The Multiverse, Fine-Tuning, and Logical Fallacies...

© Figalip | Dreamstime Stock Photos & Stock Free Images

"The multiverse is an example of a theory that says something definite (there are other regions of space far away where conditions are very different), but in such a way that this prediction cannot be directly tested, now or at any time in the future"

--Sean Carroll, Beyond Falsifiability: Normal Science in a Multiverse

Sean Carroll's paper, quoted above, tries to justify the multiverse theory as scientific although it is un-testable... In my mind, it is a multiverse of the gaps;  a classic example of the Inverse Gambler's Fallacy.

Fair warning, I'm not using any standard style for my citations, but this is a blog...  I'm still citing everything and giving the information needed to find them.

What is the Multiverse?

When many of you hear multiverse, you may think of parallel universes nearly identical to ours like we see in comic books.  That's not exactly what the multiverse is.  Strictly speaking, the multiverse does not have to be about "Parallel Universes" at all.  It refers to many distinct universes with different starting conditions.  Descriptions range from universes that lie parallel to ours to separate bubble universes. 

Different starting conditions is key to the whole thing.  The theory did not arise from empirical evidence or even just fanciful thinking... It was a response to the cosmological issue of appearance of fine tuning in our universe... 

Why a Multiverse?

The issue of fine tuning goes beyond the issue of apparent design.  People often point to something like the eye and compare it to a camera when discussing Intelligent Design (My personal preference is comparing DNA to a complex computer program, but even that doesn't carry as much weight as fine tuning.)  

The issue of fine tuning is that there are many constants in our universe that, if altered only slightly would make the universe prohibit life or even cause the universe to collapse back in on itself.  In the words of Stephen Hawking:

"Today we can create computer models that tell us how the rate of the triple alpha reaction depends on the strength of the fundamental forces of nature.  Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5 percent in strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4 percent in the electric force, would destroy nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Change those rules of our universe just a bit, and the conditions of our existence disappear!

By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner.  It turns out that it is not only the strengths of the strong nuclear force and the electromagnetic force that are made to order for our existence.  Most of the fundamental constants in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life."

--Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, Page 159

I could bore you all day with examples of apparent fine tuning in the universe (Some day I may write a blog just dedicated to the many examples of this just because I'm a math geek this is the kind of thing I find interesting), but for the purpose of this entry let's just suffice to say that the numbers present a problem that science has sought to answer.  Basically, it's so improbable that the universe would end up with constants that would support the the universe itself much less life in the universe that those dedicated to a naturalistic viewpoint that science can solve all of life's mysteries have been forced to explain how we won the physics lottery that we did.

I have heard 2 basic answers to this problem.  The first answer is that the universe, by law, will simply always be produced with these constants still leaving the question of the design behind this law.  The second answer assumes that there are many universes and we just happen to be in one that had the correct starting conditions to support life...

Problems with the Multiverse

Aside from the fact that it is absolutely not testable or empirical in any way, there are two major problems with the multiverse.  Firstly, it only complicates the question of origin and secondly, it is a logical fallacy.

Scientists have spent a good deal of time trying to determine the origins of the universe.  Billions have been spent building particle accelerators to study the initial conditions of the universe.  We have trouble even understanding the beginning of just one universe where we can actually test and observe, but now we are complicating it by saying there are potentially infinite numbers of universes being generated by a cause that is outside space and time as we know it.  (Funny enough, this multiverse generator sounds a lot like a God to me. Potentially, an impersonal one, but a powerful force outside of space and time nonetheless.)  This isn't a naturalistic solution to the problem, this just multiplies the problem infinitely and forces us to admit a powerful creative force outside of space and time.

The reason this is fallacious is because it falls into the category of Inverse Gambler's Fallacy.  Let me explain:

The Gambler's Fallacy comes from assuming that independent trials affect one another. For example, if you are flipping a fair coin waiting for heads, but it keeps coming up tails, it is a gambler's fallacy to assume that the next flip is more likely to come up heads because of the streak.  The fact is that while the streak itself is becoming less probable, each individual coin flip has a 50% chance of coming up heads regardless of what came before it.

The Inverse Gambler's fallacy is from the other end. Believing that an observed independent outcome is evidence of prior trials. Imagine that a gambler walks into a room and sees someone roll a pair of dice and they come up as snake eyes (Both 1s for those of you not familiar with the term).  Seeing as this is a relatively rare occurrence (1 in 36), the gambler might assume this person rolled multiple times before getting this result.  Likewise, one might see a person on the news who won the lottery and assume that person must play every week.  Either way it's a fallacy.  The empirical evidence of one outcome, however unlikely it is, is not evidence of prior trials.

The multiverse is the application of this latter fallacy to the physics lottery I mentioned earlier.  So if someone wants to be logically sound, the multiverse hypothesis needs to be ignored until such a time as there is any empirical or testable evidence for it within this universe (Which Carroll admitted in the opening quote will never happen).  Even calling it a "theory" undermines the meaning of the word.

 Why Does it Matter?

If you know me or have read any of my other posts, you probably understand that I am a Christian and as such a theist.  I'm not necessarily saying that the appearance of fine-tuning is proof of God.  Honestly, I don't think any single argument for the existence of God is proof in and of itself.  Anything short of a prophetic vision or personal interaction with the risen Christ is merely indirect evidence of God. To quote J. Warner Wallace:

"The strength of the case isn't dependent on any single item of evidence but instead is assembled from the cumulative set of facts,"

--J. Warner Wallace, God's Crime Scene Page 197

Wallace is making the point, which he makes repeatedly, that cases are rarely won based on a smoking gun; especially the cold-cases that he worked for many years.  He points out that cases are won based on cumulative circumstantial evidence.  Throughout the book, God's Crime Scene, he presents a series of circumstantial evidences for God's existence.

If we wish to be logically sound, we cannot invent a multiverse just to handle the appearance of fine-tuning in our Universe.  The only logically honest thing we can say about the improbability of our universe is that we have one universe that meets the conditions necessary to produce life and that it is improbable that this universe existsd.  Based on just that fact, it would be a god of the gaps argument for me to assume this was proof of God in and of itself; however, a larger case can be made for God's existence.  From this example we can make one possible inference of fine tuning, but beyond that, we can look at irreducible complexity in certain aspects of living organisms, the improbability of bio-genesis itself, the appearance of at least some level of objective morality, the appearance of free will (which cannot exist in a purely naturalistic universe), etc.  There are plenty of positive scientific and philosophical evidences pointing toward God.  None of them a smoking gun, but I'm not sure we need one.  I firmly believe, like Wallace, that a strong circumstantial case for theism can be made without resorting to a "god of the gaps." 

Many atheists will point out that science has filled a lot of the "gaps" that were formerly explained only by God.  That assumes all theists see God in this way or at least see God and Science as opponents, but I think they fundamentally misunderstand the role of science.  It is empirical.  It can tell us what is.  With some interpretation, we may use it to tell us what was, or project what will be, but it deals simply with the question of mechanism and does not and cannot rule out an intelligent creator.  Dr. John Lennox uses the example of a Model T when he discusses this in some of his lectures.  He makes the point that a mechanic can understand all there is do know about how a Model T works, but knowing every bit of its mechanism does not undermine the existence of Henry Ford.

Final Thoughts

I, for one, have never seen science and religion as being at odds.  Many of the pioneers of science believed in a creator and saw their effort as a way to understand God through the discovery of the natural world. When "Science" becomes politicized or driven by philosophical naturalism, I begin to question the inferences of scientists, but science itself cannot lie to us.  It is merely a method of discovery whether we draw the correct inferences or not.  That said, the Multiverse is not science.  It is purely rooted in the philosophy of naturalism and cannot be tested through scientific means.