The Multiverse

[darknova]

Hi,

What do you have to say about the possiblity of a multiverse. If it is real then it would seem to disprove cosmological arguments and arguments based on the world looking it is designed.

Do you agree with it or have arguments against it??

 

[drich0150]

Hi,

What do you have to say about the possiblity of a multiverse. If it is real then it would seem to disprove cosmological arguments and arguments based on the world looking it is designed.

How so?

 

[JasperJackson]

My opinion is it is silly to believe in something we have no evidence for.

 

[jonmichael818]

Hi,

What do you have to say about the possiblity of a multiverse. If it is real then it would seem to disprove cosmological arguments and arguments based on the world looking it is designed.

Do you agree with it or have arguments against it??

I think that the possibility does exist for such a thing as the multiverse. And yes it would eliminate the argument that the universe seems to be designed. It eliminates the the argument for design in that if there are an infinite amount of universes, then by necessity such a universe with the appearance of design(such as ours) would inevitibly come into existence. The problems with this theory are that there is no emperical evidence for it. The only evidence that supports this theory lies in mathematics, but many things can be done with mathematics that do not necessarily exist as a part of reality, or at least as far as we know may not exist as part of reality.

Another problem with this theory is that it begs the question, where did the multiverse come from? We are still left with the question of why is there "something" rather than "nothing?" At this point I would argue that there is no such thing as "nothing." By nothing I mean nothing in the most absolute sense.

 

[jonmichael818]

My opinion is it is silly to believe in something we have no evidence for.

Hmmm, have'nt atheists and agnostics been saying that for years?

 

[JasperJackson]

Hmmm, have'nt atheists and agnostics been saying that for years?

I see my attempt at irony isn't lost on you.

 

[lucaspa]

Hi,

What do you have to say about the possiblity of a multiverse. If it is real then it would seem to disprove cosmological arguments and arguments based on the world looking it is designed.

Do you agree with it or have arguments against it??

Multiverse is there basically to provide an answer to the question: Why does the universe have the parameters it does instead of some other parameters?

Some people have erroneously used the fact that many of the parameters are very precise to say that the universe "must" have those parameters and, therefore, "must" have been made by deity. That's faulty logic. The universe does not have to have the parameters it does; if it did not, we simply would not be here to wonder about it. So the original cosmological argument and the argument about "design" are flawed even without multiverse.

However, having something very improbable and saying "it just happened to be this way" is not a very satisfying answer. One way to get around the problem is to have a very large number of universes, each with its own set of parameters. Thus, altho the odds of a particular universe having the parameters is still low, the odds that a universe will have the parameters is very high, and we happen, of course, to be in that universe.

Think of lottery tickets. The odds that you have the winning ticket is low. But if enough tickets are sold it is a certainty that someone will have the winning ticket.

From the pov of science, multiverse is no more satisfactory than saying "God chose the parameters." We can't detect the multiverses, they have no effect on our universe, and there's no way to test the various mulitverse theories -- and there are several of them.

It's not like "arguments against" them, just that there are no arguments, either for or against. At least God has evidence outside of science. Multiverse has nothing. But, since we can't falsify multiverse, like we can't falsify God, they stay on the table as possible. And so, since we have several possible hypotheses for "Why does the universe have the parameters it does?", science remains agnostic.

 

[AlexBP]

What do you have to say about the possiblity of a multiverse. If it is real then it would seem to disprove cosmological arguments and arguments based on the world looking it is designed.

I personally don't think that the existence of an enormous multiverse would change anything about the design argument. To demonstrate, let's consider what physicist Martin Reese said in his book Just Six Numbers:

Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8%

So the most common response is to assume that an intelligent being was responsible for designing the laws of our universe and placed the strong nuclear force at that particular strength for that reason. The alternate theory is that there are many universe. In one universe .6% of the mass is converted in energy, in another universe .7%, in another .8%, and so forth. In the .7% universe we evolved because it was physically possible for us to do so. In all the other universes, we did not.

However, even if there were many universes in existence, there's no reason why the strong nuclear force should vary from one universe to the next. By all logic and intuition, if a whole bunch of universes popped into being from some type of field or whatever, it would be much simpler if they all had exactly the same strong nuclear force. Other than an intelligent designer, what could possibly account for them each having a slightly different value? And even if universes naturally popped up with different values of the constant, they might well miss the necessary value. For example, if universes popped up where the percent of matter converted ranged from 1% and higher but not lower, then there'd be no universe with the correct value for life to occur.

Moreover, the multiverse theory makes certain assumptions. It assumes that a huge number of universes are popping that all have physical laws, and that the physical laws and constants and the amount of matter and so forth vary from one universe to the next. However, in the absense of an intelligent designer, I see no reason why these universes should have laws at all. We can easily imagine universes with no physical laws. We can imagine universes with no matter. We can imagine universes where matter does not move. We can imagine universes where the physical laws change constantly so there are no stable structures. etc... In all of these cases, life would always be impossible no matter how many universes were contained in the multiverse.

So, in short, I don't see any way how life as we know it could ever have come into existence without an intelligent designer to make the universe in which it does so.

With that said, as a Christian I worship Jesus Christ, and not an unnamed "designer". I know many people who have converted to Christianity because of what Jesus said and did, but none who converted because of arguments from intelligent design. So I don't generally put too much stock in this sort of argument.

 

[singpeace]

I think multiple universes are possible.

 

[lucaspa]

However, even if there were many universes in existence, there's no reason why the strong nuclear force should vary from one universe to the next. By all logic and intuition, if a whole bunch of universes popped into being from some type of field or whatever, it would be much simpler if they all had exactly the same strong nuclear force. Other than an intelligent designer, what could possibly account for them each having a slightly different value?

The uncertainty of quantum mechanics. Remember, in QM we deal with probabilities. Therefore, if multiple universes popped into existence and QM was involved, then the math says that each would have different parameters because all the possible parameters would become real.

And even if universes naturally popped up with different values of the constant, they might well miss the necessary value. For example, if universes popped up where the percent of matter converted ranged from 1% and higher but not lower, then there'd be no universe with the correct value for life to occur.

This is where the hidden assumption and false logic come in. You are assuming that one of the universes must have the parameters for life. But they don't have to. As you note, the correct value, or the proper laws, etc. might all have been missed and none of the universes have life in them. If that were the case, then we simply would not be here wondering about the whole thing. As it happens, one of the universes does have life, so we can deduce that the range of parameters and laws included those that would give a universe with life. But there is no requirement that this would be the case.

As I noted, the math of QM says, however, that the entire range would be included. If it were not, then multiverse would never have survived its first test: the ability to give a universe where we exist.

However, in the absense of an intelligent designer, I see no reason why these universes should have laws at all. We can easily imagine universes with no physical laws. We can imagine universes with no matter. We can imagine universes where matter does not move. We can imagine universes where the physical laws change constantly so there are no stable structures. etc... In all of these cases, life would always be impossible no matter how many universes were contained in the multiverse.

The examples you mentioned would be among the possibilities. And, as you noted, life would not be present. BUT, in a basically infinite number of universes where the parameters/laws vary by chance (QM), it is virtually certain that one of them will have the qualities of this one.

Now, another alternative is that the parameters that seem so arbitrary to us actually are determined by underlying principles. One of the attractions of String Theory is that, at least, several of the parameters arise deterministically from the properties of the strings and 'branes and do not have to be chosen.

I know many people who have converted to Christianity because of what Jesus said and did, but none who converted because of arguments from intelligent design.

Andrew Flew. He was a rather famous atheist who claimed to convert based on his understanding of the arguments we have been discussing.

 

[AlexBP]

lucaspa: you doubtlessly know a great deal more about this stuff than I do. However, I was under the impression that any tie between quantum mechanical fluctuations and the appearance of universes with certain properties is extremely theoretical at best. The fact is at this point we don't know why the gravitational constant is what it is, nor the electromagnetic constant, nor the charge/mass ratio of the electron, nor any of the other constants. String theoretic models have been proposed that would provide for the existence of an enormous number of universes with all possible combinations of constant values, but all of them are working backwards from the existence of our universe to a purely theoretical model that accounts for it, not based on empirical data.

The basic data point that everything starts with is this: here we are. By all logic we shouldn't be here. Nothing should be here or anywhere else. Nothing should exist at all. And yet: here we are. To say (paraphrasing) "It's not surprising that we exist because if we didn't exist there wouldn't be anyone around to marvel at our non-existence" doesn't address the mystery of why we came into existence.

 

[jonmichael818]

The basic data point that everything starts with is this: here we are. By all logic we shouldn't be here. Nothing should be here or anywhere else. Nothing should exist at all. And yet: here we are. To say (paraphrasing) "It's not surprising that we exist because if we didn't exist there wouldn't be anyone around to marvel at our non-existence" doesn't address the mystery of why we came into existence.

This why I like discussing the idea of "nothing." Why does "something" exist rather than "nothing?" There is a common assumption that there was or is such thing as "nothing." I think that "nothing" (as in the most absolute sense of nothing) is just a figment of our imagination and has not nor ever will exist.

 

[darknova]

My opinion is it is silly to believe in something we have no evidence for.

But since science does give a possibility of a multiverse it would be silly to base a belief in God upon an argument which science might disprove in a few decades.

Multiverse is there basically to provide an answer to the question: Why does the universe have the parameters it does instead of some other parameters?

I thought it came out of trying to understand other things too such as why gravity is so weak.

Some people have erroneously used the fact that many of the parameters are very precise to say that the universe "must" have those parameters and, therefore, "must" have been made by deity. That's faulty logic. The universe does not have to have the parameters it does; if it did not, we simply would not be here to wonder about it. So the original cosmological argument and the argument about "design" are flawed even without multiverse.

I'm not sure I agree. Just because something did happen doesn't mean it wasn't very unlikely.

Think of lottery tickets. The odds that you have the winning ticket is low. But if enough tickets are sold it is a certainty that someone will have the winning ticket.

But if the lottery is played once and one person is give a ticket you might think it was rigged?

 

[darknova]

So, in short, I don't see any way how life as we know it could ever have come into existence without an intelligent designer to make the universe in which it does so.

The point is that if there are many/infinite universes then every possible universe would exist, and so not making us any different.

This why I like discussing the idea of "nothing." Why does "something" exist rather than "nothing?" There is a common assumption that there was or is such thing as "nothing." I think that "nothing" (as in the most absolute sense of nothing) is just a figment of our imagination and has not nor ever will exist.

Why do you think nothingness can't exist? Just because it may not ever actually exist it doesn't mean it is logically impossible for reality not to have existed.

 

[jonmichael818]

Why do you think nothingness can't exist? Just because it may not ever actually exist it doesn't mean it is logically impossible for reality not to have existed.

I can understand what you are driving at, but logicall speaking, "something" from "nothing" is a non sequitur.
If you go by physics definition of nothing (i.e. a vacuum) there are still quantum fluctuations popping in and out of existance. But even this popping in and out of existance leads some to believe that what is actually happening is the flutuations are popping in and out of our known demensions and other unknown demensions of space.

 

[darknova]

I can understand what you are driving at, but logicall speaking, "something" from "nothing" is a non sequitur.
If you go by physics definition of nothing (i.e. a vacuum) there are still quantum fluctuations popping in and out of existance. But even this popping in and out of existance leads some to believe that what is actually happening is the flutuations are popping in and out of our known demensions and other unknown demensions of space.

But Christians would say something came from God not absolutely nothing, scientists would say there were some kind of laws. I don't see why absolute nothingness couldn't have been.

 

[jonmichael818]

But Christians would say something came from God not absolutely nothing, scientists would say there were some kind of laws. I don't see why absolute nothingness couldn't have been.

Christians would say it is from god, but even god would be "something," and the burden of proof lies with them to prove that god exists. I don't mean evidence that they use to interpret that a god may exist, but evidence to show "here this IS god."
Scientists saying that there are laws that gave rise to something from nothing is still a non sequitur, because laws are still something. Absolute nothing is exactly what it says, "absolute nothing."

 

[lucaspa]

lucaspa: you doubtlessly know a great deal more about this stuff than I do. However, I was under the impression that any tie between quantum mechanical fluctuations and the appearance of universes with certain properties is extremely theoretical at best.

LOL! ALL this stuff about multiverse is theoretical! We don't have any other universe but the one we are in to study. But the math does indicate that it is possible that the uncertainty in QM could produce variations in constants from universe to universe.

My point is that you can't use the constants as arguments for the existence of God or that God created the universe. The argument about design is not valid.

String theoretic models have been proposed that would provide for the existence of an enormous number of universes with all possible combinations of constant values, but all of them are working backwards from the existence of our universe to a purely theoretical model that accounts for it, not based on empirical data.

ALL the theories about how the constants came to be, including God, are "not based on empirical data". They all work backwards from the existence of our universe to a theory. Duh! Sauce for the goose. That's how it's done: propose the theory first, then look for data.

The basic data point that everything starts with is this: here we are. By all logic we shouldn't be here.

That is where the logic fails. There's nothing that says we should not be here, just as there's nothing that says we must be here.

Because we are here, we can infer some things about the nature of this universe. This is the correct logic: if our existence depends on gravity having a particular constant then, since we are here, gravity does have that constant.

That helps in formulating theories such as String Theory. If a particular formulation of String Theory produces a different gravitational constant, then we know that part particular formulation is wrong. And, in fact, that is exactly what happened during the early years of String Theory. The String Theory we have now is that one that will give a universe we see around us.

To say (paraphrasing) "It's not surprising that we exist because if we didn't exist there wouldn't be anyone around to marvel at our non-existence" doesn't address the mystery of why we came into existence.

The paraphrasing is wrong. You need to be careful about it, because you made a circular logic out of it. The correct phrasing is: if the universe had some other set of constants than the one we see, we simply wouldn't be here to marvel at it."

Here's a more detailed summation of the error in logic:
"According to the Anthropic Principle, we are entitled to infer facts about the universe and its laws from the undisputed fact that we (we anthropoi, human beings) are here to do the inferring and observing. The Anthropic Principle comes in several flavors.
In the "weak form" it is a sound, harmless, and on occasion useful application of elementary logic: if x is a necessary condition for the existence of y, and y exists, then x exists. If consciousness depends on complex physical structures, and complex physical structures depend on large molecules composed of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, then, since we are conscious, the world must contain such elements.
"But notice that there is a loose cannon on the deck in the previous sentence: the wandering "must". I have followed the common practice in English of couching a claim of necessity in a technically incorrect way. As any student in logic class soon learns, what I really should have written is: It must be the case that: if consciousness depends ... then, since we are conscious, the world contains such elements.

The conclusion that can be validly drawn is only that the world does contain such elements, not that it had to contain such elements. It has to contain such elements for us to exist, we may grant, but it might not have contained such elements, and if that had been the case, we wouldn't be here to be dismayed. It's as simple as that.
Take a simpler example. Suppose John is a bachelor. Then he must be single, right? (That's a truth of logic.) Poor John -- he can never get married! The fallacy is obvious in this example, and it is worth keeping it in the back of your mind as a template to compare other arguments with."
Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Ideas, pp. 165-166.

 

[lucaspa]

I can understand what you are driving at, but logicall speaking, "something" from "nothing" is a non sequitur.
If you go by physics definition of nothing (i.e. a vacuum) there are still quantum fluctuations popping in and out of existance.

In this case, "nothing" is not a vacuum. Vacuum occurs within a spacetime, but the absence of matter. The "nothing" prior to the Big Bang is no matter, no enery, no spacetime.

But even this popping in and out of existance leads some to believe that what is actually happening is the flutuations are popping in and out of our known demensions and other unknown demensions of space.

Virtual particles are borrowing energy from an existing spacetime. However, in some theories spactime itself is a quantum fluctuation. So the entire universe is one huge quantum fluctuation. The fact that the net energy of the universe = zero is consistent with that idea.

 

[lucaspa]

Christians would say it is from god, but even god would be "something," and the burden of proof lies with them to prove that god exists.

1. In terms of the physics we are talking about, God is not "something". The somethings we are talking about in the universe are matter, energy, spacetime.
2. You are using Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy. In terms of the science, God is a theory. So is multiverse. So is quantum fluctuation. All of them have the burden to "prove" that they exist and opponents have the burden to "prove" they do not exist. To shift the burden of proof onto only one side is the Shifting the Burden Fallacy.

Scientists saying that there are laws that gave rise to something from nothing is still a non sequitur, because laws are still something. Absolute nothing is exactly what it says, "absolute nothing."

"Absolute nothing" in this context is no matter, no energy, no space, no time. Period. One possibility is that the theories/equations that describe the universe have the power to create a universe for them to describe. No "proof" for that theory. No disproof, either.