Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins

This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, and biodiversity

You are not connected. Please login or register

Intelligent Design, the best explanation of Origins » Astronomy & Cosmology and God » The Multiverse

The Multiverse

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 The Multiverse on Mon Nov 11, 2013 7:58 pm


The Multiverse -  reasons, why it's not a good explanation for the existence of our fine-tuned universe.

The task of a multiverse generator
The smallness of the cosmological constant is widely regarded as the single the greatest problem confronting current physics and cosmology. The cosmological constant acts as a repulsive force, causing space to expand and, when negative, acts as an attractive force, causing space to contract. To get our universe, this constant must be right amongst 10^123 possibilities. That means that the probability that our universe contains galaxies is akin to exactly 1 possibility in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 . Unlikely doesn’t even begin to describe these odds. There are “only” 10^81 atoms in the observable universe, after all. Thirty billion years contains only 10^18 seconds. By totaling those, we find that the maximum elementary particle events in 30 billion years could only be 10^143.

Now let's suppose there was a multiverse generator. He would have had to make up to 10^123 attempts to get one universe with the right expansion rate. He would have made 10^18 attempts after 30 billion years.
Once he had that right, to get a universe with atoms, he would have to make the following number of trials:
the right Ratio of Electrons: Protons 1:10^37
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force: Gravity 1:10^40
If a multiverse generator existed, he must have been VERY busy in the last trillion trillion trillion years to get out only our universe......
does that make sense?

The multiverse hypothesis is plagued by two problems: first, as Dr. Robin Collins, an acknowledged authority on fine-tuning, has argued, it merely shifts the fine-tuning problem up one level, as a multiverse capable of generating any life-supporting universes at all would still need to be fine-tuned; and second, as physicist Paul Davies has pointed out, even the multiverse hypothesis implies that a sizable proportion of universes (including perhaps our own) were intelligently designed. By default, then, Intelligent Design remains the best viable explanation for the origin of replication and translation, and hence of life on Earth. Why? Because it’s the only explanation that posits something already known to be capable of generating life, in order to account for the emergence of life on Earth. That “something” is intelligence.

If every possible universe exists, then, according to philosopher Alvin Plantinga, there must be a universe in which God exists – since his existence is logically possible – even though highly improbable in the view of the New Atheists. It then follows that, since God is omnipotent, he must exist in every universe and hence there is only one universe, this universe, of which he is the Creator and Upholder. The concept of many worlds is clearly fraught with logical, and not only scientific, difficulties. It can also present moral difficulties. If every logically possible universe exists, then presumably there is one in which I exist (or a copy of me?) and of which I am a murder – or worse. The concept seems therefore also to lead to moral absurdity.

Multiverse is a rather useless scientific theory, as it makes no predictions and is not testable or falsifiable. As a theological theory, it assumes a large number of universes to nearly an infinite amount. While it deals with the organized complexity of this universe in a satisfactory manner (i.e. having infinite universes means even the small probability events like organized complexity must occur), it also creates a seeming organized and complex omniverse that itself needs justification for its complexity. So it does not answer the question, it pushes the question to the location of the unknowable.

1.  Dawkins & many scientists allude to the multiverse as the best explanation for our universe. if there is an infinite number of universes, then absolutely everything is not only possible… It’s actually happened! This means the Spaghetti monster MUST exist in one of the 10 to the 500 power multiverses. It means that somewhere, in some dimension, there is a universe where the Chicago Cubs won the World Series last year. There’s a universe where Jimmy Hoffa doesn’t get cement shoes; instead, he marries Joan Rivers and becomes President of the United States. There’s even a universe where Elvis kicks his drug habit and still resides at Graceland and sings at concerts. Imagine the possibilities! I might sound like I’m joking, but actually, I’m dead serious. Furthermore, this implies Zeus, Thor, and 1000s of other gods ALSO exist in these worlds. They ALL exist. We must now bow in humble respect to ALL of them. AMEN!

2.Suppose a dinosaur skeptic claimed that she could explain the bones by postulating a "dinosaur-bone-producing-field" that simply materialized the bones out of thin air. Moreover, suppose further that, to avoid objections such as that there are no known physical laws that would allow for such a mechanism, the dinosaur skeptic simply postulated that we have not yet discovered these laws or detected these fields. Surely, none of us would let this skeptical hypothesis deter us from inferring to the existence of dinosaurs. Why? Because although no one has directly observed dinosaurs, we do have experience of other animals leaving behind fossilized remains, and thus the dinosaur explanation is a natural extrapolation from our common experience. In contrast, to explain the dinosaur bones, the dinosaur skeptic has invented a set of physical laws and a set of mechanisms that are not a natural extrapolation from anything we know or experience.

In the case of the fine-tuning, we already know that minds often produce fine-tuned devices, such as Swiss watches. Postulating God--a supermind--as the explanation of the fine-tuning, therefore, is a natural extrapolation from of what we already observe minds to do. In contrast, it is difficult to see how the atheistic many-universes hypothesis could be considered a natural extrapolation from what we observe. Moreover, unlike the atheistic many-universes hypothesis, we have some experiential evidence for the existence of God, namely religious experience. Thus, by the above principle, we should prefer the theistic explanation of the fine-tuning over the atheistic many-universes explanation, everything else being equal.

3. the "many-universes generator" seems like it would need to be designed. For instance, in all current worked-out proposals for what this "universe generator" could be--such as the oscillating big bang and the vacuum fluctuation models explained above--the "generator" itself is governed by a complex set of physical laws that allow it to produce the universes. It stands to reason, therefore, that if these laws were slightly different the generator probably would not be able to produce any universes that could sustain life. After all, even my bread machine has to be made just right in order to work properly, and it only produces loaves of bread, not universes! Or consider a device as simple as a mousetrap: it requires that all the parts, such as the spring and hammer, be arranged just right in order to function. It is doubtful, therefore, whether the atheistic many-universe theory can entirely eliminate the problem of design the atheist faces; rather, at least to some extent, it seems simply to move the problem of design up one level.

4. the universe generator must not only select the parameters of physics at random but must actually randomly create or select the very laws of physics themselves. This makes this hypothesis seem even more far-fetched since it is difficult to see what possible physical mechanism could select or create laws.

The reason the "many-universes generator" must randomly select the laws of physics is that, just as the right values for the parameters of physics are needed for life to occur, the right set of laws is also needed. If, for instance, certain laws of physics were missing, life would be impossible. For example, without the law of inertia, which guarantees that particles do not shoot off at high speeds, life would probably not be possible (Leslie, Universes, p. 59). Another example is the law of gravity: if masses did not attract each other, there would be no planets or stars, and once again it seems that life would be impossible. Yet another example is the Pauli Exclusion Principle, the principle of quantum mechanics that says that no two fermions--such as electrons or protons--can share the same quantum state. As prominent Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson points out [Disturbing the Universe, p. 251], without this principle all electrons would collapse into the nucleus and thus atoms would be impossible.

5. it cannot explain other features of the universe that seem to exhibit apparent design, whereas theism can. For example, many physicists, such as Albert Einstein, have observed that the basic laws of physics exhibit an extraordinary degree of beauty, elegance, harmony, and ingenuity. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg, for instance, devotes a whole chapter of his book Dreams of a Final Theory (Chapter 6, "Beautiful Theories") explaining how the criteria of beauty and elegance are commonly used to guide physicists in formulating the right laws. Indeed, one of the most prominent theoretical physicists of this century, Paul Dirac, went so far as to claim that "it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment" (1963, p. ??).

Now such beauty, elegance, and ingenuity make sense if the universe was designed by God. Under the atheistic many-universes hypothesis, however, there is no reason to expect the fundamental laws to be elegant or beautiful. As theoretical physicist Paul Davies writes, "If nature is so 'clever' as to exploit mechanisms that amaze us with their ingenuity, is that not persuasive evidence for the existence of intelligent design behind the universe? If the world's finest minds can unravel only with difficulty the deeper workings of nature, how could it be supposed that those workings are merely a mindless accident, a product of blind chance?" (Superforce, pp. 235-36.)

6. neither the atheistic many-universes hypothesis (nor the atheistic single-universe hypothesis) can at present adequately account for the improbable initial arrangement of matter in the universe required by the second law of thermodynamics. To see this, note that according to the second law of thermodynamics, the entropy of the universe is constantly increasing. The standard way of understanding this entropy increase is to say that the universe is going from a state of order to disorder. We observe this entropy increase all the time around us: things, such as a child's bedroom, that start out highly organized tend to "decay" and become disorganized unless something or someone intervenes to stop it. To believe an infinite number of universes made life possible by random chance is to believe everything else I just said, too.

7.“If you take seriously the theory of all possible universes, including all possible variations,” Davies said, “at least some of them must have intelligent civilizations with enough computing power to simulate entire fake worlds. Simulated universes are much cheaper to make than the real thing, and so the number of fake universes would proliferate and vastly outnumber the real ones. And assuming we’re just typical observers, then we’re overwhelmingly likely to find ourselves in a fake universe, not a real one.” So far it’s the normal argument. Then Davies makes his move. He claims that because the theoretical existence of multiple universes is based on the laws of physics in our universe, if this universe is simulated, then its laws of physics are also simulated, which would mean that this universe’s physics is a fake. Therefore, Davies reasoned,“We cannot use the argument that the physics in our universe leads to multiple universes because it also leads to a fake universe with fake physics.” That undermines the whole argument that fundamental physics generates multiple universes because the reasoning collapses in circularity. Davies concluded, “While multiple universes seem almost inevitable given our understanding of the Big Bang, using them to explain all existence is a dangerous, slippery slope, leading to apparently absurd conclusions.”

8. The Multiverse should be shaved with Occam's razor. We don't need it to explain reality, it's only advanced to keep from having to turn to God. It's naturalistic so it's an arbitrary necessity at best. Arbitrary necessitates are logical impossibilities, contingent things jumped up to the level of necessity to answer a God argument. It's not we are going to disprove the unnecessary entity but we are going refrain from advancing it's existence as an assumption until such a time that real empirical evidence makes it necessary. Therefore, Multiverse should be taken out of the issues of God arguments.

a. The there are a virtually infinite number of universes coming into being or
b. That it was not mere randomness that leads to our universe forming this way (with the implication of design).

Both options are proposing a reality "outside our universe", i.e. each option involves a form of "transcendence".
Also, each option involves a reality not subject to the natural laws of this universe, i.e. each option involves a kind of "supernaturalism".
Also, each option involves a form of reality that we could not expect to be able to "reach" or "observe" from within our universe, i.e. each is subject to similar difficulties of "falsifiability".

The list could be continued. And the point is that these are the *very arguments* that are leveled against the existence of a creator, yet must be accepted in the case of a multiverse.

Last edited by Admin on Fri May 26, 2017 4:05 pm; edited 10 times in total

View user profile

2 The Multiverse Vs. God on Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:21 am


The Multiverse Vs. God 1

These days, the notion of a multiverse (multiple universes) is becoming very popular, and a full fledged alternative to believing in a Creator God. But as I’ll outline here, believing in a multiverse requires just as much faith as believing in God.

A Finely Tuned Universe:
The first thing we need to establish is that the universe is incredibly fine-tuned for life. Physicist Andrei Linde has said, “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.”[1] Max Tegmark, associate professor of physics at MIT states, “Our universe appears surprisingly fine-tuned for life in the sense that if you tweaked many of our constants of nature by just a tiny amount, life as we know it would be impossible.”[2] MIT physics professor Alan Lightman writes, “according to various calculations, if the values of some of the fundamental parameters of our universe were a little larger or a little smaller, life could not have arisen… The strengths of the basic forces and certain other fundamental parameters in our universe appear to be “fine-tuned” to allow the existence of life.”[3] According to physicist Roger Penrose our universe is finely tuned to 1 in 10 to the 123rdpower![4]
 This fine tuning is troubling for naturalists because it is an incredibly unlikely coincidence which is not characteristic of the randomness that naturalism is based on. Former JPL Team Lead Systes Administrator David Coppedge writes, “The universe appears finely tuned for our existence. To naturalists, this looks disturbingly unnatural.”[5] This of course leads one to suggest that our universe was predetermined and designed for us, ergo there is a god. Lightman explains, “the great question, of course, is why these fundamental parameters happen to lie within the range needed for life. Does the universe care about life? Intelligent design is one answer. Indeed, a fair number of theologians, philosophers, and even some scientists have used fine-tuning and the anthropic principle as evidence of the existence of God.”[6]
This conclusion is not unfamiliar in scientific circles. Francis Collins, a leading geneticist and director of the National Institutes of Health, said, “To get our universe, with all of its potential for complexities or any kind of potential for any kind of life-form, everything has to be precisely defined on this knife edge of improbability…. [Y]ou have to see the hands of a creator who set the parameters to be just so because the creator was interested in something a little more complicated than random particles.”[7] Physicist and cosmologist Paul Davies writes, “[There] is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all… It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe… The impression of design is overwhelming.”[8] Former MIT physicist and president of the Association of Women in Science Vera Kistiakowsky stated, “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.”[9]
So if the fine tuning of the universe is so recognizable and obvious, how could any scientists suggest there is no God? Stephen Hawking has said, “Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.”[10] Since science only provides data on the natural, and God is supernatural, most scientists assert that science cannot apply to God, and a natural explanation is needed for ALL things. And thus, the multiverse flies in to the resuce. As cosmologist Bernard Carr writes, “If there is only one universe, you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”[11]

The Multiverse:
The multiverse theory allows for the simultaneous existence of an infinite amount of additional universes outside of ours. Within these other parallel universes everything and anything is possible. And if anything is possible than atheists can dodge the problem of a finely tuned universe. But the multiverse cannot be properly described because we cannot observe it. It is impossible to know how far apart the universes are, the contents within them, are they like ours, or completely different? We’ll never know.[12]
Recently the multiverse theory has been gaining momentum because of applications with eternal inflation and string theory. Eternal inflation and string theory allows for the same fundamental principals from which we develop the laws of nature from can also lead to other self consistent universes.[13] The basis being that there are countless other possible scenarios for other universes, and we’re not limited to the narrow precision found in our own.
Eternal Inflation proposes that when the universe first exploded outward there was a particular brief (fraction of a second) period of rapid expansion. Immediately after this expansion the energy that caused it ignited into a super fire ball we call the “big bang.” In our cosmic neighborhood inflation ended billions of years ago, but it continues elsewhere randomly, causing new universes to expand and form at such rapid speeds we push each other apart making room for other inflation bubbles (universes) to form.[14] Throw in string theory which allows for countless possibilities for physical laws and principals and you have the multiverse!
This isn’t to say that all physicists agree on the multiverse. There is a large divide in the scientific community regarding this subject. One of the arguments for the multiverse is the simple premise that we’re here to even debate the subject. The fact that we exist and are here is testimony to our universe being perfect for life. It is not divine design, we just happen to be present because everything just happened to be randomly perfect in our universe out of countless possibilities in other universes. Alexander Vilenkin, professor of physics and director at the Instituteof Cosmology, writes, “…intelligent observers exist only in those rare bubbles in which, by pure chance, the constants happen to be just right for life to evolve. The rest of the multiverse remains barren, but no one is there to complain about that.”[15]
But this argument falls flat for various reasons: First, explaining our existence by simply stating “we’re here” is not an explanation at all. That is like taking a lethal dose of poison and surviving, but when someone asks “how did you survive the poison?” you respond, “well, I’m alive aren’t I?” As you can see this doesn’t answer the question because we still don’t know how you survived the lethal poison. Likewise, pointing out our existence does not answer how or why we are here. It is a non-answer. Second, there are many other problems that are over looked such as the Law of Biogenesis and the perfect conditions found on earth which defy all odds.

Problems with the Multiverse:
One problem with the multiverse is the philisophical problem of infinite regress, which applies to any reality. The problem being; what first caused the universe to be? What caused the multiverse to begin? One can’t dodge the issue by saying that the multiverse created our universe because the issue is quite easily pushed back one step: What started/caused the multiverse? Hawking writes, “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God.”[16] Vilenkin writes, “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”[17] Professor of Physics at Princeton University Paul Steinhardt and Cosmologist and Mathematician George Ellis agrees, “…even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained.”[18] Professor of Mathematics for the University of Oxford John Lennox writes, “It is rather ironical that in the sixteenth century some people resisted advances in science because they seemed to threaten belief in God; whereas in the twentieth century scientific ideas of a beginning have been resisted because they threatened to increase the plausibility of belief in God.”[19] So even if the multiverse is a correct hypothesis, it is still not a full fledged alternative to God.
Another problem with the multiverse is that, if correct, it tears apart the very fabric of philosophy and science, making the study of our universe through fundamental principals and causes futile since the multiverse allows for anything and everything to be possible outside of our universe.[20] The laws of physics for our universe are incredibly precise with hardly any minute allowance for variations. Such precision is irrelevant if other universes exist under different circumstances. Lightman explains, “As far as physicists are concerned, the fewer the fundamental principles and parameters, the better. The underlying hope and belief of this enterprise has always been that these basic principles are so restrictive that only one, self-consistent universe is possible, like a crossword puzzle with only one solution. That one universe would be, of course, the universe we live in… If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true.”[21]Therefore, considering the possibility of the multiverse changes everything. This poses a problem because it becomes an “anything goes” philosophy, leaving the door open to any possibilities that physicists can imagine… except of course the notion of a God… because that is just unscientific and ridiculous… right?
Most important, however, is that there is no empirical scientific proof of the multiverse![22] Ellis agrees that since the multiverse cannot be tested, even in principal, it is therefore unscientific.[23] Some physicists argue that can be tested in one of two ways: 1) If our inflation bubble collided with another bubble, their would be evident remnants of the contact which we could observe. But no such thing has been discovered nor is guaranteed because such a collision may have or will never occur. 2) Statistical predictions could be made by applying the theoretical model of the multiverse to predict the constants of nature in our universe, which would vary from universe to universe.[24] But such a strategy involves numerous assumptions, like considering our universe as typical among other universes in the multi-verse. This becomes circular reasoning since it relies on the multiverse being true in order to work, which there is no proof of.
Ellis writes, “The trouble is that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best… All the parallel universes lie outside our horizon and remain beyond our capacity to see, now or ever, no matter how technology evolves. In fact, they are too far away to have had any influence on our universe whatsoever. That is why none of the claims made by multiverse enthusiasts can be directly substantiated.”[25]
Lack of evidence is not a problem for pro-multiverse physicists because, to them, all it has to be is possible. But possible does not prove existence. It doesn’t matter if String Theory or Eternal Inflation allows for countless other possible universes, because that doesn’t mean there are other universes outside of ours. Just as a painter having hundreds of different paints in his studio makes it possible for him to mix and create thousands of different colors when painting on a canvas. It is possible for the painter to do so, but that doesn’t mean the painter has, is or ever will do so. In other words, it is naïve to assume anything that can happen, does happen. Additionally, string theory and eternal inflation theory have hardly any experimental support leaving them still obscure theories.[26]
Additionally, the multiverse relies on a variety of assumptions, which if any one of them is wrong, knocks the entire multiverse idea into the trash. Ellis lists the following problematic assumptions: 1) Inflation may be wrong or not eternal. 2) Quantum Mechanics may be wrong. 3) String Theory may be wrong or lack multiple outcomes.[27] 4) Lastly, the Big Bang theory still has problems that haven’t been sorted out.
Furthermore, at a philosophic level the multiverse gives way to a slippery slope of bigger systems; an infinite multiverse size or a multiverse within other larger multiverses. Where does it end? Is the multiverse apart of something even larger. Thus, the only limits of the multiverse lie in our seemingly infinite imaginations.

A Matter of Faith?
Naturally, atheist and agnostic scientists jump all over the idea of the multiverse because it rules out God. Theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg writes, “Over many centuries science has weakened the hold of religion, not by disproving the existence of God but by invalidating arguments for God based on what we observe in the natural world. The multiverse idea offers an explanation of why we find ourselves in a universe favorable to life that does not rely on the benevolence of a creator, and so if correct will leave still less support for religion.”[28] What these scientists appear to be overlooking is the paralell similarity between the logic behind the multiverse and the logic behind God. That is, faith based principals.
For example, Tagmark, in defense of the multiverse, argues that many people commit to fallacy by assuming that just because there is no observable proof of something it does not exist, called the omnivision assumption, “If the omnivision assumption is false, then there are unobservable things that exist and we live in a multiverse.”[29] Yet one could just as easily use this same logic to argue the existence of a Creator God. I can throw God in there and say there are unobservable things that exist and we live in a universe created by God.
The multiverse, like God, can be both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Something that is unprovable and unfalsifiable lies outside of scientific inquiry. Pro-multiverse physicists claim that this is acceptable because the multiverse is logically necessary to explain the fine tuning of our universe. This is completely ignoring the possibility of God, which would sufficiently explain the fine tuning. Furthermore, physicists that support the multiverse theory claim that those anti-multiverse are guilty of claiming omniscense, or knowledge of everything. Since that is impossible, how can anyone say the multiverse doesn’t exist? But this then becomes an un-falsifiable topic.  I could just as easily replace the word “multiverse” with “God” and make the same argument. It is interesting that God as represented in the Bible is often mocked by many physicists as not being scientific, yet they will adhere to a multiverse theory that can by definition violate any scientific laws required to make it plausible.
Lightman recognizes this, “Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove. Sound familiar? Theologians are accustomed to taking some beliefs on faith. Scientists are not. All we can do is hope that the same theories that predict the multiverse also produce many other predictions that we can test here in our own universe. But the other universes themselves will almost certainly remain a conjecture.”[30] In order to support the multiverse you need an abundant faith not founded in observable science. Yet these same supporters scoff at faith in God. How is this not hypocrasy?
Many of the questions physcists are usually striving to answer such as purpose and cause cannot be answered by science based on the very nature and ramifications of the answers. Ellis writes, “The universe might be pure happenstance — it just turned out that way. Or things might in some sense be meant to be the way they are — purpose or intent somehow underlies existence. Science cannot determine which is the case, because these are metaphysical issues.”[31]

At this time we can only conclude the following with observable science:
1) The laws of nature express an incredibly unlikely accuracy of fine-tuning for life.
2) There is currently no proven physical explanation for this fine tuning.
3) We observe our universe and no others.
4) The fine tuning embedded in natural law has been found to be specifically complex.
Yet, the train of thought for multiverse proponents is, in my opinion, less logical:
1) The universe appears designed for us. But a Designer(God) cannot not exist.
2) Since there is no designer, there must be another natural explanation.
3) There is no observable natural explanation, but there are various unverifiable theories that allow for the possibility of a natural explanation.
4) Using these various unverifiable theories we can construct one overlying unverifiable theory (the multiverse) as the natural explanation.
5) There is no proof of the multiverse, but we exist, so the multiverse must exist because there is no Designer(God).
So we’re left with two options. Believing in God, which goes beyond science but does not contradict it. Or believe in the multiverse which makes up the science and rules as it goes along. One road leads to the multiverse. The other leads to an intelligent creator God. Theoretical Physicist Tony Rothman once said, “When confronted with the order and beauty of our universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to make the leap of faith from science to religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.”[32] Cosmologist Edward Harrison concludes, “Here is the cosmological proof for the existance of God- the design argument of Paley- updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one… Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” [33]
For me, I’ll stick with what I believe is the more logical and safe bet: God.

[1] As quoted in Tim Folger’s “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator; the Multiverse Theory,” December 2008.
[2] Tegmark, M., (July 2011) “The Multiverse Strikes Back,”
[3] Lightman, A.P., (December 2011) “The Accidental Universe; Science’s Crisis of Faith,”
[4] Luskin, C., (April 2010) “Penrose on Cosmic Fine Tuning,”
[5] Coppedge, D., (2006) “There is Only One Universe,”
[6] Lightman, A.P., (December 2011) “The Accidental Universe; Science’s Crisis of Faith,”
[7] As quoted in Alan Lightman’s ““The Accidental Universe; Science’s Crisis of Faith,”
[8] Davies, P., (1988) The Cosmic Blueprint, Simon & Schuster:New York,NY, pp. 203.
[9] As quoted in Hugh Ross’ The Creator and the Cosmos, Navpress Publishing Group:Colorado Springs,CO, (1994) pp. 115.
[10] As quoted in Robin Schumacher’s “Atheism and the Multiverse,”
[11] As quoted in Tim Folger’s “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator; the Multiverse Theory,” December 2008.
[12] Lightman, A.P., (December 2011) “The Accidental Universe; Science’s Crisis of Faith,”
[13] Lightman, A.P., (December 2011) “The Accidental Universe; Science’s Crisis of Faith,”
[14] Vilenken, A., (July 2011) “Welcome to the Multiverse,”
[15] Vilenken, A., (July 2011) “Welcome to the Multiverse,”
[16] As quoted in Robin Schumacher’s “Atheism and the Multiverse,”
[17] As quoted in Robin Schumacher’s “Atheism and the Multiverse,”
[18] Ellis, G.F.R., (August 2011) “Does the Multiverse Really Exist,”
[19] As quoted in Robin Schumacher’s “Atheism and the Multiverse,”
[20] Lightman, A.P., (December 2011) “The Accidental Universe; Science’s Crisis of Faith,”
[21] Lightman, A.P., (December 2011) “The Accidental Universe; Science’s Crisis of Faith,”
[22] Schumacher, R., “Atheism and the Multiverse,”
[23] Vilenken, A., (July 2011) “Welcome to the Multiverse,”
[24] Vilenken, A., (July 2011) “Welcome to the Multiverse,”
[25] Ellis, G.F.R., (August 2011) “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?”
[26] Lightman, A.P., (December 2011) “The Accidental Universe; Science’s Crisis of Faith,”
[27] Tegmark, M., (July 2011) “The Multiverse Strikes Back,”
[28] As quoted in Alan Lightman’s “The Accidental Universe; Science’s Crisis of Faith,”
[29] Tegmark, M., (July 2011) “The Multiverse Strikes Back,”
[30] Lightman, A.P., (December 2011) “The Accidental Universe; Science’s Crisis of Faith,”
[31] Ellis, G.F.R., (August 2011) “Does the Multiverse Really Exist?”
[32] Rothman, T., (May 1987) “A ‘What You See Is What You Beget’ Theory,” Discover pp. 99
[33] Harrison, E., (1985) Masks of the Universe, Collier Books,New York,NY, pp. 252, 263.


Last edited by Admin on Tue May 09, 2017 3:59 pm; edited 1 time in total

View user profile

3 Re: The Multiverse on Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:09 pm


Koonin, the logic of chance, page 384: 
This profound difficulty of the origin of life problem might appear effectively insurmountable, compelling one to ask extremely general questions that go beyond the realm of biology. Did certain factors that were critical at the time of the origin of life but that are hidden from our view now significantly change these numbers and make the origin of life much more likely? Or is it possible that the processes that form the foundation for the origin of life are as difficult as we imagine, but the number of trials is so huge that the appearance of life forms in one or more of them is likely or even inevitable? In other words, is it conceivable that our very concepts of probability are inadequate? The first possibility has to do with finding conditions that existed on primitive Earth and somehow made the origin of life “easy.” Russell’s compartments go some way in that direction, but apparently not far enough: Even in these flow reactors rich in energy and catalysts, the combination of all the necessary processes would be an extreme rarity. The second possibility may be addressed in the context of the entire universe by asking, how many planets are there with conditions conducive to the origin of life? That is, how many trials for the origin of life were there altogether? In this section, we pursue this second line of inquiry from the perspective of modern physical cosmology. During the twentieth century, cosmology has undergone a complete transformation, from a quaint (and not particularly reputable) philosophical endeavor to a vibrant physical field deeply steeped in observation. The leading direction in cosmology these days centers on the so-called inflation, a period of exponentially fast initial expansion of a universe (Carroll, 2010; Guth, 1998a; Guth and Kaiser, 2005; Vilenkin, 2007). In the most plausible, self-consistent models, inflation is eternal, with an infinite number of island (pocket) universes (or simply universes) emerging through the decay of small regions of the primordial “sea” of false (high-energy) vacuum and comprising the infinite multiverse (see Appendix B). The many worlds in one (MWO) model makes the startling prediction that all macroscopic, “coarsegrain” histories of events that are not forbidden by conservation laws of physics have been realized (or will be realized) somewhere in the infinite multiverse—and not just once, but an infinite number of times (Garriga and Vilenkin, 2001; Vilenkin, 2007). For example, there are an infinite number of (macroscopically) exact copies of the Earth, with everything that exists on it, although the probability that a given observable region of the universe contains one of these copies is vanishingly small. This picture appears extremely counterintuitive (“crazy”), but it is a direct consequence of eternal inflation, the dominant model for the evolution of the multiverse in modern cosmology.
Science is also advancing our understanding of just how fantastically improbable the origin of life is. Evolutionary biologist, Eugene Koonin, looking at the possibility that life arose through the popular “RNA-world” scenario, calculates that the probability of just RNA replication and translation is 1 chance in 10 with 1,017 zeros after it. Koonin’s solution is to propose an infinite multiverse. With an infinite number of possible universes, the emergence of life will becomes inevitable, no matter how improbable.2,3

So the multiverse has become atheism’s “god of the gaps” but some scientists point out that multiverse “science” is not science at all. Mathematician George Ellis wrote of multiverse models, “they are not observationally or experimentally testable — and never will be.”4

- See more at:

View user profile


Testing the Multiverse: Bayes, Fine-Tuning and Typicality 1

If there is a multiverse, what occupies the space in between universes?

Fantasy remains fantasy. No matter what. What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Luke A. Barnes writes:

Theory testing in the physical sciences has been revolutionized in recent decades by Bayesian approaches to probability theory.

Wiki: Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Bayesian inference is an important technique in statistics, and especially in mathematical statistics. Bayesian updating is particularly important in the dynamic analysis of a sequence of data. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, engineering, philosophy, medicine, sport, and law.

and......... historical sciences, including intelligent design theory which tries to explain how most proably past events occured. That is similar to abductive reasoning :

Wiki: Abductive reasoning  is a form of logical inference which goes from an observation to a theory which accounts for the observation, ideally seeking to find the simplest and most likely explanation. In abductive reasoning, unlike in deductive reasoning, the premises do not guarantee the conclusion. One can understand abductive reasoning as "instant-deduction to the best explanation".

To underscore the dominance of Bayesian probability theory, a recent NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) search of the astronomy and physics literature for articles with the word “Bayesian” or “Bayes” in the title returned 7555 papers. A search for “frequentist” or “frequentism” in the title returned 71 papers, half of which also have “Bayes” in the title.

Wiki: Frequentist probability or frequentism is an interpretation of probability; it defines an event's probability as the limit of its relative frequency in a large number of trials. This interpretation supports the statistical needs of experimental scientists and pollsters; probabilities can be found (in principle) by a repeatable objective process (and are thus ideally devoid of opinion). It does not support all needs; gamblers typically require estimates of the odds without experiments.

The reason why this set of constants exists at all is that there are a sufficiently large number of universe domains, with enough variation in their properties that at least one of them would hit on the right combination for life

Or there is a creator that set them up.

While classical logic is concerned with what follows deductively — if A then B — probability theory will include weaker degrees of certainty — if A then probably B. Probabilities such as p(B|A) (“the probability of B given A”) quantify the degree of certainty of the proposition B given the truth of the proposition A. Classical logic’s implication A → B is the special case p(B|A) = 1; those two are the same statement. The goal is not merely to quantify subjective degrees of belief, that is, the psychological state of someone who believes A and is considering B. Just as classical logic’s A → B says nothing about whether A is known by anyone, but instead denotes a connection between the truth values of the propositions A and B, so p(B|A) quantifies a relationship between these propositions .

The existence of structure in our universe at all places stringent bounds on the cosmological constant. Compared to the range of values for which our theories are well defined — roughly ± the Planck scale — the range of values that permit gravitationally bound structures is no more than one part in 10^110
• A universe with structure also requires a fine-tuned value for the primordial density contrast Q. Too low, and no structure forms. Too high and galaxies are too dense to allow for long-lived planetary systems, as the time between disruption by a neighbouring star is too short. This places the constraint 10−6 . Q . 10−4 (Tegmark & Rees, 1998).

• The existence of long-lived stars, which produce and distribute chemical elements and are a stable source of energy that can power chemical reactions, requires an unnaturally small value for the “gravitational coupling constant” αG = m2 proton/m2 Planck; or, equivalently, that the proton mass be orders of magnitude smaller than the Planck mass. For stars to be stable at all, we require αG . 10−33 (Adams, 2008).

• The existence of any atomic species and chemical processes whatsoever places tight constraints on the relative masses of the fundamental particles and the strengths of the fundamental forces. For example, Barr & Khan (2007) show the effect of varying the masses of the up and down quark, and find that starand-chemistry permitting universes are huddled in a small shard of parameter space which has area ∆mup∆mdown/m2 Planck ≈ 10−42

These small numbers — 10^110, 10^4 , 10^33 , 10^−42 — are, in the Bayesian fashion, an attempt to quantify our ignorance. We are not assuming the existence of a random universe-generating machine, nor describing the properties of a real or imagined statistical sample. The laws of nature as we know them contain arbitrary constants, which are not constrained by anything in theoretical physics.

That means, any of these fine-tune constants are not set due to physical necessity. There can be any value, which would result in no universe. 

As usual, we can react to small probabilities in a couple of ways. Perhaps, like the probability of a deck of cards falling on the floor in a particular order, something improbable has happened. Enough said. Alternatively, like the probability that the burglar correctly guessed the 12-digit code by chance on the first attempt, it may indicate that we have made an incorrect assumption. We should look for an alternative assumption (or theory), on which the fact in question is not so improbable. Correct. As creation , for example ?

Getting Metaphysical
At this conference, George Ellis has invited us to think about not only cosmology with a small ‘c’, defined as the the physics of the universe on large scales, but also Cosmology with a capital ‘C’, which asks the great questions of existence, meaning and purpose that are raised by physical cosmology. Nothing in our formalism assumes that T is a physical theory. Indeed, if there is a final, ultimate physical theory of nature F, then whatever we think about that theory will have to be deeper than physics, so to speak. 

Naturalism, as a hypothesis, is what statisticians call non-informative — it gives us no reason to prefer any particular F. In the case of naturalism, this is an in principle ignorance, since by hypothesis there are no true facts that explain why F rather than some other final law, why any law at all, why a mathematical law, what “breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?” (Hawking, 1988), what is existence, and so on.

Non-informative theories have likelihoods that are at the mercy of the size of their possibility space. For example, “the burglar guessed the 12-digit security code” gives us no reason to prefer any code over any other, and thus the likelihood of any particular code should reflect these trillion possibilities. The only thing in our background knowledge B that restricts the set of possible universes is internal (mathematical) consistency. Naturalism, then, is at the mercy of every possible way that concrete reality could consistently be. This places naturalism in an unenviable position ( hard to deal with ).

Its competitors to explain F include axiarchism (Leslie, 1989) ( Axiarchism  is a metaphysical position that everything that exists , including the universe itself, exists for a good purpose.)  and theism (Swinburne, 2004), which argue that we should expect the existence of physical reality with significant moral value, including the moral good of embodied, free, conscious moral agents. Axiarchism and theism, then, bet heavily on the subset of possible laws that permit the existence of such life forms. Whether the fine-tuning of the laws as we know them (L Uαβ) for life extends to final laws F, and their relative prior probabilities, will decide whether any of these theories is preferable to naturalism.

The only alternative to God ( being ) , is non-being , or no thing, or the absence of any thing, at the beginning of any being. That can be either our universe, a multiverse, strings in String-theory, a oscillating universe, or whatever you put as first being. Any physical being must have had a beginning. And therefore , a cause. 

The universe cannot be past eternal  
The universe cannot be eternal in any kind of form, like a multiverse, oscillating universe etc. , without a beginning;  we cannot  reach the present and now from the eternal past , and overcome the second law of thermodynamics;  that is the fact that useful energy in the universe winds down, and becomes less and less useful energy for work. Since it winds down, if the universe would exist  from eternity, we would have reached maximum entropy, and the universe would be in a state of heath death. Philosophical reasons refute the claim as well.  If we add one event after the other starting now, whenever we stop, the timelapse will always be a defined timespan. How can we then reach now from ( past ) eternity by adding one event after the other ? we would never reach the present moment.


View user profile

Sponsored content

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum