Does “Many-Worlds” and “MultiUniverses” Really Exist?

This sounds more like a Hollywood script of the tv-series Sliders back in the 1990s but this in fact a bizarre interpretation of quantum mechanics or more like a highly imaginative storyline coming from scientists rather than Hollywood. Rumblings started in 2004, that scientists were taking additional universes than our own more seriously. Hugh Everett proposed, “many-worlds”  where one has a coin and it could go one way or the other providing two different outcomes. How it splits into two actual coins one wonders but the more technical aspect which combines many worlds and multiple universes goes like this…

Justin Mullins at New Scientist, supporters of the multiverse hypothesis are seeing a cosmic convergence of Everett’s ideas (many worlds) with theirs…

“TWO of the strangest ideas in modern physics – that the cosmos constantly splits into parallel universes in which every conceivable outcome of every event happens, and the notion that our universe is part of a larger multiverse – have been unified into a single theory. This solves a bizarre but fundamental problem in cosmology and has set physics circles buzzing with excitement, as well as some bewilderment.”

“Cosmologists reconcile this seeming contradiction by assuming that the superposition eventually “collapses” to a single state. But they tend to ignore the problem of how or why such a collapse might occur, says cosmologist Raphael Bousso at the University of California, Berkeley. “We’ve no right to assume that it collapses. We’ve been lying to ourselves about this,” he says.”

And they call creationist models non-scientific. This requires leaps of faith with a lot of imagination for these untestable conjectures that increase over time because of their unwillingness to face the obvious so they lie to themselves, forcing the data into  an endless stream of worthless speculations!

The facts are quite clear, the universe appears designed because it is designed which indicates intelligence namely God. There is no way of getting around it, not even with a combination of “many worlds” and “multi-universes!” Scientists ought to be thinking about engineering of the universe rather than science fiction stories!

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Does “Many-Worlds” and “MultiUniverses” Really Exist?

  1. Bla bla bla …

    Sorry Michael, this is another rambling post. Of course the many-world hypothesis is a scientific one, even though it is HIGHLY (in bold case) speculative.

    And the comment by Bousso is nonsense. Nobody is “lying”. People can be wrong, of course, and have proven to be wrong many times. But a wrong hypothesis is not a lie.

  2. And they call creationist models non-scientific.

    Yes, indeed! Multiverse hypotheses are scientific because they are consistent with what facts are available, and will not be considered “true” until they can be tested by experiment.

    Creationists models, on the other hand, are unscientific because they are inconsistent with facts that we already have, and there is inherently no way to test experimentally for an omnipotent being who can act arbitrarily.

    This requires leaps of faith with a lot of imagination for these untestable conjectures that increase over time because of their unwillingness to face the obvious [sic] so they lie to themselves, forcing the data into an endless stream of worthless speculations!

    Every scientific theory begins with a lot of imagination and a leap of faith. (Masses attract each other with an unseen “force” that acts through empty space? Into the drugs again, Mr Newton?) However, If a hypothesis cannot go beyond mere faith, then it must be discarded. (Remember N-rays, anyone?) This is a difference from creationism, which remains forever mired in faith.

    So, Michael, exactly what are the “obvious facts” that cosmologists are unwilling to face? How about the obvious fact that the Earth cannot orbit the Sun because the Sun clearly moves across the sky, and we cannot feel the Earth move? As noted previously, if common sense were a reliable guide to the world, we would not need science.

    Cosmologists do not “force” data. They take the facts that are available and determine whether they do or do not fit the proposed hypothesis. Please name one set of data that is inconsistent with a multiverse hypothesis. I thought not.

    Scientists do not lie to themselves—at least, not for long. This is the purpose of peer-reviewed publication. In the 18thC, the Royal Society invited the public to witness major experiments, so that they could tell whether the investigators were honest. On the other hand, creationists abhor review by scientists, and have a thoroughly deserved reputation for dishonesty. It doth seem ironic that those who profess to hold moral authority are known as “Liars for Jesus.”

  3. The facts are quite clear, the universe appears designed because it is designed which indicates intelligence namely God. There is no way of getting around it, not even with a combination of “many worlds” and “multi-universes!”

    Michael, please explain what logical connection might exist between (a) whether or not there are multiple universes and (b) whether or not this or other universes are designed by a supernatural entity..

    Are your arguing that creating multiple universes is beyond the power of God?

    Hmm.

  4. I don’t see a problem with a multi-verse..and it puzzles me why Creationists would want to make an issue out of it also. Why couldn’t God create more universes? Why would a multi-verse be inconsistent with accepting that God could have been the creator? ..unless the problem here is that Creationists want us to be the only one….that is, the only thing special in God’s eyes.. But, isn’t it arrogant to assume that we are?

  5. Fifty years ago many cosmologist did not want to face the fact that the universe had a begging until….
    “The discovery and confirmation of the cosmic background radiation in 1964 secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos”
    Penzias, A.A.; Wilson, R.W. (1965).

    Up until the discovery of cosmic background radiation, and even for a few years after its discovery, it was still considered by many to be too close for comfort to theology, and some up until this time rejected it on this basis. This new multiverse proposition and others simular such as M theory are basically hail Mary passes by people like Steven Hawkings, Laurence Krause, Dawkins and all the others out there who would rather assume a faith based on something that is non observable and non testable, to something that clearly is. This is just as much a faith and religious base a concept as any world religion. The only difference is that many seem to assume that just because a particular group of scientist are proposing such a thing, that this in itself automatically makes it a scientific construct when it is clearly not.

    This is just one of the many “just so stories” out there. What many have done is to take something that is observable by all, (except the most hardest of heads) including the fact that even Paul Davies admits that..
    “There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life”

    It seems many have tried to replace these collective observed dynamics dealing with the exponentially low probability factors concerning a fine tuned universe, (and in orders of magnitude) with philosophically bankrupt statements, logical fallacies & tautological arguments, or these absurd fairy tales for grown ups who just like children help them to sleep better at night. Even Rodger Penrose who calculated the chances of this universe coming into being as 1:10^10^123), and even he admits that M theory is not even a theory or hypothesis, much less a scientific theory. The same can be said of the multivers fairy tale.

  6. <blockquote?
    It seems many have tried to replace these collective observed dynamics dealing with the exponentially low probability factors concerning a fine tuned universe, (and in orders of magnitude) with philosophically bankrupt statements, logical fallacies & tautological arguments, or these absurd fairy tales for grown ups who just like children help them to sleep better at night. Even Rodger Penrose who calculated the chances of this universe coming into being as 1:10^10^123), and even he admits that M theory is not even a theory or hypothesis, much less a scientific theory. The same can be said of the multivers fairy tale.

    It’s hard to make much sense of this paragraph. What “collective observed dynamics” does Benny have in mind? What “philosophically bankrupt statements, …, fairy tales” does he rail against?

    .

    One thing Benny does not understand at all is the fundamental difference in status between multiverse hypotheses and creationism.: All multiverse scenarios are offered as tentative scenarios which are consistent with observed facts, and which will not be accepted as theories unless and until a method can be found to test them. The reason they are being offered at all is to allow fellow cosmologists to refine them and to devise such tests.

    Creationism, on the other hand, was not devised from any set of facts, but rather entirely from a sacred text. It is offered not for analysis but to be believed. Its tenets of a young earth, sudden creation, and a worldwide flood have been shown to be inconsistent with many observed facts, and its mechanism, an omnipotent entity capable of any arbitrary acts, is untestable on its face. As the cosmologists say, a theory that can explain anything can explain nothing.

    The difference is that multiverse hypotheses will be picked apart and discarded if they are inconsistent with observations. Creationism persists in the face of inconsistencies. Because its basis is not scientific.

    Therein lies the unbridgeable difference.

  7. “All multiverse scenarios are offered as tentative scenarios which are consistent with observed facts”

    It would be nice if Olorin could at least take the time out to cite some of these so called consistant facts that point to the conclusion of a multiverse paradigm even if just tentatively. So far all I hear is conjecture with no citations to back it up. I have heard this mantra concerning facts many times before, but when these so called facts are questioned a little further, they usually turn out to be more bark than bite. From Huxley the bulldog to Dawkins the springer spaniel. What a long way the neo Darwinian synthesis has come. Unfortunately in the wrong direction. I would also like to ask Olorin to actually read the threads and not add in more to the text than what is stated. I never tried to make a comparison between multiverse & “creationism” In fact, I never even brought up the word.

  8. It would be nice if Olorin could at least take the time out to cite some of these so called consistant facts that point to the conclusion of a multiverse paradigm even if just tentatively

    The motivation to propose any new hypothesis is that current theories have limitations; they make no explanation of significant facts, or are deemed unsatisfactory. In the case of multiple universes, we have a fact that, while a quantum event could resolve to any of a number of states, we observe only one. Multiple universes (MV) could account for all resolutions. We have another fact of a seemingly critical relation between several constants of nature. Some MV hypotheses would allow for different constants—even different physical laws. Present theories produce infinities that must be removed by renormalization. Infinite MVs would obviate this requirement. Gravitation is anomalously weak. But distributing this force among many different universes would make it comparable to the others.

    These are some of the facts that “point to the conclusion of a multiuniverse paradigm.” Such a paradigm might explain these facts in a larger context.[1] These facts are so commonly known as not to require citations—you and Michael have mentioned some of them yourselves.[2]

    If you wish to question MV hypotheses, then you have the burden of adducing facts that are inconsistent with them, or facts that they cannot explain.

    ===============

    [1] The larger context is required because a theory that explains only those facts that are already known is worthless. Why bother?

    [2] If you really need specific sources, try The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos, Brian Greene (Knopf 2011) or “The Odd Quantum, Sam Treiman (Princeton U. 1999).

  9. Olorin I think you miss understood what I meant about facts. The fact that I can imagine or assume something which doesn’t exist, does not make the assumption anymore factual or even plausible. You offered personal conjecture and could not provide any citation that even came close to verifying your claim about observable evidence having anything to do with Multiverse. As for “specifics” the only specifics I asked for was a citation. Can you give a specific chapter or paragraph? I’m not sure if I’m willing to buy an entire book that may or may not answer the question asked when no one else in the known world seems to be able to answer it. Its not a hard question. The question is simply…Wheres the evidence? I only know that when I speak, I try to take responsibility for what I’m saying by checking my sources first.

    “If you wish to question MV hypotheses, then you have the burden of adducing facts that are inconsistent with them, or facts that they cannot explain”

    I thought we were speaking of science and not personal, subjective or arbitrary rules. Science has always maintained one of many rules, and one of the most important is, that the burden of proof falls on the one making the proposition. You cannot disprove a negative.
    This has always been science 101. If I am to (as you say) adduce facts, then you have yet to offer adducible facts to consider. Again I maintain that these absurd ideas are “just so” stories meant to comfort certain adults, and no less religious or faith based than any world faith, especially when hand waiving or ignoring the fine tuning problem that the whole idea of multiverse is based on.

  10. Benny:

    Olorin I think you miss [sic] understood what I meant about facts.

    If I did, then you have misunderstood what a scientist means by “fact.” A fact is something that is supported by a great deal of evidence, either direct (observation) or indirect (circumstantial). Such as the fact that quantum multiple states resolve to classical singular states. They do. Why do you need an original citation for this commonly known phenomenon? The force of gravitation is 10^40 times weaker than the electromagnetic force. Will only a specific citation satisfy you of this fact that has been observed for 200 years?

    But, if you really need citations for quantum collapse, here’s an early one: L. Landau and R. Peierls,. “Erweiterung des Unbestimmtheitsprinzips fuer die relativistische Quantentheorie”. Zeitschrift fuer Physik 69 (1-2): 56 (1931). Here is a specific page reference to a more recent textbook treatment: B. d’Espagnat,. Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. (W. A. Benjamin. 1976) pp. 18, 159. You can demonstrate the relative strength of gravitation and magnetism in your own home. A 1 oz refrigerator magnet can hold up a ball bearing despite the gravitational attraction of the entire earth. Do the math.

    If I am to (as you say) adduce facts, then you have yet to offer adducible facts to consider

    Above are two major facts consistent with and explainable by multiple-universe hypotheses. Several others were mentioned in my previous comment.

    I ask again whether you have any fact that you can demonstrate to be inconsistent with a multiple-universe hypothesis? Remembering, of course, the definition of “fact.” (Hint: The Genesis account is not a “fact,” because it proceeds from revealed authority, rather than from observable evidence.)

  11. I am well aware of how scientist use facts and evidence, but my criticism was based on your use & definition of the so called facts & evidence . So far you offer none. You offer nothing but speculation.

    “But, if you really need citations for quantum collapse, here’s an early one: L. Landau and R. Peierls,. “Erweiterung des Unbestimmtheitsprinzips fuer die relativistische Quantentheorie”. Zeitschrift fuer Physik 69 (1-2): 56 (1931). Here is a specific page reference to a more recent textbook treatment: B. d’Espagnat,. Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. (W. A. Benjamin. 1976) pp. 18, 159.”

    No. Again your having trouble with this. I asked for evidence based on these so called facts that a multiverse can be extrapolated from.

    “A 1 oz refrigerator magnet can hold up a ball bearing despite the gravitational attraction of the entire earth. Do the math”

    Again I can appreciate your description of how magnets work on your refrigerator but that doesn’t answer the question as to what evidence you have for such a proposition as muliverse.

    “The force of gravitation is 10^40 times weaker than the electromagnetic force”

    Yes this is true, but you just cited evidence for whats called the fine tuning problem, but its only a problem for atheist or people who don’t believe in a higher power. It wasn’t a problem for Einstein, Hoyle and many others who believed there was a higher power at hand in the universe, and not just based on faith because these men were not religious men. They came to this conclusion based on scientific observations.

    You are very confused about this subject. Below are just some of the fine tuned values that this whole Mverse proposition is based on in terms of trying to explain these ratios and perimeters and in trying to refute the overwhelming evidence of a fine tuner, because fine tuned universe within these exponential values indicates a fine tuner, and the people who propose Mverse cannot deal with this reality on face value, so the idea is to envision trillions of trillions or possibly an infinite number of universes, and that we just happen to live in the one that got it right.

    Below are just some of the fine tuned values that this whole Mverse proposition is based on in terms of trying to explain these exquisitely tuned ratios and perimeters.

    the Physical Constants of the Universe
    Parameter
    Max. Deviation
    Ratio of Electrons:Protons
    1:10^37
    Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity
    1:10^40
    Expansion Rate of Universe
    1:10^55
    Mass of Universe1
    1:10^59
    Cosmological Constant
    1:10^120

    Facts and references below.

    These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.

    1. strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry
    2. weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
    3. gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form
    4. electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
    5. ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements
    6. ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above
    7. ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above
    8. expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed
    9. entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form
    10. mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements
    11. velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support
    12. age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed
    13. initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space
    14. average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun’s orbit
    15. density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun’s orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
    16. average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
    17. fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun
    18. decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life
    19. 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life
    20. ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above
    21. decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry
    22. ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all stars into neutron stars or black holes
    23. initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation
    24. polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result
    25. supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
    26. white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry
    27. ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form
    28. number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result
    29. number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result
    30. mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense
    31. big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form
    32. size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result
    33. uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
    34. cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars
    35.
    Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.” (2)

    George Ellis (British astrophysicist): “Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word ‘miraculous’ without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.” (3)

    Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): “There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all….It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe….The impression of design is overwhelming”. (4)

    Paul Davies: “The laws [of physics] … seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design… The universe must have a purpose”. (5)
    Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): “I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.” (6)

    John O’Keefe (astronomer at NASA): “We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.” (7)

    George Greenstein (astronomer): “As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency – or, rather, Agency – must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?” (8)

    Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): “The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory.” (9)
    Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” (10)

    Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): “I would say the universe has a purpose. It’s not there just somehow by chance.” (11)
    Tony Rothman (physicist): “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.” (12)

    Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” (13)

    Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” (14)

    Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): “Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.” (15) (Since this writing he has proposed Mtheory which is not even a theory but an idea according to Rodger Penrose)

    Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): “When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.
    Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): “We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.”(17)

    Ed Harrison (cosmologist): “Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one…. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument.” (18)

    Edward Milne (British cosmologist): “As to the cause of the Universe, in context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him [God].” (19)

    Barry Parker (cosmologist): “Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.” (20)

    Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): “This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.” (21)

    Arthur L. Schawlow (Professor of Physics at Stanford University, 1981 Nobel Prize in physics): “It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” (22)

    Henry “Fritz” Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): “The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, ‘So that’s how God did it.’ My goal is to understand a little corner of God’s plan.” (23)

    Wernher von Braun (Pioneer rocket engineer) “I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.” (24)

    Carl Woese (microbiologist from the University of Illinois) “Life in Universe – rare or unique? I walk both sides of that street. One day I can say that given the 100 billion stars in our galaxy and the 100 billion or more galaxies, there have to be some planets that formed and evolved in ways very, very like the Earth has, and so would contain microbial life at least. There are other days when I say that the anthropic principal, which makes this universe a special one out of an uncountably large number of universes, may not apply only to that aspect of nature we define in the realm of physics, but may extend to chemistry and biology. In that case life on Earth could be entirely unique.” (25)

    Antony Flew (Professor of Philosophy, former atheist, author, and debater) “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” (26)
    References
    1. Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
    2. Hoyle, F. 1982. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.
    3. Ellis, G.F.R. 1993. The Anthropic Principle: Laws and Environments. The Anthropic Principle, F. Bertola and U.Curi, ed. New York, Cambridge University Press, p. 30.
    4. Davies, P. 1988. The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature’s Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.
    5. Davies, P. 1984. Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 243.
    6. Willford, J.N. March 12, 1991. Sizing up the Cosmos: An Astronomers Quest. New York Times, p. B9.
    7. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 200.
    8. Greenstein, G. 1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27.
    9. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 233.
    10. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.
    11. Penrose, R. 1992. A Brief History of Time (movie). Burbank, CA, Paramount Pictures, Inc.
    12. Casti, J.L. 1989. Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483.
    13. Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 52.
    14. Jastrow, R. 1978. God and the Astronomers. New York, W.W. Norton, p. 116.
    15. Hawking, S. 1988. A Brief History of Time. p. 175.
    16. Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.
    17. Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57
    18. Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.
    19. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 166-167.
    20. Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.
    21. Zehavi, I, and A. Dekel. 1999. Evidence for a positive cosmological constant from flows of galaxies and distant supernovae Nature 401: 252-254.
    22. Margenau, H. and R. A. Varghese, eds. Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo Sapiens (Open Court Pub. Co., La Salle, IL, 1992).
    23. Sheler, J. L. and J.M. Schrof, “The Creation”, U.S. News & World Report (December 23, 1991):56-64.
    24. McIver, T. 1986. Ancient Tales and Space-Age Myths of Creationist Evangelism. The Skeptical Inquirer 10:258-276.
    25. Mullen, L. 2001. The Three Domains of Life from SpaceDaily.com
    26. Atheist Becomes Theist: Exclusive Interview with Former Atheist Antony Flew at Biola University (PDF version).
    27. Tipler, F.J. 2007. The Physics Of Christianity. New York, Doubleday.

  12. You are very confused about this subject.

    No, Benny. You are the one who is confused. You are making a category error about the nature of a scientific hypothesis. We do not extrapolate hypotheses from evidence based on facts. This is as meaningless as asking for the emotions of a cloud. But we can and do require hypotheses to be consistent with facts—such as those named above. Therefore, the last 394 paragraphs of your comment are irrelevant.

    Here, try this on—

    > Fine-tuning is consistent with the hypothesis of multiple universes.
    > Fine tuning is consistent with the hypothesis of a supernatural designer.
    > Fine-tuning is consistent with the hypothesis of pink lawn flamingos.

    Feel better now?

    For just a while, perhaps. Because—

    > Multiple universes provides a mechanism which may be capable of explaining a lot of other puzzling facts: quantum collapse, gravitational strength, renormalization infinities, etc., etc.. Thus there is a motivation to perform further investigation about multiple universes.
    > A supernatural designer who can act arbitrarily explains … ah … nothing at all. All it says is that that that is is that that is not is nott, is not that so? Thus there is no motivation to explore this hypothesis.
    > The nature of pink lawn flamingos seems not to fall into the domain of phenomena explainable by multiple universes, so we decline the invitation here as well.

    The purpose of science is to figure out how the world works, so that we can control it. The hypothesis that bears no fruit gets cut down and cast into the fire. But, just as with the olive tree, we prune it and dress it and give it a couple of chances first.

    .

    In fact. Michael’s denial of many scientific theories is, I believe, a denigration of the power and/or wisdom of God. You may have noticed that his post implies that God could not have created multiple universes. His denial of evolution implies that God is not patient enough to have modified life over billions of years. His denial of dark matter implies that he knows better than God how to put together a universe. And so on.

  13. Apparently Benny has shot his wad and vamoosed.

    ===========
    “Shooting one’s wad” is another of those gun-related epigrams that has lost its roots in the minds of most of us. It is to the 19thC what “flash in the pan” was to the 18thC. A flash in the pan occurs when the gunpowder in the pan of a flintlock explodes but fails to ignite the main charge in the barrel. In other words, a misfire. Shooting the wad is the analog for a percussion-cap firearm. The wad is a small piece of cloth rammed in ahead of the gunpowder but behind the bullet, to keep the gunpowder from leaking past the bullet. If no bullet has been loaded, only the wad comes out the barrel when the trigger is pulled. (You can actually see it come out and flutter to the ground—at least in my own 1854 Colt Navy Model revolver.) In other words, a misfire. Unfortunately for the language, no analog has developed for modern cartridge-based ammunition. So we are stuck with shooting one’s wad and flashes in the pan long after everyone has forgotten the colorful meaning of these phrases. O tempores, o mores! O well.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s