Oy Vey.
http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2011/06/23/the_multiverse_gods,_part_1.thtml
Multiverse-theory is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to defend atheism. It makes no predictions, it gives no insight, it provides no control, it produces no technology, it advances no mathematics, it is a science in name only, because it is really metaphysics.
One of the few things more cringe-inducing that watching some ignorant Creationist prattle on about how evolution is that, that or the other thing (that it’s not), is watching some other “right winger” prattle on about how physics is an attempt to deny god or promote atheism.
I’m still pecking away on my book on nuclear pulse propulsion. At no point in the text do I use the physics or engineering involved to deny or confirm the existence of any particular god. Upon publication, will I catch flak from god-botherers about the fact that I don’t credit God with the actual process of nuclear explosions?
29 Responses to “You’re Not Helping”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
So when is the book coming out? I can’t wait!
Can’t wait for the book.
On another note, you’re forgetting the primary reason God makes NUKULAR explosions: to burn the heathen straight to hell. Because its not enough to simply kill the pagans, you gotta do it with a blast of radiation 🙂
I’ve got to part company with you on your criticism of this blog. I am an agnostic (not an atheist), so I certainly am not coming at this from a creationist point of view.
I found nothing objectionable in that blog you linked to. There are indeed issues with the pure materialist take on the universe. Perhaps at some point these issues will be worked out and materialism will provide a complete (or at least a reasonably complete) explanation of the universe we find ourselves in, but currently it doesn’t. Having a beginning to the universe is a problem for the materialist, and Hawking notably has tried on several occasions to make this go away, unsuccessfully I might add. Twenty five years ago he was proposing his theory of imaginary time (which as an engineer held some appeal given the utility of imaginary numbers in the real world). Hawking discarded this about 15 years ago as unsatisfactory. Lately he’s proposed that the law of gravity demands the creation of a universe given enough time, but he’s only pushed the problem back one level, for surely the reasonable person will ask where the law of gravity came from, or time for that mater (and clearly he’s smart enough to recognize this though he does not comment on it).
As a scientific theory the multiverse is unsatisfying, and in fact is arguably not a scientific theory at all, or at least that is case with the mulitverse theories that I’ve seen so far. They simply don’t make predictions that are even in theory falsifiable. Most scientist count that as an essential feature of a real scientific theory. I think anyone that professes to hold to the scientific method must acknowledge the shortcomings of current thinking with respect to the multiverse. That doesn’t mean that at some point someone won’t propose a multiverse theory in the future that does make falsifiable claims. Also, it is true that while there were discussions of the multiverse previously, it was not overly popular amongst physicist until the “fine tuning” problem became apparent.
Lastly, let me comment on the knee jerk ridicule I commonly see against anything that has even a taint of creationism. This smacks of elitism, not at all unlike the elitism that causes those on the political left to automatically feel superior to all those rubes in flyover country, particularly those dumb hicks in the red states. This is nothing more than a way to feel good about yourself on the cheap. Sure, there are scores of dumb creationist out there that believe that men and dinosaurs roamed the planet together 10,000 years ago right after it was created. But, not every creationist believes these obviously wrong “theories”. Many believe in evolution and a 15 billion year old universe and should not be dismissed out of hand. They may still be wrong, but their ideas deserve to be addressed on their own merits, not simply lumped together and dismissed. I don’t know the writer of the blog in question and I’ve never seen the site before today, but it is obvious to me that he’s reasonably well educated and has given the subject some thought. I do not suspect that he goes around saying NUKULAR, given that according to his blog bio he has a PhD in Physics. BTW, remember that that “Nukular” dig is commonly used as an indictment by the left of the right’s presumed stupidity, and in particular was a common joke against G.W. Bush (who, if you listened to carefully obviously went to some pains not to say “Nukular”).
Ahem: “Multiverse-theory is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to defend atheism.”
I suppose string theory is designed for the sole purpose of advancing the Gay Agenda.
“Fine tuning” is not really a problem, unless one starts out with the unjustifiable belief that the universe was put here specifically for our convenience. Change things a little, and humans could not exist. Ummmm… so what? The fact is… the universe changes things so that humans cannot exist *all* *the* *time.* Lots of perfectly fine houses in Hawaii and Iceland have found themselves covered in lava: not livable. Lots of perfectly fine houses in Japan and along the Mississippi found themselves under water: not livable. Hell, six feet down, be it dirt or water: not livable. Sixty feet up: livable, but only for a few seconds.
The surface of every single celestial body we’re aware of other than Earth: not livable. The space between all those celestial bodies: not livable. So far as we’re aware, the only livable part of this *entire* universe is a vanishingly thin skin of a tiny little rock. Something goes kerblooie there, and we’re wiped out… it’s just barely possible that if Earth gets destroyed, all life in the entire universe is extinguished. And what will the universe care? Not one bit.
The universe is almost entirely antagonistic to human life. Had things been slightly different? it would not, on the grand scheme, have made the slightest bit of difference to anything but humans.
> There are indeed issues with the pure materialist take on the universe.
The “issues” with materialism revolve around the fact that the database is incomplete… not that the data contradicts it.
> Having a beginning to the universe is a problem for the materialist
Equally so for the theist. Perhaps even more so, unless the theist has a good explanation – backed up with empirical evidence – for the creation of the deity responsible. Materialism, unlike supernaturalism, is at least making a good-faith effort to actually find out.
> But, not every creationist believes these obviously wrong “theories”. Many believe in evolution and a 15 billion year old universe
These are more what you’d call “theistic evolutionists” than strict “creationists.” When you say “creationist,” I hear “God poofed the universe and its lifeforms into existence pretty much as-is.”
No, the multiverse IS designed for one purpose and one purpose one (o.k. mainly for one purpose) ….. and rightly so I might add.
Let me explain. The materialist point of view, which is to say the scientific point of view can not address the concept of a supernatural creator. Such a concept simply lies outside the realm of science. So, any scientific theory of the universe will invariably attempt to write out a role for a universal creator. And again, let me stress that is right and correct that it does so for it can not address the metaphysical.
So, the reason you need a multiverse? It is undeniable that in recent years (say in the last 10 or 15 years) that there has come to be an appreciation for the fact that this universe’s fundamental constants seem to be almost uniquely suited for the formation of atoms, stars, solar systems, galaxies and life. Change the fundamental charge of the electron just slightly and atoms fall apart, changes the gravitational constant slightly and stars and solar systems don’t form. Change the fine structure constant and all sorts of other mischief happen. You may not accept this but I can tell you that the physics community by in large accepts that the fundamental constants of this universe are well nigh uniquely set to produce complex structures (atoms, stars, solar systems, life, etc.). It is recognized that there are almost certainly more than one configuration of fundamental constants that give rise to a universe with stars and life, but it is also recognized that there are far far more configurations that yield universes in which no complex structure can arise and you basically end up with a universe that is a soup of unbound subatomic particles. So, you must ask yourself, “how did we end up in a universe so well suited for stars and life?”. The answer is clear, if it were any way else, we would not be here. But once you accept that, you are faced with the almost absurd probability that we should be here at all, and most physics tend to take the point of view that what we see around us is not highly atypical (much less has an almost zero chance of existing at all). So, how to solve the conundrum? Simple, you posit an infinite number of universes and while our particular universe is highly improbable because there are an infinite number of them a universe with a configuration agreeable to life will arise and of course the beings in that universe will all wonder at how finely adjusted their particular universe’s are adjusted for the evolution of complex structures and intelligent life.
But here’s the rub, in most of these multiverse theories, each universe is just that, a universe which is an entity unto itself. So, no information can travel from one universe to another. This of course makes any such theory unfalsifiable, which is not a feature of a good scientific theory. Now, recently there have been some multiverse theories proposed where information can leak from one universe to another, and in theory these are falsifiable, and hence candidates to be scrutinized by the scientific method, but these theories are quite new and untested. Perhaps one of them will prove out. Or perhaps not. Who knows.
So, in summary, yes the main reason for a theory that contains a multiverse is to remove the need for any sort of creator which the “fine tuning” problem seems to at least possibly put on the table. I don’t have any problem with this, since science can not really address the supernatural and I don’t attach nefarious intentions to it. But, at the same time we should not deny that is what is going on.
You really seems to get your dander up on issues like this, which I find is usually a sign of fear or uncertainty. I think you need to approach the subject more dispassionately. Remember, I am not a creationist, I am an agnostic. I don’t know whether a creator exist or not. I allow that it is possible, but there is certainly no scientific evidence for a creator and I expect that scientist will (and should) craft theories that exclude the requirement for a creator.
BTW, I define a creationist as one who believes in a created universe (that is, a universe created by some sort of intelligence). You can certainly define subdivisions of this class but I am speaking broadly in this case, and certainly from reading that blog I don’t believe the author believes in a 10,000 yr old universe without evolution. I do object to the reflexive ridicule of someone that appears to have educated himself on the issue and given it some considerable thought. If I read more of his blog I also might find some of his assertions preposterous, but I didn’t find anything in that one blog too out there. Certainly not beyond the pale of a serious discussion.
> The materialist point of view, which is to say the scientific point of view can not address the concept of a supernatural creator.
Sure it can. There are all kinds of ways a supernatural creator could be detected. Assuming, of course, that there was such a creator and that the creator left traces or wanted to be found. A message buried in Pi (See: “Contact”) or embedded in the cosmic background radiation (see: SG:U) would be pretty much incontrovertible, objective evidence that could be detected and measured and would lend themselves to no rational alternatives beyond “creator.”
> Change the fine structure constant and all sorts of other mischief happen. You may not accept this
Who said I don’t accept it? I simply pointed out that the universe doesn’t give a damn about whether or not it’s comfy for humans.
> But once you accept that, you are faced with the almost absurd probability that we should be here at all,
Sigh. Once again… who cares? An experiment I’ve suggested in the past: shuffle a deck of 52 cards. Now lay them out, one after the other. What are the chances that you’d come up with *that* sequence? In normal human terms, the chances are… one in a a Really Big Unrealistic Number. And yet, it happen ed. You can do it a hundred times and come up with a massively unlikely sequence every single time. But have you performed some miracle? Did magic supernatural powers lead the cards to lay out in that massively unlikely configuration? Nope. The cards had to come out in *some* sequence, and it just happened to be that one.
> So, no information can travel from one universe to another.
And you know this to be true based on…??
I’ve seen “multiverse” hypotheses that suggest that some forces like gravity pass from one universe to another, explaining why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces.
Whether or not such hypotheticals can be tested and falsified is as yet uncertain. Remember, it took some years before the theory or relativity could be tested; cosmology has now reached such an esoteric level of difficulty that it could well be decades or centuries before some aspects can be tested. Until such tests are conducted, the ideas can’t be said to be truly valid, but if they are the only game in town as far as explanatory hypotheses, then they should at least be examined.
> You really seems to get your dander up on issues like this, which I find is usually a sign of fear or uncertainty.
What, really? *Really??* So… someone who gets pissed off at Holocaust deniers, Flat Earthers, Apollo Hoaxers an the like is suffering from “fear or uncertainty?”
Sorry, no. I simply have no tolerance for “foolishness as official policy.” Right wingers who want to produce utter bilge like “modern cosmology is solely about trying to get rid of God” makes the rest of the Right look like tards, and aids the cause of the Left wingers who are working (consciously or otherwise) to explode the economy.
Whether or not “multiverse” is factually correct, or has a valid scientific underpinning, is a valid discussion topic. Whether or not “multiverse” is some atheist conspiracy to wipe out both science *and* religion is just… stupid.
>> The materialist point of view, which is to say the scientific point of view can not address the concept of a supernatural creator.
>Sure it can. There are all kinds of ways a supernatural creator could be detected. Assuming, of course, that there was such a creator and that the creator left traces or wanted to be found. A message buried in Pi (See: “Contact”) or embedded in the cosmic background radiation (see: SG:U) would be pretty much incontrovertible, objective evidence that could be detected and measured and would lend themselves to no rational alternatives beyond “creator.”
A creator, if it existed, would almost certainly exist outside our spacetime, perhaps in some hyperspace in which our universe is embedded, with the ability to move in and out of our spacetime at will, much in the way a 3D being could “miraculously” pop in and out of a 2D universe. Even it it did not, consider the most advanced alien race you can possibly conceive. Is it not obvious that a sufficiently advanced alien race would not be detected by our technology if it did not want to be detected? Surely a theoretical creator of our universe would have that capability and more. So, a creator would only be detectable if it wanted its presence to be known. Perhaps our inability to detect it is part of its plan? Who knows? I would not presume to proscribe the behavior of a supreme being, even a theoretical one.
>> Change the fine structure constant and all sorts of other mischief happen. You may not accept this
>Who said I don’t accept it? I simply pointed out that the universe doesn’t give a damn about whether or not it’s comfy for humans.
a.) but it is comfy for humans. curious minds want to know why. b.) I also don’t presume to know what the universe does or doesn’t give a damn about.
>> But once you accept that, you are faced with the almost absurd probability that we should be here at all,
>Sigh. Once again… who cares? An experiment I’ve suggested in the past: shuffle a deck of 52 cards. Now lay them out, one after the other. What are the chances that you’d come up with *that* sequence? In normal human terms, the chances are… one in a a Really Big Unrealistic Number. And yet, it happen ed. You can do it a hundred times and come up with a massively unlikely sequence every single time. But have you performed some miracle? Did magic supernatural powers lead the cards to lay out in that massively unlikely configuration? Nope. The cards had to come out in *some* sequence, and it just happened to be that one.
Sigh. You have failed to grasp how truly improbable our universe’s current configuration of fundamental constants are which are amenable to complex structures and life. Most configurations result in universes which immediately collapse upon themselves, or thin out into nothingness, or result in a soup of subatomic particles in thermal equilibrium. The set space of fundamental constants which result in a universe in which life can arise is vanishingly improbable (on the order of 10^-60 to 10^100 and I’ve even seen 10^-400 posited). When something that improbable has occurred, curious scientists ask “why?”. Either our universe has been created many many times before, or many many universes exist simultaneously, or some yet undiscovered law drives these constants to agreeable values, or something picked these values.
To elaborate on your card shuffle. Suppose you’ve got enough cards that 10^100 hands are dealable. Suppose exactly one of those hands implies the presence of life. You shuffle the cards as vigorously as possible and you deal the hand. It comes up with the hand that implies life. Wouldn’t you wonder if there wasn’t special about that hand? Now obviously if you have infinite time and you deal an infinite number of hands maybe you aren’t surprised when it turns up. But, what if you only deal it once?
>> So, no information can travel from one universe to another.
>And you know this to be true based on…??
Because I’ve read the theories. Most multiverse theories posit universes which are completely closed off from one another and information can not travel between them (amongst other things, the observed law of entropy seems to demand this, but the jury on that may still be out). True, some string theories allow gravity to transverse branes. Those are falsifiable theories and perfectly consistent with the scientific method. However, those multiverse theories that have closed off universes are as much of a leap of faith as is a belief in god. Like god, they are simply inaccessible via the scientific method.
>> You really seems to get your dander up on issues like this, which I find is usually a sign of fear or uncertainty.
>What, really? *Really??* So… someone who gets pissed off at Holocaust deniers, Flat Earthers, Apollo Hoaxers an the like is suffering from “fear or uncertainty?”
Because you are rational concerning Holocaust deniers, flat eathers, and Apollo hoaxers, it does not follow that you are rational concerning the existence or non-existence of god. Maybe you are and maybe you aren’t.
This is a really important subject. I wish more people could check their emotions at the door and talk about it.
>Who said I don’t accept it? I simply pointed out that the universe doesn’t give a damn about whether or not it’s comfy for humans.
a.) but it is comfy for humans. curious minds want to know why. b.) I also don’t presume to know what the universe does or doesn’t give a damn about.
Mr. Scott seems to not be paying attention. Our host’s point, which he illustrated with several examples, is that our universe isn’t comfy for humans, except in an infinitesibally small portion on one planet.
(And, I’d like to add, the comfy portion is restricted to a particular time: prior to a billion or two years ago, you wouldn’t have survived on the surface of our planet for very long, because the atmospheric oxygen levels would have been too low. A billion or two years in the future, and the Sun will have increased in luminosity to make the Earth’s surface a very uncomfortable place to be.)
Nor can you say that our universe is uniquely suited to permit life. How can anyone know that? Our universe’s characteristics barely permit it, and the Fermi Paradox strongly suggests that intelligent life in our universe either is extremely rare or that interstellar travel is so difficult as to be effectively impossible. But had those fundamental constants been slightly different, perhaps the universe would be teeming with intelligent life … entities who would smugly reason that there is but one universe — their own — and it was created specifically for their benefit with exactly the characteristics needed to result in their existence.
> a creator would only be detectable if it wanted its presence to be known.
Thus the belief that “science can never prove the existence of God” is unfounded hogwash. If God exists and doesn’t actively want to *not* be found, then he’d be findable. Even if “God” doesn’t want to be found, it’s still possible that this God person left behind fingerprints. Since science is now in the early, early stages of beginning to think about how to maybe someday create entire universes, it’s conceivable that the Creator is no more Omniscient and Infallible than a drunken frat boy how snuck into the accelerator lab one night with the intention of impressing his cheerleader girlfriend.
> a.) but it is comfy for humans
NO IT IS NOT. One *tiny* little fragment of it is. If you disagree with me, feel free to sink to the bottom of the nearest river, lake or ocean and try to hold your breath for, oh, an hour. An hour out of fourteen billion years is such a tiny fragment that surely the universe will cradle you in its tender arms and not allow anything unfortunate to happen.
Then sit in the heart of a star. Or bodysurf on a lava flow. Or try to breath the vacuum that makes up 99.99999+% of the entire universe. How comfy is *that*?
>You have failed to grasp how truly improbable our universe’s current configuration of fundamental constants are which are amenable to complex structures and life.
No, I have not. But you seem to have become overawed with your own self-importance in the grand scheme of things. In the infinity of other possibilities there are an infinity of other arrangements that could have led to some *other* form of… well, maybe not life, but perhaps something equally as valid. If you believe the universe to be miraculously arranged just for your benefit, then you must equally believe that the universe cruelly murdered even the *possibility* of an infinite number of other types of life forms. In short, in a mono-universe, the vast majority of possibilities have been wiped from existence. A creator who selected this arrangement, and *only* this arrangement, has selected to abort all other possibilities. This creator has chosen to create a universe that is distinctly *not* comfy for an infinity of other species.
> When something that improbable has occurred, curious scientists ask “why?”.
Every *other* arrangement is equally improbable.
> what if you only deal it once?
If I deal it once and it comes up something else, then I can’t exist and don’t give a rats ass because I ain’t there.
Your parents could have produced I suppose *trillions* of possible children. Mom had hundreds or thousands of fertilizable eggs, Dad had, what, billions of sperm. Not only the individual combinations, but also the *timing.* The same sperm and egg that made you, had they done their little dance thirty seconds earlier or ten minutes later, would probably have produced a slightly different gene sequence. So, out of all those… you. Huzzah? But then, one must weep for all those other lost lives, yes? Why you and not them? What makes *you* so special?
Answer: Ya ain’t Yer just what happened, the result of a roll of the dice. It’s a sign of mental illness to believe that you are Chosen and Special, which one would pretty much have to believe if one believes that one is the only individual deemed worthy of life over billions or trillions of other possibilities.
> those multiverse theories that have closed off universes are as much of a leap of faith as is a belief in god
And do you therefore agree with the original blog posts author that anyone who proposes such a theory is part of an atheist conspiracy to wipe out god and ethics? or is it simply a theory that attempts to explain the world as we see it to be?
> Because you are rational concerning Holocaust deniers, flat eathers, and Apollo hoaxers, it does not follow that you are rational concerning the existence or non-existence of god
Interestingly, you’ve *completely* missed the point. It seems you failed to “check your emotions at the door,” and instead launched in without giving the point of the post sufficient thought.
Here, I’ll try again:
I don;t care whether or not the author of the blog post that I originally referenced believes in God, multiple gods, antigods or no gods. I don’t care if he thinks “mulitiverse” is the best idea EVAR or if he thinks it’s hogwash. What I *do* care about is his position that the sole purpose in the theory is that it is part of some atheist conspiracy. This sort of thinking is *entirely* too common.
> the comfy portion is restricted to a particular time: prior to a billion or two years ago, you wouldn’t have survived on the surface of our planet for very long
Less than that, I believe. The Ordovician period (IIRC,400 MYA, too lazy to look it up) would have likely killed you from a combo of too little oxygen and too much CO2. The Jurassic, on the other hand, might have killed you from an *excess* of oxygen.
> But had those fundamental constants been slightly different, perhaps the universe would be teeming with intelligent life … entities who would smugly reason that there is but one universe — their own — and it was created specifically for their benefit with exactly the characteristics needed to result in their existence.
Indeed so. “Smug mode” is what I detect whenever someone starts prattling on about how the universe seems to be made just for us. It *almost* makes me want to see the stars align just right resulting in a return of Cthulhu and Yog Sothoth, so’s I can point and laugh insanely as they clear off the Earth for their own uses. How fricken’ special will we be in the universe when the Old Ones wipe our biosphere off in a sheet of eldritch flame?
>> But had those fundamental constants been slightly different, perhaps the universe would be teeming with intelligent life … entities who would smugly reason that there is but one universe — their own — and it was created specifically for their benefit with exactly the characteristics needed to result in their existence.
Perhaps, but this is not the thinking of most mainstream physicists today. Most believe that the vast majority of different fundamental constant reshufflings would lead to universes that are lifeless and of course devoid of intelligent life as well. There many will be a configuration of fundamental constants that give rise to a universe “teeming with intelligent life”, even more so than our own, but my sense from reading the literature is that these universes are likely even less probable than our current improbable universe.
>Indeed so. “Smug mode” is what I detect whenever someone starts prattling on about how the universe seems to be made just for us. It *almost* makes me want to see the stars align just right resulting in a return of Cthulhu and Yog Sothoth, so’s I can point and laugh insanely as they clear off the Earth for their own uses. How fricken’ special will we be in the universe when the Old Ones wipe our biosphere off in a sheet of eldritch flame?
You misunderstand me. I say this universe *appears* well tuned for life, and perhaps even well tuned for intelligent life, but not for humans in particular. I don’t think humans are anything special. I think that given the way this universe is configured (setting aside for the moment how we came to this configuration, either through multiverses, cyclic universes, some yet undiscovered law that drives fundamental constants that happen to favor the formation of life, or an intelligent creator) it will eventually drive towards the formations of life and then further drive life towards consciousness and intelligence, but that humans almost certainly don’t play any central role. In fact, as intelligent species go, we many be the kids that ride the short bus to school for all I know. So any smugness you detected was either because I was not clear or you had a preconceived notion of what you thought I was saying.
Murgatroyd says:
July 11, 2011 at 8:04 pm
>Mr. Scott seems to not be paying attention. Our host’s point, which he illustrated with several examples, is that our universe isn’t comfy for humans, except in an infinitesibally small portion on one planet.
Ah, but you’re wrong. In the vast scheme of things this universe is quite comfy compared to the 99.9999 ……. (9’s out to 100 places or so) universes that you get when you start adjusting the fundamental constants of the universe (electric charge constant, gravitational constant, speed of light, fine structure constant, etc. etc.). In most combinations of possible fundamental constants you wind up with universes that collapse almost immediately after they start, or the expand so rapidly that the universe thins out so much that you can’t get enough material in one place to build anything complex, or you end up with a soup of subatomic particles that don’t combine to make larger structures (electrons, protons, neutrons, atoms, molecules, stars, planets, organic molecules, microbes, humans, etc.), or even in the one where subatomic particles collect to form atoms these atoms can not collect together to form stars. So relatively speaking, this universe is quite accommodating towards the formation of life. We have stars that burn for billions of years, complex chemistry including organic chemistry, etc. you get the idea…. Sure, put a lone human out in the vacuum of space and he dies quickly, but many microbes can survive the vacuum of space quite well and there’s every reason to believe that there are lots of cozy planets like earth that can support more complex life. Compared to those other universes this one is a paradise.
>(And, I’d like to add, the comfy portion is restricted to a particular time: prior to a billion or two years ago, you wouldn’t have survived on the surface of our planet for very long, because the atmospheric oxygen levels would have been too low. A billion or two years in the future, and the Sun will have increased in luminosity to make the Earth’s surface a very uncomfortable place to be.)
Earth’s been relatively comfy for life for about 4.5B years, though admittedly not for human life for that entire time. The thing that is so amazing to me is that life starts fairly quickly after earth has a solid (non molten) surface and liquid water. As far as we can tell, we see life start on earth about 300 million to 500 million years after it’s reasonably possible for life to occur (i.e. when the planet has cooled to the point where it isn’t sterilizing). In fact, life many have gotten started even before then, but the fossil record may have simply been destroyed or not yet discovered. That is amazing if you pause to think about it. On the scale of the age of the universe (or even the age of the earth) 300 ~ 500 million years is not that long.
>Nor can you say that our universe is uniquely suited to permit life. How can anyone know that? Our universe’s characteristics barely permit it, and the Fermi Paradox strongly suggests that intelligent life in our universe either is extremely rare or that interstellar travel is so difficult as to be effectively impossible. But had those fundamental constants been slightly different, perhaps the universe would be teeming with intelligent life … entities who would smugly reason that there is but one universe — their own — and it was created specifically for their benefit with exactly the characteristics needed to result in their existence.
Physicist can predict the properties of a universe with different fundamental constants. Clearly, if a given constellation of fundamental constants result in a universe that collapses nano seconds after it forms, or rapidly expands to the point where the average density is so low you that the probability of two atoms meeting is extremely low, or where atoms don’t form at all then you can say with some certainty that life (much less intelligent life that can ask questions) will not form in those universes. The fine tuning problem is well recognized and it is something that most cosmologists and physicists are seeking to solve. It is very akin (and in fact probably related) to the fine balance we see in the cosmological constant. It may well be that physicists will one day resolve this problem without resorting to a creator, but we should be honest that the problem does exist.
Guys, I’m am certainly **not** taking the position that I see evidence for a creator. I am saying that you should not ridicule or discount someone out of hand simply because they do assert a creator. I’m not talking about the 10,000 year old earth guys, but there are real scientist that believe in a creator and in fast see suggestions that one might exist when they examine the universe. These guys deserve to have their arguments heard on their merits. Me …. I simply don’t know. But those of you that assert positively that a creator **doesn’t** exist are taking as great of a leap of faith as those who do. I think a little humility with respect to our current understanding of the universe is in order here, else we risk committing hubris.
Let me add a correction to something that I said earlier that Murgatroyd called out. When I said that this universe was “comfy for humans” what I should have said was more generalized, i.e. that this universe is “comfy for life”. And relatively speaks for all the reasons in my last post above, I believe that it is in fact comfy for life, certainly as compared to the type of universes that we see evolve when we start tweak the fundamental constants.
But those of you that assert positively that a creator **doesn’t** exist are taking as great of a leap of faith as those who do. I think a little humility with respect to our current understanding of the universe is in order here, else we risk committing hubris.
One thing I don’t understand: Why do you and “Rob” assert that the multiverse scenario doesn’t include a creator?
If our universe was created to foster life, then the creator clearly doesn’t care about efficiency. There are entire galaxies in which our sort of life almost certainly cannot exist, due to the high levels of ambient radiation. (For that matter, life in our own galaxy may have some severe difficulties, when we and the Andromeda galaxy collide in a few billion years.) When you consider how freakin’ huge the universe is, with so much of its volume inimical to life, is it such a big step to wonder whether a creator might also have created other universes, some barren and some swarming with life?
Ah, but you’re wrong. In the vast scheme of things this universe is quite comfy compared to the 99.9999 ……. (9′s out to 100 places or so) universes that you get when you start adjusting the fundamental constants of the universe (electric charge constant, gravitational constant, speed of light, fine structure constant, etc. etc.). […] Sure, put a lone human out in the vacuum of space and he dies quickly, but many microbes can survive the vacuum of space quite well and there’s every reason to believe that there are lots of cozy planets like earth that can support more complex life. Compared to those other universes this one is a paradise.
Oh my. First, you miss the point of the argument entirely. Let me restate it: If our universe was designed for life, it’s doing a piss-poor job of fostering it, because most of the universe is utterly hostile to life. Second, you make the mistake of generalizing that since some variations in fundamental constants would be hostile to life, then all values of those constants other than our own would be. That won’t wash.
Earth’s been relatively comfy for life for about 4.5B years, though admittedly not for human life for that entire time.
You’re moving the goalposts! In the multiverse scenario, we’re not just talking about life, we’re talking about observers capable of realizing that they live in a universe. Seen any unicellular intelligences lately?
Also, I’m far less impressed with “Rob’s” arguments than you seem to be. He makes several false assertions:
* “It makes no predictions, it gives no insight, it provides no control, it produces no technology, it advances no mathematics, it is a science in name only, because it is really metaphysics.” Bogus. It gives a fundamental insight if it’s true, doesn’t it? And it does make predictions! if the multiverse scenario is correct and we observe the fundamental constants to have certain values because we, the observers, happen to inhabit this specific universe, then (1) we ought to be able to work out whether life would be possible in some universes whose constants differed from ours (either slightly or grossly). (2) We also might discover that fundamental constants slightly differnt from ours were more conducive to the evolution of life and intelligence, in which case it ould just be our bad luck to be stuck in one of the less-than-optimal ones.
* “Theism may be distasteful to the Enlightenment spirit of freedom, but succeeds in promoting the virtues of science, whereas multiverse-theory may give quick relief from the cognitive dissonance of Big Bang observations, but succumbs to the multiverse gods. And the multiverse gods, like the Hindu gods and the Chinese spirits, devour science and technology. [paragraph break] Therefore it is not a neutral matter whether multiverse-theory or theism provide the metaphysics behind our scientific endeavors. For if multiverse-theory succeeds, it destroys the very cause and creator of its existence–science.”
What utter bilge! It begs the question of god versus gods — if our universe was created, how is it ruled out that multiple creators didn’t have a hand in it? And how does a multiverse require multiple gods? the next portion of his argument is slipshod rhetoric, intended to con the reader into accepting that there are only two possible choices: either his specific philosophical concept of a creator god, or nothing.
* “How can one have a Creation without a Creator?”
Well, I can give him — and you — an example of creation without a creator: virtual particles and pair production.
* “A second solution was to say that the creation may have occurred, but it was a “cyclic creation” that has been going on eternally. Everything is flying apart, but at some future point it will come back together and then fly apart again, and this cycle will continue forever. This view was popular until Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose showed that once the universe shrinks enough, it will collapse unavoidably into a black hole with no rebound. Thus the cycle will last only once, and time will end forever.”
Balderdash. Hawking and Penrose might have asserted this, and provided math that corroborates the assertion if their initial postulates are true, but they have in no way proved it. And I frankly doubt that Hawking holds this view about black holes, since it contradicts what physicists believe about Hawking radiation, among other things.
* “This “all winners” hypothesis obviously requires some ancillary assumptions, but for a materialist discovering more and more fingerprints of a creator, desperate straits require desperate actions. Throwing caution to the winds, then, materialists have thrown in their lot with a seedy lot of applied mathematicians who have been desperately trying to convince physicists that eleven dimensional space is somehow as real as the four spacetime dimensions we’ve grown to know and love. In this weird “landscape” stolen from Stanley Kubrick’s 2001 movie, every possible universe of 4-D physics laws is erupting via quantum-mechanical fluctuations from the 11-D space, being tested by some divine Chaotic god for evolutionary fitness and discarded if found wanting. It is a giant lottery operating in an infinite space for infinite time, so it is certain to find our finite little universe and put us into it.”
I think this qualifies as “argument by bloviation.” If this mix of overblown rhetoric, baseless assumptions, and incorrect “facts” impresses you, then I throw up my hands in despair. But I would like to point this out: “but for a materialist discovering more and more fingerprints of a creator, desperate straits require desperate actions.” Note the implication of dishonesty — that physicists see the fingerprints of a creator, proving that there is a god, yet choose to conceal the obvious truth with desperate rationalizations and deceptions. Bah.
> Note the implication of dishonesty — that physicists see the fingerprints of a creator, proving that there is a god, yet choose to conceal the obvious truth with desperate rationalizations and deceptions.
Indeed. Note on the one hand that these physicists are “smeared” as being Atheists… while at the same time the implication is that the physicists actually *do* believe in God, but are trying to wipe out belief in God. The end result of that is the belief that the physicists aren’t simply unbelievers, but are in fact Anti-God. You know, tools of Satan.
Anybody want to hazard a guess as to whether or not something unfortunate could come of that sort of belief?
>* “How can one have a Creation without a Creator?”
> Well, I can give him — and you — an example of creation without a creator: virtual particles and pair production.
Also, “emergence.” Order out of chaos without intelligent intent or direction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_behavior
This, of course, leads to accusations that snowflakes are part of an atheist conspiracy.
> I am saying that you should not ridicule or discount someone out of hand simply because they do assert a creator.
Why are you saying that… when nobody has said anything of the kind?
Please drop the strawmen and either bow out, or address the actual topic: modern cosmology is part of an atheistic conspiracy to wipe out God and ethics.
Really? Comments about NUKULAR reactions and the bulk of other threads on the subject aside I guess that’s true.
Honestly Scott, I think you read that blog post to the “Multiverse-theory is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to defend atheism” quote and stopped reading and posted the link. Did you even realize that this is not the blog author’s direct statement, but rather it is his synopsis of what he believes Victor Stenger says in his new book. I haven’t read the book so I don’t know whether Stenger says that or not, but I have read Stenger’s prior book “God: the failed hypothesis” and it isn’t completely out of character for what Stenger might say. I should get around to reading the new book (“The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning”) later in the year.
BTW, I don’t think you’ve even been reading *my* post that well. I refer you to my second post where I say that scientists *** should *** create theories for the origin of the universe that do not include god, if for no other reason than god is not a falsifiable theory (a feature that is shared btw with most multiverse theories). Apparently the strawman is that you think I’m some sort of theist arguing for the existence of god.
> I think you read that blog post to the “Multiverse-theory is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to defend atheism” quote and stopped reading and posted the link.
No, I read the whole thing… but the conspiracy-theory attitude underlying the post was the focus of my irritation.
> you think I’m some sort of theist arguing for the existence of god
Not necessarily (it would hardly be the first time that a “Liar For Christ” would claim to be a pagan/agnostic/atheist who set out to disprove God only to be converted, loudly and publicly). However, the fact that you *repeatedly* and at great length missed the damned point, even after it was pointed out to you again and again, is interesting.
“String theory is a creation of the Gay HomoQueer Agenda Lobby” would, I suppose, result in comments that there’s nothing objectionable there, because there are some problems with string theory.
See, you’re letting your emotions get in the way of your logic (and the damn point). I have also pointed out to you a great many things *repeatedly* and at great length which you have failed to get as well. At this point I believe that we are simply talking past each other and I don’t know how much is to be gained from further discussion. However, I’m more than happy to continue the discussion if we can keep things like “String theory is a creation of the Gay HomoQueer Agenda Lobby” (where the hell did that come from btw?) and tone the rhetoric down.
Let me summarize my position:
1.) Multiverse theory *is* an attempt to address the “fine tuning problem” and eliminate the need for a cosmic creator. This is *not* a conspiracy against religion but is a reasonable attempt by scientist to address the fine tuning problem without appealing to a creator which science can not address. From my point of view this is true on it’s face and non-controversial. God doesn’t belong in a scientific theory because proof of god is not falsifiable.
2.) On the other hand, *most* current multiverse theories are also not falsifiable, so they too are not scientific theories in the proper sense. They require as much of a leap of faith as a belief in god. One of these multiverse theories may well be the truth, but if it is not falsifiable we can never know with certainty. Conversely a multiverse theory that makes falsifiable prediction my arise and that may turn out to be true.
3.) It is possible for scientists to fashion a theory with the specific intent to eliminate the need for a creator and not be involved in some grand conspiracy against religion. I certainly believe that to be true, whether or not the blog poster believes that is another issue. I certainly hope that you believe that given the requirements of the scientific method.
4.) I believe that the man that says emphatically “there is no god” is taking as much of a leap of faith as the man that says “there is a god”, and in fact both are engaged in religious rather than scientific activity.
> I have also pointed out to you a great many things *repeatedly* and at great length which you have failed to get as well.
Your problem is that you proceeded from an initial wrong assumption. Everything from that point on became essentially moot.
> Multiverse theory *is* an attempt to address the “fine tuning problem” and eliminate the need for a cosmic creator.
Small problem with your logic: as has been made clear, there is *NO* “fine tuning problem.” The only problem is human hubris in the belief that the universe was set up uniquely for us, and that any setup that precludes us is an invalid arrangement.
> whether or not the blog poster believes that is another issue.
Ahhh. You’re finally starting to *begin* to get the point.
> I believe that the man that says emphatically “there is no god” is taking as much of a leap of faith as the man that says “there is a god”,
The fact that you believe it doesn’t make it so. In fact, it’s a logically unjustifiable position to hold… thus your belief that unbelief is religious is therefore a religion unto itself.
The fact is, anyone making a *positive* claim is the one who has the burden of proof. Person A claims that he has an invisible pink fire breathing dragon in his garage. Person B says he doesn’t. The two claims are not equal in validity.
Person A claims that the Grand Canyon is actually filled to the brim with delicious cake. Person B says that the cake is a lie.
Person A claims that there is a duplicate Earth lurking on the opposite side of the sun. Person B declares absolutely that there is no second Earth.
It is not irrational to deny the existence of something for which there is zero verifiable evidence. And if you cannot make rational judgements about relative merits of claims… wow. I’d hate to see you on a jury.
>> Multiverse theory *is* an attempt to address the “fine tuning problem” and eliminate the need for a cosmic creator.
>Small problem with your logic: as has been made clear, there is *NO* “fine tuning problem.” The only problem is human hubris in the belief that the universe was set up uniquely for us, and that any setup that precludes us is an invalid arrangement.
Frankly, you simply don’t know your physics. The fine tuning problem is widely recognized as a problem currently in physics, amongst leading physicists, atheists and non-atheist alike. Why the *hell* do you think there is any need to postulate an infinite number of universes? Can’t you at least understand this extremely simple concept? If there is no fine tuning problem then by Occam’s razor we need only postulate one (i.e. this) universe. Don’t you get this? I have believed in the past that you were smart enough to understand this, but I begin to doubt. Let me spell it out for you slowly so you can understand. No fine tuning problem -> No need for infinite multiverses. No need for infinite multiverses -> By Occam’s Razor -> One Universe.
>> whether or not the blog poster believes that is another issue.
>Ahhh. You’re finally starting to *begin* to get the point.
I have *never* pretended to have accepted all of the blog poster’s positions, of which neither you nor I know very little. My only initial issue was with your initial knee jerk reaction to his one blog post. Have you read his entire blog history and are you prepared to take his positions on point by point? Me either.
>It is not irrational to deny the existence of something for which there is zero verifiable evidence. And if you cannot make rational judgements about relative merits of claims… wow. I’d hate to see you on a jury.
You mean like closed off mulitverses? You do understand that these infinitely numerous closed universes have zero verifiable evidence, right? Again, this is dead simple. You’ve damned what you say you support with your own words. Believing in an infinite number of closed multiverses is every bit as much as an article of faith as believing in god. You can’t test either one, so they are both religious beliefs, not scientific theory. Are you so blinded that you can not understand this?
> Why the *hell* do you think there is any need to postulate an infinite number of universes?
Quantum mechanics. The “Many Worlds” hypothesis has been around for generations (1950’s), long before people started getting themselves into a lather over the non-issue of “fine tuning.” The “Multiverse” name and concept itself dates from the 19th century. The idea of parallel realities has been around for a long, long time, and it intrigues scientists just as much as science fiction authors. Why shouldn’t it?
>If there is no fine tuning problem then by Occam’s razor we need only postulate one (i.e. this) universe. Don’t you get this?
As the man said: “life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different, [we] cannot prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory.”
And… “The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”
And… “A skeptic worries about all the information necessary to specify all those unseen worlds. But an entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler. Similarly, the set of all solutions to Einstein’s field equations is simpler than a specific solution. The former is described by a few equations, whereas the latter requires the specification of vast amounts of initial data on some hypersurface. The lesson is that complexity increases when we restrict our attention to one particular element in an ensemble, thereby losing the symmetry and simplicity that were inherent in the totality of all the elements taken together. In this sense, the higher-level multiverses are simpler. Going from our universe to the Level I multiverse eliminates the need to specify initial conditions, upgrading to Level II eliminates the need to specify physical constants, and the Level IV multiverse eliminates the need to specify anything at all.”
The Wiki page on “fine tuning” is interesting in just how much complete disagreement on virtually every aspect of the issue there is among cosmologists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
?> Why the *hell* do you think there is any need to postulate an infinite number of universes?
>Quantum mechanics. The “Many Worlds” hypothesis has been around for generations (1950′s), long before people started getting themselves into a lather over the non-issue of “fine tuning.” The “Multiverse” name and concept itself dates from the 19th century. The idea of parallel realities has been around for a long, long time, and it intrigues scientists just as much as science fiction authors. Why shouldn’t it?
That’s a different form of multiverse. What you’re talking about is “universe branching” that is postulated as a way to remove the issue of not having a real rule for when the collapse of the quantum state vector is supposed to occur. That brand of multiverse simply wills away the issue of when the quantum state vector collapses by postulating that it doesn’t, a new universe simply branches off in a different direction. Let me point out that this version of the multiverse is *also* not verifiable, and is hence a type of religious belief as well.
>>If there is no fine tuning problem then by Occam’s razor we need only postulate one (i.e. this) universe. Don’t you get this?
>As the man said: “life as we know it would not exist if any one of several of the constants of physics were just slightly different, [we] cannot prove that some other form of life is feasible with a different set of constants. Anyone who insists that our form of life is the only one conceivable is making a claim based on no evidence and no theory.”
I think it is reasonable to postulate that a universe that collapses back upon itself shortly after it’s big bang will not have life. Likewise, a universe that expands so rapidly that it quickly thins out to the point where the probability of two atoms being in the same cubic meter of space essentially goes to zero will also not have life. Additionally, a universe where fermions, quarks, and bosons can not combine to form atoms is very unlikely to have life. These type universes vastly outnumber the type of universes that will actually form complex structure (atoms, stars, solar systems, etc) if you start varying the fundamental constants of the universe. Unless you have a way to explain how a universe that recollapses shortly after it is born, or enters infinite expansion, or can’t form atoms can support life I believe that is reasonable to assume that they will be lifeless.
>And… “The universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the universe.”
See above. We’re not talking about weird universes with odd physical laws, we’re talking about universes that quickly recollapse, or enter infinite expansion, or can’t form atoms.
Let me refer you also to a Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Anthropic_principle
See, here’s the difference between you and I. I understand that the fine tuning issue is currently being hotly debated and is an unsettled question. You simply choose to believe that the issue does not exist at all. Hell, the very Wiki page you referred me to says that it is a topic of discussion in the physics community. And let me quote a choice item from *your* Wiki link: “The existence of additional universes in a multiverse, other than the observable universe, is not falsifiable, and thus some are reluctant to call the multiverse idea a “scientific” idea.” Did you even read the f**king article? And yet you sit there and stick your fingers in your ears and shout “There is no fine tuning issue, there is no fine tuning issue, la la la la la”. For what reason I haven’t a clue except you’ve got some sort of bug up your ass with respect to anyone that might even whisper the word “god”. You want to believe in the multiverse? Fine. But understand you believe something utterly as unverifiable as “god”.
> You simply choose to believe…
*Plonk*
And I win the debate. The *Plonk* is the sure sign. I love the *Plonk*.
BTW, I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of god. It is a question which I don’t pretend to have the answer to.
Erm, so when’s the book coming out?
Bigger than a breadbox.
Haven’t any of you people read “Anathem”, by Neal Stephenson? All of the above questions are addressed in that novel, in thoughtful, interesting, and adventurous ways.
Hell, I remember reading an article in Scientific American back in 1970 or so, by Freeman Dyson, in which I think he was the first to point out that the values of the fundamental physical constants determined whether or not we exist.
As far as Professor Dyson’s theological opinions go, I believe he favors the Socinian Heresy. Or at least so he wrote in one of his books.
> Haven’t any of you people read “Anathem”
Tried to, but found it *really* boring.