Q&A: Replies to the Replies about Objections to the Multiverse
Replies to the Replies about Objections to the Multiverse
Question
Hello,
When you raise the argument about the specialness of the laws, you also bring up parallel universes as a possible answer besides an intelligent designer, but you have 3 arguments against parallel universes. I’ll address the arguments, and I hope I’m understanding them correctly. I’ll write them as quotations even though these aren’t your actual words, just how I understand the answer, so please forgive me and correct me if I’m mistaken—I’m not trying to create straw-man arguments.
1. Occam’s razor — “In the absence of observational evidence for an intelligent designer and for the existence of countless universes, we choose the simpler option: the intelligent designer, and not countless teapots.”
Answer:
The multiverse theory arises from physical models, such as string theory or cosmic inflation, so it is not an artificial addition but a consequence of scientific views. The designer you propose does not arise from physical models, and is far more complex even than the multiverse. The designer is an entity that includes intelligence, intention, and perhaps also being beyond time, and you yourself argue that if parallel universes do indeed exist then he is responsible for all of them, designed all of them, and created all of them, so in any case he must be more complex than they are.
2. “If there are countless universes, then anything can exist in other random systems of laws, including a universe with gods, so you too believe in God.”
Answer:
If parallel universes exist, then it is certainly possible that there are universes with laws of nature that allow the creation of beings with immense powers relative to the laws we know in our universe, and perhaps those beings would seem to us like “gods,” but in any case that is not the God you are trying to prove. These would simply be beings that fit the reality of the laws of that universe. The fact that there are countless other random systems of laws does not prove that there is an intelligent designer who created all the universes or our universe. It only means that certain definitions of “God” could exist as beings in universes with other laws of nature—so what? What is that supposed to show? These are beings subject to the laws of nature that exist in that universe. The God whose existence you are trying to prove is a God who is not subject to the laws of nature at all and who designed them, and such a being could not exist even in parallel universes.
3. “If parallel universes exist, then in effect there is one super-universe in which universes with random systems of natural laws are drawn, so who created that law of nature that allows universes to be drawn?”
Answer:
It is true that the idea of parallel universes does not answer the question of who created the multiverse or the law that draws universes, but that is the same problem you have with an intelligent designer, about whom you claim that he does not need an explanation and does not need someone to create him, or that he is not from within our experience. So in exactly the same way, I can stop the question at the super-universe and say that it “just exists.”
Answer
- You can argue about that. Clearly, in terms of the number of entities, God is a simpler solution.
- That is exactly the God I am trying to prove. I didn’t see any argument here.
- Not true, because an intelligent designer is an entity that does not require explanation. If those universes too were created by such an intelligent designer, then we have returned to the same point.
Discussion on Answer
1. Indeed, not the only one. That is why I wrote that one can argue about it. Still, in my opinion it is much simpler, certainly given the fact that we have not encountered all the other worlds.
2. So what? Assuming that there could be lots of gods and universes is certainly not simpler than one God.
3. Because the space is an inert entity, and it is not reasonable that it would be its own cause. Beyond that, such an entity does not produce universes unless it was programmed to do so. And then the question arises: who is the programmer?
The random generation of systems of laws definitely requires an explanation. Very much so.
It seems to me that we’re repeating ourselves.
1. Regarding the number of entities, that’s true. But the number of entities is not the only measure of the complexity of an explanation; according to your own approach, the one entity you add is necessarily more complex than all the other entities.
2. The God you are trying to prove is a ‘god’ that operates within the laws of nature of one of the universes in the multiverse? The argument was that even in a multiverse, if there exists a universe with laws that allow the existence of ‘gods,’ then those would be beings subject to the laws of nature of that universe, but relative to our universe they could appear to us to have certain divine attributes. In such a reality there is no intelligent designer who is above the laws of nature of the universe in which he exists.
3. It is not clear why an intelligent designer is an entity that does not require explanation, but a super-universe with one simple law—the drawing of random systems of laws—does require explanation. An intelligent designer with intentions is more complex than a law of nature for generating universes. If you assume that that intelligent factor is beyond time, a necessary existent, and does not need explanation, I do not understand why one cannot argue that the space of the super-universe, in which systems of laws are generated, likewise requires no explanation.
When you argued that our special laws require explanation, the question was in place: why do such special laws, which allow low entropy, exist? But if there are only random generations of systems of laws, then that question is no longer relevant. And in fact an intelligent designer requires explanation more than a random generation of systems of nature.