The Multiverse Kills Science

NASA pic
Somewhere in the multiverse, you may be reading this blog post on a beach instead of wherever you are. Also you might be riding a unicorn.

OK, bear with me a bit, today. Some of you may not be interested in this topic at all, but I’ve thought about it a lot and, well, it’s my blog. 🙂

In yesterday’s post on the New Scientist ad, I referred to the multiverse concept in a couple of derogatory ways. The first was that it is often used as a multiverse-of-the-gaps to help explain our existence when nothing else known by science will. I touch on this in my upcoming article in the next Tomorrow’s World magazine. And that topic is worth exploring in another post, perhaps, since there’s a lot to be said, though I wouldn’t say all of it rises to any level above mere blogworthiness.

The other derogatory reference, though, was to the “science-killing ‘all things happen somewhere’ multiverse.” This sort of multiverse (and there are many flavors of multiverse theories–a consequence of being supported my little more than imagination) is one I would have enjoyed spending more time on in the TW article, but there just wasn’t space to do so. In fact, a good bit of the back and forth between me and editorial was about trying to say well what little I could say in the space we had (and, as usual, editorial’s help was tremendous).

Before going into it, let me explain a bit of background. What is the “multiverse” concept? Loosely defined, it is the idea that all we normally think of as “the universe” is really just one of many universes. In some theorizations, there are virtually infinite universes. Such ideas have long been the playground of science fiction, comic books (greetings, fellow citizens of Earth-616!), etc. However, such ideas are now also very popular among the halls in which actual scientists walk. (Not necessarily because they are good ideas, but these days that isn’t necessarily a requirement in academia.)

I say “some theorizations” because physicists and others have imagined a variety of ways in which multiverses could exist. The versions that have my attention here are those such as the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics or Max Tegmark’s Ultimate Ensemble (UE).

The first of these, MWI, essentially posits that any time there can be a different “choice” made, the universe “splits” into multiple varieties in which each possible outcome is realized. For instance, in a given moment a uranium atom may randomly decay or not decay. If MWI were true, this would mean that two universes are generated in that moment by this one fact: one where the atom decays and one where it does not. In like manner, all possibilities are assumed to be realized in some universe “somewhere.” For instance, if you are flipping a coin, in one universe it is heads and in another universe it is tails. Both universes are taken to exist in reality. Take to the extreme, in one universe you would be be an Olympic champion and in another you would be an infamous mass murderer. Again, all possibilities are taken to exist in a virtually infinite collection of universes. (I should add that some would say a literally infinite collection of universes.)

[And, yes, shocking number of scientists do believe that this is the way reality truly is, Olympic champion-you and mass murderer-you and all. If you’d like to read more, check out New Scientist‘s “Life in the Multiverse” in its Sep. 27, 2014 issue, available online as “Multiverse me: Should I care about my other selves?” Even if most of the article is only available to subscribers, the first few paragraphs shown in the preview should be enough to illustrate what I am talking about. (The ridiculous “dinosaur” statement made by David Deutcsh in that article just about exploded my brain with its inanity.)]

The other idea above, Max Tegmark’s “Ultimate Ensemble” idea is something I have discussed before. It considers mathematics to be the ultimate reality and that all mathematically possible worlds/universes actually do exist–again, a virtually infinite number of realities. [It’s no shocker that Dr. Tegmark is featured in the New Scientist article I mentioned parenthetically just above.] And, again, the implications of UE are just as vast as those of MWI: That all possible realities are realized–that all things that can happen, however improbable, do happen in some universe somewhere.

How the idea that we live in not just a universe but a multiverse is often used as a God-substitute is discussed in the Tomorrow’s World article. For this post, I’d like to focus on how such ideas destroy science.

I don’t mean that they destroy science in a conventional sense, such as “Wow, these ideas are widely accepted with virtually no evidence to accept them–that’s not very scientific!” Though this is true (and discussed in the TW article), the damage done to science by such multiverse concepts is much deeper and more profound.

For instance, consider how many twins have been born in the history of man. It is, surely, a whole bunch. (“Whole bunch” being a technical term, representing an amount much bigger than “a smidgen” but less than “a bazillion.”) In each case, both twins have eventually died since, so far, life has proven to be 100% fatal since Adam and Eve. (Yes, Jesus rose again, but He did die first!) In some cases, one twin outlived the other by quite a long time–years and years. In other cases, the twins may have died very soon one right after the other. Certainly, throughout history, it has been a mix.

In the latter case, when those things happen they get our attention. For instance, say one twin of a pair dies at 9:52AM on a Wednesday and the other one dies at 9:56AM on the same day, even though each one lived in different places and died of completely different causes. Those who knew of the deaths might remark “Wow, what a coincidence!” Others, due to the fact that they were twins, might be tempted to invoke some sort of “cosmic hand” coordinating such effects.

Now, consider the implications of multiverse hypotheses in which all possibilities, however improbable, happen somewhere in some universe out of the infinite number of universes available (in fact, it happens, by some accountings, an infinite number of times). In these multiverses what was once improbable becomes inevitable.

If that is the case, then somewhere there is a universe (actually, many universes) that that looks remarkably similar to ours–is just as real as ours–and, yet, in which every pair of twins throughout history have always died within five minutes of each other. Every single pair. Throughout the centuries–throughout the millennia–every time a twin has died, his or her brother or sister has died within the next five minutes.

I’m not saying there would be a cause for this–it would simply be a cosmic “roll of the dice.” Given the laws of probability and nothing else, the odds against such a thing would be staggering, of course! Why would one twin dying of pneumonia in Texas cause, in any way, the other twin being in a car accident in New York within the next five minutes?

Surely there would be some causal connections in some few cases. Some twins share, for instance, inherited, fatal diseases. Still, the odds that they would die within five minutes of each other would be small. Further still, the odds that every single pair of twins have ALL died within five minutes of each other throughout history would be phenomenally small! Virtually infinitesimal.

Yet, the probability would not be zero.

And, hence, according to these multiverse ideas, there would be universes–perhaps many, many, many universe–in which this happens: where, literally every pair of twins mankind has ever produced has always, without fail died within five minutes of each other.

How would scientists react in those universes? They would explore the phenomenon, looking for causes. They would discover lots of things, surely, in genetics, sociology, etc. They would, perhaps, even “discover” things they consider to be possible causes for the “Twin Death Law” of their universe. And, yet, there would be no cause. The only “reason” for the phenomenon would be that their universe just happened to be “one of those” where such a thing happens.

In fact, imagine the first pair of twins in one of those (again, possible infinite number) who do not die within five minutes of each other. One dies and the other continues to live. Wouldn’t scientists pour over the remaining individual, analyzing everything they can–biologically, sociologically, quantum mechanically (“Are twins like entangled particles? Were these decoupled somehow?”), whatever–trying to desperately find out why these two were a rare, previously unknown exception to the “Twin Death Law.”

And, again, there would be no cause. No real reason. No underlying physical law other than dice rolling and random happenstance. The scientists will never discover an underlying “cause” because there is none.

Actually, the use of twins might be introducing an element that hides the absurdity. Imagine that, rather, it’s a universe in which everyone named “Marty” dies on their 36th birthday. Again, highly improbable, and, yet, according to these theories, something that does happen somewhere because its probability is not actually zero. Again (or, perhaps, “Again²”), everything that can happen does happen somewhere according to these theories. What could be discovered about this very real phenomenon in such a universe? What could scientists discover about the connection between the name “Marty” and death on birthday #36? there would be nothing to discover. No cause at all. Just random happenstance–and, yet, a very real phenomenon that could not be denied.

Some would begin to make predictions: “Well, your name is Marty, so you’re going to die tomorrow on your 36th birthday.” Those predictions, in a subset of those universes, would always be true. The “Marty dies at 36 Law” would be a reality. In other universes, there would be one rare exception. In other universes, there would be two exceptions. In others, there would be three, etc. New studies would be initiated to discover why these Marty’s didn’t die at 36. Maybe they would discover “reasons” in some cases — for instance, in some of those universes, the Marty’s that survived 36 were those who chewed Double Bubble bubblegum every day before the birth of their second child. (Or whatever.) In other universes, no “cause” could be found, and research would continue. Regardless, there would be no real cause whatsoever. Just relentless probability.

Actually, the problem is worse than this. According to quantum mechanics, the probabilities of many weird things are not zero, even though they are remarkably small.

For instance, the probability of a 747 filled with lemon Jello spontaneously forming 500 feet over my head isn’t necessarily zero. It’s low. Way low. (For an estimation of the probability of you, personally, randomly experiencing quantum tunneling (think “teleporting”), take a look at this. And note what it says at the end: “Almost impossible.”)

Way low. But not zero.

So, in extreme multiverse scenarios in which all things that can happen do happen, it does happen. (…he types, as he looks out the window nervously.) In fact, if there actually is an infinite number of universes in which all quantum particle possibilities are realized, there would be universes and earths in which such lemon Jello-filled 747s rain down on the earth daily. (Bring an umbrella.) Imagine looking for causes behind that. Yet, again, these is no real “cause.” If the reign/rain of 747s began on July 12, 2011 in that universe, would some poor scientist have to get on the news to tell the public, “Well, it looks like we’ve picked the short straw, and–for no real cause whatsoever–our universe is just one where Jello-filled 747s rain down from the sky at random in some strange quirk of quantum mechanical probability. Hopefully it will stop one day. Really, the odds are that it will stop immediately, yet (Wow, I just heard another one land down the street)… Anyway, I know the dramatically improbable keeps happening every day, and that none of this should really be happening, but–well–whatever.”

And, really, I don’t think that is the worst of it.

In our own universe, there are a number of things for which we don’t have good explanations, yet which seem to be very real phenomena–experienced repeatedly and consistently. With each observation, the probability that what has been observed is just chance gets smaller and smaller. Yet it never, really, becomes zero. And in some universe, somewhere, such things happen to innocent protons, neutrons, puppies, whatever, purely by chance and not by real “cause.” How do we know that ours isn’t one of those? How do we know that what we’re observing is truly the effect of some underlying cause? How do we know that the unexplainable correlation that has caught our attention in the data of our particle colliders or our beakers and test tubes is truly not a result of being part of an infinite multiverse in which, however improbable, that persistently observed correlation, in experiment after experiment, is random and uncaused, even though it seems as though there should be a reasonable cause. I’ve focused on twin deaths, Marty deaths, and spontaneous Jello-filled 747s, but there are more reasonable-to-the-mind possibilities. How can we guarantee that, in our universe, we’re experiencing an actually caused correlation in the laboratory, versus the possibility that we’re just living in “one of those universes” where these things happen? We can’t use probability, since–if everything that can happen, no matter how improbable, does happen somewhere–the utility of probability has been hobbled in an infinite multiverse.

This has been long and rambly, I know. And the ideas expressed are probably faulty and poorly expressed. (Again: blog.) But at their heart are real concerns.

Those who invoke the “multiverse” to explain away the improbability of our existence and the existence of our universe actually explain away much more–they explain away virtually every improbable event conceivable. After all, if the explanation we give is “Well, it had to happen somewhere in an infinite multiverse,” that explanation works for everything that could possibly occur at all, ever.

And when an infinite number of universes exist in which even the most improbable things can occur, deceptively indicating nonexistent underlying causes or laws (or hiding actual underlying causes or laws), it seems to be that science would be dead.

Thankfully, in the real world, the actual evidence of an infinite multiverse is non-existent. (David Deustch’s adamant claim otherwise in the earlier referenced New Scientist article is, in technical terms, hooey.) Even the more reasonable bases for conceiving of a multiverse of different universes–such as inflationary cosmology–have no experimental confirmation, yet. Not that cosmologists haven’t tried: You can piece together the history here and here, or access the original studies if you are so inclined (e.g., here, here, and here). The results so far? Not very promising for “multiverse” adherents, but not conclusive (read: “Hope springs eternal”).

And, as I have mentioned before, the multiverse is no solution to the improbability of mankind’s existence. Really, it is a no-win scenario, even for those who want to rid themselves of a Creator. All the best, current theorizing–even augmented with multiverse ideas–still points to a Creator and Designer behind it all. Narrowed by actual, current evidence, even the illusion of escape fades away.

But now I’m getting off track. My point was to address, IMHO, how the concept of infinite multiverses as popularly advocated–in which anything that can happen, however improbable, does happen–kills science. And I may have done so poorly, but at least I’ve gotten it off my chest. That’s got to be good for something. 🙂

12 thoughts on “The Multiverse Kills Science

  1. Couple of thoughts sprung up while reading this.
    One, it’s kind of entertaining thinking of possible crazy coincidences. What if an asteroid hit every time a head of state visited New Zealand? Or a sinkhole opened up every time I did a math problem?
    I’d like to add that these things happen in an infinite universe as well. Not only might they happen, but they must happen. There has to be an exact copy of you.
    You’re right though, science should limit itself to testable theories. Hypothesizing abstractions is entertaining and undoubtedly valuable. However, they shouldn’t believe something without evidence (faith has no place here).
    One closing thought: there’s no rule that the universe has to be like humans want it to be. We weren’t consulted. If we were, Earth would be in the center of the universe, and quantum mechanics would probably be much more classically explainable.

  2. Have you just explained/not explained all the supposed contradictions in the Bible? Or not. If you take one verse and compare it to another verse you now have the beginnings of a multi-verse, and of course, in each verse of a multi-verse things must be different/the same, or not, right? Therefore, since the book has so many verses, that is, multi-verseseseseseses then, ergo, you have defined the unique non-ness of the criticisms against the Bible which is explained in the fact that in not one verse of these multi-verses have you explained away anything. Nor, have you not explained into existence any of these uni-multi-verses. Great article! Let’s do it again sometime not again sometime when the opposites properly attract/repell each other tomorrow last year forever at no time in non-existant existence.

  3. Oh, I love this topic, Mr. Smith, don’t worry. Ramble all your want to on it – I’ve run into some pretty hairy invocations of the concept in the name of religion reconciled with science.

    Potential realities I can accept in parallel – allowing us to make individual choices in what some have called our “consensus reality”. Actual realities in parallel? I don’t think so. That would defeat God’s whole purpose of creating unique individuals following unique life paths toward the same goal: becoming as He is. Such a multiverse would kill both science and religion at the same time – rather like burning down the metaphysical house to get rid of some inconvenient but very real mice (or would that be elephants, the sort no one wants to look at when they’re in a self-serving metaphysical room?).

    This video (which you’ve undoubtedly seen before) mentions the multiverse concept in passing. The author claims that even if there is a multiverse, it still had a beginning.

    The Kalam Cosmological Argument

  4. scienceinpolitics: Thanks for commenting! Good examples of low probability/not impossible items. (I would cry if I lived in a universe like the second you propose.) As for an “infinite universe,” you’re right, at least if we’re limited to the things I’ve described given all other assumptions. I don’t see as many people rooting for such a possibility as I do the multiverse (perhaps due to the powerful theoretical and experimental solidity supporting belief in a finite past for our universe), so I tend to defer to the multiverse as a target, being the “hero” of the day, but an infinite universe would do, just as well.

    I’m not sure that I believe as wholeheartedly that science should limit itself to “testable theories” only because sometimes what was once thought untestable is discovered to be testable. In fact, as linked to, there have been attempts to experimentally verify Inflation-based multiverse theories for at least the last four years, and who knows what may be discovered that could result in MWI or UE becoming testable. However, those considerations aside, I agree that when scientists act like philosophers and “metaphysicists,” they should at least admit it and not pretend they are still within their realm of expertise. (Part of why I found David Deutsch’s comment about the multiverse being as verified experimentally as the existence of dinosaurs to be simultaneously both riotously funny and offensively deceptive.) While I would prefer scientists to talk about untestable hypotheses with more caution and qualification, this has not been the pattern of science in the public eye for generations, and I don’t see it changing any time soon.

    I would disagree with your comment equating faith with “belief without evidence.” Not all “faith” is “blind faith,” and sleight-of-hand artists (like Peter Boghossian) use that false equivocation (“faith” = “blind faith”) too sloppily in a manner that adopts much of the mentality and approach they seek to attack. Though, limiting the comment to “blind faith,” I would agree: Blind faith has no place in science. But it has no place in real faith, either. (Regrettably, however, it finds its way into both, and it does so pretty regularly — and not just among their amateur practitioners.)

    And finally, without commenting on the assumed non-centrality of the Earth or whether or not we’d have a classically explainable quantum mechanics, I agree that there is no reason the universe should be the way we want it to be. (I turn to my left hoping to see a strawberry milkshake. Alas, it is not there.) As for whether or not there is a rule that the universe is as humans need it to be, I do believe that there is: “For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who has established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited” (Isa. 45:18).

    Thanks, again, for stopping by!

    John Wheeler: I am, indeed, familiar with the Kalam, and even made a brief post about it, I believe. [Searching…] Yep! Mentioned it…

    * Here: “Leibniz’s argument for God’s existence”
    * Here: “The Kalam Cosmological Argument and Unwin’s Pursuit of P(G)
    * And here: “Nice video about the Kalam Cosmological Argument”(With video. Duh — it’s in the title. 🙂 )

    [UPDATE: Oops — I see that you have posted the very same video I had posted in the past in the link above. I suppose I should look at the comments before I comment, myself! 🙂 Yes: As the old post indicates, I am familiar with the video and it’s a nice summary of the Kalam.]

    Good stuff.

    Mike: Ha! Not really, but, still, Ha! 🙂

  5. Thomas

    A universe where the Creator God is no longer obscured but where He reveals Himself openly and pleads with all humanity face to face with power, yet tempered with mercy and love.Oh wait…that’s going to be this one! 🙂

  6. Just a thought that came to me, Mr. Smith: Even if the God-rejecting scientists are right and a Multiverse does indeed exist, it doesn’t mean that the Creator God doesn’t. After all, as Scripture declares, ” He stretches out the heavens [ plural ] like a curtain . . . . ” There being a Multiverse doesn’t contradict God’s word at all. If anything, it confirms it.

  7. I actually had very briefly read – perhaps glimpsed at, scanned your TW article before I posted my comment above, Mr. Smith. My reading of it was not thorough enough, so I have to admit that I couldn’t honestly claim I read it at all. Since then I’ve taken another look and am happy to note you had already come to the point of view contained in my comment. But your article as a whole covers the question most effectively.

  8. TeapotTempest

    I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician, however I found the topic intriguing. A few thoughts….

    Yes, Mr. Smith, there really is a multiverse. Actually, it’s a physical universe we are in now and are cognizant that it spreads out in every direction by some 13 billion light years. But there is also a physical universe about which we know nothing at all, the one that is hiding just beyond the visible universe we inhabit. Think of it as living in a bubble within another bubble, except that we are in a bubble that exists within a much larger bubble universe. MUCH larger. One that extends out to infinity.

    Another point– In your article in the TW Magazine, you say that “After scientists discovered that our expanding universe began in a cosmic “Big Bang”—a beginning that
    clearly implies a Creator—they noticed that they needed to assume a brief but intense period of hyperinflation, when the universe grew at unimaginable speeds.” I never could get my arms around the Big Bang concept. That’s perhaps because it didn’t happen. Isn’t there a theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light relative to another body? That sort of flies in the face of the idea that the planets, galaxies and what-have-you pushed out at unimaginable speeds in every direction. Consider this idea — God created all things in the universe, both what we see and what we can’t yet see, instantly. I know, I know. There’s the phenomena of an expanding, even accelerating universe that we know of and see. But that is another theory based on what seems to be problematic assumptions (Hubble Theory-Red Shift) about doppler effects of light from distant galaxies, and how they measured distances of bodies well beyond our own galaxy.

    One other thing– If there were multiverses, wouldn’t the scientists and mathematicians in the other universes be thinking that the scientists in our universe are the ones that are weird? “What? No lemon jello-filled 747’s falling out of the sky? Now that’s weird!”

  9. Howdy, TeapotTempest, and it is good to hear from you! Too bad I had to rush away this Sabbath, else we could have sat down for this conversation! 🙂

    A few things. The physical universe that may exist beyond what we are able to see would not qualify as a true “multiverse,” but would simply be a part of this one — of a nature with it and cut from the same cloth, as it were, but simply beyond sight. Current “one universe” theories (still recognized as the “norm” in terms of being the best established and evidenced if not being the most popular) posit that the farthest objects we see are not at the edge of the universe and that our universe is much further than 13 billion light years in (effective) radius. 40+ million light years would be closer to the expected figure. But none of that is considered an “additional” universe, just more of the same, as it were. In that sense, your “Yes, there really is a multiverse,” is a bit overstated if this is the one of which you are speaking, since no one who writes of multiverses considered those realms of our own universe to qualify for the description, and the existence of that expanse is not really contested. To say otherwise would be to equivocate and hijack the word for our own purposes.

    (That aside, the contention that the large universe you describe “extends out to infinity” is not proven at all and not required by anything seen in science or in Scripture. Actually, a very finite physical universe fits very well within the confines of biblical understanding, and nothing we have discovered scientifically requires anything more. Your statement about that may reflect a different misunderstanding, which I will address in the next paragraph, since it finds its best expression in something else you’ve said. And, my, what a long parenthetical statement this is!)

    You say that you couldn’t get your arms around the Big Bang concept perhaps because it never happened. Could be. But it also could be just because your arms aren’t long enough. 🙂 Or, perhaps, because you are trying to hug the wrong thing. For instance, you mention the limiting power of the speed of light, and that is, indeed, true according to the best attested current theories. However, the hypothesized period of inflation is not a matter of objects moving away from each other through space at faster than the speed of light. It is a matter of space, itself, expanding at a rate that is effectively faster than the speed of light — something that is not limited by any theory or experimental finding at all.

    This is important: The Big Bang theory, in all incarnations that I am aware of from its very first formulation, let alone current versions, doesn’t state that matter came to existence in space and began expanding through space. It claims that that matter and space came into existence and began expanding, together. Space, itself, came into existence at that time and is expanding, as well.

    What is the difference, and how does this allow for objects to be farther apart than the speed of light would seem to allow? Ants on a balloon do the trick for me, and we can use them to explain your concern about the speed of light. Let’s say ants are limited to crawling speeds that slower than 1 inch per second. That would be like the speed of light (the speed of ant?). So, if two ants were on a balloon crawling around, the fastest they could crawl across that balloon’s surface would be 1 inch per second. However, that is not a limitation to how fast you can blow up the balloon. In fact, if you could blow up the balloon fast enough, you could separate the ants at a rate much faster than 1 inch per second — even if the ants were simply standing still — simply by expanding the area of the balloon between the two ants. That is, the limit on the speed of the ants is not a limit on how fast the balloon, itself, can expand, which also has an effect on the separation of the two ants, regardless of what they are doing or how they are moving.

    So, the limit of the speed of light doesn’t “fly in the face” of any aspect of an expanding universe.

    Actually, the balloon analogy helps with the earlier comment, as well. Just because there are regions on the balloon that an ant will never reach because it is further than the ant can crawl when his limiting rate is slower than the rate at which the balloon is expanding (analogous to regions of the universe that theorized hyperinflation has spread to beyond what we will see with light reaching our telescopes), that region is still part of the same balloon. True “multiverse” theories are about other balloons.

    And the Big Bang wasn’t based on Hubble’s observations. It was based on Einstein’s relativity theories, some of the most repeatedly, experimentally validated theories in existence. Hubble’s observations of red shift are simply evidence that is supportive of the theory, not the source. Other evidence exists as well (e.g., the background radiation of the cosmos, etc.).

    Not that there aren’t challenges concerning the Big Bang theory and ways in which it might be false. There certainly are outstanding questions, but the speed of light isn’t one of them. 🙂

    (As for the “It’s raining 747s” universe’s scientists, I think they would be trying to figure out a way to get a ticket from there to here, whether it seemed weirder or not. 🙂 )

    Thanks for your thoughts and comments!

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.