(February 23, 2014 at 6:35 pm)Mr. Moncrieff Wrote: I have a lot of time for the multiverse theory that there are infinite universes being infinitely created outside of our own. Eventually, by sheer scale of numerical odds, our finely tuned universe would have to be brought into existence.
Again, it's a theory... But it holds a lot of invested time for me.
That does sound like an exciting idea at first. However, there are still several problems that I see behind this infinite multiverse idea as I shall explain in the following points.
1. Although the argument for a multiverse is suggested by certain mathematical models currently being deployed in theoretical physics, we do not know if the idea is really true. It is actually far from being anything conclusive and there are many different opinions on this. Therefore, if you believe in the multiverse hypothesis, then you have simply taken a leap of faith just like believing in intelligent design is a leap of faith.
2. According to the infinite multiverse logic, it seems that the supporters of the multiverse are conveninently able to overcome the problem of fine-tuning by shifting their attention to enormously large numbers and even the ungraspable "infinite." They believe that given an infinite amount of time, infinite space, infinite universes, infinite whatever, we were simply destined to happen. It was only a matter of time before we came into existence. And not only that, but one might even argue that perhaps anything is possible when we bring in the notion of "infinity." So, you're just gonna have to take a leap into the absurd and agree that anything is possible ... "With infinity all things are possible." (Oh hey, that sounds eerily familiar).
But now the problem with that is, you wouldn't be able to justify why one kind of universe is more likely to exist than another kind of universe (given the infinite amount of possibilities). For example, you wouldn't be able to justify why it is more likely that the universe we are living in is the kind where human beings will remain dead forever, as opposed to being a universe which is fashioned in a way as to undergo a change of natural laws in the future and then cause the dead to be resurrected again.
3. Speaking of infinite universes, what is truly "infinite"?
My answer to that is that infinity is an idea; an idea of something that is endless. Infinity is an abstraction. Infinity is not a quantity and thus it cannot be measured. We just believe in it even though everything that see, experience, and know about in this world are finite, not infinite. And nothing finite can ever reach infinity. So nothing that we know of can be truly "infinite." Therefore, the idea that there are "infinite universes" doesn't really make sense in the first place, i.e. because universes are finite and finite things can never add up to infinity.
But then where does the idea of infinity come from? Well, as I just said above, nothing is truly infinite. Only the infinite can be infinite, which means that it is so unique that there is nothing else like it nor even anything comparable to it. And the infinite requires no other explanation; it suffices for itself as an explanation. In that vein, I believe that the idea of infinity can come only from God because only God is the actually infinite, nothing else. The concept of God and the concept of infinity are inseparable in nearly all of the world's religions. The concept of infinity has been used as an ontological argument for God’s existence by philosophers, too, one of them being René Descartes.
Quote:René Descartes believed God was actually infinite, and he remarked that the concept of actual infinity is so awesome that no human could have created it or deduced it from other concepts, so any idea of infinity that humans have must have come from God directly. Thus God exists. Descartes is using the concept of infinity to produce a new ontological argument for God’s existence.Source: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
4. In order for there to be a multiverse capable of generating life-permitting universes (which may be a large number but not infinite), then this multiverse itself has to be fine tuned in such a way as to let that happen, so then positing a multiverse does not actually undercut the mystery of fine tuning. It just pushes the fine tuning up one level.
5. Under the same logic as above, in order for there to be a multiverse capable of generating rule-permitting universes (by "rules" I mean laws), then this entire multiverse itself has to be pre-determined by an optimally efficient rule that enables the creation of all the logically possible rule-specific universes (irrespective of whether they contain life or not).
6. Putting together the last two points (4 and 5), and then applying Occam's razor, we must then concede that there has to be an optimally fast and simple algorithm (or a "program") that generates not only this universe, but also all the other logically possible universes which we have no knowledge of. And such an optimal way of generating universes of indefinite varieties needs to be fine tuned so that it allows universes to have a harmony between the laws of physics and the conditions for life (whatever the conditions may be in those particular universes), which brings us full circle again ...
So guess what? We started with the idea of a fine-tuned universe and eventually ended up with a fine-tuned multiverse.
