Why should there be any multiverses? Is there evidence for them? Can the theory be falsified? Is the theory logically necessary? Where did this story originate, and why?
Multiverses are an attempt to get around the need for extra-universal intervention in producing a life-friendly universal environment, including fine-tuning the constants that make the universe what it is. The idea that an intelligence greater than Dawkins and Hawking and all the other skeptics combined and raised to the nth power... exists and even meddles, is anathema to those skeptics. So they invented a story out of whole cloth: multiverse theory, with, oh let's say, an infinite number of universes, where ours just happens to be the one out of the infinity that is capable of life. There, that kills off the need for any intelligence greater than the sum of the skeptics'.
Skeptics are materialists. The mind is material. If all material is removed from the universe, nothing is left. Oh, maybe the Higgs Field, or whatever; the point is that man is purely material, and this is necessary in the light of the absolute truth value of the Atheist position. (The conclusion proves the premise).
Now Atheism is not provable, nor is it falsifiable, empirically, because it is not a material object. So evidentiarily, Atheism is not a sustainable theory, especially by materialistic evidence. But it is nonetheless an article of absolute faith that Atheism is the only truth. This trickles down into the necessity of multiverses, not empirically necessary, not logically necessary, but necessary to the Atheist faith. Again the conclusion proves the premise.
But the materialists blindly assume that their multiverses are parallel material universes. Understanding that all infinity stories are flawed from the get-go, let's assume that there really are an infinite number of universes. And we will not let it go at that, we will pursue it to its logical conclusion.
First off, multiverse theory projects an infinity of material universes, existing in the same three dimensions plus time, that our universe exists. Is it necessary to stop there? Absolutely not! There must also be universes that exist in dimensions 1 thru 3, without time; dimensions 2 through 4, with and without time; dimensions 2 through 5, with and without time; dimensions 17 through 92, dimensions 42 through 964, sans 457 through 598, with and without time. You get the picture. An infinity of dimensions is just as predictable as an infinity of universes.
So, given a separate universe of say, conservatively, dimensions 4 through 26 without time, because it is not material in our 3-D sense, there is no reason to predict that it could not coincide and overlay our universe of paltry dimensions 1 through 3 plus time.
Moreover, there is no reason to predict that this superimposed universe, (4 through 26, no time) could not sustain life. And there is no reason to predict that the life contained in such a universe would not be far different from any concept we could possibly entertain of living entities.
And even more moreover, this projected life would of necessity be non-material...!
So the multiverse theory, taken to its logical conclusion, actually serves to predict that there could well be...
a) universes with an infinite number of combinations of dimensions;
b) universes that are in no way material (no x,y,z,t space-time);
c) universes undetectable by us that overlay us.
d) universes that contain life in a structure that we cannot comprehend;
e) an infinite number of the above, in an infinite number of combinations.
At this point one senses that the skeptics will want to either abandon the multiverse fable, or entertain the possibility of massively intelligent life that overlays our own meager existence.
Either way, the multiverse story does not serve to eliminate the existence of the dreaded extra-universal superintelligence. The "rational" religion once again has shown itself to be the "rationalizing" religion.
3 comments:
[Beelz says:]
I have to say I share your disdain for the Multiverse theory as a solution to the Anthropic Prin. It's important to note that Multiverse is just an expansion of the many worlds interpretation of the wave function collapse. You've already said that you favor a deterministic resolution to this. The "Copenhagen" interpretation is that one state or the other is chosen more or less at random, and Hugh Everett's was that all are realized in bifurcating universes. (BTW Dec 2007 Sci Am has a great article on Hugh Everett). And many worlds predates the Anthropic Prin. by about 20 years.
Resorting to Multiverse as a defense against the Anthropic Prin., at this point, is an opening for harsh ridicule for engaging in desperate speculation. Of course, if Multiverse gains a footing it would be a devastating ally, since out of exhaustive realization of all universes, the perfect one would always emerge, for any type of life you care to imaging. But can’t we turn this around and say that given any universe a perfect form of life, if physically possible, will always emerge for it? Here I’m postulating a kind of life-seeking imperative which would need to be supported in some way.
You said it very well yourself:
“Moreover, there is no reason to predict that this superimposed universe, (4 through 26, no time) could not sustain life. And there is no reason to predict that the life contained in such a universe would not be far different from any concept we could possibly entertain of living entities.”
The Anthropic principle may turn out to be quite valid, but for exactly the opposite reason than what it purports. We fit our circumstance because we evolved to do so, or emerged to do so, if you prefer. Most people don’t take this line of reasoning far enough, and end up saying something like “if the weak and strong forces were a bit weaker/stronger and gravity was the inverse of what it is…etc (my ridiculous example)” then the universe would be bounded by a shell and all matter would be splattered on its inner edge like the yoke within a spinning egg. So on and so forth. Fine, then I would be living in a very flat room and typing on a very flat computer.
Yes, that's a great thought/vision, the universe as shell and us spattered up against it...Har! What a vision...
I guess that would be a closed, two dimensional universe, maybe similar to what Hawking was trying to invent with his "imaginary time" equations that he used to "close off the universe", and thus deny a unique beginning.
I don't like multiverse scenarios, either, if only because they seem less parsimonious than a single universe and there is no evidence to support them....other than the fact that their invocation tidily allows some (or so they tell me) beautiful math unify forces in THIS universe.
Which all ends up sounding like epicycles to me.
However, I should point out that if the question is formulated differently (I forget exactly how, but a Ph.D particle physicist showed me once in passing), then a multiverse scenario could be seen as MORE parsimonious than some single universe models. Ack. This is a case where the science under discussion requires more math than I am likely to have at my fingertips, Stan.
Post a Comment