Six Problems Facing the Multiverse

Six Problems Facing the Multiverse

Six Problems Facing the Multiverse

Problem 1. Demonstrating the Reality of Alternate Worlds

Multiverse Options

“When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”?¹²

As we have seen, the question turns on whether we have independent evidence for the existence of alternate worlds. But this will face some significant problems. First, we live in this world and cannot directly observe others. Second, the current philosophy of science rules out design a priori. Although science normally operates according to Ockham's razor, in the case of God, it operates according to Holmes's dictum. The course of science will be to postulate the complicated and improbable because, given that there cannot be a God, the improbable must be true.

This is unfortunate because evidence for a multiverse must come indirectly. The multiverse must be a natural prediction of a theoretical framework which itself was constructed based on direct observables, but the philosophy of science militates against this. Instead a materialist answer will be the starting point, and investigation will proceed by asking what must be true to (force-)fit that framework. Hence we can't get a natural prediction for the truth of materialism because the reasoning would be circular unless a scientist is initially ignorant that his theory might have metaphysical import!

We will look briefly at three of the options available that postulate a multiverse.

1. Oscillating Universes: Ekpyrosis (Temporal Multiverse). One of the latest proposals for reincarnation is called the “ekpyrotic universe,”¹³ a term drawn from the Stoic model of cosmic evolution in which the universe is consumed by fire at regular intervals and reconstituted out of this fire.

This is a good example of the philosophy of science in action. The model's authors knew that two (among many) problems must be solved for a materialist oscillating model to work. Entropy must build in any universe so you need someplace to put it. Second, if you have a universe where things happen, you need a source of energy, so the authors postulated an infinitely sized sheet (to store an infinite amount of entropy), which effectively is falling down a bottomless pit (to supply an infinite store of free energy).¹⁴ The model avoids collecting the entropy at the Big Crunch by making the universe's rebounce occur as a collision with another universe in a higher dimension.¹⁵

They thereby get past the problems of earlier cyclic models. But instead of the model predicting these materialist features as a natural extrapolation, the authors chose these features as the starting point. This limits the evidential value.

But could we “see” the extra dimensions Ekpyrosis predicts? One way would be to test how gravity weakens as it radiates from a source. If we are limited to three space dimensions, it weakens as 1/(distance)2. If there are extra dimensions, it weakens at a faster rate with respect to distance from a source. To date, experimental tests have not seen a deviation for a 1/(distance)2 reality. In fact, these experiments have limited the possible size of an extra dimension to less than 55 micrometers.¹⁶

2. Flat and Open Inflationary Universes (Spatial Multiverse). What exactly does it mean to have a “flat” universe? We apparently live on the three-dimensional surface of a four-dimensional reality. This cannot be visualized, but the meaning of flat is fairly simple. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Parallel lines do not intersect.

But a flat or open (i.e., saddle-shaped) universe usually¹⁷ has the feature that space itself is infinitely sized. If so, then perhaps we can think of the universe like a patchwork quilt. Each patch could effectively represent a different reality. The physical constants and particle masses could be different for each patch. There is a plausible mechanism available to produce this.¹⁸ One also randomizes stars, galaxies, etc., so that one may imagine ultimately producing a life site akin to Earth.

I personally find that this option has some evidential value. It arises as a natural fallout from Einstein's general relativity as opposed to an initial materialist force-fit. Einstein wasn't thinking “multiverse” when he formed his theory (although he was thinking “steady-state” to avoid the theistic consequences of an origin). But most of the available evidence militates against this option avoiding the Gambler's Fallacy.

For example, we could start with the problem that, while it is possible to prove that the universe is not flat, it is not possible to prove that it is! A flat universe will be produced when the energy density (i.e., all the stuff in the universe—remember E=mc2) is at a critical value. Scientists call this value omega, or Ω. When Ω = 1.0, the universe is flat. But this must be known to infinite accuracy. Our science instruments are good but not that good.

If, however, we measure Ω to be greater than 1.0 and can place sound error bounds around this measurement which exclude Ω = 1, then you have proven that there is enough energy in the universe to force it to be finite. So what is the current measurement? In 2003, in the first-year data of the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe satellite (WMAP), Ω was estimated to be 1.02 ± 0.02.¹⁹ By 2008, this was refined to 1.005 ± 0.0064.²⁰ So the universe appears to be finite. But a flat universe is still possible, as this would be at the edge of the error boundary.²¹

Then we have the argument of Roger Penrose.²² To simplify things Penrose was wondering why the universe is not just a huge black hole. It desperately wants to be. If you consider all the different ways one can take basic building blocks (like Legos) and cobble together a universe, virtually all those configurations will produce variations on a huge black hole. Things want to be messy, not clean. Black holes are by far the messiest things that exist. So if things prefer to be messy, why aren't they? Penrose makes a calculation, considering just the matter in the universe that we can see. But he rightly notes that if the universe is like the patchwork quilt, then as the size of the universe approaches infinity (hence the number of particles approaches infinity) and the rest of the universe looks like ours (the Copernican Principle), the calculated probability for us seeing the universe in its present configuration approaches zero!

3. Everett Quantum Mechanics (Quantum Multiverse). If you haven't heard of this before, this is going to seem way out there. Quantum mechanics (the science of the very small) permits the outrageous possibility that the universe splits into alternate realities every time a choice is possible. The science fiction series Sliders was based on this, as are two dozen episodes of Star Trek (all incarnations) and Stargate SG-1.

As is explained well in Zukav's The Dancing Wu-Li Masters,²³ one can question a key assumption of rationality called contra-factual definiteness. When one questions “definiteness,” one constructs many worlds. Definiteness is a simple idea. It is as follows: if I choose option A, then option B does not happen. But what if there is not a definite outcome to choice? What if A and B both still happen but in different universes? This is the core of the Everett theory. Every time something happens (such as a quantum event at the atomic level), the universe itself splits into as many realities as cover all the possible outcomes. If the original Everett view is sound, then it does indeed contend powerfully against the Cosmological Design Argument. If the physical parameters in the Standard Model of physics (particle masses, force strengths) are set by symmetry-breaking events shortly after the big bang,²⁴ then it would seem that all of them have been tried, and by an observer selection effect we must exist within a patch that has life-amenable values for these parameters.

With regard to evidential value for Many Worlds, Everett has some; I find it to be the most compelling multiverse option. But cosmologists don't seem to employ Everett in this useful form. Rather, they employ variations that deconstruct the notion of time. For example some (David Deutsche, Julian Barbour) employ a literal interpretation of the “Wheeler DeWitt equation,” which is a formulation that joins Einstein's general relativity to quantum theory by asserting the outright elimination of the notion of time. The consequence seems to be a form of solipsism, given that there are no true histories. Thus our memories are not records of an actual “past.” Another consequence is that the multiverse would be an actual infinity of worlds rather than merely a potential infinity.²⁵ This invocation of “strong” multiverse theory can be problematic for the atheist, as we'll see later (in the section “Proof of a Transcendent Creator”).

Second, four possible interpretations of quantum phenomena can be true, ²⁶ and falsifying any of them may be impossible (on strictly quantum grounds). All of them can account for observed experimental results.

Problem 2. Positive Proof of a Single Universe

The second problem for the atheist is the apparent emergence (as of this writing) of good evidence for a closed inflationary universe.²⁷ Remember that a finite universe would limit the number of possible planets in the universe. So if you have few planets, yet an extremely low probability that any particular planet would be a life site, this militates toward design. Hence you have a direct and simple way to refute at least some multiverse candidates.

Sky Map of the Cosmic Background Radiation²⁸

Hot spots (color differences) represent infant galaxies in the early universe. Source: NASA/WMAP Science Team: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_limits.html

In addition to the evidence that the critical density parameter omega (Ω) is greater than one, other features of the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR)—the heat left over from the big bang itself—may be inconsistent with a perfectly flat (hence infinite) universe.

Consider the following from the cover article in the October 9, 2003, issue of the journal Nature, from the research team of Luminet et al.:

Temperature fluctuations on the microwave sky may be expressed as a sum of spherical harmonics, just as music and other sounds may be expressed as a sum of ordinary harmonics. A musical note is the sum of a fundamental, a second harmonic, a third harmonic, and so on.…Analogously, the temperature map on the microwave sky is the sum of spherical harmonics. The relative strengths of the harmonic—the power spectrum—is [sic] a signature of the physics and geometry of the universe.²⁹ [emphasis added]

In the words of Luminet, “In an infinite flat space, waves from the big bang would fill the universe on all length scales.… The first observable harmonic is the quadrupole.”³⁰

Luminet observes that the WMAP data shows an unusually weak signal in the CBR given a prediction that the universe is perfectly flat. The WMAP satellite has been used in recent times to study the CBR.³¹

Cosmologists thus face the challenge of finding a model that accounts for the weak quadrupole while maintaining the success of the infinite flat universe model on small scales.…

The low quadrupole implies a cut-off on the wavelengths of the 3-dimensional harmonics. Such a cut-off presents an awkward problem in infinite flat space, because it defines a preferred length scale in an otherwise scale-invariant space. A more natural explanation invokes a finite universe, where the size of space itself imposes a cut-off on the wavelengths. Just as the vibrations of a bell cannot be larger than the bell itself, the density fluctuations in space cannot be larger than space itself. While most potential spatial topologies fail to fit the WMAP results, the Poincaré dodecahedral space [Luminet's proposed model] fits them strikingly well.…

WMAP found a quadrupole only about 1/7 as strong as would be expected in an infinite flat space. The probability that this could happen by mere chance has been estimated at about a fifth of one percent (Spergel et al., 2003).³² The octopole term, with wave number l = 3, is also weak at 72% of the expected value, but not nearly so dramatic or significant as the quadrupole.

The key is the statement that the probability that we could see what we are seeing and still have a perfectly flat universe “has been estimated at about a fifth of one percent.” Combined with the critical density value and Ockham's razor, the most natural interpretation is a limited size universe. Some additional verification of this type of universe has recently come forward.³³ The best way to think of Luminet's universe³⁴ (given that one can't visualize higher dimensional space) is to think of a two-dimensional creature living on the inside surface of a soccer ball, similar to Edwin Abbott's Flatland.³⁵

Imagine, for example, a star at the opposite side of the universe. (Let's stick with the unrealistic, but nonetheless easier-to-imagine, idea of living on the inside surface of a soccer ball.) It should be self-evident that light from that star can travel and reach us along many different paths, while for a perfectly flat (table-top) universe, there would be only one way for light to get here. The effect on the observer would be that she would see multiple images of the same star come in from many different directions (as long as there was enough time for light to have traveled here along the possible path; hence there is a restriction on the size of the soccer ball). Something similar to this in our real universe is testable if it turns out the universe is small enough. One can search the oldest light in the universe, the CBR, to see if there are pattern matches in different sections of the sky.

As indicated above, there is some preliminary indication that such a pattern match has been found. If this model is correct, it implies:

Problem 3. Tiebreaker A: Boltzmann's Blunder

Suppose now that there really is a multiverse. It turns out that this is only “necessary but not sufficient” to defeat teleology (design). The Strong Anthropic Principle only gets one as far as explaining why one observer exists in the present. This puts it on par with a design theory, but other criteria can break this tie.

There is an issue called “Boltzmann's Blunder,” named after the nineteenth-century physicist Ludwig von Boltzmann. To explain the low entropy state of the early universe, Boltzmann proposed that, however unlikely, the universe must occasionally fluctuate back to a low entropy state. Given infinite time, any nonzero probability of a “rebounce” will do.

John Barrow and Frank Tipler explain his mistake:

The physicist Richard Feynman, in a 1965 lecture, leveled an objection to the fluctuations theory which is sufficiently general to apply against any size anthropic argument. He called the anthropic fluctuation theory “ridiculous” on the grounds that a fluctuation much smaller than the entire visible universe would account for the existence of an inhabited planet, and thus it is most unlikely that the entire visible universe would be in an improbable state as it is observed to be.³⁶

Roger Penrose explains the problem in relation to his earlier arguments in regard to the universe's low entropy state:

The particular universe that we actually observe ourselves to inhabit is selected from among all the possible universes by the fact that we observe it!…However, the argument can get nowhere close to the needed figure of 10(10^123), for the “specialness” of the big bang.…By a very rough calculation the entire solar system together with all its inhabitants could be created simply from the random collisions of particles much more “cheaply” than this, namely with an “improbability” of “only” one part in much less than 10^(10^60).³⁷

One does not need to posit a whole solar system (with associated people) “popping” into being. One can posit (with much higher probability) the freak appearance of a single person—a “Boltzmann brain,” if you will—within an otherwise chaotic universe.³⁸ (It does not matter that it would be short-lived.)

Consider a typical multiverse candidate, the string landscape (a generalization of the inflationary theory). Multiverse theory makes a prediction (in accord with the Copernican principle) that we should find our situation to be typical for conscious observers. This applies both to our environment and to ourselves. Now most atheists argue that the mind is the brain. So the nonzero probability that brains can form as a thermal fluctuation is a serious problem. But “ordinary observers” (i.e., those formed through the expensive and time-consuming process of cosmic evolution) are far less numerous within the multiverse than Boltzmann brains. Thus, if the landscape were true, we should have found ourselves to be Boltzmann brains. We don't; hence the landscape is strongly likely to be false.³⁹

One can also argue that these “Boltzmann brains” pop into being complete with false memories of a universe like ours. This is also far more likely than the formation of people (with legitimately earned memories), planets, stars, galaxies, etc., via cosmic evolution. Thus the world is actually an illusion (similar to the situation in the movie The Matrix). This latter option demonstrates that multiverse theory can lead to pure “brain-in-a-vat” solipsism.⁴⁰ The multiverse undercuts warrant for belief in the past and present world. This is a remarkable endgame for the supposed “unfettered Reason” of Enlightenment thinking.

Problem 4. Tiebreaker B: Observers Plus an Observation Platform

Jay Richards and Guillermo Gonzales, a philosopher and a scientist who have ties to the intelligent design movement, have demonstrated another tiebreaker in their book The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery.⁴¹ While the Strong Anthropic Principle can explain, perhaps, the aspects of a life site with respect to survivability, it cannot explain why Earth's place in the universe is an extremely rare site where observability (of the universe) is possible. The intersection of two totally independent and rare phenomena—survivability of observers + a nice observatory—is fishy. Richards and Gonzales argue that this intersection represents specified complexity, which is the information signal of a designer.

Problem 5. Possible Worlds and the Ontological Argument

Jay Richards asks us to consider another refutation of an atheist Many Worlds: Christian Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the ontological argument. In the strong form of the SAP, all possible worlds are considered actual. But if this is so, then if it is even remotely possible that God (the necessary being) has reality (i.e., He is in one possible world), then this necessity implies He must be present in all possible worlds. In essence, an atheistic attempt to produce a necessary universe produces God-as-computer-virus which propagates to “infect” every world! As Richards states, “Such can be the penalty for toying with notions such as possibility, necessity, and infinite sets.”⁴²

Problem 6. Proof of a Transcendent Creator

I have argued elsewhere⁴³ that extant cosmological models, should they be compatible with a dynamic (common sense) view of time, seem to have a beginning according to the following matrix:

Model Average Expansion History

Requiring a Beginning

Expanding

singularity theo-rems

Asymptotically static

metastability

Cyclic

Second Law of Thermodynamics

Contracting

acausal fine-tuning

For example, a recently proven theorem⁴⁴ (Borde and others 2003) has demonstrated the following: any universe (including appeal to higher dimensional cosmology, other pre-big bang cosmology, inflationary or noninflationary, quantum, etc.) that, on average, expands has to connect in a finite time to a “past boundary.” Considering the following argument, then, the second premise seems true:

Thus, if the first premise is true, the universe (i.e. nature) has a cause which is super to nature (thus transcendent or supernatural). And it may well be that a cause of this type can only create a lower ontology “creature” as a product of free choice.⁴⁵

Now proof of a transcendent Creator does not get you all the way to the Christian God, but an atheist should prefer a model without one. Multiverse options, except the extreme Wheeler-DeWitt models (which are atemporal by nature, and others that deconstruct the notion of time thus denying that anything “begins to exist”) seem vulnerable to the above argument.

Conclusion

There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.⁴⁶

—Shakespeare

We have seen that an atheist multiverse is a plausible candidate if:

Atheist multiverse theory meets none of the possible conditions, and 4 and 5 are inherently incompatible.

We pay a high price for a philosophy of science that, as a matter of convention, rules out the simplest and most viable solution to the problem of origin and “apparent” design. Unfortunately science is not a search for truth when it comes to the question of God.

The current system does provide a compensatory advantage. The best minds in the world work around the clock in an explicit effort to produce materialist solutions to the origins problem. Failure in this enterprise, and sometimes direct contrary/positive evidence for creation gives the Christian the best available witness, the “hostile” expert.

We are in the midst of round four of a five-round debate with respect to the Anthropic Principle. In round one Brandon Carter brought to light the inadequacy of the Copernican Principle but attempted to obey the philosophy of science by resorting to the WAP. In round two theist philosopher Richard Swinburne exposed weakness in the WAP by such devices as the firing squad example and produced a demonstration of the Anthropic “coincidences” by appeal to a personal explanation (design). In round three atheist philosophers and orthodox scientists evolved to the SAP. In round four thinkers have exposed inadequacy in the SAP.

The fifth round could easily devolve into an embrace of pure skepticism whereby the concept of “universe” as an objective observer-independent construct disappears.⁴⁷ Also possible is a demonstration of the multiverse's better compatibility with theism than with atheism. What seems unlikely, though, is that the multiverse concept will ultimately undermine the support that theism enjoys from modern cosmology.

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.⁴⁸

—Douglas Adams

↑ Back to top