F
fnr
Guest
When discussing faith with atheists or agnostics, one somewhat common objection I’ve heard is that they don’t believe in miracles without seeing evidence. “That kind of thing doesn’t happen around here,” would be the bumper-sticker version of the argument.
One of the hot ideas in theoretical physics and cosmology (the astrophysics of how the universe works) is the “many worlds hypothesis.” The hypothesis contends that the universe in which we dwell is just one out of an infinite number of universes that also exist. According to this hypothesis, the fundamental constants of the universe (e.g., the hierarchy of masses of the fundamental particles of the universe) that are found in our universe in a manner than allows life are nothing particularly special. That’s because other universes exist that have different fundamental constants that may or may not allow matter, galaxies, and life to exist. Our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes, and the fact that we just happen to inhabit it is nothing special.
SIDE NOTE: The many worlds hypothesis doesn’t really get around the question of why there is something rather than nothing, but does get around the argument from theists that the universe is “fine tuned” by some outside intelligence to allow life to exist.
This hypothesis stems from a philosophical conclusion about science: that our knowledge about the universe is constrained to what we are able to measure. That’s one way of stating the “anthropic principle.” Another way to say it is that “any universe observed by conscious life must be made in a way that supports the existence of conscious life.”
*SIDE NOTE: In the cosmological or biological arenas, theism is really just a claim that the universe is teleological, in other words, ends-oriented. So the Big Bang gave rise to a universe that would give rise to human beings, the story goes. This claim is not amenable to scientific inquiry. There are all sorts of bits of evidence on which to make this claim, but they generally won’t convince a hardened atheist. Here are some examples of facts that support a teleological interpretation of the universe:
Well, the skeptic’s response to miracles is based on the notion that the cosmos is entirely explainable by the laws of physics. Another way of saying it is that miracles violate the laws of physics, so therefore, miracles must not be possible.
A response to the skeptic might be that even the most advanced physics thinking we have contends that it’s entirely possible that outside our universe, there are other universes that do not follow the laws of physics that exist within our universe. In that physicists have not yet explained (1) how the the fundamental constants of the universe came to be what they are and (2) how universes within a “multiverse” could interact with one another, it follows that (3) at the most fundamental level, the physics of our universe are not well-understood. It might also do to say that we have examples of faster-than light information transfer (which violates macroscopic cause and effect), although that’s entirely a result of quantum entanglement of particles. However, to say that such information transfer is impossible outside of quantum entanglement is to put extreme confidence into a constantly-evolving set of information.
One of the hot ideas in theoretical physics and cosmology (the astrophysics of how the universe works) is the “many worlds hypothesis.” The hypothesis contends that the universe in which we dwell is just one out of an infinite number of universes that also exist. According to this hypothesis, the fundamental constants of the universe (e.g., the hierarchy of masses of the fundamental particles of the universe) that are found in our universe in a manner than allows life are nothing particularly special. That’s because other universes exist that have different fundamental constants that may or may not allow matter, galaxies, and life to exist. Our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes, and the fact that we just happen to inhabit it is nothing special.
SIDE NOTE: The many worlds hypothesis doesn’t really get around the question of why there is something rather than nothing, but does get around the argument from theists that the universe is “fine tuned” by some outside intelligence to allow life to exist.
This hypothesis stems from a philosophical conclusion about science: that our knowledge about the universe is constrained to what we are able to measure. That’s one way of stating the “anthropic principle.” Another way to say it is that “any universe observed by conscious life must be made in a way that supports the existence of conscious life.”
*SIDE NOTE: In the cosmological or biological arenas, theism is really just a claim that the universe is teleological, in other words, ends-oriented. So the Big Bang gave rise to a universe that would give rise to human beings, the story goes. This claim is not amenable to scientific inquiry. There are all sorts of bits of evidence on which to make this claim, but they generally won’t convince a hardened atheist. Here are some examples of facts that support a teleological interpretation of the universe:
- CP violation – in other words, that there is more matter than antimatter in the universe. If there were the same amounts created, they would annihilate one another, and there would be only radiation and no mass in the universe.
- The existence of galaxies and galactic clusters, which reflect the random variation in the early universe as indicated by the randomness in cosmic background radiation. Without this randomness, galaxies could not have formed.
- The age of the earliest fossils, which date to 3.5 billion years ago (for sulfur-bearing bacteria) and 3.3 billion years ago (for photosynthesizing bacteria). These dates and the likely time scales needed for their metabolisms to evolve suggest that there was life on this planet as soon as the late Hadean era, when the surface of the planet was mostly molten rock. Abiogenesis of life happened very quickly after there were solid rocks!
Well, the skeptic’s response to miracles is based on the notion that the cosmos is entirely explainable by the laws of physics. Another way of saying it is that miracles violate the laws of physics, so therefore, miracles must not be possible.
A response to the skeptic might be that even the most advanced physics thinking we have contends that it’s entirely possible that outside our universe, there are other universes that do not follow the laws of physics that exist within our universe. In that physicists have not yet explained (1) how the the fundamental constants of the universe came to be what they are and (2) how universes within a “multiverse” could interact with one another, it follows that (3) at the most fundamental level, the physics of our universe are not well-understood. It might also do to say that we have examples of faster-than light information transfer (which violates macroscopic cause and effect), although that’s entirely a result of quantum entanglement of particles. However, to say that such information transfer is impossible outside of quantum entanglement is to put extreme confidence into a constantly-evolving set of information.