Q&A: Evidence for Accepting Multiple Universes?
Evidence for Accepting Multiple Universes?
Question
With God’s help,
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask the Rabbi: I read the article by Daniel Turgeman, a particle physicist from the Weizmann Institute and active at the CERN particle accelerator in Switzerland. The article is called “How Is Our World Precisely Suited for Life? Intention and Randomness in the Act of Creation.”
There he writes that many in the religious world (Christian and Jewish) attacked the claim about the existence of multiple universes by saying that it is only an unfounded hypothesis, and he quotes you as writing that we do not know anything about the existence of other universes with different laws of nature.
He disagrees with this and writes (p. 6): “Indeed, we currently have no direct proof of the existence of multiple universes, but on the other hand this option has a basis for plausibility, and denying it would be unscientific.”
And there in note 6 he writes that “a very serious candidate for such a mechanism does in fact exist: cosmic inflation […] Although it has not yet been proven, this theory has very strong support from various directions, in order to explain what we see in our own universe. And if cosmic inflation is correct regarding our universe, then this is a mechanism for creating countless universes. In other words, multiple universes is not a theory or an ‘invention,’ but a result of a theory. And if we are led to accept a certain theory, then we must also accept all of its implications. Just as once we accepted general relativity, for example, we had to accept all of its implications, even those that are not what we would have expected (for example, the surprising existence of black holes).”
What does the Rabbi think about these things? Are there indeed such good pieces of evidence (though still not conclusive) for the existence of a system of parallel universes?
Has the physico-theological argument collapsed!?
(Don’t worry, toward the end of the article the author offers a new argument, so you can examine that ;))
Answer
Hello.
Daniel is a former student of mine, and he sent me his article before it was published. I commented to him quite a bit about it, but I don’t have the energy right now to go into the details again. In particular, I also commented to him about the point of parallel universes. In my opinion, there is nothing to it. These “plausibilities” are theoretical games and mathematical amusements, in the style of this speculative field (Hawking and company). In any case, this has no weight whatsoever with respect to the argument, and I also explained this in the booklet. A universe-generator that produces random universes also itself requires an explanation (or else it itself is God).
Discussion on Answer
I no longer have it on hand.
A collection of universes, none of which we see, is a wonderful example of Russell’s celestial teapot. Beyond that, such a universe-generator is itself God. Beyond that, I don’t think that even according to them this universe-generator produces universes with laws of physics completely different from ours (and if so, then it has no relevance at all to the physico-theological argument). Cosmic inflation itself is a result of our laws of nature. Moreover, a difficulty and an accepted solution are not a scientific finding. Especially since there is a begging of the question here, because the difficulty exists only because of the assumption that this is not the handiwork of a Creator, so no wonder that this is the accepted solution to the difficulty. It’s like Dawkins’s accepted solution to the formation of the first protein chain: a lucky accident. Such a “solution” can also be proposed in the cosmological context without resorting to scientific speculations and complicated equations.
The difficulty is not because there is no God, but an inherent difficulty in the Big Bang in which there was a jump.
Let’s set God aside; I’m discussing purely the question whether a rational person has good reason to accept the existence of infinitely many universes. In inflation they do indeed talk about completely different laws, so do you at least agree that today the assumption is entirely reasonable? After all, every rational person accepts the inflation theory (otherwise go explain the jump in the Big Bang), and from here infinitely many universes follow automatically. Indeed, you can call the universes God, and you can ask about the generator itself, as you rightly quipped, but as for the assumption itself it seems reasonable, and that’s how I understand your words as well.
My argument is built from several places: 1. It is not reasonable that there are many universes (especially since we haven’t seen anything of them, and this is a teapot). 2. Anyone who does see this as reasonable is begging the question (because he can solve the difficulty only this way, and I already commented on this type of solution). 3. Even if it is true—the question arises regarding the generator (who created it, or perhaps it is God).
Muki, inflation is fairly speculative. It’s really not true that every rational person is supposed to accept it, because it’s not even agreed that there was a jump in the Bang at all. The jump itself is part of the theory and not part of the facts..
The Rabbi wrote:
“Beyond that, I don’t think that even according to them this universe-generator produces universes with laws of physics completely different from ours (and if so, then it has no relevance at all to the physico-theological argument).”
A. I didn’t understand why, if this is true, it does not touch on the physico-theological argument?
B. I think the Rabbi didn’t read the article, because he explicitly writes there otherwise on p. 5:
“One possible solution discussed in the scientific community is that of the existence of multiple universes […].
According to it, there exist countless universes, and in each universe there are different laws of physics and natural constants from the others…”
We’re discussing an old egg that was forgotten. I didn’t reread the article now and I don’t remember all of its contents. I answered based on what you brought here.
A. What I wrote here is that if the laws of nature are the same, then it has no relevance to the argument because it does not provide an explanation of how the special laws that prevail in our universe were created.
B. As for the universes—even if they have different laws—I already addressed that earlier.
Could you please, Rabbi, answer concretely at least about the inflation theory part?
There is an inherent difficulty in the Big Bang, and the accepted solution among physicists for explaining it is cosmic inflation. Up to here everything is accepted.
From cosmic inflation, infinitely many universes follow directly. Where is the flaw in the argument?
And why not upload what you wrote back to Daniel in your message?