Re: [asa] The Multiverse - Physics or Metaphysics?

On 9/11/07, philtill@aol.com <philtill@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> (Susskind also points out that if the multiverse is incorrect, it will be
> hard to answer the IDists. In fact, his book gives some of the clearest
> expressions of cosmological fine tuning.)
>
>
> I think we need to avoid the "either-or" fallacy in addressing
> multiverses, MWI, string landscape, etc.
>
> First, it may be presently difficult for us to imaging God creating a
> string landscape, but perhaps he chose to do so. After all, the heavens
> declare his glory, and how big is that?
>
> Second, a cornerstone of revealed religion is that there is an unrevealed
> lostness to which humanity defaults through sin. At one point in the Bible
> this is described as saying that God hides. How good is God at hiding? Can
> we defeat him through science apologetics and flush him out? We shouldn't
> be surprised if the anthropic arguments eventually fail as a string theory
> or some other multiverse cosmology becomes established, if God is choosing
> to hide.
>
> This is just a friendly word of caution for the overall topic. I think
> there are many worthy things to discuss in regard to these multiverse
> theories, but let's not be afraid of them or vilify them entirely. They are
> describing a subset of God's capabilities, and if the subset exists then so
> might the superset, so no falsification of our faith is involved. In
> fact, it affirms the subset and that is progress.

I agree entirely. However, it appears that Susskind is falling for the
"either-or" fallacy, implying it MUST be correct or else we can't answer the
ID-ists. My view is that the multiverse may well be true, but even if it is
true, the emergence of life might be due to a process that is much more
probable in a single universe than having to rely on "anthropic coincidence"
with vast numbers of other universes. If the latter is true, then no
further research can be done in furthering our understanding - we have
reached the end of the line - no further explanation is necessary than there
are bound to be universes in which that happens. If the former is true,
then we can pursue further research and advance the sum of our knowedge in
the process.

Recently there was a debate on a UK Christian radio station between an ID
proponent, and a member of the UK National Secular Society. The Secular
Society person made what to me is a very important point. He said that as
soon as you explain a difficult phenomenon by saying that it was done by an
Intelligent Designer, that you had lost your sense or curiosity - you no
longer have the impetus to say "I wonder how that happened?". That is
precisely what I mean by "giving up". If Susskind is insisting that the
multiverse has to be true in order to answer the ID-ists, then he has
clearly given up, because it, like ID requires no further understanding.

That's not to say that one shouldn't pursue ways in which the multiverse
theories might be testable, or falsifiable. But it appears that Susskind is
banking on that as the only hope of answering the challenge of ID (or fine
tuning).

Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Sep 11 18:29:03 2007