more Mainstream Apologetics ...

Evidence ID: COS-EV17

Evidence: Implausibility of Multiple Universes

Summary: Multiple universes, or Multiverse, is the counter proposal to the Teleology argument. Adherents of Multiverse presume that if there are an exceptionally large number of universes, it is probable that at least one of these universes is conditioned for life. Unfortunately, this hypothesis is not supported by scientific evidence. Therefore, the single universe model under theism that emerged from a singularity is the only plausible explanation for our universe.

Description: As we ponder the universe in terms of time, space, and matter, we marvel at how these three dimensions work together to enable our existence. Since we are familiar with these dimensions, it is hard to imagine any others.

However, some scientists believe that our universe consisting of time, space and matter is not the only form of existence. They imagine other universes that are comprised of different dimensions.

Andrei Linde, a researcher at Stanford, developed a hypothesis in 1982 that argues for multiple universes, ergo, billions of universes or possibly an infinite number of universes [REF-LIN01]. This hypothesis is commonly referred to as Multiverse.

Multiverse Models

Multiverse is the counter proposal to the Teleology argument [TEL-IS02]. The principal arguments for Multiverse are as follows.

• If there are an exceptionally large number of universes, then it is probable that at least one of these universes is conditioned for life.
• If there are an infinite number of universes, then there will certainly be an infinite number of universe conditioned for life.

There are various models that fall under the Multiverse hypothesis. The two most popular models are the Vacuum Fluctuation Model [REF-QUE01] and the Oscillating Big Bang model [REF-CBB01].

The Vacuum Fluctuation model argues that these universes were generated by quantum fluctuations in a pre-existing superspace. The product of these fluctuations is an exceptionally large - perhaps infinite - number of co-existing universes. Each universe has a different set of dimensions and physical characteristics.

Alternatively, the Oscillating Big Bang model argues that our universe is forever expanding and contracting in cycles. This model is comprised of two opposing events, commonly known as the Big Bang and the Big Crunch. The Big Bang is followed by an expansion (explosion) of time, space, and matter. The Big Crunch is followed by a contraction (implosion) of time, space, and matter. Depending on these bang and crunch events, some universes may be conditioned for life, and others may not.

One of the notable characteristic of the Oscillating Big Bang model is that the fundamental physical characteristics do not change across cycles. Hence, the same cosmological constants we currently observe, continue from one universe to the next.

Arguments Against Multiverse

The following arguments have been marshalled against the Multiverse hypothesis.

• Actual Versus Theoretical Infinity - While a theoretical infinity is useful in the field of mathematics for calculations involving time convergence, an actual infinity have been proven to be logically false [MATH-IS04]. As it applies to Multiverse, an infinite number of universes is totally implausible. Hence, Multiverse at the very least is limited to a finite number of universes. Since the estimated odds of life on Earth is 1 in 10²⁸² [MATH-EV15], the likelihood of selecting viable universes conditioned for life is nil.
• Creation of the Universe Generator - While Multiverse is conceptually appealing, the matter of first-cause remains an insurmountable problem. Where did the universe generator come from? Was it self-created or self-existent? Whether there are multiple universes or a single universe, the argument for a transcendent first-cause still applies [COS-DS01]. The Multiverse hypotheses espoused by Linde and others purposely avoid the issue of first-cause.

  The same can be said about fine-tuning. How could the universe generator be so finely tuned that it produces viable universes? Where did that intelligence originate?

• Scientific Evidence - There is an absence of scientific evidence for the existence of multiple universes. However, there is evidence for a single universe as evidenced by the universal laws of energy. Regarding the Oscillating Big Bang model, Lauris Baum and Paul Frampton concluded that the cyclic nature of the universe must have originally emerged from a singularity [REF-BAU01],

  "...one principal obstacle is the Second Law of Thermodynamics which dictates that the entropy increases from cycle to cycle. If the cycles thereby become longer, extrapolation into the past will lead back to an initial singularity again, thus removing the motivation to consider an oscillatory universe in the first place."

Observations

Linde reasoned that our consciousness is a result of our unique fine-tuned universe, and that our consciousness is incapable of perceiving other universes that are fine-tuned to enable other type of consciousness.

With all these invisible universes and a lack of physical evidence to support their existence, Linde's Multiverse hypothesis would seem to require greater faith than to believe in theistic creation. At least theism is supported by scientific evidence, the fundamental laws of logic, probability theory, and many other rigorous disciplines.

Scientific evidence supports the single universe model that emerged from a singularity and is ever expanding. Therefore, it is more plausible to believe that our universe is fine-tuned under theism.

Resources:

• Cyclic Model (Oscillating Big Bang Model) (REF-CBB01)

• Turnaround in Cyclic Cosmology (REF-BAU01)

• World Ensemble Explanations (REF-QUE01)

• nonsingular-regenerating-inflationary-universe (REF-LIN01)