Do the Multiverses of Science Preclude Absurdity?

  • Thread starter Sciborg_S_Patel
  • Start date
... Quantum Physics Is Easily Compatible With The Existence Of spirits. It all leads up to the question of what spirit or spirits are there that can alter the laws of physics. Or what does it take to alter the laws of physics. ....
I think you are a bit conflicted here.
On one hand you say that quantum physics allows spirits. And you give all these 'wonderful' suggestions about fields and potential wells.
But: On the other hand, you talk about 'altering the laws of physics'.

Which is it? If the laws of physics can be changed, why does it matter so much to you if quantum physics is compatible with spirits, or not?
 
I think you are a bit conflicted here.
On one hand you say that quantum physics allows spirits. And you give all these 'wonderful' suggestions about fields and potential wells.
But: On the other hand, you talk about 'altering the laws of physics'.

Which is it? If the laws of physics can be changed, why does it matter so much to you if quantum physics is compatible with spirits, or not?
Yes, I agree that the laws of physics, particularly quantum mechanics, as it stands now, are compatible with spirits and spiritualism. But then I mentioned grey aliens. I wish we could travel to other star systems. As long as we are confined to the space-time continuum, we won't be able to travel faster than light. In order to travel faster than c, we would have to either disconnect from the space-time continuum or we would have to change the speed of light physics constant around our spaceship.

But more importantly, the laws of thermodynamics, of increasing entropy, carry with it a philosophical dilemma, that our lives will always fall apart, we will always grow old and die, and our lives will always get worse. I wish to challenge that cynical pessimistic philosophy. I believe that one day we will find the secret to creating our lives the way we want them to be, we will find the secret to immortality, and we will discover that spiritual-psychic-magical force that ... transcends our preconceived beliefs, our enslaving theories about physics.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I agree that the laws of physics, particularly quantum mechanics, as it stands now, are compatible with spirits and spiritualism. But then I mentioned grey aliens. I wish we could travel to other star systems. As long as we are confined to the space-time continuum, we won't be able to travel faster than light. In order to travel faster than c, we would have to either disconnect from the space-time continuum or we would have to change the speed of light physics constant around our spaceship.

I can't say much about potential wells and quantum fields, but your original premise of spirits being bound by certain rules they themselves create isn't completely out of left field.

The quantum soul stuff ties into Hammeroff's Orch-Or and Lanza's Biocentrism, while the making of laws ties into Josephson's refinement of Wheeler's observer-participancy (here + here).

Keeping in mind it's all conjecture, I'd be interested on your take regarding some stuff I posted in the Spirituality section.
 
I always wonder if the fine tuning dilemma may be illusory, because it assumes that the relevant physics is necessarily complete.

To make a trivial analogy, suppose that people had agonised over the 'fine tuning' that makes the charge on the electron exactly opposite that on a proton!

Fine tuning arguments also depend on us being able to accurately predict the behaviour of universes with different constants - right down to questions of chemistry and life! I seriously doubt if we could do that calculation accurately for a universe with radically different values for the constants.

David

Certainly not everything is known about how physical reality and its history would be changed if the laws of physics could be varied, and the modern synthesis may not be complete. There is of course the issue of incorporating gravitation.

But I think it is sufficient to show that certain small changes would make the universe incompatible with life.

The observed values of the dimensionless physical constants (such as the fine-structure constant) governing the four fundamental interactions are balanced as if fine-tuned to permit the formation of commonly found matter and subsequently the emergence of life. A slight increase in the strong nuclear force would bind the dineutron and the diproton, and nuclear fusion would have converted all hydrogen in the early universe to helium. Water, as well as sufficiently long-lived stable stars, both essential for the emergence of life as we know it, would not exist. More generally, small changes in the relative strengths of the four fundamental interactions can greatly affect the universe's age, structure, and capacity for life.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ).

Another more particular example is the nucleosynthesis of an abundance of carbon 12, which is necessary for life. Hoyle showed that this is dependent on a specific tuned nuclear resonance, and more recent investigators have shown that varying either the quark masses or the fine structure constant by as little as 3 percent from current values produced universes with insufficient carbon and oxygen for life.

Then there is the confluence of innumerable astronomical and geologic factors in a certain range such that complex life on earth can exist. This is of course a different matter, but it still makes our existence seem even more unlikely. Some of these factors are a continuously stable orbit at the right distance from the right type of star, existence of the Moon with its current mass and orbit, the current earth axial tilt, the existence of Jupiter, the thickness of the earth's crust, existence of plate tectonics, and the earth's rotation velocity.
 
Last edited:
Certainly not everything is known about how physical reality and its history would be changed if the laws of physics could be varied, and the modern synthesis may not be complete. There is of course the issue of incorporating gravitation.

But I think it is sufficient to show that certain small changes would make the universe incompatible with life.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ).

Another more particular example is the nucleosynthesis of an abundance of carbon 12, which is necessary for life. Hoyle showed that this is dependent on a specific tuned nuclear resonance, and more recent investigators have shown that varying either the quark masses or the fine structure constant by as little as 3 percent from current values produced universes with insufficient carbon and oxygen for life.

Then there is the confluence of innumerable astronomical and geologic factors in a certain range such that complex life on earth can exist. This is of course a different matter, but it still makes our existence seem even more unlikely. Some of these factors are a continuously stable orbit at the right distance from the right type of star, existence of the Moon with its current mass and orbit, the current earth axial tilt, the existence of Jupiter, the thickness of the earth's crust, existence of plate tectonics, and the earth's rotation velocity.
Things like the right type of star, right moon, right axial tilt, etc... can be attributed to luck, I think, in a galaxy with billions of stars. But if the fine structure constant is wrong, and carbon is not available in the right quantities, then organic lifeforms can't form. I don't know. I think it's just as likely that there is a Creator God as not. I suppose in other universes where biological lifeforms cannot form, maybe the result is that it is inhabitied by ghost life forms. I was listening to a Steven Greer interview podcast where he seems to think there are many universes that meet or intersect at some kind of plane of consciousness; in other words a consciousness may be able to take a peak into other universes.
 
Certainly not everything is known about how physical reality and its history would be changed if the laws of physics could be varied, and the modern synthesis may not be complete. There is of course the issue of incorporating gravitation.

But I think it is sufficient to show that certain small changes would make the universe incompatible with life.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle ).

Another more particular example is the nucleosynthesis of an abundance of carbon 12, which is necessary for life. Hoyle showed that this is dependent on a specific tuned nuclear resonance, and more recent investigators have shown that varying either the quark masses or the fine structure constant by as little as 3 percent from current values produced universes with insufficient carbon and oxygen for life.

Then there is the confluence of innumerable astronomical and geologic factors in a certain range such that complex life on earth can exist. This is of course a different matter, but it still makes our existence seem even more unlikely. Some of these factors are a continuously stable orbit at the right distance from the right type of star, existence of the Moon with its current mass and orbit, the current earth axial tilt, the existence of Jupiter, the thickness of the earth's crust, existence of plate tectonics, and the earth's rotation velocity.

Well the precise structure of the solar system can be put down to statistics, I think, because of the vast numbers of stars in the galaxy - never mind the universe.

However, what I think is less clear, is that if you adjust the various constants, isn't it possible that other opportunities for life would appear - for example, boron or silicon might take over the role of carbon, and more extremely, other combinations of the fundamental particles might become possible - replacing our familiar chemistry. Part of what I am asking, is whether anyone is capable of simulating what complex structures might form in a universe with different values for the constants. To do this properly would require performing an enormous simulation (probably impossible at even one point) at every point on a huge hyper-dimensional grid with axes representing each of the constants that could be variable.

David
 
IMO fine tuning on its own isn't definitive proof of anything, but it does cause one to wonder about the possibility of a designer.

The issue people have with fine tuning is that it seemingly confirms the intuitions of those that believe in their version of a deity due to personal gnosis. Though, like the argument of design, it doesn't really prove any particular method let alone any particular deity.

If the multiverse hypothesis is falsified, we'd have to confront the possibilities of consciousness affecting reality & fine-tuning but even together with evolutionary design one can arguably utilize observer-participancy in lieu of a deity.
 
However, what I think is less clear, is that if you adjust the various constants, isn't it possible that other opportunities for life would appear - for example, boron or silicon might take over the role of carbon, and more extremely, other combinations of the fundamental particles might become possible - replacing our familiar chemistry. Part of what I am asking, is whether anyone is capable of simulating what complex structures might form in a universe with different values for the constants. To do this properly would require performing an enormous simulation (probably impossible at even one point) at every point on a huge hyper-dimensional grid with axes representing each of the constants that could be variable.

David

An interesting pure speculation. Alternative self-consistent systems of laws of physics might be conceivable with different fundamental forces and elementary particles, with other life-friendly islands of stability, like peaks on a vast evolutionary "fitness landscape". Making the universe not so special. Or maybe not. One can speculate about anything; it seems to me this thinking is of the same order as the multiverse concepts. Things that can be imagined which seem to fulfill a metaphysical imperative, but which can't be detected or tested. What we do know is that the fundamental structure of the universe appears to be set up for life based on carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur, and liquid water. In our universe no other system of life seems to be viable.
 
An interesting pure speculation. Alternative self-consistent systems of laws of physics might be conceivable with different fundamental forces and elementary particles, with other life-friendly islands of stability, like peaks on a vast evolutionary "fitness landscape". Making the universe not so special. Or maybe not. One can speculate about anything; it seems to me this thinking is of the same order as the multiverse concepts. Things that can be imagined which seem to fulfill a metaphysical imperative, but which can't be detected or tested. What we do know is that the fundamental structure of the universe appears to be set up for life based on carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur, and liquid water. In our universe no other system of life seems to be viable.
Set for life,maybe, but only it appears, life for a specific time frame of this universes lifetime.
 
There are plenty of other pure speculations or imaginings that have the same epistemological status as the multiverse and anthropic selection concepts. How to decide? The physical universe might be a virtual reality simulation being conducted by higher being(s) in a higher reality. Since there would be no way we could know real "physical reality", multiverse concepts would be pointless. The only things we could really know or be sure of would be the laws of logic and mathematics and that we somehow exist as sentient entities. "Fine tuning" would simply be the choice of parameters of the programmers. Of course with this possibility there would be no end to it - the higher reality could be a yet higher level simulation created by yet higher level beings, on ad infinitum. Just a different kind of infinity than the multiverse.
 
A limited multiverse would not be such a problem, but an infinite or near-infinite multiverse would invalidate all of science. Science rests on inductive logic, meaning the application of the observed to the unobserved. If I observe objects in motion behaving in a certain way in a 100 times and places I assume that they will act the same way in like circumstances in another time and place. But if there are an infinite number of universes that even if everything is random I would expect that in some universes the object will act 100 times one way but differently the 101st time (or 1001 first).

In other words, if there is an infinite multiverse there is no reason to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.
 
In other words, if there is an infinite multiverse there is no reason to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Actually, what's apparently even more interesting is there are an infinite number of universes that end up getting the wrong answers about wave function collapse due to behavior occurring at the quantum level.

It's really quite strange. It's hard not to think of dark matter and dark energy along with the multiverse as attempts to paper over ignorance.
 
Physics: Superstitions and Allegories?

The multiverse, in particular, comes in for a kicking.

“The multiverse,” says Unger, “treats these imaginary worlds as if they were real worlds. That’s the sleight of hand of particle physics.” And in popular sci-fi – “As the fabricated universes become real, the actual universe becomes less real.”

The multiverse has, in fact, been used three times to plug a gap – in the inflationary theory of the universe, in quantum theory and in string theory. Each time it is an attempt to explain why our universe just happens to be the way it is. But, surely, this is cheating. If, say Unger and Smolin, our theories don’t work, then we should ditch the theories, not invent imaginary and forever undetectable worlds.

Bizarrely, these worlds are invented by people who are forced to admit that their theories can’t actually work and full accounts of the universe. The conditions at the heart of a ‘singularity’ – in the Big Bang or in black holes - are said to lie beyond the laws of physics, so, in other words, the supposedly unchanging laws of physics only work by encompassing their own limitations.

=-=-=

Not Even Wrong Blog also weighed in on this

This week’s Nature features a call to arms from George Ellis and Joe Silk, entitled Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics. I’m very glad to see well-known physicists highlighting the serious problem for the credibility of science raised by the string theory multiverse and the associated ongoing campaign to justify the failures of string theory by attacking the scientific method. Acknowledging evidence that an idea you cherished doesn’t work is at the core of what science is and physics now has a major problem with prominent theorists refusing to abide by this principle. Ellis and Silk do a great job of identifying and characterizing an important challenge the scientific community is facing.

The issue is however complicated, and while the Nature piece carefully and clearly addresses some of the complexities, there are places where things get over-simplified. In particular, the introduction frames the issue as whether a theory being “sufficiently elegant and explanatory” allows it to not need experimental testing. The problem with the string theory multiverse though is not this, since such a theory is the antithesis of “elegant and explanatory”. There’s just about nothing in science as inelegant as the various attempts (e.g. the KKLT mechanism) to make string theory fit with known physics, and “the multiverse did it” is no more an actual explanation of anything than “a big omnipotent turtle did it”.
 
Is the Many Worlds hypothesis just a fantasy?

...MWI is the one with all the glamour and publicity. It tells us that we have multiple selves, living other lives in other universes, quite possibly doing all the things that we dream of but will never achieve (or never dare). Who could resist such an idea?

Yet resist we should. We should resist not just because MWI is unlikely to be true, or even because, since no one knows how to test it, the idea is perhaps not truly scientific at all. Those are valid criticisms, but the main reason we should hold out is that it is incoherent, both philosophically and logically. There could be no better contender for Wolfgang Pauli’s famous put-down: it is not even wrong.

And yet, it attracts both publicity and extraordinarily confident endorsement. Why? To understand that, we need to see why, more than 100 years after quantum theory was first conceived, experts are still gathering to debate what it means...
 
Thanks to Neil for this one:

The Basis Problem in Many-Worlds Theories

It is emphasized that a many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory exists only to the extent that the associated basis problem is solved. The core basis problem is that the robust enduring states specified by environmental decoherence effects are essentially Gaussian wave packets that form continua of non-orthogonal states. Hence they are not a discrete set of orthogonal basis states to which finite probabilities can be assigned by the usual rules. The natural way to get an orthogonal basis without going outside the Schroedinger dynamics is to use the eigenstates of the reduced density matrix, and this idea is the basis of some recent attempts by many-worlds proponents to solve the basis problem. But these eigenstates do not enjoy the locality and quasi-classicality properties of the states defined by environmental decoherence effects, and hence are not satisfactory preferred basis states. This core problem needs to be addressed and resolved before a many-worlds-type interpretation can be said to exist
 
"Some of the literature of contemporary cosmology consists of the efforts of very smart people to wrestle with these dilemmas, paradoxes, and unanswerable questions. The notion that our universe is part of a vast or infinite multiverse is popular—and understandably so, because it is based on a methodological error that is easy to fall into. Our current theories can work at the level of the universe only if our universe is a subsystem of a larger system.

So we invent a fictional environment and fill it with other universes. This cannot lead to any real scientific progress, because we cannot confirm or falsify any hypothesis about universes causally disconnected from our own.

The purpose of this book is to suggest that there is another way.We need to make a clean break and embark on a search for a new kind of theory that can be applied to the whole universe—a theory that avoids the confusions and paradoxes, answers the unanswerable questions, and generates genuine physical predictions for cosmological observations.

I do not have such a theory, but what I can offer is a set of principles to guide the search for it."
-Lee Smolin, Time Reborn
 
Is speculation in multiverses as immoral as speculation in subprime mortgages?

...These multiverse theories all share the same fundamental defect: They can be neither confirmed nor falsified. Hence, they don't deserve to be called scientific, according to the well-known criterion proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper. Some defenders of multiverses and strings mock skeptics who raise the issue of falsification as "Popperazis"—which is cute but not a counterargument. Multiverse theories aren't theories—they're science fictions, theologies, works of the imagination unconstrained by evidence.

At their best, science fiction and theology can leave us awestruck before the unutterable strangeness and vastness of the cosmos. Multiverse theories used to arouse these emotions in me. When the Russian physicist Andrei Linde—one of the inventors of the inflation theory of cosmic creation—first explained his chaotic, self-reproducing, fractal, inflationary multiverse theory to me 20 years ago, my reaction was, "Wow! That's so cool!"

Multiverse theories don't turn me on anymore. Perhaps it's because of 9/11 and all its bloody consequences, especially the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, I have two teenage kids, and I'm worried about the enormous problems they're inheriting from my generation. Not only wars overseas but also global warming, species extinction, pollution, poverty, pandemics and so on.

Now, multiverse theories strike me as not only unscientific but also immoral, for two basic reasons: First, at a time when we desperately need science to help us solve our problems, it's irresponsible for scientists as prominent as Greene to show such a blithe disregard for basic standards of evidence. Second, like religious visions of paradise, multiverses represent an escapist distraction from our world.

I find two multiverse concepts especially loathsome...
 

I don't think the multiverse theory is the first science-inspired idea to come along that has been accused of leading to escapism or the minimizing of the meaning and importance of our reality.

Really I think the problem is the same with any contemplation of infinite. There are various ways we can be mentally forced up against infinite and the multiverse theory is just one really complicated method. They all have a way of making us feel very small and insignificant and meaningless.
 
Back
Top