Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory

Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.
by Tim Folger
published online November 10, 2008


Computer simulation shows a view of the multiverse, in which each colored ray is another expanding cosmos.

Courtesy Andre Linde
A sublime cosmic mystery unfolds on a mild summer afternoon in Palo Alto, California, where I’ve come to talk with the visionary physicist Andrei Linde. The day seems ordinary enough. Cyclists maneuver through traffic, and orange poppies bloom on dry brown hills near Linde’s office on the Stanford University campus. But everything here, right down to the photons lighting the scene after an eight-minute jaunt from the sun, bears witness 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.

Consider just two possible changes. Atoms consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons. If those protons were just 0.2 percent more massive than they actually are, they would be unstable and would decay into simpler particles. Atoms wouldn’t exist; neither would we. If gravity were slightly more powerful, the consequences would be nearly as grave. A beefed-up gravitational force would compress stars more tightly, making them smaller, hotter, and denser. Rather than surviving for billions of years, stars would burn through their fuel in a few million years, sputtering out long before life had a chance to evolve. There are many such examples of the universe’s life-friendly properties—so many, in fact, that physicists can’t dismiss them all as mere accidents.
“We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” Linde says.

more:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator

"the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life."

What we have here is a bunch of people once again trying to make the universe geocentric - "It exists for our enjoyment." No, we exist as a simple fluke. "If protons were... if gravity were..." are silly statements. Even if they were, odds are life would find some form in such a universe.

Could humans live in such conditions? Absolutely not. These speculators are operating off the assumption that humans are the base-line definition of "life"

On edit: Oh, but I see -- not in the sentence you're talking about. Yes, they do tend to wax on about "life" rather than consistently qualifying it.

which is fun sometimes, but this (and I'm starting to wonder about String Theory) has no place being called science.

thanks for that.

There are two parts to your statement:

1) We exist as a fluke.
2) That fluke is simple.

For me to understand your statement, I humbly ask you to define both "fluke" and "simple fluke". Perhaps a simple fluke is a fluke that is continuous and differentiable at all points in some space?

What experiments and observations are you proposing that would allow us to confirm or disprove your idea?

voila!

Unfortunately, I'm not a scientist of any sort, and can't really lay out the case. However, it's a binary question.

1) Either the universe was designed with us in mind
Or
2) The universe was not designed with us in mind.

given that at rough estimate the universe predates the existence of terrestrial life by 11 billion years, and mankind by 16 billion years, I would have a hard time that it was all put here for earthly life, much less us in specific.

The earth formed roughly 5 billion years ago. The earliest evidence of life on it that we have is 4.5 billion year-old cingle-celled organisms. If the universe were designed for earthly life and thus, eventually us, wouldn't we only be 500 million years younger than the entire universe, by this?

I might just put probabilistic rules in place...which would have some realistic probability of eventually generating something...uh...interesting.

I in no way believe that the universe was put here for us. My guess is there are huge numbers of life forms throughout. But, I don't know, and I know of no way to prove this right now. Therefore, I can't scientifically make the assertion one way or the other. So, we keep investigating with an open mind to either possibility. I can't imagine, of course, how we could prove there was or wasn't a designer, unless we stumble on his/her/its apartment. And, of course, given that, the so called intelligent designer theory is not a scientific theory. Just an idea. Big difference. Certainly shouldn't be taught in science class, maybe in philosophy or comparative religion.

BTW, for not being a scientist of any sort, you make a decent argument, IMHO.

On edit: I was thinking maybe Bushie was a simple fluke.

I've had to go through this discussion, and other similar ones several times. This "made for us" idea just stinks of human exceptionalism, that we're somehow "special" - It's a biological version of geocentrism, and Copernicus and Galileo didn't go through all that crap just so we could throw it back in their faces in a new shape.

There's no way to prove anything about anything else unless there's proof of it. Are there other inhabited worlds out there? Pretty much certainly, because to believe otherwise leads us to this sort of "people are special" mentality - great for philosophy, bad for hard sciences. We just lack the hard proof for these other worlds. Hell, odds are we don't even know what we would be looking for. Though, if we find life in Martian ice, the probability of other inhabited worlds skyrockets - basically doubles the odds.

The core problem with ID is that it always results in a paradox. All life was designed by a creator? then that creator must be capable of thought and action, and is therefore a created being as well. The creator needs a creator - who also needs a creator, so on and so forth. It's "turtles all the way down."

Alternately the designer lives outside the system. Which nullifies the system itself because any number of other beings may also be said to live outside the system of ID. To say nothing of the obvious supernatural possibilities...

True, but only to a point. A point which I think is being missed here.

In a universe where complex elements could not exist, or the laws of physics prevented star formation, it would be difficult to see life existing at all, not just our version. Imagine a universe 10 billion years post Big Bang in which the only normal matter was a haze of hydrogen and helium gas. No light, no heat, no solid surfaces anywhere. Certainly no stars or planets. I'm not saying life would be impossible, but it would be ridiculously unlikely. It would almost certainly be a dead universe, made up of nothing but space and these most basic elements.

What this theory is saying is not that this universe was created just for us, and that we're some special form of life. Quite the contrary, it's saying that terrestrial life evolved in the form it took because that's the form that was best suited for the physics of this universe. I know they said something like "it appears the universe is adapted to us, not the other way around," but I've got a sneaking feeling this is not how they meant that to come out in print. The point is that in an infinite number of universes, by definition there would be one that would be uniquely suited to our version of life, otherwise we wouldn't be here to debate the matter. So this one may appear 'adapted for us' but it's more of an illusion of perception because we can't see the infinite number of others out there that would have been completely hostile to our existence.

If multiverse is an accurate model, then by definition there are a pseudo-infinite number of universes that have life that is beholden to other laws of physics alien to our own, and a pseudo-infinite number of dead universes where nothing was ever able to develop because the physical laws that 'self-selected' there were hostile to the formation of complex stellar or chemical structures.

I sometimes wonder if there is a recurrence of pattern at different levels of organization.Some sort of design economy,or perhaps a theme.The multiverse image looks to me like a radiolarian:



Why just one multiverse?There is a whole planet encompassing ocean of radiolarians.Thousand foot deep sediments composed of raiolarian carcasses.Ancient radiolarian wreckage.Why not,at some level of organization,a similar distribution of multiverses?And this distribution just a tiny component in the next larger design element of a structure unknown to us?

The speculations of an ant wandering in a cathedral.

From what I understand the multiverse is a term used to define the infinite number of universes.

"The anthropic principle languished on the fringes of science for years."

In my opinion that's where it belongs. It's fun to think about such things for the sake of philosophical pleasures or emotional gratification.

"Linde has spent much of the past 20 years refining that idea, showing that each new universe is likely to have laws of physics that are completely different from our own."

Oh? Likely huh? Don't the laws and the fundamental particles mathematically flow from the first moment of "being"? And doesn't that first moment flow naturally from that state before time? I dunno this whole thing just seems like whimsical nonsense to me. I'm no physicist but pfleh pass the joint.

Here Susskind admits that this "idea" is unscientific:

""Some people would call this the great disaster of string theory, that instead of giving rise to a single theory, it gave rise to something that is so diverse we can never make any sense out of it,” Susskind says. “Others would say, ‘Ah, this is exactly what we need for eternal inflation, for the multiverse, for anthropic thinking, and so forth.’?”"

Right, can't test it, and you've found a theory to fit your untestable theory that is "just what you need" to support it and your emotional needs. :eyes: Great. Please seek private funding.

". . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for."

on edit (to add):

In other words the universe is not perfectly tailored for life. Rather, life is perfectly tailored for the universe. That's how evolution works.

:shrug:

The environment keeps changing -- successful life changes with it.

(Which was probably your point?)

"Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator."

Bullshit. Even without a multiverse theory, an intelligent creator is not valid explanation since it:
-Lacks any supporting evidence.
-Is untestable and therefore unprovable.
-Doesn't actually answer anything.
-Leaves more unanswerable questions if you accept it.

I have a simpler alternative to an intelligent creator, there isn't one, there never was one.

The day scientific inquiries are no longer framed from the perspective of challenging fiction just won't come soon enough.