Parallel universes really do exist, according to a mathematical discovery by Oxford scientists described by one expert as "one of the most important developments in the history of science".As I pointed out the last time I addressed this issue, the idea of a multiverse utterly destroys science. In fact, since the induction problem already occurs in a single universe, retreating to a multiverse will only compound the inductive problem. The multiverse, in other words, is even more damaging to science than Hume’s inductive problem.
The parallel universe theory, first proposed in 1950 by the US physicist Hugh Everett, helps explain mysteries of quantum mechanics that have baffled scientists for decades, it is claimed.
In Everett's "many worlds" universe, every time a new physical possibility is explored, the universe splits. Given a number of possible alternative outcomes, each one is played out - in its own universe.
A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless.
Hume’s inductive problem tells us that just because we have always seen the sun rise each morning does not guarantee that it will rise tomorrow morning. But those who address Hume can at least retreat to the probability argument: given the multitude of times the sun has risen and the fact that it has never not risen, there is no reason to doubt the sun will rise.
The multiverse theory, however, does not have the ability to fall back to probability, because the fact of the matter is that there are no odds left. The sun literally does not rise tomorrow in some universe (and this can be caused by any number of things: perhaps nuclear fission results in the sun exploding; or perhaps the heart of the sun quantum leaps to the Orion Nebula.
As a result of all this, perhaps a better headline for that article could have been: Science Doesn’t Exist – Study. Because you cannot have science when your framework is everything happens in SOME universe. There is no scientific reason, under this theory, why an action occurs in any specific universe (it’s random as to which universe it will act in and which it will not), and therefore science cannot explain anything that occurs. Not only are we left with no inductive reasoning, we are left without causation either. (Why is it that x follows y? Because this universe had that particular random split occur…)
Naturally, Quantum Mechanics is difficult to understand. But one thing we know is that you cannot “solve” the problems of Quantum Mechanics by undermining the foundations that brought forth Quantum Mechanics in the first place. That would simply be self-refuting, and that’s what we get with this study.
I read this article. I don't really understand it. Like, how can a mathematical discovery pertain to what I frankly think is unknowable realities? What it seemed to be saying -- and I read it a couple days ago, so I could be wrong -- was "a lot of stuff we can' figure out makes sense if there's a multiverse/parallel universes, so...there's a multiverse."
ReplyDeleteI don't know a lot about this type of stuff, but it brings up an ontological question -- if there's a parallel universe formed for every physical possibility (I'm guessing most scientists would presuppose non-physical entities right out of the window?), wouldn't anyone holding that position have to also hold to a physical non-determinism? Also, does a parallel universe exist in which there are no parallel universes?
Maybe someone smarter can help me out here.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteI'm just an average guy reading this, but I understood the theory to say that only things that are physically possible could actually happen. In other words, pigs aren't flying somewhere else unless it has somehow become physically possible for that to happen.
I don't believe it's true; I'm just saying that's what I understood it to mean.
This is all just a ploy to say that everything is true, since every statement would be true in some universe if such a theory were true, and they will automatically retort that such a theory is true in some universe.
ReplyDeletePeter,
ReplyDeleteProbability assumes induction as well, so it cannot be a "fall-back" to the problem.
Peter, you said—
ReplyDeleteThe multiverse theory, however, does not have the ability to fall back to probability, because the fact of the matter is that there are no odds left.
I am very much in agreement with your analysis of the insurmountable problems which multiverse theory creates for scientific endeavor. However, as Aaron has partly pointed out, these problems don't seem any worse in principle than the existing philosophical obstacles which the scientist ought to overcome before claiming any justification for his methods and knowledge. Hume's problem of induction is only one of these obstacles, but it is certainly a significant one. Contrary to your comment, the scientist is not able to retreat to an argument from probability, because such an argument either must presuppose induction itself, or must make some other kind of unjustified assumption.
If he presupposes induction by saying that, since it has always happened this way in the past it is likely it will happen in the future, then obviously his problem remains and he is simply begging the question. But if he wishes to avoid doing this, in what way will he calculate probability? He needs a numerator and a denominator. What will they be? He has no universal knowledge, so he cannot discover how likely anything is to happen in the future at all. In this sense, then, I don't think multiverse theory really adds any genuine additional difficulty to the problems the scientist already faces. In principle, the problem of induction is already sufficient to refute the secular scientific method. Multiverse theory merely makes it explicitly unlikely that the scientific method will work—but since it was never justified to begin with, I don't see any real philosophical change has taken place. Something which seems intuitively likely but is rationally unjustified is no better, philosophically speaking, than something which is unlikely and also rationally unjustified. They are both still unjustified.
Of course, there are other problems the scientist faces as well: for example, he assumes the reliability of his senses, of his memory, and so on. These assumptions are equally unfounded, and tend to be justified by appeals to senses and memory; which is again begging the question.
I think the philosophical problems that non-Christian scientists face are so enormous already that taking them to task over multiverse theory is almost an exercise in cruelty. Not that it should not be done; and I applaud your efforts to lucidly draw out the problems with multiverse theory in an easy to understand manner. If they wish to burden themselves with even more problems which they cannot answer, so much the better for us.
Regards,
Bnonn
Sorry for the misunderstandings. This particular post wasn't as indepth as my past post, since I assumed everyone had read the previous one and I didn't want to repeat myself too much.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that the multiverse would be problematic for science is because it stipulates that the sum of all actual universes is equivelent to the sum of all possible universes. In other words, if at every split there is another universe created, then you have chains of universes that exist for every single possible outcome.
Let's give an arbitrary example. Suppose you flip a coin one billion times. Each time it comes up heads. The odds that this would occur are astronomical. However, if the universe splits at every decision point, the universe must exist where someone flips a coin a billion times and it lands heads each time. The odds that a universe exists this way are certain: it must exist somewhere.
We can compile the examples from my previous post on the subject too. Some universe must exist where someone named Moses witnessed a burning bush that was not consumed. Some universe must exist where someone named Jesus was crucified...and rose from the dead. (This is true even if you deny supernaturalism, as the materialistic makeup of this person named Jesus must have, in some universe, spontaneously restarted. In point of fact, there must be a universe somewhere where people die and are raised to life again all the time, given the assumption that everything is materialistic.)
Anyway, since the universe must exist where these results occur, and since we cannot know which universe we occupy (we cannot compare this universe to any other universe), we do not know if our universe is the universe where Jesus really did rise from the dead, or if we're in the universe where someone just SAID that Jesus rose from the dead. We cannot have epistemological evidence either way.
Likewise, let us look at quantum paths. One current theory states that a quantum particle will travel all possible paths in order to get from point A to point B. In the multiverse theory, there is a new universe for EACH path that the particle chooses. Now, it is possible for a subatomic particle to leap from one place to another, under quantum theory. If the distances are small, it's likely. The larger the distance, the less likely it is--but less likely is not the same thing as impossible. While the odds are infinitely small (assuming our normal view of the universe), it is still possible for all the atoms in the sun to quantum leap out to, say, Alpha Centari.
If the multiuniverse is true, since this is possible it has happened. And I should note that it has happened countless times and will continue to happen countless times. In some universe, the sun has done that the instant you read this sentence. In other universes, it will happen tomorrow. But before the sun does that, the quantum splits line up just like our current universe.
It is impossible to tell if our universe is one where the sun will not quantum leap to Alpha Centuri ever, or if ours is one of the countless splits where the sun does just that. It is impossible to know because this leap happens "randomly", and because the split ensures that a universe with the alternate path does occur, there must be a universe where this occurs.
Again, whatever is possible is actual under this system. As a result, anything goes. If I stood in front of you and shot fireballs from my fingertips, it could be explained by portions of the sun quantum leaping to my fingertips. In some universe, it will happen. That is, under the theory, in some universes it has happened.
Under such a system, everything that is possible is scientifically true. Therefore, we cannot use science to know what will happen, or even explain why something did happen. All the "why" questions boil down to "You just happen to be in the multiverse that this event occured in." Hence, there is no causality, there is no induction, there is no knowledge.
Hopefully that clarifies a little what I meant.
Dominic said:
ReplyDelete---
However, as Aaron has partly pointed out, these problems don't seem any worse in principle than the existing philosophical obstacles which the scientist ought to overcome before claiming any justification for his methods and knowledge.
---
Actually, I agree (although that wasn't my point for this post). :-) For the purposes of this post, I was letting those who sought to avoid the induction problem "off the hook" in order to focus on the multiverse problem.
The rest of your comments were well-written too, and I agree with them.
Brad said:
ReplyDelete---
I'm just an average guy reading this, but I understood the theory to say that only things that are physically possible could actually happen. In other words, pigs aren't flying somewhere else unless it has somehow become physically possible for that to happen.
---
Actually, this brings up some other interesting points. If the multiverse occurs at all possible splits, that would include the splits that occured during the first moments of the Big Bang. In Cosmological theory, all scientific forces were united at the moment of the Big Bang (the Grand Unified Theory there); the forces then split as the universe expanded and cooled. Theory states that this happened fairly quickly that the unified force broke into the strong and weak forces, the electromagnetic force, and gravity--but the point at which they broke into assymetry is generally understood to be arbitrary. That is, the forces did not HAVE to become assymetric at that point--it was random.
Under this theory, if the multiverse splits along that timeline too, then the laws of physics are out the window too. There could be some universe where gravity was stronger than the electromagnetic force, for instance. (BTW, it's a common misconception that gravity is the strongest force. It's not. It takes an object as big as the Earth to keep us planted on its surface with the force of 32 feet per second squared, but a small kitchen magnet can thwart gravity and stick to the side of a refrigerator.)
In any case, there could be smaller tweakings of the laws of physics for various other universes so that it wouldn't be that radically different from our current universe, yet sufficiently different where animals that look a lot like pigs here could levitate, etc.
This does bring up another problem that I'm sure the mathematical model never addressed. What actually IS possible?
Hmm...I don't see the compelling force in this argument. (I'm a Christian, by the way--a Biblical inerrantist--so I'm not speaking from a perspective where I need any kind of naturalistic epistemology.)
ReplyDeleteIf many-worlds is true, then everything that is a possible outcome in the collapse of a quantum mechanical wavefunction does happen somewhere. (It's not immediately clear to me that the sun leaping to Alpha Centauri falls into that class--I'd want to talk about it with a knowledgeable quantum mechanic--but I'll go with it for the sake of argument. If it's not a valid example, you could easily find a valid example.) I'll call things like that "weird". And I'll call anything that isn't any possible collapse of a wavefunction "impossible". Anything weird could happen in a single universe anyway--it's just highly unlikely. It doesn't violate the laws of physics, it follows them. There are impossible things, and there are weird things.
And that's true if there's only a single universe, too. Those weird events can already happen in our own universe. That is, we are presently living in a universe where something weird could happen. The sun could leap to Alpha Centauri. We don't worry about observing weird things (even though they would lead us astray in our scientific conclusions), because it's highly unlikely.
I don't see what's different in many-worlds for any given observer trying to do science. It's still highly unlikely that you're going to see anything weird. Weird observations are still just as unlikely as they are in single-world.
So I see no implications for many-worlds on the conclusions we draw from our observations. We're already aware that weird events can happen. It doesn't matter that there's some universe where weird things are actual--we work with observations. And a many-worlds experimenter is just as unlikely as a single-worlds experimenter to make observations that will lead us astray.
It's possible for a many-worlds experimenter to reach bad conclusions using the scientific method, and wind up with weird science. But that's already known to be possible in single-world. Many-worlds doesn't make it any more likely. It just tells us with certainty that somewhere, an experimenter is coming up with weird science. Sure, we don't know that we're not the weird scientists, but it's still ridiculous to worry about it actually being us. It's still like worrying that any remote possibility. I don't worry that a plane will crush my car while I'm driving through rush hour traffic, and I don't worry about weird observations.
Greg said:
ReplyDeleteLike, how can a mathematical discovery pertain to what I frankly think is unknowable realities? What it seemed to be saying -- and I read it a couple days ago, so I could be wrong -- was "a lot of stuff we can' figure out makes sense if there's a multiverse/parallel universes, so...there's a multiverse."
I would guess it's a case of journalistic overstatement. The researchers aren't quoted as saying that they've discovered many-worlds is true. It just says that in the headline.
In the quotations, they say that they've demonstrated that many-worlds will work to explain QM oddities--that it's a viable explanation. They don't see to claim to have disproven other explanations.
Tim,
ReplyDeleteFirst, as to the sun quantum leaping to Alpha Centauri, this is a genuine possibility. It's not likely given the existence of only our universe--but if we have a multiverse where every possibility occurs, then this will happen. The basics of it work like this: since all quantum particles can take all possible paths, and they only "appear" at specific points based on a probability, all the quantum particles in the sun are MOST LIKELY to be where they are right now when they are observed; but there is a faint possibility that they could be anywhere else in the universe where they could be observed. The possibility that even ONE subatomic particle from the sun would traverse to Alpha Centauri is exteremly remote (0.0000....001% chance). But that chance is never zero. It's not IMPOSSIBLE, and therefore in a mutliverse, it has happened. It is therefore even more unlikely that every single subatomic particle in the sun would do such a thing. But again, when you have every single possibility actually occuring, somewhere it did happen.
The force of my argument comes from what you termed "weird science." In order to differentiate between regular science and "weird" science, you have to already know what ought to occur. But when you compare that to another possible universe, you can see why this would be problematic. Again, if there is another universe at every quantum decision, then there must exist a universe wherein every double-slit experiment looks like classical Newtonian physics instead of following Quantum Mechanics. In that universe, it is impossible to scientifically discover Quantum Mechanics--even though it is the existence of quantum mechanics and the multiverse that creates this universe in the first place!
Extrapolate that back. If every possible universe does occur, we do not know that our universe is created based on Quantum Mechanics. It could be created by some other means, and our branch of the multiverse is the one that mimics what would occur given Quantum Mechanics. We cannot verify Quantum Mechanics based on observations of our universe anymore than Newtonian physics (with no Quantum Mechanics) can be verified by the multiverse that mimics classical physics.
Our observations just happen to be observing this particular universe. But this particular universe just happens to be one of the nearly infinite number of multiverses that exist. What is "scientific" in this universe is meaningless for determining the truth value of what occurs in this universe.
Peter,
ReplyDeleteOn the sun leaping, here's why I'm still hesitant: The many-worlds interpretation pertains to the collapse of wavefunctions into a single state. It stands opposed to (among others) the Copenhagen interpretation.
What you are referring to, "since all quantum particles can take all possible paths", is the path integral formulation of QM. It's a particular mathematical approach to analyzing QM, and stands opposed to Schroedinger's waves and Heisenberg's matrices. All three yield mathematically equivalent results. Now, the relevant question is how the concept of wavefunction collapse relates between the formalisms--my quantum coursework never went into it, and neither of my textbooks are clear on the matter--which is why I would want to talk to a knowledgeable quantum mechanic. I tried some googling, and found conflicting non-authoritative indications. I'm not sure whether the many paths of a path integral necessarily has much to do with the superposition of many states in wavefunction collapse. The former has to do with time-evolution of the system, the latter, not so much. But you could be right. So I'm just hesitant.
Anyway, you did a good job of summarizing where you see the force in your argument. Namely, we have no way of determining whether we're in a weird universe--whether our observations will lead to weird science, misled by the unlikely events. Somewhere out there, there are weird scientists with wrong conclusions. Granted. We could conceivably be those weird scientists, and we would have no scientific way of finding out. I understand that, and thought I incorporated it in my response.
As I said, many-worlds isn't introducing any new possibilities. Weird events can happen in single-world. We already have to take that into account; we ignore it because it's ludicrously unlikely we're going to make any weird observations. It's silly to worry about it--far more so than worrying about whether a Russian plane with a crew of albino midgets will crush your car while you're driving through rush hour traffic. (I mean, it's possible, but no reasonable person will worry about it--even if it turns out to have happened to someone somewhere.)
Many-worlds doesn't make it any more likely. It just tells us with certainty that somewhere, an experimenter is coming up with weird science. Sure, we don't know that we're not the weird scientists, but it's still ridiculous to worry about it actually being us.