Doubting Didymus

First: I think the form of the multiverse theory "all possible universes physically exist" (rather than existing as those strange manifestations of metaphoric possiblilites that quantum physics deals with, or some such) is patently absurd, and I will be most surprised if it is eventually confirmed.

Second: if that theory WERE true, then god probably does exist, as there is a universe where he came to be, from which position he could spread to all universes, given only that: 1) such a being is at all possible and 2) that it is possible, given infinite power, to move between universes.

Given that there is no evidence at all that god exists in this universe, At least one of three things must be true:

1) it is not possible in any way, in any universe, given any amount of luck, that an omni-everything being could exist.

2) It is not possible for any being, no matter how godlike, to move between, or otherwise influence, other universes.

3) the version of the ManyWorldsHypothesis, favoured in the very very poor Micheal Crighton novel Timeline, as well as the very good His Dark Materials trilogy, which has every possible universe, or most of them, having an actual physical existance is, in short, an imaginary crock of literature-fodder and should not be taken as a serious scientific idea, though in one case at least, it has made a fine book.

For myself, I think all three of the above propositions are highly probable.

(I allow my authors a fair amount of leway in my suspention of disbelief. If an author needs this strange and half-baked thing called 'hyperdrive' to complete their story, they may have it. The same goes for the MWH, just don't ask me to take it seriously.)

Edit:

I liked this bit of the article:
Very clever, but one Douglas Adams beat them to it in a certain scientific text. He hypothesised that, seeing as space is infinite, everything possible probably exists somewhere out in all that, and that if we only knew where to do it, we could harvest a nice crop of mattresses or screwdrivers, and never go to all the bother of actually making anything again.

Jesse

Your argument is a bit self-contradictory--you're saying "if all possible universes existed, there would be a universe where a being existed who would have power over all other possible universes", since that is something we can conceive of. But by the same token, if all possible universes exist, shouldn't there be a universe which no being has control over, since we can also conceive of that?

The problem is with using vague verbal definitions to define what is "possible"--you wouldn't have this problem if you used a mathematical definition of possibility, like "all possible configurations of matter/energy/spacetime compatible with the laws of physics exist" or "all possible algorithms are instantiated" (including the algorithm corresponding to the laws of physics and initial conditions of our own universe, assuming our universe follows some algorithm).

Doubting Didymus

The first one there "all possible combinations of stuff exist", is more or less what I meant. I don't think the argument I made is contradictory, given the conditions I included, which I will now modify to suit my new definition of possible: "Given that such a combination of Stuff is possible that would give rise to a god-being and given that a god being would be able to move between all universes, or otherwise influence them, then it must be true that god exists or influences this universe.

I think both of those proviso's are crap, as it happens.

Jesse

You're saying that some combination of matter/energy, obeying the laws of physics (no 'miracles'), could "give rise to a god-being"? How could this being be omnipotent if He couldn't travel faster than light, cause miracles, etc.? It seems pretty obvious to me that no arrangement of matter/energy could satisfy any reasonable definition of "God". If your comment about the proviso being crap means you'd agree, then your original argument about "no God in our universe = no multiverse" doesn't work.

SLD

I just finished the article today. It was interesting, but most of it I had read before in other articles in SCIAM and elsewhere.

A few weeks ago, I showed the cover to Micheal Shermer who was giving a talk here and asked him what's the difference between this article and the postulate of a God designed universe; what makes one pseudo-science and the other a serious scientific hypothesis worthy of a Scientific American cover story?

His answer was instructive and right out of the article (which I hadn't read at the time as it just arrived in the mail that day); the equations for quantum physics predict a multiverse with parallel universes. I'm still not quite convinced, but doubt I will ever have the time to study it in depth to be convinced one way or the other.

Nevertheless, I don't see this article as a death knell to Theism. Nor do I see it making God superfluous. It merely moves God back further along the creation process. I think theists are still left with some room for God as a creator of the laws of quantum physics which allows for a multiverse to exist in the first place. That doesn't make it superfluous. I do however agree that the first cause argument is rather weak.

SLD

Doubting Didymus

Depends. Some people want the multiverses to have different laws of physics to boot.

My comments that the provisos are crap does, as you say, mean that I agree, but my original argument was NOT "no God in our universe = no multiverse", but that AT LEAST ONE of my three options must be true: 1) no god is possible in any universe, AND/OR 2) no god can possibly transcend the boundaries of the multiverse AND/OR 3) there is no multiverse, in any real physical sense. At least one of those things must be true, but not neccesarily all.

I did go on to say that I thought all of them were true, but that is mainly for silly unscientific reasons: I don't believe that somewhere out there is a universe populated by a billion copies of Donald Duck, who all make their living by manufacturing sailor outfits for each other. Yet that is exactly the kind of thing that the extreme version of MWH says MUST be happening all the time: anything possible will neccesarily occur, because all combinations of everything is played out in its own universe. Who knows? It just might be true, but there is certainly a scarcity of evidence for it as it stands.

Jesse

Theists use so-called "anthropic coincidences" to support the idea that God fine-tuned the laws of nature to make life possible--basically, the idea is that there are various constants of nature which, if they had slightly different values, would make life impossible in our universe. Some of these coincidences are discussed here and here, and a good detailed book on the subject of anthropic coincidences is The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.

If multiple universes (or regions of a larger universe) with different constants existed, then the fact that the constants here are suitable for life would not require any more explanation than the fact that we live in a rare region of space suitable for life (the surface of the earth)--the only places where intelligent beings can ponder their own location in the larger scheme of things will be the places where conditions are right for intelligent beings to exist in the first place.

Wounded King

Dont be daft DD, we all know that Donald Duck would never be able to get on with himself and the economic infrastructure of such a universe would instantly collapse.

echidna

As eh indicated, the question would still remain over the nature of that all-encompassing framework which could give rise to infinite universes with varying constants.

Even given a single universe with favourable constants the conditions for life are exceedingly rare, so all a multiverse with varying constants (if that’s not too contradictory) contributes, is the further expansion of that uni-verse, but philosophically there’s little difference. Ultimately the all-encompassing framework itself must still be able to give rise to those life-favourable constants.

So really, to be more independent of the Anthropic Principle, the multiverse should really encompass variable frameworks as well, and maybe even universes without frameworks but the Anthropic Principle still remains. Ultimately the question looks less & less likely to be scientifically solvable. I don’t know that I’d limit it to First Cause, so much as contingency & essence, that in the end the Anthropic Principle will always rest on whatever “rules” or conditions (and at whatever level), are required to give rise to our perception of consciousness.

JGL53

Well, theist 'believers' can believe until the sun burns out that the first cause argument is sound, but it is nonetheless fallacious. (Can someone demonstrate logically that some imagined god has a monopoly on eternality? No? Then point made.)

Besides which, theist 'believers' are always going to believe in their imagined god for emotional and psychological reasons that really have nothing to do with logic, science or a commitment to being as non-subjective as humanely possible.

The thing I find fascinating about the Multiverse is that it serves as the 'simpliest', believe it or not, explanation for the properties of our observable universe. The quoted article addresses this. Thus it's the best theory as regards Occam's Razor.

Now if someone doesn't CARE about multiplying causes beyond necessity - or even PREFERS to do so, then that's a whole 'nother ball of (insane) wax. I'm not going there.

At this point, god ~ multiverse as flat earth ~ spherical earth. I will go with the multiverse idea until someone can demonstrate the superiority - or even the equality - of the god theory.

(I'll be patiently waiting.)