God vs The Multiverse

Click here for God vs The Multiverse: a rational argument for the Existence of One God who intelligently designed one universe.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

God vs The Multiverse (Part 6: Summary of Stage One)

Before moving on to the second stage, which is primarily about the multiverse, we want to summarize the proof up to this point.  In the proof, we used inductive reasoning from the fine tuning to infer an Intelligent Designer of the universe.  What we mean by 'proof' is that a reasonable person would logically draw the same conclusion after understanding the arguments.  We do not mean 'proof' in the sense of a mathematical proof or deductive reasoning.

We have presented, explained, and supported the fact of the fine tuning of the constants of nature and the initial conditions of the big bang with many renowned scientists (like Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees, Roger Penrose, Leonard Susskind, etc.  We will present even more multiverse scientists who agree with the fact of fine tuning, and use it as proof for the multiverse.)  In stage two, we will explain why we believe that the scientists' position of a multiverse is not a viable scientific theory.

Our main objective for stage one was to reject two theories as possible explanations for the fine tuning of the constants and the initial conditions:  the Master Mathematical Equation theory and the Necessary Existences theory.  We have tried to establish that the only two viable theories at this point are either an Intelligent Agent or the multiverse.

Based on the excellent feedback we received from the readers, it seems that the most abstract part of stage one was the relationship between Feynman's mystery in post 2, and the teleological explanation for the fine tuning in post 3.  This is the key point, and is what separates this proof of an Intelligent Designer from most of the other ones that we've seen.  (The way it is commonly presented is by starting with the fact of fine tuning, and arguing from the improbability of getting fine tuning by chance alone.)

The main idea is that the mystery that all good theoretical physicists worried about for 50 years had nothing to do with fine tuning.  It is a problem that is rooted in the aim of fundamental physics of uncovering the most basic, simple reality in the universe.  All good theoretical physicists realized that an arbitrary number has no role as a fundamental (Necessary) Existence.  All good theoretical physicists realized that it was highly implausible that arbitrary, highly specific numbers would ever be derivable from a Master Mathematical equation.

The discovery of the fact of fine tuning in the constants provided an excellent solution to this mystery.  The numbers were not fundamental, nor were they arbitrary.  They had a purpose.  The purpose of the numbers was in order to create an ordered and complex cosmos, in all its beauty and grandeur.  It is the natural solution to one of the greatest mysteries in physics.  Fine tuning did not create the problem.  Fine tuning is the solution.

We inferred from the fact that the constants of the universe were designed to produce an ordered universe, that the Cause of the fine tuning of the constants was Intelligent.  (Meaning, God knew what He was doing when He chose those numbers.  He didn't just get lucky.)

The discovery of fine tuning dealt the death blow to the other two theories mentioned above, as they could not explain the causal relationship between the numbers and the universe.  The significant knowledge we had about the constants could not be incorporated into those theories.  In both theories, the relationship between the particular numbers and the resultant ordered universe was purely coincidental.  This flew in the face of the fact of fine tuning. 

Even though we had sufficiently made the case for the fine tuning of the constants and rejecting the two theories from posts 2 and 3, we added an additional proof from the fine tuning of the initial conditions in post 4.  What was unique about this proof (as opposed to that of the constants) was that it was probabilistic.  The nature of the problem with regards to the initial conditions is so great because it is not even clear how the two alternative theories could even be formulated. This is because the "law for initial conditions" seems to have a qualitatively different character than our current understanding of physical law.

We noted that if someone wanted to deny an Intelligent Designer, the burden of proof is upon them to develop a theory to explain how the correlation between the fine tuning and the resultant ordered universe occurred through chance alone.  In the next post, we will begin the second stage and present the main attempt among scientists to provide such a theory.  As we will see, the essence of multiverse theory is the combination of random chance and a near infinite number of tries.


(See post 17 for a rigorous discussion of why the only four possible explanations for the values of the constants are: (i) an Intelligent Designer; (ii) the multiverse; (iii) the Master Mathematical Equation; and (iv) Necessary Existences.) 


In summary, we have shown that an Intelligent Designer is the best logical inference, and it is upon atheistic (or agnostic) scientists to establish a valid scientific theory which explains the fine tuning based on some unintelligent mechanism, thereby invalidating our proof.

Click here to continue to Stage 2a

18 comments:

  1. why is it only either GOD or the multiverse as oppossed to multiverse is the best theory now although it has s ome chellenges and hopefully science will have a fuller and better explaination in the future? the argument to why i support this question is _ science has overcome the "it must be GOD" argument in the past.

    SH

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question. The reason is that there are only 4 conceptual categories of ways to explain the cause of the constants and initial conditions.

      1) The first way is different from the other three, as it says there is no cause. They are fundamental, Necessary Existences which have no cause.

      The other three reasons all agree that there is a cause. They argue about what the cause is.

      2) The second approach is the theory about developing a theory that resolves these problems by explaining them through a physical law. Our current understanding of physical law is mathematical equations which govern the universe.

      This theory generally maintains that the laws of physics themselves are eternal, metaphysical, unintelligent, Necessary Existences which have no cause themselves. That is why we called this theory the Master Mathematical Equation of the universe.

      This equation is assumed to have the same character as other physical laws that it is unintelligent. This means that it doesn't act for a purpose. (Think about gravity. It doesn't cause things to fall to the ground because it's trying to accomplish some purpose. It just does it because it is that way.)

      3) The third explanation is an Intelligent Cause. This means that the cause of the constants made them that way for the purpose of creating an ordered, intelligible, universe.

      4) The final possibility is that the cause is unintelligent, but it is not some qualitative physical law (like position 2 held). Rather, it is randomness and chance. Generally, a metaphysical, eternal, random number generator is assumed to Necessarily Exist. This Number Generator is unintelligent (it's actually pretty dumb), as it isn't trying to accomplish any goal.

      In order for this explanation to be valid the probabilities have to work out, so this theory posits an infinite number of alternate, physical universes. There are many variations of this theory, but they all partake of these essential features. This is called multiverse theory.

      Your theory that "the best theory now although it has some chellenges and hopefully science will have a fuller and better explaination in the future?" is essentially theory number 2.

      Does that answer your question?

      Delete
    2. > Generally, a metaphysical, eternal, random number generator is assumed to Necessarily Exist. This Number Generator is unintelligent (it's actually pretty dumb), as it isn't trying to accomplish any goal.
      ... This is called multiverse theory.

      This is not the only interpretation of quantum mechanics. Please see
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

      MWI does not suffer from postulating Random Number Generator. See here

      http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6096/arguments-for-and-against-many-worlds

      "3. Removes randomness from quantum theory (although for an observer it does not remove any randomness)."


      According to
      http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/manyworldsinterpretation.htm

      "Though not all physicists agree with the many worlds interpretation, there have been informal, unscientific polls which have supported the idea that it is one of the dominant interpretations believed by physicists, likely ranking just behind the Copenhagen interpretation and decoherence". AFAIK the momentum of opinion is in this direction.


      Dr_Manhattan

      Delete
    3. The Many Worlds Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics is not relevant to the type of multiverse that helps explain fine tuning. We are never referring to it throughout these posts.

      Please reread the end of post 5, and watch the video of Richard Dawkins where he makes that clear.

      Delete
    4. > The Many Worlds Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics is not relevant to the type of multiverse that helps explain fine tuning.

      Then please explain what you're referring to by "Generally, a metaphysical, eternal, random number generator is assumed to Necessarily Exist". It's confusing me. I did not think multiverse theories assume infinite time, for one. What is the exact theory or a group of theories, in science-lingo, that you're referring to here?


      In any case the point is probably still is relevant indirectly b/c it shows a model of multiverse where there is no Random Number Generator that you keep referring to. Similar things can be postulated about the kind of multiverses you're talking about.

      Dr_Manhattan

      Delete
    5. If you are interested in the interpretation of quantum mechanics, we can try to recommend a book for you. In the meantime, we repeat, the Many Worlds Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics is not relevant to the type of multiverse that helps explain fine tuning of the constants.

      You think the MWI is probably relevant because you don't know understand what it means. Wiki it.

      The next post will have a lot of material about multiverse theory that scientists are referring to in the context of fine tuning. Maybe it will be clearer then.

      Delete
    6. > You think the MWI is probably relevant because you don't know understand what it means. Wiki it.

      I'll just let this hang there...
      The reason I think it's related because there is a conceptual relationship.

      "But Professor Hawking is not alone in his attachment to M-theory, or to the idea that our universe is just one world in a "multiverse" of worlds.

      This is an idea which echoes work by the physicist Hugh Everett III in the 1950s on quantum theory. This was roundly dismissed while he was alive, but has enjoyed a late renaissance in recent years. Everett described the universe as having not one single history, but multiple histories, in his so-called Many Worlds, or Parallel Worlds, theory.

      Though there's no direct link between Everett's many worlds theory and M-theory, Professor Hawking does describe how M-theory "allows for 10 to the power of 500 different universes, each with its own laws".

      quoted from
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2010/09/how_far_have_we_got_in_the_sea.html, which is linked from wiki

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett_III


      > The next post will have a lot of material about multiverse theory that scientists are referring to in the context of fine tuning. Maybe it will be clearer then.

      ok.

      Dr_Manhattan

      Delete
    7. M-theory is string theory. We will be discussing it in a later posts.

      We'll clarify what we mean that the MWI is not relevant to the fine tuning of the constants. The standard understanding of the MWI only applies to objects in nature, not to the laws or constants themselves.

      The standard way that MWI is understood is in trying to interpret the intrinsic probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics. For example (based on observation), sometimes an electron has a 50% of going right and a 50% chance of going left. The MWI says that reality splits into two multiverses, one in which it goes right and one in which it goes left. All the laws of nature and the constants of nature are the same in these new parallel universes. While some physicists accept this interpretation, it is at least grounded in the observations of accepted quantum mechanics.

      A small number of physicists want to extend this to either the laws themselves or the constants. What this means is that there is a a meta law which creates a probability distribution for the laws or the constants. This has never been observed, as everything in the universe we've observed obeys the same laws of nature and the same constants.

      In these alternate realities, the laws and constants would be different. This is not standard MWI. It is rather a speculative extension of it to apply to the fundamental constants themselves as opposed to particular, physical things in the universe.

      This is another version of theory 4 (the multiverse) where the metaphysical, random number generator is a new meta law which creates different universes with different constants. (Some physicists even believe that the different universe have different qualitative laws other than General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.)

      Delete
    8. To clarify, does this disprove an Aristotelian first cause in the same way it disproves the mathematical formula (since existence emerges automatically from the Intelligent Aristotelian First Cause, and therefore it could not 'choose' the constants?)

      Delete
    9. Aristotle's God is intelligent. (It fact, God and His Intelligence are identical according to Aristotle.) From the Necessary Existence of this first cause, an eternal ordered intelligible universe necessarily results. So Aristotle can explain the fine tuning of the constants.

      What Aristotle can not explain is the big bang and the second law of thermodynamics (see post 4), which shows that the universe is not eternal, but rather has a moment of creation.

      Delete
    10. Why would the same laws with other constants not be just as intelligible, (without intelligent material beings in that universe of course)

      Delete
    11. Excellent question. This has to do with the fundamental philosophical question of the forms.

      According to Aristotle, everything is composed of substance and form. Substance is by its nature unintelligible (meaning, unable to be comprehended by the intellect), while the form of a thing is its conceptual essence (i.e., the essence is what distinguishes a chair from a table, not the substance.) The essence is what your mind comprehends when it knows something.

      According to modern science, these forms (or essences) naturally emerge from the proper structure and ordering of the underlying fundamental particles. (Meaning, in theory we could reconstruct a living animal if we could replicate the exact arrangement of all its constituent parts.)

      If the constants were different, nothing would emerge from the underlying chaotic stew of fundamental particles. There would be no higher forms or essences. No atoms, or molecules, or cells, or animals, or planets, or stars, or galaxies, etc.

      This is the sense in saying that with different fundamental constants, the universe would be unintelligible except for the fundamental laws of physics. There would be nothing for our minds to grasp. No astronomy, chemistry, biology, etc. Just the infinite brew of unintelligible primordial chaos and randomness.

      Delete
    12. Are these forms 'metaphysical' existences, or are they merely functions of human understanding?

      also according to Arisotle, how would the specific constants be chosen out of the infinite possibilities which are in the range suitable for complexity (since his 'God' does not have 'will')

      Delete
    13. The ontological nature of the forms is a matter of dispute between Aristotle and modern science. While it is a fascinating question, we don't think that going into this question really helps understand the main concept.

      For your second question, presumably Aristotle would say that since his God doesn't have choice, the constants are determined by His Essence. This point too is academic as we don't hold by Aristotle's physics and metaphysics. It's better to try to focus on what actually exists, as opposed to what Aristotle would have said.

      Delete
    14. the significance is whether the fine tuning argument would be evidence against Aristotle's, or Einstein's, idea of God which would provide further evidence to the Torah's conception.

      Delete
  2. yes and no but for now it is fine. my question is not essentially in catagory 2 in can be in catagory 4 (i think) but in order to discuss it i should wait until you get to the next post. thanks for your quick response.
    SH

    ReplyDelete
  3. Not sure this is relevant, but scientists have now found the strongest indication to date of the Higgs-Boson particle, i.e. the God particle

    http://news.yahoo.com/higgs-boson-physicists-see-best-proof-yet-god-155311961--abc-news-tech.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It does have relevance in so far as it confirm through observation the predictions of the Standard Model of Particle Physics. According to the scientific method, that is how a scientific theory becomes established as true.

      Delete

In the words of Agur bin-Yakeh: "We welcome all comments, questions, contributions, and critiques - but if you insist on posting anonymously, PLEASE use a pseudonym rather than posting as "Anonymous," since this makes it much easier to carry on a normal discussion. Thank you!"