Q&A: The Advantages of the Multiverse Theory over the God Hypothesis
The Advantages of the Multiverse Theory over the God Hypothesis
Question
The Rabbi deals extensively in his books with the physicotheological argument, and with the well-known objection to it in the form of the multiverse theory, and explains that the attempt to refute the argument by proposing the possibility of infinitely many different universes is unsuccessful, in light of the fact that it is far more convoluted and assumes implausible assumptions, compared to the simple explanation of an intelligent designer.
But recently it occurred to me that one could refute the claim about the simplicity of the designer explanation by noting that the multiverse theory is actually a better explanation because it does not add new kinds of existence to our picture of the world, and therefore it has an advantage within the framework of Occam’s razor. We have experience with universes, and so it would make more sense to assume the multiverse explanation than to assume that there is a completely different kind of being (the divine) that is the cause of the universe’s complexity.
In addition, we do have certain reasons to believe in the multiverse theory, such as the anomalies that exist in quantum theory, possible explanations within string theory, and so the explanation actually could surpass the divine one.
Answer
I answered this with several arguments. Among other things, I wrote that even if there is a multiverse, an explanation is still needed for who created it. Even if there is a universe generator, then the generator is the entity that created them (admittedly, this is a cosmological argument and not a physicotheological one).
As for your actual claim, I also do not agree with it. I add something else that created the universe, and I do not see why it must have a different kind of existence. That is an additional assumption that I do not need. And in a multiverse there are all kinds of universes, each with different laws of nature. So isn’t that a different kind of existence?
Discussion on Answer
You’re repeating yourself.
Indeed, in one of the possibilities I used the cosmological argument. What is the problem with that? Is there some obligation to separate the arguments? Beyond that, the multiverse too contains masses of things that are not in our experience, whether they have a cause or not.
And as for your claim that the theory relies on scientific considerations—that is not true, and it also doesn’t matter. It’s not true because there are no such considerations. It is built on a philosophical assumption as to why additional universes might exist, and that also does not help, since scientific assumptions are no more valid than philosophical assumptions. Scientific findings may perhaps have some advantage.
I’m speaking mainly about the physicotheological argument, not the cosmological one, because the cosmological argument in this case leads to an infinite regress (who created the universe generator?…).
The being you add is a divine being. It is intelligent (otherwise it is just another stage in the chain of complexity that requires a designer), it is not something that exists in our experience (after all, that is part of the physicotheological argument in your formulation), and I assume you are not claiming that it is made of particles and exists within space-time.
Its mode of existence is essentially different from the mode of existence of the universe, even if the conclusion about its difference does not arise directly from the argument itself, but is added afterward within a broader theological framework.
And since that is so, one can say that the multiverse theory has an advantage here, because it does not add a new kind of existence. True, it includes different universes with different laws, but it is still the kind of existence that exists in our experience—something made of matter, energy, space, time, measurable entities, and so on—as opposed to God, who is something fundamentally different, not just technically different.
And yes, the multiverse theory does rely on scientific considerations, such as quantum considerations and the theory of everything, and so there is logic in assuming that it is correct.