An Infinite Number of Universes

I think I’ve said before I love Sci-Fi.  There’s nothing better than a worm-hole to an alternate universe.  Modern day cosmologists seem to be so distressed by the notion that our universe seems to be so “fine-tuned” to allow for the existence of life that they engage in arguments from imagination (not those “illogical” arguments from a lack of imagination mind you), in order to come up with a way that a Creator is not needed.

Ever since the ‘anthropic principle’ entered the language of science, the case for the universe having the hallmarks of design has become progressively stronger. There is a consensus in the thinking of physicists and cosmologists that far exceeds the alleged consensus about anthropogenic global warming, and also the alleged consensus that natural selection is the mechanism for explaining design in living things. Author Tim Folger elevates the principle to “an extraordinary fact” about the universe:

“Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and – in this universe, anyway – life as we know it would not exist.” (1)

So the naturalists need to posit an infinite number of alternate universes, and having one that ended up being “just right,” was not only plausible, but inevitable. (2)

So an appeal to the unmeasurable seems suitable to naturalists as long as the unmeasurable does not involve a designer or God. The appeal to Sci-Fi seems to be a suitable and respected practice in modern cosmology.

(1). Post details: The Metaphysics of Multiverse Theory
(2). Our place in the Multiverse, Nature, Silk, J. (2006)

Advertisements

4 Responses

  1. I’m not sure what the point is, here. As I see it, there are two (charitable) interpretations:

    1) The multiverse hypothesis is just as (ir)rational as is the theistic hypothesis, i.e. just as much of an act of “faith”, and it’s hypocritical for non-theists to claim otherwise.

    2) The theistic hypothesis is more reasonable than the multiverse hypothesis, so theism is not even on equal ground with non-theism, but is in fact a more reasonable hypothesis.

    I’m happy to argue against (2) and happy to agree with (1), but unless I know which is being argued for here, I don’t how quite to respond. Unless neither (1) nor (2) is what you meant, in which case . . . ?

  2. The point is that infinite amounts of random, unspecified data is being assumed to be necessary to bring forth something that we can actually observe. Same thing with needing billions of years of random, unspecified evolutionary data to specify exactly how we got here.

    Perhaps there are roughly 4,546,767,888,4390,887,123,444,325,657,345 ..
    ,234,647,777,346,000 total universes. Perhaps the total number of planets in those universes are 534,777,967,234,666,743,098,234,536,444,123,657,876,090,874,434,768,…
    999,434,777,675,668,999,612,356,546,777,863,769,098,123,335,666,768,…
    980,333,342,554,658,888,867,111,432,545,666,323,545,767,555,123,555,…
    346,778,098,876,437,435,666,879,000 give or take a few.

    It quite reasonable to assume that on at least one of those planets, in one of those universes, I can spit into a lake and come back in 233,534,777,230,552,645 years and find a species of man-fish living there. And these are special man-fish, as they can speak, read, make music, build bombs etc… But alas, not one of them knows how they got there.

  3. “Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and – in this universe, anyway – life as we know it would not exist.” (1)

    Regarding this, see this interesting discussion about water:
    http://intelligentscience.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/god-is-in-the-rain

  4. Mike wrote:

    It quite reasonable to assume that on at least one of those planets, in one of those universes, I can spit into a lake and come back in 233,534,777,230,552,645 years and find a species of man-fish living there. And these are special man-fish, as they can speak, read, make music, build bombs etc… But alas, not one of them knows how they got there.

    If this theory of an infinite number of universes is true, then yes, this has already happened in one of them. Too bad it will never be a testable theory.

    I like fishing, but I don’t think I’d like to catch one of Mike’s man-fish generated from his saliva!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: