Replies

As I understand it, and maybe I don't (I am simply "a layman" but I am also holding Tippler and Barrow's "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" in my hand - written before the Accelerating Expansion revelation, by the way, but still absolutely relevant - even more so now, I think) what it does is discount the infinite series of very slightly different universes (until they repeat - yes, even infinities repeat apparently - see Rudy Rucker's "Infinity and the Mind"), where chance would find one just like this one that would eventually support life. No need for God in such a case and a refutation of an Intelligently Designed universe. (The absolutley meaningless existence of Nietche's Eternal Return - as cited by Tippler and Barrow a number of times - that's why I brought it up.) The fact that we have discovered that it won't collapse back means that this universe is much, much more special (unique) than previously thought. And that would mean that its special characteristics that support life look near infinitely improbable (1 in 10^123 is just one example - multiply that against the other chance events and the number gets even more improbable) to have happened by chance (but still not impossible).

Wow, you are really reading about this stuff. Hey, betty boop, we have a live one!! (grin) Ms. Boop and I have been discussing this in these threads, but we have been using "The Whole Shebang" by Timothy Ferris. In large measure the reason is that my graduate school textbook: "Structure and Evolution of the Stars" by Martin Schwarzshild is hopelessly out of date. I have also copied a couple of other experts on this.

A couple of points though.

First, there may be a difference between science and philosophy on these issues. The science community never considered the oscillating universe to be one where the physics constants would gradually change. The real reason for either the steady state universe (asymptotically approaching infinity, gravitational mass just balances outward energy) and the collapsing universe was that the continually expanding universe was asymmetric. That is, it had a definite starting point but no definite end.

The idea of the multiverse has nothing to do with the oscillating (expand, collapse, expand...) universe, at least in the scientific community. The idea of the multiverse comes from the following observations:
1. The universe is accelerating in its expansion.
2. The constants in nature are exact and the likelihood is 10^123, as you point out.
3. Quantum mechanics and general relativity are inconsistent in observable black holes, yet we know both theories are correct everywhere else. As a result of this we have been developing quantum gravity theories and those involve multiple dimensions, and
4. Inflation. Inflation is theorized because of the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background. In the early universe, the universe was in quasi-equilibrium with itself. As the universe expanded, this equilibrium shifted to different, longer range and weaker forces. Finally, the universe expanded to the point where it was in radiative equilibrium (the same physics as the Planck black body radiation law). The matter was in equilibrium with the radiation field. Now, at this point the universe was in radiative quilibrium (e.g. it was optically thick), but it was sufficiently cool that gravity should have begun to coalesce the matter into dense gaseous clouds, perhaps even protostars. Then, the universe continued to expand to become optically thin, and the radiation field was no longer in equilibrium with the matter. (The radiation field cooled due to the expansion of the Universe and became the microwave background today). If the coalescing had occurred, it would have caused "lumpiness" in the microwave background. But that is not observed. So the current theory is that the universe inflated, meaning it expanded much more rapidly, so the gravitational process did not have time to produce the clumpiness. Such an inflation would be consistent with present observation.

Personally, I have a little trouble with this. The expansion of the universe is first fast, then slow, and is now speeding up again. I wish it would make up its mind. :}

Nevertheless, these four issues lead to the idea of the multiverse, which would be a higher dimensional fabric in which universes begin and expand like bubbles in boiling syrup. Lots of bubbles. Lots of universes. All separated by higher order dimensions.

And these universes would have different physical constants because there would be no reason for them to be the same. Indeed, there could/would be higher dimensional physics that would provide the conservation laws (i.e. if this much were true, we would expect the constants to be different).

The point of this is that you can, most definitely have multiple universes with different constants. And you could have the one universe where everything just worked out so that life, intelligent life could evolve. And we would observe this one universe. However, it would be a fallacy for us to assume that we were the only universe in existance, because only in the "proper" universe would anyone exist to observe it. Namely, the probabilities do indeed cancel out.

Well, that's the science. Now, what about opinion and faith??

Personally, I don't believe in the multiverse and I don't believe that this particular universe was created just by happenstance. The reason is my personal faith and also my observation that God's creation is unbelievably economical and elegant. I just don't see lots of universe where the constants are wrong just to get one that is right.

But that is my opinion and faith only.

And, as a scientist, I also know that science and faith are different. They can speak to one another, but they are still separate. So, my faith is my faith and my science is my science. In the final analysis I believe, as a matter of faith, that the 10^123 argument indicates this universe was created by God, but as a scientist I know this is not proof.

OTOH. I find that God's creation of evolution to create life a much more subtle, intricate, and elegant creation than that postulated by either ID or creationism. IT is much more beautiful. Perhaps because it is more difficult to design the system that produces the life than to just design the life itself. Perhaps, God did create the multiverse, and He used cosmic evolution to find the right physics constants to produce the evolutionary system that then produced life.

Now, that would be some creation!

No need for God in such a case [nor] an Intelligently Designed universe. (The absolutely meaningless existence of Nietzsche’s Eternal Return …[Ed. note: a subject for another time perhaps]). The fact that we have discovered that [the universe] won't collapse back [on itself] means that this universe is much, much more special (unique) than previously thought. And that would mean that its special characteristics that support life look near infinitely improbable (1 in 10^123 is just one example -- multiply that against the other chance events and the number gets even more improbable) to have happened by chance (but still not impossible).

Hello 2ndreconmarine! Sorry to be so tardy, but I’ve been packing for a trip. We’re going on vacation, down to Cape Cod, and will be leaving later today. I’ll be offline until late in the day Sept. 10th. (Sigh. ) Thank you so much for your elegant summary of the present “cosmological issue” from the scientific standpoint, and your conjecture at the end.

Thank you LeftCoastNeoCon for proposing this topic (see above italics). A 1 in 10¹²³ probability that a life-producing and -sustaining Universe could have arisen by chance is, as you say, improbable “but still not impossible.” While I agree with this statement, I understand that some mathematicians regard a probability of 1 in 10⁵⁵ as indicating the “borderline” of the effectively impossible.

I really don’t understand why so many multiverse theories have been advanced in recent times. Not one of them obviates the necessity of a beginning, of a First Cause. As you say, 2RM, the universe is asymmetric, “having a definite starting point but no definite end.” Moreover, it appears an infinite regression of causes cannot account for the rise of life and conscousness. There is something seemingly purposeful about the evolution of the universe, as if from its beginning it is moving toward a final cause, what Aristotle called peras:

The final cause is an end which is not for the sake of anything else, but for the sake of which everything is. So if there is to be a last term of this kind, the process will not be infinite; and if there is no such term there will be no final cause. Those who maintain an infinite series do not realize that they are destroying the very nature of the Good, although no one would try to do anything if he were not likely to reach some limit (peras); nor would there be reason in the world (nous), for the reasonable man always acts for the sake of an end — which is a limit.

In other words the First and Final Causes are intimately related to each other, what HamiltonJay called the Alpha and the Omega. This, of course, is one of the names of the Son of God, a/k/a the Word of the Beginning. Aristotle believed reason is embedded in the constitution of being, and thus thought the prima causa, the First Cause, a/k/a the Unmoved Mover, must be an intelligent cause, just as the final cause is a “reasonable” or rational one. Thus following Aristotle, Eric Voegelin would write: “A universe which contains intelligent beings cannot originate with a prima causa that is less than intelligent.”

2RM, you wrote: “Personally, I don’t believe in the multiverse and I don't believe that this particular universe was created just by happenstance. The reason is my personal faith and also my observation that God’s creation is unbelievably economical and elegant. I just don't see lots of universe where the constants are wrong just to get one that is right.”

Oh, I so agree with you! The natural universe – God’s creation -- is “economical and elegant,” even parsimonious. I can’t imagine that quality can have been the result of trial and error. I doubt such a universe could have been produced by purely contingent causes, given an infinity of time. Our universe did not have an infinite past, it had a beginning in time some 14-15 billion years ago.

But that does not mean that God could not have chosen to work as you suggest in your final conjecture:

In the final analysis I believe, as a matter of faith, that the 10^123 argument indicates this universe was created by God, but as a scientist I know this is not proof. …
OTOH. I find that God's creation of evolution to create life a much more subtle, intricate, and elegant creation than that postulated by either ID or creationism. IT is much more beautiful. Perhaps because it is more difficult to design the system that produces the life than to just design the life itself. Perhaps, God did create the multiverse, and He used cosmic evolution to find the right physics constants to produce the evolutionary system that then produced life.

As you say, “Now, that would be some creation!” Indeed. And also, IMO that would be “some God!”

BTW, I am not convinced that ID necessarily means “special creation” by a God who constantly intervenes in His creation to produce life forms, etc. As you seemed to suggest, a powerful Logos in the beginning working towards a final cause could obviate the need for any divine “fine-tuning.”

OTOH, the speeding up, then slowing down, and then speeding up again of the cosmic expansion may be due to an “intervention” mediated by/through “a higher dimensional fabric.” (Sir Isaac Newton’s sensorium Dei?)

I do believe that God used evolution as a main tool of realizing His creation in space/time. Whether this includes an evolution of multiverses also, who can say? It would seem we would not be able to observe such multiverses anyway. So perhaps for all practical purposes, this issue is moot.

But if God wanted them, they’d be there! :^)

I really must run and finish packing. I’m sorry I won’t be able to continue with this conversation for a while. My timing is terrible here; for this is a wonderful conversation that you and LeftCoastNeoCon have started.

And thank you again, 2ndreconmarine, for your simply excellent essay/post. It’s a definite “keeper” – I’ve put it on the “Links” list on my personal page, and also on my browser’s “Favorites List.” Plus I have it in hard copy, to read again over my vacation. Thank you so much!!!