[00:00:05] ID the Future, a podcast about evolution and intelligent design.
[00:00:12] Greetings. I'm Andrew McDermott. Today we're taking a closer look at the multiverse theory. I'll read a recent article about the Multiverse by Dr. Stephen Meyer, and I'll share some of my own insights about the hypothesis, including how it got incorporated into comic books in the 1960s as a storytelling technique and how recent popular entertainment is amplifying the idea today. No doubt by now you've heard of the multiverse, either discussed in an article or book or perhaps on creative display in a movie or TV show. It's the proposal that our universe may be just one of many universes, perhaps an infinity of other universes in the cosmos, and that each universe looks different and has different properties and physical laws governing it. It's a provocative idea, to be sure, imaginative, innovative, and interesting. But before we get too excited about it, we should want to know if it's scientifically viable as a theory of universal origins. The idea of many worlds is not a new one throughout history, there is evidence of natural philosophers, theologians, and everyday people pondering the vastness of the universe and the possibility of other dimensions, worlds, and universes. Even the ancient Greeks debated the idea of multiple universes. According to American astronomer and historian of science Stephen J. Dick, the atomists of the 5th century BC were most likely the first to espouse a belief in the plurality of coexistent worlds. Atomists upheld the existence of atoms and the void. They believed atoms to be agents of causality and infinite in number, resulting in innumerable worlds in formation, collision, and decay. As Epicurus put it in the 4th century BC there are infinite worlds both like and unlike this world of ours. There nowhere exists an obstacle to the infinite number of worlds. In contrast, Aristotle argued the opposite. The world must be unique, he said. There cannot be several worlds, and he had his arguments for that. So the debate has been going on for a long time in our modern era. One of the first physicists to put forward a serious mathematical argument for the possibility of many worlds was Hugh Everett. His Many Worlds interpretation was published in 1957. His proposal merged the microscopic and macroscopic worlds by introducing a universal wave function that linked observers and objects as part of a single quantum system. Everett's hypothesis held that when faced with a choice of outcomes for an event, the universe splits. In each new universe, one possible outcome is played out. In this way, all possibilities occur. Everett's idea was largely ignored when it first came out, and disappointed with that response, he left the academic world and took a job at the Pentagon studying nuclear defense. But his idea would slowly percolate for years to come. In his recent book Return of the God hypothesis, Dr. Stephen Meyer unpacks three scientific discoveries of the 20th century that together suggest an intelligent design to the origin and development of life in the universe. In the second half of his book, Meyer takes on the claims of what he calls exotic naturalism. More elaborate versions of scientific naturalism that involve auxiliary hypotheses explain unexpected evidences. Standard naturalism posits only matter and energy in this universe as the entities from which all else comes. Proponents of exotic forms of naturalism seek to enhance the explanatory power of naturalism by suggesting other material universes or dimensions of reality. Exotic, by the way, is a good word for proposals like multiple universes. The dictionary defines exotic as originating in or characteristic of a distant foreign country. Seems fitting One reason scientists have offered up theories of multiple universes is to explain away the fine tuning of our universe. Recall that we live in a kind of Goldilocks universe, where both the laws and constants of physics and the initial arrangement of matter and energy at the beginning of the universe appear to be finely tuned for life. Some physicists have suggested intelligent design as an explanation for the precise combination of these fine tuning parameters. The incredible improbability of the fine tuning and the way the actual values of these laws and constants match the requirements of a life friendly universe suggests design is a common sense interpretation. But as you can imagine, scientists wedded to naturalistic or materialistic explanations, can't stomach a design hypothesis. So they came up with more imaginative alternatives that randomize the outcome of our universe, thus making the highly improbable properties probable and the incredibly finely tuned laws and constants of our particular universe merely an inevitable result of cosmic happenstance. Nothing special, nothing to see here, just one of many universes doing its thing. In his book, Dr. Meyer evaluates each multiverse model that's been proposed, including the inflationary multiverse and the string theory multiverse, and exposes the problems with each. He points out that many physicists today regard the multiverse hypothesis as a speculative metaphysical hypothesis, not a scientific one. For them, since neither other universes nor God can be observed or measured, the choice between the two theories comes down to subjective preference. They would deny any evidential or theoretical reasons for preferring one hypothesis over the other. They might publicly or implicitly endorse the multiverse, or at least not speak out against it, so as to toe the materialist line. But privately they're not likely to put much stock in it. Does this mean we're at an impasse when it comes to explaining the origin of the universe? Are those who cannot accept the existence of God required to put their trust in a theory positing unobservable universes? Or will they remain uncommitted, hoping that science down the road will provide the much hoped for explanation? Dr. Meyer, brave philosopher of science that he is, suggests a way forward. Meyer believes both scientific and metaphysical hypotheses can be evaluated by comparing their explanatory power to that of their competitors. He does think that we can assess the merits of both a theistic design hypothesis and the multiverse hypothesis and decide which is the better explanation of the origins of the cosmos. After carefully evaluating multiple competing hypotheses for universal origins, we can make an educated and rational inference to the best explanation. Science can't give us 100% final answer proof of cosmic origins, but we can at least feel confident in an explanation that satisfies the available evidence and helps us sleep soundly at night. To read Meier's evaluation of the various hypotheses for the origin of the universe and to see why he prefers theistic design over the multiverse, I invite you to read chapters 16 through 19 of his book Return of the God Hypothesis.
[00:07:22] In recent years, the multiverse has been playing out in lots of movies and TV shows. You've probably seen some, but the idea of using the theory as a storytelling mechanism goes back to the 1960s. A few years after Hugh Everett's Many Worlds interpretation of quantum theory emerged, comic writing pioneers like Stan Lee began to break with standard conventions of their time in order to boost sales and rise above the competitors. Comics were now written to appeal to older readers, not just kids. Superheroes began squabbling amongst themselves and favoring celebrity over anonymity. Comics also began to reflect the spirit of the Cold War and the Atomic Age, exploring mankind's place in a fragile earthly and cosmic order and looking for new and arresting ways to illustrate the battle between good and evil. And, as you can imagine, keeping track of the actions of multiple characters and making sense of multiple storylines. Superhero teams and series would not be an easy task. The idea of multiple universes would have been an incredibly attractive idea to comic book writers, a provocative way to not only keep current stories and characters straight, but also to open up a seemingly infinite array story and character possibilities. In utilizing the multiverse, comic writers vanquished the ultimate conventions, time and space to produce dazzling as well as lucrative results. But even as we might enjoy the mind bending special effects and storylines of today's multiverse infused popular entertainment, we still owe it to ourselves and others to be intellectually honest about the multiverse. The longer it's used as a storytelling mechanism, the more people will buy into it as a plausible explanation. And since belief in God, according to the latest Gallup Poll, is at an all time low in the US and has consistently dropped every year since 2011, people are clearly turning to other explanations of life and the universe to find meaning in their lives. Popular entertainment remains an influential force in society, with more content available to us and more portals into that content than at any point in the past. In short, comic book film companies like Marvel Studios and DC Films have the power not only to entertain us, but to shape our worldview as well. Take the latest Spider man movie for example. No Way Home. I watched it recently, all 2 hours and 45 minutes of it. Spider man wants to mitigate the effects of his actions as a superhero on his friends, so he asks Dr. Strange to make it so that almost everyone forgets that he is Spider Man. The resulting spell ends up getting botched and suddenly different superheroes and villains are entering Spider Man's universe and wreaking havoc. Voila. Thanks to the Multiverse, an instant story, and we spend the rest of the movie watching how he puts everything back together again.
[00:10:15] Stephen Meyer recently wrote about the multiverse in popular culture in an opinion piece for the Daily Wire. It encapsulates the problems with multiverse proposals and how we can honestly evaluate such claims in light of the available evidence. Let me read it to you now as a way to wrap up today's discussions.
[00:10:33] The Madness of the Multiverse and the Strangeness of Atheism by Stephen Meyer as millions of fans know, Marvel Studios recently released its latest superhero blockbuster, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness. Like earlier Marvel films, this offering unfolds within an interconnected network of parallel universes known as the Multiverse. Popular culture has grown increasingly fascinated with the concept of alternative universes. The idea has been featured in comics since the 1960s and in movies like Sliding Doors, the 2009 reboot of Star Trek, and the films in DC Entertainment's Extended Universe series. Mark Zuckerberg has even advanced the idea of infinite alternative digital universes. So what exactly is the Multiverse, and why has it generated so much interest? Isn't one universe enough? Although it may seem like pure science fiction, the Multiverse has gained traction in popular culture largely because series scientists first proposed it. According to some scientists, Every possible event that could have occurred in our universe actually has occurred or is occurring in another parallel universe. Thus, strangely, the multiverse concept implies that a copy of each of us exists not just in one other universe, but in an innumerable array of other universes. It also implies those other copies of ourselves are experiencing infinitely many different circumstances, some similar to those in our world, some dramatically different. In 1956, physicist Hugh Everett first proposed the multiverse as an interpretation of a strange quantum phenomenon known as the collapse of the wave function. In the 1980s, physicist Alan Guthrie introduced inflation theory, suggesting that as our universe expands, it will eventually birth an infinite number of new bubble universes. Physicists conceive of parallel universes as disconnected realities that have nevertheless emerged from some common universe generating mechanism. In science fiction, however, characters can teleport between universes through wormholes or via dreams. So, given its weirdness, what accounts for the popularity of the multiverse in physics? The multiverse has gained adherence because it seems to explain an otherwise inexplicable mystery known as fine tuning. Since the 1960s, scientists have discovered that the physical laws and parameters of our universe have been finely tuned against all odds to make our universe capable of hosting life. Even slight alterations, such as the expansion rate of the universe or the strength of gravity or electromagnetism or the exact masses of elementary particles would make sustainability or even the existence of life, impossible. In essence, physics has revealed that we live in a Goldilocks universe, where the forces of physics have just the right strengths and balances and the properties of matter just the right characteristics to allow for life. Physicists refer to these many fortuitous factors as cosmological fine tuning. Many scientists initially concluded that this improbable fine tuning points to a fine tuner, an intelligent creator who established the physical parameters of the universe with life and mind. As former Cambridge University astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle argued, a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics to make life possible. To avoid this conclusion, some physicists have doubled down on the multiverse that allows them to portray the fine tuning of our universe as the outcome of a grand lottery in which some universe generating mechanism spits out billions of universes. So many that our universe, with its improbable combination of life conducive factors, eventually had to arise. Thus, despite its speculative character, the multiverse has attracted support from prominent scientists, from Hugh Everett to Alan Guth to Stephen Hawking.
[00:14:28] Why? In part because it provides an alternative to an idea many would prefer to avoid intelligent design by a transcendent creator. Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind explained the attraction of the multiverse this without any other explanation of nature's fine tunings, we will be hard pressed to answer the intelligent design critics. Indeed, the multiverse is now the go to atheistic explanation for the design of the universe.
[00:14:56] Multiverse advocates overlook two obvious problems, however. First, as Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne has argued, the multiverse constitutes a more convoluted, less simple explanation than the God hypothesis. The God hypothesis requires the postulation of only one explanatory entity, a transcendent intelligence, rather than the multiplicity of entities, including an infinite number of separate universes and various universe generating mechanisms required by the multiverse. Thus, positing one God meets the test of Occam's famous razor, whereas positing many universes does not.
[00:15:33] Second, and here's the twist, all multiverse proposals, whether based on inflationary cosmology or string theory, posit universe generating mechanisms that themselves require prior, unexplained fine tuning. This means that the ultimate origin of the fine tuning remains a mystery, which seems to take us right back to the need for an ultimate fine tuner. Ironically, the folks at Marvel and DC Studios seem to recognize this. The Marvel Universe envisions a God like figure called the One above all, as the creator of all the interconnected universes in the multiverse. His DC equivalent is called the Presence. Yet many modern scientists, wedded to atheism or materialism, fail to distinguish these ideologies from science itself. Consequently, they have recently advanced ever more strange and exotic hypotheses. In addition to the multiverse, some scientists posit a space alien designer to explain the digital code and DNA, while others suggest we may be nothing more than the simulation of a cosmic computer programmer.
[00:16:36] These speculative hypotheses illustrate the growing strangeness of scientific atheism as scientists reach for increasingly exotic ideas to explain evidence that seems otherwise to point straightforwardly to God.
[00:16:50] As for the multiverse, even sci fi writers now recognize that if such a thing exists, it would still require an ultimate creator. So who will tell the scientific atheists?
[00:17:03] That was Stephen Meyer's article on the multiverse appearing in the Daily Wire.
[00:17:07] That's plenty to ponder for now about the multiverse. As I've pointed out, this idea is as old as humanity's pursuit to understand the world, and it shows no signs of losing steam in the 21st century. I'm sure I'll be back in future episodes to share more insights and chat with others about this compelling idea for now. Thanks very much for listening. For ID the Future, I'm Andrew McDermott.
[00:17:33] Visit
[email protected] and intelligentdesign.org this program is copyright Discovery Institute and recorded by its center for Science and Culture.
