suck it up, and try to redefine science to include only such presently unscientific hypotheses as a multiverse….and this is simply goal post moving and we ought to do everything in our power to prevent it.

    The frustration many atheist scientists have with the current trend of an increasingly design framework is that they must face the fact that they are willing to, have been and many of them are currently engaged in deep-seated, personal and intellectual hypocrisy.

    This may explain the highly emotionally charged and generally fallacious responses we sometimes see from the atheist camp. In fact, they would rather place a hope in future, unobserved, unknown discoveries with a faith that is greater than what is required for Theism, than to acquiesce towards design.

    I believe it is a psychology of denial that atheists are finding themselves trapped in. As long as there is a motivation to deny design, whether it is the multiverse or some other hypothesis, as long as it is naturalistic (and no matter how ridiculous), they will gravitate toward defending it with nothing less than religious fervor.

    For some who find the implications of a design framework for science unappealing, it gets worse….for them, hopefully not for us. I have noticed an increasing trend, that when a faced with the evidence that shows a stronger case for global (cosmological) design than for purely unguided, natural processes, they fall even deeper in despair, and into absolute, utter head-in-the-sand ignorance, judging from comments like “we will never know” and “science will never prove it”

    We see this in Linde’s statement from pg. 3 of the article

    “Nothing else fits the data,” he tells me. “We don’t have any alternative explanation for the dark energy; we don’t have any alternative explanation for the smallness of the mass of the electron; we don’t have any alternative explanation for many properties of particles.”

    What he means is, he doesn’t have any other “naturalistic” explanation.

    Interestingly, when pressed to comment on the possibility of God and design, he appears open to the possibility of some greater, universal Mind or cosmic consciousness….evidently, just not the Judeo-Christian one.

  7. 7
    nullasalus says:

    Bantay,

    Interestingly, when pressed to comment on the possibility of God and design, he appears open to the possibility of some greater, universal Mind or cosmic consciousness….evidently, just not the Judeo-Christian one.

    I don’t think it’s just Linde, though I’ve seen him suggest that. (I think he also suggests that consciousness may be fundamental to the universe.) I sometimes wonder how many self-described atheists are really atheists, as opposed to pan(en)theists, deists, and otherwise.

  8. 8
    Neil Rickert says:

    There’s a certain amount of excitement that comes from viewing multiverse proponents as motivated by atheism in some way – and there’s also some truth to that, I’m sure.

    As far as I know, the multiverse proponents are motivated by its mathematical elegance. I doubt that atheism has much to do with it.

  9. 9
    nullasalus says:

    As far as I know, the multiverse proponents are motivated by its mathematical elegance. I doubt that atheism has much to do with it.

    You know incorrectly. “Multiverse proponents” covers everyone, from physicists to atheists who offer it up as an alternative to design (even though it isn’t even that in the end.)

    And its hard to speak of “its mathematical elegance” when there’s more than one multiverse concept anyway. Greene’s latest book lists at least nine.

  10. 10
    Bantay says:

    Hawking probably thinks M-theory is elegant too….but then anything could be claimed to be elegant when imaginary numbers are used.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    I find it interesting that string and m theory proponents find no problem in postulating multiple ‘higher’ dimensions, that instead of incorporating our ‘lower’ dimension into its higher dimensionality, instead have the extra higher dimensions incorporated into our lower dimension (to quote, the 6 or 7 extra dimensions are so small as to be undetectable by present day experiments.) It simply does not make sense! Yet having our lower dimension fold into a higher dimension does make sense, and in fact shown to be true. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel towards the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many NDEs:

    Traveling At The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/

    Moreover, unlike the undetectable higher dimensions of string and m theory, this ‘higher/highest dimensionality’ I’m referring to can be fleshed out;

    hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, but, and this is a big but; this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. In information teleportation though the ‘time not passing’, eternal, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but also in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus ‘pure transcendent information’ is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned).

    “An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality”
    Akiane – Child Prodigy – Artwork homepage – http://www.artakiane.com/ – Music video – http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4204586

    Logic also dictates ‘a decision’ must have been made, by the ‘transcendent, eternal, infinite information’ from the primary timeless (eternal) reality ‘It’ inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the necessity for a ‘first mover’ to explain quantum wave collapse.

    The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914

    Moreover, the unification that they are trying to achieve between General relativity and Quantum Mechanics with string and m theory, actually does have a much more parsimonious solution within the Christian framework;

    The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:

    THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY
    Excerpt: The biggest challenge to todays physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics.,,, What the two theories have in common — and what they clash over — is zero.
    http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/e....._mar02.htm

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
    William Dembski PhD. Mathematics
    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.....of_xty.pdf

    Moreover there actually is physical evidence that lends strong support to the position that the ‘Zero/Infinity conflict’, we find between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, was successfully dealt with by Christ:

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355

    Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age – Pictures, Articles and Videos
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg

    Turin Shroud 3-D Hologram – Face And Body – Dr. Petrus Soons – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5889891/

    A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler
    Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically.
    http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847

    “Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature.”
    St. Augustine

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    I find it interesting that string and m theory proponents find no problem in postulating multiple ‘higher’ dimensions, that instead of incorporating our ‘lower’ dimension into its higher dimensionality, instead have the extra higher dimensions incorporated into our lower dimension (to quote, the 6 or 7 extra dimensions are so small as to be undetectable by present day experiments.) It simply does not make sense! Yet having our lower dimension fold into a higher dimension does make sense, and in fact shown to be true. Please compare the similarity of the optical effect, noted at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape around the direction of travel towards the speed of light, with the ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ reported in very many NDEs:

    Traveling At The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/

    Moreover, unlike the undetectable higher dimensions of string and m theory, this ‘higher/highest dimensionality’ I’m referring to can be fleshed out;

    hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, but, and this is a big but; this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. In information teleportation though the ‘time not passing’, eternal, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but also in our temporal framework. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus ‘pure transcendent information’ is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned).

    “An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality”
    Akiane – Child Prodigy – Artwork homepage – Music video – http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4204586

    Logic also dictates ‘a decision’ must have been made, by the ‘transcendent, eternal, infinite information’ from the primary timeless (eternal) reality ‘It’ inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive by yet another line of evidence besides the necessity for a ‘first mover’ to explain quantum wave collapse.

    The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being – William Lane Craig – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914

    Moreover, the unification that they are trying to achieve between General relativity and Quantum Mechanics with string and m theory, actually does have a much more parsimonious solution within the Christian framework;

    The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:

    THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY
    Excerpt: The biggest challenge to todays physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics.,,, What the two theories have in common — and what they clash over — is zero.
    http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/e....._mar02.htm

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
    William Dembski PhD. Mathematics
    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.....of_xty.pdf

    Moreover there actually is physical evidence that lends strong support to the position that the ‘Zero/Infinity conflict’, we find between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, was successfully dealt with by Christ:

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355

    Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age – Pictures, Articles and Videos
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg

    Turin Shroud 3-D Hologram – Face And Body – Dr. Petrus Soons – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5889891/

    A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler
    Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically.
    http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847

    “Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature.”
    St. Augustine

  13. 13
    john_a_designer says:

    The so called multiverse “theory” is a very speculative and very weak argument hiding behind a very superficial pretension of science.

    We are suppose to credit the theory with some scientific respectability because someday, in the far distant future, hopefully, maybe, we might somehow, if science becomes advanced enough and civilization lasts that long, discover evidence for the existence of other universes.

    It is also weak because it fails to explain the existence of not only our universe but any other universe.

    Furthermore, it does not really explain our universes fine tuning. One of it’s problems is that it commits what is sometimes called the gambler’s fallacy. Hugh Ross I think gives a very good illustration of this fallacy.

    He argues that “Anyone who appeals to infinite (or even just a very large number of) universes commits a form of the gambler’s fallacy.” For example, “a rational conclusion to draw from 10,000 consecutive coin flips yielding nothing but heads is that the coin has been purposed or designed to always produce a heads result.” Furthermore we are justified in reaching this conclusion even if we know there millions of other coins in the world.
    Ross goes on to argue that “In the case of the universe one can draw a stronger conclusion than one can for the coin. Whereas one knows that more than one coin exists, one does not know whether more than one universe exists.”

    At present we are dealing with one universe, a sample size of one. That’s all that can be explained at the present. Speculating about the existence of other universes is of no help explaining why this universe is the way it is.
    http://www.reasons.org/infinity-universes-0

    I suspect that most of the people who believe in the multiverse theory reject theism because they believe that it’s based on blind faith. How ironic.

  14. 14
    zeroseven says:

    Null @9:

    “You know incorrectly”.

    You sound very certain. How do you know what motivates multiverse proponents?

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: This is so cool;

    Scale Of The Universe
    http://primaxstudio.com/stuff/scale_of_universe/

    I do disagree with a few things said in the presentation, such as at the largest scale of the universe they state “we are ‘probably’ not at the center of the universe”, when the fact is that each and every one of us is ‘center’ of the universe as far as 4-D space-time of general relativity is concerned, not to mention the fact that quantum wave collapse of the entire universe is centered on each observer within the universe!

    notes;

    The Known Universe by AMNH – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

    In what I consider an absolutely fascinating discovery, 4-dimensional (4D) space-time was created in the Big Bang and continues to ‘expand equally in all places’:

    Where is the centre of the universe?:
    Excerpt: There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a “Big Bang” about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualized as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/.....entre.html

    Thus from a 3-dimensional (3D) perspective, any particular 3D spot in the universe is to be considered just as ‘center of the universe’ as any other particular spot in the universe is to be considered ‘center of the universe’. This centrality found for any 3D place in the universe is because the universe is a 4D expanding hypersphere, analogous in 3D to the surface of an expanding balloon. All points on the surface are moving away from each other, and every point is central, if that’s where you live.

    Every 3D Place Is Center In This Universe – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3991873/

    “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
    http://eugene-wigner.co.tv/

    Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries:

    Eugene Wigner
    Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.
    http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_.....io/wb1.htm

    This following experiment extended the double slit experiment to show that the ‘spooky actions’, for instantaneous quantum wave collapse, happen regardless of any considerations for time or distance i.e. The following experiment shows that quantum actions are ‘universal and instantaneous’:

    Wheeler’s Classic Delayed Choice Experiment:
    Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles “have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy,” so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory.
    http://www.bottomlayer.com/bot.....choice.htm

    Intelligent Design – The Anthropic Hypothesis
    http://lettherebelight-77.blog.....is_19.html

  16. 16
    zeroseven says:

    Also, its puzzling to me why the multiverse theory generates so much heat here. What has it got to do with ID and why are IDists as a rule scornful of it? Surely it is conceivable that the designer could have designed multiple universes that could only speculate about each other’s existence? I don’t see how it affects ID either way.

  17. 17
    nullasalus says:

    JAD,

    We are suppose to credit the theory with some scientific respectability because someday, in the far distant future, hopefully, maybe, we might somehow, if science becomes advanced enough and civilization lasts that long, discover evidence for the existence of other universes.

    I sometimes wonder if even that’s the argument. The impression I get is that positive evidence for these things is recognized as impossible in principle, but “it could be true”, and people think they have reason to believe it, so they want to believe it – but they don’t want to call this sort of thing what it’s always been called (philosophy, metaphysics) because that doesn’t have the authority (or perhaps funding) of science.

    In other words, there is the move that because we *can’t* hope to get direct observation or evidence of these things, that we should accept these ideas as science. Because hey, they could be true, and apparently the idea of science having limitations just flies over people’s heads.

  18. 18
    john_a_designer says:

    Using the same kind of logic why shouldn’t we make unicorns a subject of scientific study. After all there is nothing logically or biologically impossible about the actual existence of a unicorn. It’s just a cute little horse with a horn between it’s eyes. It’s entirely possible that unicorns really existed at one time. Who knows they still might exist in some isolated region of the world.

    I am not arguing that unicorns should be studied scientifically, if and only if, we happen to discover their fossilized remains. Rather, I think we should begin studying unicorns scientifically now simply because they could exist. At the very least their existence should be part of our scientific discourse.

    What is the difference between the argument I am making here and the arguments that are being made by the proponents of the so called multiverse theory?

    I want unicorns to have scientific respectability. Why? Well they are kind of cute and we need more cute things in the world. Cute things make people happier and when people are happy the world is a better place. If science said that they could have existed or maybe, like big foot, exist in some hidden ecological niche today just think how happy that would make people.

Leave a Reply