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.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

God vs The Multiverse (Part 17: Summary of Stage Two)

In summarizing the proof thus far, we want to show how the proof from the fine tuning of the constants and initial conditions is exhaustive in discussing all possible explanations for the fine tuning.   In addition to the fact that design and order point to an Intelligent Designer, there is no reasonable alternative for explaining the fine tuning in the universe.

We want to make it clear that we are not using the process of elimination to establish an Intelligent Designer.  Fine tuning, in and of itself, points to an Intelligent Designer.  Rather, we are demonstrating that we have not missed any other types of explanations which would account for the fine tuning of the constants and initial conditions.  This is important because a person attains a much greater degree of conviction in the truth of any theory, when he can categorize all other possible theories and realize that they are insufficient to explain the facts.

There are only four possible types of theories which can explain the particular values of the constants of nature (the same line of reasoning applies to the initial conditions):
(1)  Necessary Existences;
(2)  Intelligent Designer;
(3)  Master Mathematical Equation of the Universe;
(4)  Multiverse.

We know these are the only possibilities based on the following reasoning:

Either the particular values of the constants have a cause, or they do not have a cause.  If they do not have a cause, that means that they are Necessary Existences (Theory 1).  The other three theories explain the constants based upon a cause.  The disagreement between the different theories is about the nature of this cause.

Assuming that they do have a cause, either the cause of the constants is Intelligent, or it is not intelligent.  If it is Intelligent, that means they were designed by an Intelligent Agent (Theory 2).  On the other hand, Theories 3 and 4 both assume an unintelligent cause, but differ on the nature of this unintelligent cause.

Assuming that the cause is unintelligent, we must consider the nature of the relationship between this cause and the resultant constants.  Either the relationship is deterministic (i.e., the particular values of the constants necessarily result from the cause), or it is not deterministic (i.e., the particular values of the constants do not necessarily result from the cause, but arise from the cause by a probabilistic/chance mechanism).

If the unintelligent cause is deterministic, that  means that there is some master mathematical law which necessarily determines every constant to every last decimal place (Theory 3).  If the unintelligent cause is not deterministic, then one must explain how the probabilistic mechanism (some sort of random number generator) happened to select the right values for our universe to emerge. In order for this to be reasonable, one must posit a multiverse with a near infinite number of universes; in each universe, the probabilistic mechanism randomly selects particular values for each constant (Theory 4).

The outline below summarizes the breakdown of all of the possible explanations for the particular values of the constants (and initial conditions).  This is a good point to pause and think.  See if you are convinced that these possibilities are exhaustive, or ask us if you disagree.

I. No cause:  Necessary Existences - Theory 1

II. Cause:

        A.  Intelligent Cause:   Designer -  Theory 2

        B. Unintelligent Cause:

                   i. Unintelligent, deterministic cause:   Master Mathematical Equation -  Theory 3

                   ii. Unintelligent, not deterministic cause:   Multiverse -  Theory 4


At the end of Stage One (Post 6), we summarized the reasoning for rejecting Theories 1 and 3. Essentially, they are difficult theories to begin with, which are made untenable by their lack of explanation of the fine tuning.

In Stage Two, we formulated many arguments to reject Theory 4 (the multiverse).  We illustrated why any theory that can explain anything, really explains nothing (multiverse of the gaps fallacy).  We also demonstrated why Theory 2 (an Intelligent Agent) does not commit this fallacy.

Throughout Stage Two, we argued how scientists have mistaken a question about the philosophy of science for a scientific question.  They confuse a philosophical theory couched in mathematical language with the science of physics.  We called this mathematical wonderland.  In pretending that their philosophical theory is science, they have distorted the scientific method and undermined the institution of science itself.  

It is clear that the fine tuning of our universe is not a proof for the multiverse (as Greene claims), but an indication of Design. Additionally, we have demonstrated why the other two 'proofs' given to support the multiverse are actually the two biggest problems with their own theories.  The landscape problem is the Achilles' heal of string theory, not evidence for a multiverse.  Eternal Inflation creates many problems with infinities (Boltzmann Brain Paradox, Santa Claus, etc.), in addition to the fact that the infinities render it impossible to make any predictions without the introduction of ad hoc measures.

Finally, we showed how multiverse thinking leads scientists into total oblivion. They seriously contemplate the possibility that they aren't even real, but are the creations of a physical, super intelligent, transhuman god.

The very popularity of multiverse theory among scientists is a great source of conviction in the proof.  Every year, more and more physicists are professing faith in the multiverse.  This makes it clear to you that you haven't missed some simple answer to the problem.  This also illustrates just how serious the problems of fine tuning of the constants and initial conditions are.  It is not for naught that scientists are positing an idea as wildly speculative and unscientific as an infinite amount of unobservable universes.

We think that one of the main reasons why scientists have faith in the multiverse, is because they do not see the idea of One God as a rational belief.  They find the idea of God impossible to entertain (see video in post 15).   They also lodge many serious questions against Theory 2 (an Intelligent Designer).   Who caused God?  Or, if He has no cause, then why does He exist?   What designed the Designer?  What knowledge do we even have by saying 'God', which is just a word that represents an empty concept!?

For this proof to stand firm, we must show that Theory 2 can be formulated in a clear manner.  It will not suffice for us to simply leave a vague notion of God and walk away.  It is incumbent upon us to present and defend a rational formulation for the theory of an Intelligent Designer, in a manner that satisfactorily answers all serious questions with our formulation.

In the final stage of the proof (Stage Three), we will present a clear formulation of Theory 2.  We do not pretend to have discovered this formulation ourselves.  Rather, we will clearly explain, to the best of our limited abilities, the theory of One God as discovered by Abraham (approximately 3800 years ago).

We will explain why Abraham's God is a satisfactory explanation for the fine tuning of our universe.  We will not be able to address and disprove every possible formulation of a god that people have ever invented; nor is it necessary for us to do so for this proof to stand firm.  (There are even more flawed and false formulations of god(s) than there are models for the multiverse.)  We will simply attempt to present a rational concept of an Intelligent Agent, so that you are in a position where you are free to choose which of the above four theories you maintain to be true.

Click here to continue to Stage 3a.

14 comments:

  1. Great post! Thanks, and looking forward to part III.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent analysis. Still waiting for Dr. Manhattan to chime in - I hope he hasn't left us due to lost interest. It seems like an essential piece is yet to come.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I thought of an interesting disproof to the infinite multiverse argument in the same vein as the Boltzmann Brain paradox and wanted to hear your thoughts on it.

    Instead of showing a simpler universe and accepting that possibility as more likely than a real one as the Brain paradox illustrates, I propose we consider an even more complex universe.

    We find ourselves unable to experiment in a manner which properly proves or disproves the multiverse theory. But if the multiverse theory of infinite universes is true, we are not the only scientists available. There are in fact an infinity of not only scientists, but super-intelligent scientists far greater in understanding and ability than our own.

    My paradox is this: In at least one universe, though subsequently infinitely many others as well, there exists a scientist who has discovered the multiverse and found a means of proving it scientifically. He then further decides to contact all other intelligences within the multiverse of his discovery.

    Mind you, if you object to his strange desire to notify other intelligences I will respond that one scientist may not choose to do so, but in an infinite multiverse, one of the next super-intelligent scientists will make such a choice. And if you wish to further question his limitations of light-speed or something of the sort, I will deflect in exactly the same way.

    No such communication has been received (let alone infitely many from all of the others), so the multiverse must not contain such a scientist. If it is in fact the case that such a scientist does not exist in the multiverse, the multiverse must necessarily be finite.

    If the multiverse is thus proven to be finite, it is illogical to presume that there are 2 let alone 10^(10^123) without any kind of evidence. I find this point to be valuable because a theory of infinity allows for a fine-tuned universe with much easier means than one designed, albeit without any evidence which is of course a huge problem; but if one ignores this requirement, as is done often in multiverse theory, it is a simpler proof. However, if finity is proven, the burden of proof becomes much greater.

    We know the unlikelihood of the universe. If we don't have infinity to play with, we NEED enough universal attempts to get there by chance. Evidence of not only one but 10^(10^123) becomes a requirement for consideration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your paradox is an interesting one, but it depends on the possibility of communications from one universe to another. If that is deemed to be impossible (because there is no causal contact), then it is not a question on multiverse theory, as even an infinite number of tries can not accomplish that which is entirely impossible.

      However, if a multiverse theory admits that it is impossible to have any causal contact between universes, they are also admitting that multiverse is intrinsically unobservable and is therefore not a scientific theory.

      > I find this point to be valuable because a theory of infinity allows for a fine-tuned universe with much easier means than one designed, albeit without any evidence which is of course a huge problem; but if one ignores this requirement, as is done often in multiverse theory, it is a simpler proof. However, if finity is proven, the burden of proof becomes much greater.

      We do not think it is sensible to ignore the fact that there is no evidence for an infinite number of multiverses, yet still call it a simpler proof.

      Also, we think the burden of proof is on anyone positing more one universe. All the more so an infinite number of actual universes, which is a dubious philosophical concept to begin with.

      Delete
    2. Boltzman brain is the most popular because it was thought up by scientists and it is a defeater. But absurdities are persuasive as well.

      Dont start at *This world..start in a universe the size of our Solar system which drives odds down insurmountably according to Penrose. Now make intelligent observers asexual, which drives odds down even more.

      Now lets make up some odds. Instead of the insane odds that have to be overcome to make 2 sexes and our huge universe--instead of those insane coincidences we'll have a suicidal Observer whom, everytime he want to fire a gun at himself his bullet is a dud.

      Whether through misfires, duds, or something else it doesnt much matter...this man defies probability just as our life does in *Our immense universe.

      Perhaps in the unkillable mans universe there are also those who cant accept the world has a Creator. They come up with a way to void the odds. Honestly..would a single person accept that the answer he cannot kill himself is because there is more than 1 universe? You see how embarrassing this is? It is only because people conceptualize "Life" and its origin as some kind of all encompassing problem they can dismiss it away without any real serious thought because they dont like where its solution leads.

      When you decouple that from the problem and insert the unkillable man or any other zero probability event it quickly exposes how intellectually lazy and hopelessly biased multiverse proponents are.

      Why does life, alone, get to be the only improbable thing in the multiverse? --or in our universe?

      Multiverse allows things much more improbable than life and demands things less improbable that are NOT life---just crazy.

      How about a universe that is also less improbable. It only has 1 nebula, 5 minds composed of electrical thought, (much less complicated than us living in a biosphere). Their insurmountable odds to overcome is the fact that every person has exactly the same thought at Noon(they keep atomic time). That thought is "There is a Planet call Earth". This continues forever with each day(so to speak) bringing this synchronized thought. Its happened for so long its obviously a Law in their universe.

      Improbable right? Not in comparison to ours---all we're asking for here is for the completely electrical minds to clump together a 5 way royal flush of sorts. Not more improbable than our so called random particle colliding brain with no freewill. Certainly not 10 to the 10th power to the 150th power. The multiverse generator takes care of those odds easy. The problem is one day at Noon it doesnt happen anymore---ever. Why? Because its so improbable that its infinitely more likely that it would stop than continue. Bye Bye Law.

      You see how deep they've gone? You demand the universe generator produce order so the right chain of events are caused so you can exist---but you forget about everything else it allows that is far more incomprehensible

      How lazy do you have to be to not see that *our complex world, that you're trying explain, is superseded by realities in which Space itself is conscious. By atheist' definition--a particle planet can believe its conscious. Space's will would make perceived choices and move !! . How the multiverse believers cant see where this leads is IMO the most profound evidence to date of a paralyzing bias.

      A mechanism exists, with agent causality, that pops everything that Can Be into existence and this solves the problem of why we exist? -contemplate that for no more 3 seconds--and tell me you will continue to consider the atheists in the fields of Cosmology are unbiased.

      Delete
    3. There is no doubt that the absurdities one encounters in the multiverse are far more numerous than the few we mention (an infinite amount actually). You have come up with quite a few humorous ones yourself. It amazes us too that multiverse scientists to not perceive just how ludicrous some of the conclusions their theory leads too are.

      Delete
  4. I have been following this series with great interest! My knowledge of physics is rudimentary, but I try to educate myself. Just watched this recent documentary by the BBC titled "Human Universe: Why are we Here?" where the narrator rather pompously discusses eternal inflation theory as if it is an established inarguable fact and tries to make the multiverse theory seem like the only logical conclusion. Not surprising, I know. But he states at 55 minutes in: "Inflation need not stop at one universe. Why should it?" Can you please answer this question more thoroughly or redirect me to where in this series you addressed it. Is it the problem of Boltzmann Brain?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Extraordinary fine-tuning of the hypothetical inflaton field (the thing that causes inflation) is necessary in order to get inflation that produces a universe that resembles our universe. The simplest versions of this fine-tuned inflation will naturally lead to many universes.

      However, we argue that once one is willing to posit an unobserved fine-tuned inflaton field to explain our universe, let the model be even more fine-tuned so that it explains our one universe (which is possible to do), without positing many unobserved universes.

      Perhaps the best way to get these points clear is to read Paul Steinhardt's article that we link to in post 13. He does an excellent job of explaining inflation, eternal inflation, and the problems of fine-tuning:

      http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. Thank you! It seems that even if there were multiple universes, even scientists of that persuasion must admit that the laws of the universe are necessary for these processes to take place. By then arguing that that all natural laws are suspended in other universes and that there are an infinite number of them where any mathematical possibility exists, they sort of argue themselves into a pretzel that leads them to inadvertently argue against the entire scientific enterprise which is based on these natural laws.

    ReplyDelete

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!"