The Multiverse: The “Solution” to Fine Tuning?
What happens when you discover that that the universe is improbably fine-tuned for life? If the conclusion that God may have had something to do with it is too much to swallow, you propose a wild scenario without any empirical evidence which says, essentially, that we happened because everything “happens.” That’s science. Scientists don’t often like to admit that they, too, operate with philosophical and religious pre-assumptions, but Discover lets the cat out of the bag and reports on the anti-theistic motivation behind the multiverse theory:
Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.
Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.
November 12, 2008 at 7:34 pm
[...] The Deeps of Time nails one out of the park: What happens when you discover that that the universe is improbably fine-tuned for life? If the conclusion that God may have had something to do with it is too much to swallow, you propose a wild scenario without any empirical evidence which says, essentially, that we happened because everything “happens.” That’s science. Scientists don’t often like to admit that they, too, operate with philosophical and religious pre-assumptions, but Discover lets the cat out of the bag and reports on the anti-theistic motivation behind the multiverse theory… [...]
November 12, 2008 at 8:02 pm
So can we as Christians discount the Multiverse Theory? I can’t see the Multiverse Theory being true without killing some of our basic beliefs, such as the idea that we can choose good or evil. Sounds like good old fashioned Materialism.
November 12, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Giacinto — it depends on which version of the multiverse theory is in question. Some versions don’t actually have infinite universes, and could be considered in a way that fits into a Christian view. That being said, as this article points out the main reason for the formulation of the multiverse theory is that it avoids the appearance of design and the math allows it. So it is proposed to solve a problem that, from the Christian view, isn’t really a problem. With a complete lack of evidence and no theoretical necessity for it, it doesn’t seem a particularly scientific idea.
November 12, 2008 at 11:04 pm
It’s interesting that this came up right after my comment under “Visible Universe Pulled By Unseen Structures” and about the mistaken reference to the idea of the multiverse.
Apparently, motivations for it aside, even the most radical theory of a multiverse is no more opposed to the Catholic faith than is the steady-state theory in which a single space-time continuum is infinitely old. Actual infinities of volume or time in the universe would seem unlikely, but even in the case of an actual infinity, God must still hold it in being in order for it to exist.
November 12, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Thomas
Infinite extension of prime matter may be compatible, perhaps, but I agree unlikely. But if we take an idea of the multiverse which includes other, possibly infinitely other, numbers of universes populated with human beings or human-being-like creatures, it would seem to be more troublesome — but I can’t say I’ve thought about that specific problem much or read anything directly dealing with the question. And since the Incarnation is a singular event, we’re lucky it happened in our universe, eh?
November 13, 2008 at 12:43 am
Michael,
A multiversal model does not challenge anthropocentrism any more than a universal model challenges anthropocentrism. Even in a universal model with infinite volume (as for an open standard hot big bang model) there would seem to be the possibility of human-looking—and, of course, non-human-looking—life that springs up in more than one place, perhaps even in an infinite number of places.
On earth Christ came at a particular point in time and to a particular geographical region. He did not come directly to the Americas or to East Asia or to Australia or to Europe or to South Africa, but his Church did eventually bring Him there. Similarly, it may be that the Church from Earth must bring Christ to the rest of the cosmos, even to non-human corporeal creatures with immortal souls.
Alternatively, perhaps our view of the paschal mystery and of the hypostatic union will need to be expanded. If the Word became flesh in more than one body (each on a different world at a different time), then could we still conceive of the Second Person of the Trinity as a single hypostasis? Could we still see the sacrifice of the Mass as a single sacrifice, even if it occurred on a cross on Earth and on a different instrument of torture on another world? These are deep questions. A quick search on google didn’t turn up anything particularly interesting, but I’d like to know what work has been done here to establish the boundaries of authentic Catholic speculation.
November 13, 2008 at 3:22 am
Good point regarding the possibility of an infinite number of human beings in an infinitely large universe. I think the difference, though, is that most of the multiverse models I’ve seen assume the new universes are “spawned off” of already existing universes, with their “situation” as the starting point of the new universe — so the existence of the additional humans is required in those models, where as it is not required in an infinitely large single-universe model. Physics is not my field, though, so you may be more familiar with these models than I.
One Incarnation on Earth spread to the rest of the universe is not a problem, I agree. There’s even been some great Christian fiction on the subject — Lewis’ Space Trilogy, for example. The problem would be, as you note, if we assumed additional “incarnational events.” As I read it, the teachings of the Church indicate that the one Incarnation of Christ that occurred here can be the only Incarnation. I think the problem lies not so much the single sacrifice of the cross as it does in the union of the Second Person with a single human nature. To have Him take on various “alien” bodies as well would seem to imply that he took on not only one human nature but additional natures as well — which is not acceptable. But you’re right — there isn’t any clear teaching yet on these kinds of questions, and I don’t know of any one good resource to go to.
November 13, 2008 at 5:13 am
Michael,
I think that there might be a confusion between (1) a multiversal model, in which one essentially disjoint spacetime continuum (with its own unique history) buds off from another, and (2) the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which does not refer to a multiverse, at least not in the same sense. Although I can see how one might plausibly refer to a many-worlds model as a multiverse, I shall here restrict “multiverse” to refer only to a model in which quantum variability directly affects the production of spacetime continua.
In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, which would seem to presuppose and not to modify (other than by duplication) an underlying spacetime, every time an observer makes an observation, the universe splits into parallel worlds, and every possible outcome of the observation is realized in one of those worlds. Even without the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, however, a single spacetime with infinite volume could very well realize every variation on the history of some other part of that spacetime. After all, an infinite volume populated everywhere by stars and planets is an amazing possibility to consider. Still, the many-worlds interpretation might be objectionable for reasons of its own. I am sure that there are Catholics who know enough philosophy and physics to talk about this at length. I wish one or more of them would show up here!
So far as the Incarnation is concerned, it would seem that a single Incarnation is required, but I wonder if what might look superficially like multiple incarnations could somehow really be the single Incarnation. If what might look superficially like multiple persons could somehow really be the Second Person. Perhaps human nature is more general than what we have usually imagined. I am doubtful of these speculations, but we should be careful not to imagine that God is more limited in carrying out His plan for salvation than He actually is.
November 13, 2008 at 5:14 am
I accidentally posted that last piece anonymously.
November 13, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Aquinas considered infinite time as not logically impossible, in the sense that you mentioned — infinite in extent but still dependent on God for that existence. He noted, though, that revelation tells us that time has a beginning and end. And if infinite time is compatible in logic (thought not in revelation) I don’t see why infinite space wouldn’t be as well. However, given Scripture’s discussion about God “fixing bounds” for the world and the picture of modern cosmology, I would be inclined towards a non-infinite material existence, but I don’t know of any Church document on the topic It’s a bit like arguing whether unicorns are compatible with Catholicism. Until someone has evidence, it’s all academic — especially as the motivation behind the theory is so often, it seems, to escape fine tuning.
November 14, 2008 at 12:44 am
You are right to point to the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life, let alone for extraterrestrial sapient life. That should give us pause before we spend too much effort trying to figure out how unicorns fit into Catholic thought. However, it would be worthwhile, in my opinion, for someone who is competent (and who has time) to explore the pertinent philosophy and theology for at least two reasons:
(1) For the universe as a whole, the simplest physical model that is consistent with all of the cosmological data does have a finite age, but that model does not distinguish between (a) the case in which the universe has *infinite* volume at every time since the beginning and (b) the case in which the universe has *finite* volume at every time since the beginning. That is, even the standard hot big bang model, which is not particularly wacky, carries the possibility of infinite volume at every time in (finite) history.
(2) It would be good for us as Catholics not to get caught with our pants down. Even if we don’t meet extraterrestrial, corporeal, intelligent beings any time soon, the possibilities that the best scientific models permit have a way of finding their way into science fiction. As part of human culture, science fiction is a sphere in which the Catholics not only can participate but should participate. But we should do so in an authentic way, by addressing real philosophical problems and possibilities.
April 29, 2009 at 5:33 pm
[...] The Deeps of Time nails one out of the park:link-icon:: What happens when you discover that that the universe is improbably fine-tuned for life? If the conclusion that God may have had something to do with it is too much to swallow, you propose a wild scenario without any empirical evidence which says, essentially, that we happened because everything “happens.” That’s science. Scientists don’t often like to admit that they, too, operate with philosophical and religious pre-assumptions, but Discover lets the cat out of the bag and reports on the anti-theistic motivation behind the multiverse theory… [...]