The Multiverse God

2020 May 2

Life on this earth is highly unlikely. ••• The universe and our earth are so finely tuned to support life that they are inexplicable on physics; the origin of life is so complex and integrated that it is inexplicable ••• on nature; and human consciousness is inexplicable on biology.

The context here is that our universe is not infinitely old. The evidence for the so-called "big bang" shows that our universe had an origin in the finite past from an initial tiny singularity and expanded out to what we now observe.

See also Everybody Believes in the Supernatural

The question is, what caused our universe in such a way that we can now exist here alive? Our existence as living beings is so improbable that naturalistically we should not exist. The statistics are so completely against us that no one sanely any more tries to justify our cosmological origin in a solitary universe by chance and natural causes.

An idea called the multiverse therefore has been suggested as a mechanistic solution for our existence.

In this speculative thinking there are infinitely many different universes continuously being constructed by a generator. We just happen to be in one of them that was just right for us to exist. Our Goldilocks just-right world out of the many is what let us become conscious beings. We then notice that we are here and wonder about it. •••

There are people like the late Carl Sagan and some science influencers of today who say our world is not special. However, this thinking is mistaken. They describe us as insignificantly living on an ordinary planet around an ordinary star in a galaxy not special in an ordinary part of the universe.

If this idea were true, then we should be able to observe other planets that are like ours supportive of life. (We can’t.) If the idea is not true, then we are very special.

In fact, by promoting the multiverse as necessary to explain our existence, by proposing an unlimited supply of randomly made worlds as the way to explain the existence of our universe, they are acknowledging that we are extremely special. Our world is so rare and special that it requires effectively an infinite probability to be able to produce it.

This is not an argument against the multiverse, but it questions whether their thinking regarding the multiverse is rational.

There are serious problems with this multiverse idea.

 

    Some technical details on the multiverse > •••

The explanation of the multiverse is of processes that are impossible to verify. Since it does not exist in the realm of our material universe, it is speculative only. It is therefore not fully scientific because it cannot be tested by experiment.

 

The generator is described as an expanding other-realm that cannot be detected. It has many "little" expanding other-verse pockets that also cannot be detected because the expansion of the main multiverse other-realm keeps them separated. Therefore, non-detectability is built in to the theory.

The multiverse generator is thought to derive from what is described in cosmic inflation theory (as a quantum field), and string theory. Quantum inflation is used to explain how multiple universes might continuously be generated by the same process, and string theory is used to explain how they all might be different in their fundamental constants. Note however that both of these theories themselves are highly speculative and do not have physical evidence to support them.

  • It was suggested that an adjacent other-verse might accidentally overlap our universe. An experiment was devised to detect the effects that might have occurred, however, the experiment detected nothing.
  • Some suggest that the multiverse is inevitable. However, that idea is not because of physical evidence of the multiverse processes.

Certainly it can seem from some mathematical models that the multiverse should be inevitable, but those models were a human invention. Only when the models are assumed to be true does the multiverse seem inevitable. (But, other models without such a multiverse implication could also be viable.)

The argumentation for inevitability is vigorous. However, the author admits the multiverse is a theoretical consequence based on what we know today of the physics of our own universe. (And then from that making specific extrapolations. Your mileage in other universes or multiverses may vary...)

 

Inflation is a theorized period at the beginning of our universe where space expanded out extremely, extremely fast. This was caused by a so-called inflaton field. (The inflaton theory is a answer to the CMB horizon problem. Also, some predictions associated to the theory have been shown true.)

If you take the view that inflaton is a quantum field, then inflation would be probabilistic. An inflating super-universe will have places that coalesce into material universes and others places that don't, with expanding separation between all of them. This is how one process would be making many universes.

However, I see no reason to believe that the inflaton field was quantum. We can't expect all fields to be quantum. For example, gravity does not align with quantum. (This is even though people have tried very hard for a long time to develop a theory of gravity as a quantum field. However, other theorists say that gravity is not a field. So this also is not settled science!)

The inflaton is posited, but we don't actually know that inflaton fields ever existed (or even know that inflaton is a field). They are unlike anything we observe in standard physics. We only know what we can see now and test now, and we do not see inflaton fields. Even if there had once been an inflaton field, we only observe what it left behind and that is not enough to know what it was.

 

Inflation might produce many universes, but by itself they would all be the same, clones of each other. This would not solve the problem of fine tuning of our universe to make life possible. So in addition to inflation, string theory is employed to speculate a method that would make all these universes be fundamentally different.

String theory proposes that our world is actually made of vibrating one-dimensional objects called strings. Although the space of our world has four dimensions (which includes the dimension of time), the strings exist in a context with many more dimensions. (One version has 11 dimensions.) What we experience in our world may be thought of as a projection from this context to our reduced dimensions. A physical analogy is a 3D shape that makes a 2D shadow. The shadow of a 3D object is different depending on the angle of projection, and the shadow hides one dimension.

So by string theory, these high-dimension strings as projected (or "compactified") into a reduced count of dimensions is what makes a universe. In the multiverse's universe-generating engine, each generated world would have its own "shadow angle", and so that custom "projection" makes each world entirely unique.

There is no evidence however to indicate string theory is the best explanation for anything. In part this is because the theory is so flexible that it can explain anything and everything. Said another way, the variables in the theory are so complex that the theory is underdetermined.

 

A fundamental principle in science is Occam's Razor, the idea that theories must never be more complicated than required. This is stated as: "Do not multiply unnecessary entities." String theory almost by definition is multiplication of unnecessary entities. Multiverse theory in general is multiplication of unnecessary entities. Therefore, string theory and the multiverse generator should be dis-favored as scientific theories.

 

Just using basic rational or scientific thinking:

  • Unscientific
    • The other-verses are specifically (and permanently) unobservable and immaterial to us, so they are outside of science.
    • Thus, the other-verses are a pure metaphysical solution; therefore again they are not scientific.
    • One of the most fundamental laws of physics is that energy is conserved; it cannot be created or destroyed. However, a multiverse generator must be making new energy all the time. This fails basic natural science.
    • These hypothetical other-verses are all assumed to be different from ours at their most basic levels. This means they don't follow our natural laws and therefore, they are once again unscientific (from our perspective), but also super-natural.
    • The generator of the other-verses is a thing or process that is unnatural to our universe, so by standard definitions it must be unscientific. •••

    According to the National Academy of Sciences, “The statements of science must invoke only natural things and processes.” On a straight reading, this would disallow the multiverse as being scientific.

  • Independence
    • All the hypothetically generated other-verses are independent entities cast into their own isolated existences. Thus, no one of them is a reason or an explanation for any other (i.e. for us).
  • Randomized universes?
    • The multiverse proponents assume that this generator makes random other-verses in all kinds of combinations. (They add in string theory as mechanism to enable this.) However, this is simply a metaphysical opinion and not derived from evidence. It is just as plausible to imagine that the hypothetical generator is a cloner and can’t make other-verses that are fundamentally different from ours.
    • Therefore, multiverse theory cannot predict fine-tuning of our universe any better than a single-universe theory. Therefore then, the substantial evidence of fine-tuning in our universe offers no support for the multiverse theory.
  • Fine-tuned multiverse
    • The proponents of this idea imagine a busy generator of the other-verses, one of which became our functional universe. However, this itself is a problem: if the multiverse were to be functional it would require many finely-tuned parameters. What then made the multiverse generator itself be Goldilocks just-right? ••• This generator is just a “turtles all the way down” story which explains nothing. •••

    The story goes that someone went to a talk about planet orbital mechanics. Afterward this listener chatted with the speaker and said that they did not believe what had been said in the talk because they knew what was really holding up the earth.

    “What is that?”, asked the speaker.

    “It is resting on the back of a giant turtle.”

    “And what is the turtle on?”

    “On another turtle.”

    “And that one?”

    “Oh, I know where you are going,” said the person, “It’s turtles all the way down.”

    One of the things the multiverse and its universe-generating engine is supposed to solve is the difficult problem of fine-tuning in our universe. However in the theory of the multiverse, the universe-generating engine itself must also be fine-tuned so as to be functional. Therefore, the multiverse is not a solution to this issue because it only removes the problem to one step earlier, while the identical problem remains.

  • Multiverse beginning and cause
    • By the same logic that our own universe had a beginning, the generator also had to have had a beginning. ••• Therefore, it explains nothing about the cause of our own universe. It is still just a “turtles all the way down” story.
    • If the multiverse is scientific, it follows laws of science. The Law of Causation (Principle of Causality) indicates that the multiverse was caused. Therefore the multiverse does not solve the problem of the cause of our universe. •••
    • Some propose anyway that the multiverse generator had no beginning because it has an infinite past. However, this infinite characteristic would make logical absurdities, so it cannot be true. •••

    If the multiverse generator had no beginning, it must be infinitely old. However, actual infinities cannot exist because it is impossible to create an actual infinity by addition of successive elements. Addition of elements always creates finite sets.

    Therefore, a multiverse generator could not be infinitely old because it is impossible to reach an infinite age by means of accumulation. And so the generator could only have made a finite number of universes.

    Infinity is a concept, but it cannot be an actual thing. For instance, mathematical operations on infinities results in infinities.

    • ∞ + 1 = ∞
      • or re-written: ∞ - ∞ = 1
    • ∞ + 100 = ∞
      • or re-written: ∞ - ∞ = 100
    • ∞ * 2 = ∞
      • or re-written: ∞ / ∞ = 2
    • and so forth...

    These show that an actual infinity cannot exist because of the absurdities it creates. In some ways an actual infinity is undefined, similar to how dividing by zero is undefined. Likewise, an actual multiverse generator of infinite age would have to be undefined. However, one of finite age requires an initial cause. And critically also a multiverse generator of finite age would not successfully overcome the improbabilities of our universe.

     

    As can be seen from above, a small percentage of an infinity is also an infinity. If the Multiverse generator has existed infinitely long and was generating random universes, then it has already generated an infinite number of universes. If even a small percentage of them were viable for life, then an infinite number of life-supporting universes have already been formed. Therefore our life-supporting universe would be ordinary.

    However, simple inspection makes it obvious that our universe is not ordinary because there is nothing that necessitates the physical constants of the universe being as they are to support life. This argument is absurd.

    The law of causation says that anything that has a beginning has a cause, and anything that changes has a cause. Therefore:

    • If the multiverse generator had a beginning it had a cause.
    • If the multiverse generator has changes inside it, it had a cause.

    By the same logic that indicates our universe had a beginning, the multiverse generator requires a beginning. It is described as expanding, and if you run that backwards, it goes to a starting singularity. This is the same reasoning that convinced us of our big bang. Therefore even the multiverse generator had a beginning and needs a cause. (All mechanistic explanations for things require causes.) So, like our universe, the multiverse generator ultimately also needs an uncaused cause (which naturalistic science cannot supply).

    I assume that some beliefs about the multiverse generator see it instead as an eternal entity. However, the idea that the generator was timeless is purely metaphysical, not logically rational and so, not scientific.

    The problem is that we need an ultimate cause for our universe. The hypothetical generator of the multiverses also needs a cause, so this materialistic ultimate cause just gets more and more unlikely.

    Occam's razor is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity". A multiverse does not solve the problem of ultimate causes, so it is not needed. It only serves to satisfy metaphysical desires.

  • Problems with probability
    • A generator making many other-verses is thought to improve the probability of our own existence. However, probability itself requires that a range of possibilities exist and that these are observable. ••• Since the multiverse concept itself disallows this kind of observation, a multiverse has no bearing on the probability of our existence.
    • Another way to look at this is that the multiverse rules out chance in our universe (externalizing it, putting it instead into the multiverse generator). However, chance is an important part of science and enables us to distinguish which behaviors in the world are law-like. In this way the multiverse removes our ability to make scientific conclusions. •••

    If there cannot be knowledge about other possibilities, then there can be no probability about them.

  • Probable results of the multiverse
    • The multiverse is an attempt to explain the origin of our universe with us as an observer in it (by a materialistic process). It does this by multiplying probabilistic resources out to infinity.
      • According to the theory, our universe with all its structure, matter, energy and history popped into existence because of the multiverse generator.
      • Then in time by natural processes we came to be here, and now we observe our universe. So, through natural processes in an ancient universe, our conscious selves emerged.
    • However, with infinite probabilities, it is just as plausible that we might have popped into existence alive and fully formed, together with all the other species of life, and ourselves with memories of our history.
      • Infinite resources makes anything and everything possible, and so every possible combination of things will already have happened infinite times!
      • Thus the multiverse makes the materialistic story of the evolution of life have no certainty at all.
    • It is worse because the multiverse is self-defeating:
      • If our universe exists from a multiverse of infinite variety, then no scientific experimental tests can be trusted. Any and all possible test results could and will have occurred.
      • The scientific method is thus useless and the multiverse theory is useless as well.
    • However, we could just as likely be what is called a Boltzmann brain. This is an solitary and isolated brain that spontaneously forms (out of the multiverse generator) with full memories of and full illusory perceptions of existing in a universe.
      • Note that the multiverse generator is already claimed to make brains. (It supposedly produced our structured universe, which through time evolved our brains.)
      • If random fluctuations can cause structured matter to come into existence, then small consistent structures (like Boltzmann brains) are much more likely to form than large consistent structures like our universe.
      • Therefore, fully realized universes with living observers are a highly unlikely outcome of the multiverse generator.
      • If we came from the multiverse, we should have no confidence that our observations of our world and memories of it are accurate and truthful. (Again, why should we even try to do science?)
    • Theorists have tried to introduce constructs called measures to be applied to universe instances out of a multiverse generator. The goal of these measures was to classify worlds like our universe as being what the generator would typically produce. This effort still fails because Boltzmann brains are still the most typical outcome.
      • Even if a measure was found to classify our universe as typical, there is no reason the universe should favor the measure.
      • Additionally, the measure required prior fine-tuning to be successful, therefore, the fine-tuning problem is not solved by the multiverse.
      • More details
    • The multiverse concept cannot avoid these probabilistic poisons, so it cannot be a valid explanation for our universe and for us.
  • Other effects and consequences
    • If large structures can and do pop into existence because of the action of the multiverse generator, then why don't we observe things like (for instance) horses popping into existence inside our houses? Why wouldn't new stars be popping randomly into existence in the sky?
    • Wouldn't the effects the multiverse generator is capable of producing cause you to always doubt your understanding regarding the consistency of our world?
    • Maybe however this could not happen because universes are the only kind of thing that can pop into existence? Maybe this would be because of some characteristic that only universes have? However, these ideas don't make sense because before a universe did come to be, nothing would be existing to have any characteristics.

 

The multiverse concept can appear to be mechanistic, but it cannot be scientific. The multiverse generator appears to me to be a god of convenience dressed up in materialism.

  • It is a god of the gaps for materialists, and as such it is a very shallow answer for a difficult and complex question. •••
  • It is a science killer because it functions as a closed answer to to all possible difficulties. It kills curiosity into the cause of the universe and stops further inquiry. •••
  • It is a science killer because it should cause you to doubt that the world around you is stable and consistent.
  • Atheists have ridiculed religious people as supposedly imagining another spiritual world and reality, all supposedly without evidence. However, if atheists adhere to the multiverse then they are doing the exact same thing.
    • The multiverse is imagining many other worlds by faith with no measurable evidence at all for their existence.

    The fine-tuned nature of our universe for life should prompt curiousity to understand more about that. This is the premise of science. However, there is nothing to satisfy curiosity from a random origin.

    The multiverse suggests it can explain why we exist in this place, but only does so with a roll of dice.

    The materialists say, "We know that the universe could not be made by an immaterial God, therefore we know it was made by a naturalistic cause like the multiverse." This is the form of God-of-the-Gaps arguments.

    In this case the multiverse is the "god". With this story there is no need to go looking to explain all the other difficult things about our universe because the "god" explains everything.

  • A multiverse severely violates the scientific principle of Occam's razor ("entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"). By this, the multiverse is a very poor theory.
  • The imagined multiverse generator appears to exactly fit the ideal of an atheist’s preferred god (uninvolved, mechanistic, random).
    • Note that atheists are no better than theists when trying to explain the unexplainable because they too are metaphysically motivated.

A multiverse is an imaginary solution for our universe because our universe is the only one for which we have evidence. The multiverse is actually just a materialist's god. It is a non-living god pretended to be scientific, but without scientific evidence.

See also: