leroy
Well-Known Member
Some atheists/naturalists use the multiverse hypothesis to explain the fine tuning of the universe. Even though atheist tend to admit that the multiverse hypothesis is not 100% satisfactory they argue that it is a better explanation than design.
In this post I will try to provide evidence that disproves the multiverse hypothesis.
Some points for clarifying:
A) I won't refute the idea that there is a multiverse, I will refute the idea that the multiverse hypothesis explains the fine tuning of the universe.
B) I am talking about type 2 multiverses
: arguments against the multiverse hypothesis:
1 there is no evidence that there are other universes
2 the hypothesis is completely ad hoc. one can use the multiverse hypothesis to explain away any inconfortable evidence.
For example a creationist can argue that in some universes radioactive elements decayed faster in the last 6,000 years .allowing for a young earth that looks old. We happen to live in such universe.
3 current multiverse models (eternal inflation, string theory etc) even if true would require fine tuning so they wouldn't solve the fine tuning problem. For example eternal inflation requieres an even lower entropy.
4 ironically the multiverse hypothesis entails that some universes where created by an inteligent designer. If the multiverse hypothesis is true and if there are potentially infinite some of these universes would be universes created by intelligent designers.
Some universes would produce very intelligent beings who would create universes (ether actual universes or simulations) so even if we grant that there is a multiverse we might live in a designed universe. A single intelligent civilization can create millions of artificial universes so these artifitial universes would probably be more abundant than "natural universes" so the default hypothesis should be that we live in an artificial universe.
....
This are good arguments against the multiverses hypothesis but none of these objection is devastating.
.….
Here is a devastating objection:
5 Boltzmann's brain paradox: we live in a very big universe with many stars and galaxies, a simple universe as big as our solar system would require less fine tuning; and therefore small universes would be vastly more abundant Roger Penrose calculated that there would be 10^630 simple universes, for every big universe like ours. Given that we obverve a big universe we are clearly not a random member of the multiverse.
But it gets more interesting, in the set of
10^630 universes there would be millions of universes in which observers are hallucinating or dreaming that they live in a big complex universe with many galaxies and stars. It is statistically vastly more likely that you live in a simple universe with a single star and a single planet, that you live inside this planet in a psychiatric hospital and that you created your own reality in your mind in which you think (hallucinate) that there are many galaxies and many stars. (This forum, your memories, your friends etc. Would also be part of this hallucination.)
Statistically speaking this would be the best and more probable explanation for why you observe many stars and galaxies
It gets worst, as Boltzmann noted, you don't even need a star nor a planet nor a physical body to make this observation; a single brain that comes in to existence as a consequence of a random fluctuation can appear with the illusion of having a memory a phisical body, an account in this forum who also imagines itselve in a big universe. These brains are Boltzmann brains.
This is known as the Boltzmann brain paradox. If we grant that there is a multiverse and that our universe is just a random member of such multiverse it follows that you are a Boltzmann brain.
this is an absurd conclusion because under this conclusion all the evidence for a multiverse that might excist would also be an illusion. We can drop the multiverse hypothesis one the bases of Reductio ad absurdum this logical principle says that any model that leads to a logical contradiction most be dropped .
This objection completely devastates the multiverse hypothesis
.....
Unless and until an atheist can provide a devastating objection against intelligent design we are justified in affirming that design is a better explanation than the multiverse hypothesis.
In this post I will try to provide evidence that disproves the multiverse hypothesis.
Some points for clarifying:
A) I won't refute the idea that there is a multiverse, I will refute the idea that the multiverse hypothesis explains the fine tuning of the universe.
B) I am talking about type 2 multiverses
: arguments against the multiverse hypothesis:
1 there is no evidence that there are other universes
2 the hypothesis is completely ad hoc. one can use the multiverse hypothesis to explain away any inconfortable evidence.
For example a creationist can argue that in some universes radioactive elements decayed faster in the last 6,000 years .allowing for a young earth that looks old. We happen to live in such universe.
3 current multiverse models (eternal inflation, string theory etc) even if true would require fine tuning so they wouldn't solve the fine tuning problem. For example eternal inflation requieres an even lower entropy.
4 ironically the multiverse hypothesis entails that some universes where created by an inteligent designer. If the multiverse hypothesis is true and if there are potentially infinite some of these universes would be universes created by intelligent designers.
Some universes would produce very intelligent beings who would create universes (ether actual universes or simulations) so even if we grant that there is a multiverse we might live in a designed universe. A single intelligent civilization can create millions of artificial universes so these artifitial universes would probably be more abundant than "natural universes" so the default hypothesis should be that we live in an artificial universe.
....
This are good arguments against the multiverses hypothesis but none of these objection is devastating.
.….
Here is a devastating objection:
5 Boltzmann's brain paradox: we live in a very big universe with many stars and galaxies, a simple universe as big as our solar system would require less fine tuning; and therefore small universes would be vastly more abundant Roger Penrose calculated that there would be 10^630 simple universes, for every big universe like ours. Given that we obverve a big universe we are clearly not a random member of the multiverse.
But it gets more interesting, in the set of
10^630 universes there would be millions of universes in which observers are hallucinating or dreaming that they live in a big complex universe with many galaxies and stars. It is statistically vastly more likely that you live in a simple universe with a single star and a single planet, that you live inside this planet in a psychiatric hospital and that you created your own reality in your mind in which you think (hallucinate) that there are many galaxies and many stars. (This forum, your memories, your friends etc. Would also be part of this hallucination.)
Statistically speaking this would be the best and more probable explanation for why you observe many stars and galaxies
It gets worst, as Boltzmann noted, you don't even need a star nor a planet nor a physical body to make this observation; a single brain that comes in to existence as a consequence of a random fluctuation can appear with the illusion of having a memory a phisical body, an account in this forum who also imagines itselve in a big universe. These brains are Boltzmann brains.
This is known as the Boltzmann brain paradox. If we grant that there is a multiverse and that our universe is just a random member of such multiverse it follows that you are a Boltzmann brain.
this is an absurd conclusion because under this conclusion all the evidence for a multiverse that might excist would also be an illusion. We can drop the multiverse hypothesis one the bases of Reductio ad absurdum this logical principle says that any model that leads to a logical contradiction most be dropped .
This objection completely devastates the multiverse hypothesis
.....
Unless and until an atheist can provide a devastating objection against intelligent design we are justified in affirming that design is a better explanation than the multiverse hypothesis.