Friday, January 23, 2015

Multiverse Hypothesis

I love Sixty Symbols. It's just my sort of thing. I actually understand some of it...say 3 or 4 symbols. But what I like about it is the professors at Nottingham University, who aren't afraid of just telling it like it is, or in some cases just telling it like they think it is. It's Science! at it's best.

You've probably heard of the Multiverse Hypothesis. In movies, such as that one with Vin Diesel that made no sense whatsoever. Or the occasional Star Trek, etc episode.

What Multiverse Hypothesis is, is an explanation of why the universe we currently live in (the only one we know and can observe) seems so "fine tuned" to allow life to exist. That "fine tuned" thing is far far more relevant than you can possibly imagine. It is so fine tuned, that atoms wouldn't even exist if things weren't basically perfect.

But some scientists have a problem with that. Their belief is that everything can be explained by the scientific method. And they operate on the assumption that we life forms aren't special. And the Earth isn't special. And the Sol system isn't special. And the galaxy, galaxy cluster, universe itself isn't special.

But observation does not match this belief. Observation says our universe is ridiculously special. Down to a very finite amount of matter, our universe is just big enough to support life. It's a conundrum for atheist physicists.

On it's own, an observable "fine tuned" universe doesn't make a case for the Abrahamaic God, a computer simulation, or Thor and his buddies. But it does make a case for a universe that just doesn't fit the relatively scientific mould of "random". It makes a case for the new boogeyman word: "Design".

And so enters the Multiverse. If the observable universe "cannot be" perfect, then it is just 1 perfect universe among quadrillions times quadrillions of universes that aren't. This one just happened to "get it right".

Except, there is no actual scientific, observable way to prove such a thing. It's like unicorns and pixies dust as far as science is concerned. Or God and Jesus. It's faith really.

I am a big believer in the scientific method. I better be, I got me a sciencey degree. I am also a big believer in God and Jesus.


Wish I had enough money to purchase a billboard to state that. I am, and I am unashamedly so. I am unashamedly so, and also consider myself a scientist.

But I am willing to say it is my belief. As strong as it is. As grounded in my personal observations it is, it is my faith. There is a God, and Christ LIVES.

But I will not invoke science to prove it. Because that is not what science is about. If God chose to show himself in an interaction with the natural world whilst being observed by scientists, then fine. We would have "proof". But I am sure He has better things to do.

In the same token, the belief that there is not a God should not have anything to do with science. Multiverse hypothesis should be as disregarded by atheists as is any religion they choose. Because all are based on faith.

Science is about proof. Not faith.


  1. Scientists may say that something is not “real” because it isn’t testable, but often truth doesn't have a lot to do with facts.

    It’s heresy to some, to think there must be something more than sets of equations to explain all observable phenomena. To them, the universe is “Flatland,” consciousness and the concept of God are nothing more than subsystems of the brain, and speculation about anything beyond lies in the quaint realms of philosophy and fantasy. Yet some of that mindset have no problem with the existence of an unprovable multiverse.

    Then there are those who build models of an obviously complex system affected by a large number of variables; namely, the earth’s climate, using a tiny number of variables, limited data, questionable data, proxy data and presupposition, and when the actual numbers don’t pan out, why, that’s just impossible — the ocean must have eaten the extra heat.

    With that passing for science, who needs religion?

    1. I am glad you brought up "Flatland". That is a very apropos comparison, and I would argue that science does indeed operate within flatland. It has to. It is all that can be observed and tested.

      The point of this whole article was simply that science is not a "boogeyman" against religion, and is not and should not be used as a weapon against religion. Science and religion can coexist quite fine, because religion deals with the supernatural, whilst science deals with the natural. Science is bound within flatland. Beyond those boundaries are the realms of philosophy, religion, and speculation.

      Unfortunately some scientists, such as Hawking, base their entire body of work on the presupposition that there was no creation. It cannot be proved, but they spend all of their lives trying to prove it. In Hawking's case, he blames God for his physical ailments, and so turned from God and is actively using his genius brain to come up with theories that, in his mind, support the hypothesis that God does not exist.

      He is, in effect, muddying the scientific waters to prove what he believes, or wants to believe. It is a matter of faith for him, and for many scientists like him. Science can only study nature. Super-nature is outside of the realm of science.

  2. I like the Infinite Universe Theory, wherein all things that are possible are probable, if not inevitable.

    I like it because I like to think that, when I write a story, I am not so much making up things, but channeling real-life stories that actually happened, or are happening as I write them down.

    Under this theory, Stephen King is worse than Hitler.


  3. BTW - The idea that there are multiple universes doesn't preclude a creator. Personally, I think the idea of a creator necessitates multiple universes, or at the very least, something outside THIS universe.

    You don't build a house from the inside...