Was the multiverse theory conceived to avoid concluding that God exists?

Question

I just read an essay in which the author claims that scientists invented the idea of many universes when they discovered that ours was "fine-tuned" for life.

Is there any evidence that this theory is a reaction rather than a conclusion?

Answer 1

There are at least two multiverse theories that I know of, and neither of them were proposed to explain the fine-tuning of our universe.

The first multiverse theory is the Everett-Wheeler-Graham interpretation of quantum physics. The point of this theory is to explain the apparent collapse of a quantum wave-function; specifically, it explains why we see wave-functions collapse to the values we observe.

The explanation is that the collapse of a wave-function causes a "splitting" of the universe into multiple different universes, each of which has the wave-function collapse to a different eigen-value. The point of the theory is to explain why we see wave functions collapsing to certain eigenvalues despite the fact that the laws of quantum physics seem to suggest that there is no reason for wave-function collapse.

The second multiverse theory I know of is the possible worlds interpretation of modal logic. The point of that interpretation is to provide a mechanism by which we understand the meaning of the terms "possibly" and "necessarily" in a logical context. Possibly means true in some possible worlds, where as necessarily means true in all possible worlds.

Answer 2

Multiple universe hypotheses have been around for at least as long as the big bang theory.

I believe that the 11 dimensional math used to flesh out the M-theory hypothesis is consistent with what we see in our universe and has the implication that multiple universes would exist.

Here I have to trust the mathematicians and physicists. I have enough problems with the math in a 4 dimensional universe. 11 dimensional math is out of my league.

On the fine tuning bit, there are three suggestions:

1) We were damn lucky. But if we had not been we would not be here, so the only way we can see how lucky we were is if we really were that lucky, which means it is not really that lucky after all. I hope I made some reasonable sense in there that you can follow the argument.

2) Lots and lots of universes. Supported by M theory. From above we would have to live in a 'lucky' universe.

3) The universe has very limited tuning abilities. Physicists looking at the 'fine tuned' parameters were trying to work out if those parameters could have come out differently. There was some evidence to suggest that not much variability was actually possible.

Answer 3

No, I concluded long ago we live in a multiverse because it is the best explaination for quantum mechanics. The second reason is simplicity. The Fine Tuning argument is only the third reason. I would still believe in the multiverse as an explaination of quantum mechanics even if fine tuning was not an issue.

When Hugh Everett III originally postulated the multiverse it was as the simplest ( no collapse necessary) explaination of quantum mechanics.

Answer 4

There is as of yet no supporting evidence that a multiverse even exists. It is one theory amongst many. Even if a multiverse does exist, it does not "do away" with God at all. There would still have to be something overarching and existing in itself (again I point to the unmoved mover argument) in order to begin all of the universes and hold them in existence and there would necessarily have to be some laws which exist that gave rise to the existence of multiple universes (if they do indeed exist). Where would said laws have come from?

Answer 5

the multiverse theory doesn't explain anything that there wasn't already an explanation for.

there is a problem of bilocation in quantum physics (the dual slit experiment) which nils bohr had suggested could be explained by a sophistication of the heisenberg uncertainty principle (bohr's postulate is called the 'copenhagen version').

then an american undergraduate student (i think he was called hugh everett) produced the multiverse postulate (as a ph. d. project) which is an alternative solution to the problem.

the multiverse postulate was regarded as an interesting piece of maths, but not especially likely, for many years. then suddenly it caught on, just before everett died.

but it doesn't add much (if anything) to the argument from suitability (which is already full of holes), and it certainly wasn't developed with that end in mind.

the argument from suitability is blown out of the water by the douglas adams' 'puddle' analogy.

but creationists can't understand such things, so they tell lies instead.

Answer 6

This article is evidence that people will go to enormous lengths to project their own shortcomings/methods onto others doing actual research.

Answer 7

There is really ******* in the way of evidence for the existence of more than one universe.

There is evidence this one has a hole in it though.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070823_huge_hole.html

Answer 8

It is a theory, but I don't see how it can be considered a scientific theory.