Advantages of the Multiverse Theory over the God Hypothesis
The rabbi deals extensively in his books with the physico-theological argument, and with the well-known objection to the argument in the form of the rabbi’s theory of the universe, and explains that the attempt to refute the argument by presenting the possibility of an infinite number of different universes is an unsuccessful attempt, in light of the fact that it is much more complicated and makes unreasonable assumptions, compared to the simple explanation of the intelligent designer.
But recently it occurred to me that the possibility of refuting the claim about the simplicity of the designer explanation could be refuted by the fact that the explanation of the multiverse theory is better because it does not add new types of existence to our picture of the world, and in any case it has an advantage in the framework of Occam’s razor. We have experience with universes, and therefore it would be more logical to assume the multiverse explanation, than to assume that there is a completely different type of existence (the divine) that is the reason for the complexity of the universe.
In addition, we have certain reasons to believe in the multiverse theory, such as the anomalies that exist in quantum theory, possible explanations within the framework of string theory, and more, and therefore the explanation can actually surpass the divine one.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am mainly talking about the physico-theological argument, not the cosmological one, because the cosmological one in this case leads to infinite regression (who created the generator of universes?..).
The being you are adding is a divine being. It is intelligent (otherwise it is another step in the chain of complexity that requires a designer), it is not something that exists in our experience (this is after all part of the physico-theological argument in your formulation), and I assume that you are not claiming that it is made of particles and exists within space-time.
Its type of existence is fundamentally different from the type of existence of the universe, even if the conclusion about its difference does not stem directly from the argument itself, but is added to it afterwards, in a broader theological framework.
And because of this, we can say that the multiverse theory has an advantage here, because it does not add a new type of existence. Although it includes different universes with different laws, it is still the type of existence that exists in our experience – One that is composed of matter, energy, space, time, measurable entities, and so on, unlike God, who is something fundamentally different, not just technical.
And, the theory of the universe is based on scientific considerations, such as quantum considerations and The theory of everything, and therefore it is logical to assume that it is correct.
You are repeating yourself.
Indeed, in one of the options I used the cosmological argument. What is the problem with that? Is there a duty to separate the arguments? Beyond that, the multiverse also contains a multitude of things that are not in our experience, whether they have a reason or not.
And the fact that the theory is based on scientific considerations is not true and does not matter. It is not true because there are none. It is built on a philosophical assumption as to why more universes should not exist, and it is also not helpful since scientific assumptions are no more valid than philosophical assumptions. Scientific findings may have some advantage.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
