Closer To Truth: Simulated And Multiple Universes

There is an ongoing PBS TV series (also several books and also a website) called “Closer To Truth”. It is hosted by neuroscientist Robert Lawrence Kuhn. He’s featured in one-on-one interviews and panel discussions with the cream of the cream of today’s cosmologists, physicists, philosophers, theologians, psychologists, etc. on all of the Big Questions surrounding a trilogy of broad topics – Cosmos; Consciousness; Meaning. The trilogy collectively dealt with reality, space and time, mind and consciousness, aliens, theology and on and on and on. Here are a few of my comments on two of the universal topics covered: The Simulated Universe and the Multiverse.

Are there Multiple Universes?

Let’s start with the assumption that there are indeed multiple universes as many of those interviewed on “Closer to Truth” have advocated. I’m not convinced they have thought as far outside of the box as perhaps they should have. Proponents of the multiverse seem to be fixated on a multiverse in space, all universes co-existing pretty much at the same time, as in right now. Little if any thought has been given to a multiverse in time; over time; throughout time. In other words, if you have one universe that morphs into another universe which evolves into yet another, again and again, universes in sequence, then you have accomplished the same thing – a multiverse. The fine-tuning argument might be such that we exist here now in this universe 澳洲升學 because previous universes on the road to ours, were not bio-friendly whereas our universe is one of the odd universes out in the emergence of life. The next universe after ours, say we do reverse direction and hit the Big Crunch which becomes the Big Bang of the next universe in the timeline, might not be a Goldilocks universe. Anyway, the point is that one can have a multiverse in space at one time, or a multiverse in time but just in one space, or, of course both.

Why Believe in Multiple Universes?

There is of course the fine-tuning argument that the more universes you have the greater the odds that one will have laws, principles and relationships of physics that will make that universe a bio-friendly universe; a Goldilocks universe. That alone explains the vast improbability of our existence. Another reason however might be that you would philosophically like, on the grounds of fairness and equality, that anything that can happen, should happen. That anything that can happen, will happen, will be maximized if one maximizes the amount of space and time available. The more time you have to play with; the more space you have to play around in, the greater the odds that the wildly improbable will come to pass. One way of doing that is to maximize the number of universes available, or have, in other words, a multiverse. That multiverse might contain identical or very similar laws, principles and relationships of physics, or each universe might be drastically differing in those laws, principles and relationships of physics. Regardless, you have maximized the odds that anything that can happen, will happen.

Did God Create Multiple Universes?

What’s the point of creating multiple universes instead of just creating one large universe that would be equal in size, and in intelligences that inhabit that one cosmos, to a bunch of universes? Maybe it’s a case of doing it just for the sake of doing it, but that doesn’t seem to be a rational reason for an infallible supernatural deity. In any event, to a deity, is there anything different in principle to creating many universes relative to one universe since to that deity all universes would be connected, a unified whole, even if only in the mind of the creator deity. The total cosmos would still be equal to the sum of its parts. The total of a glass of water is equal to the sum of all the individual water molecules. Once you have created one water molecule, well you can conclude that you’ve been there, done that, so why create more and more and more.

What would Multiple Universes Mean?

The concept of multiple universes seems to be advocated primarily to explain the fact that our Universe is a bio-friendly Universe or a Goldilocks Universe. Our Universe is very finely-tuned in terms of the laws, principles and relationships of physics (and chemistry) to allow life to survive and thrive. The odds that this should be are so astronomically low that anyone betting the family farm would bet that if our Universe were the only Universe it would be lifeless. To get around this problem one postulates lots and lots and lots of universes, each with a separate set of laws, principles and relationships of physics (and chemistry). Sooner or later, the improbable becomes near certainty. The odds are stacked against you being dealt a royal flush in poker on the very first hand in your very first game, but if you play thousands upon thousands of poker games, with tens upon tens of thousands of hands dealt to you, sooner or later the royal flush will come your way. Okay, that all seems clear enough, but I have one bone to pick here. The assumption is that if there is a multiverse that every universe within that multiverse will have a different set of laws, principles and relationships of physics (and chemistry). No reason is ever given for that assumption. There may well be a vast number of universes, but there may also be one, and only one possible set of laws, principles and relationships of physics (and chemistry). All universes will have the exact same laws, principles and relationships of physics (and chemistry). Can someone please explain why this possibility, a uniform across-the-board physics, isn’t as likely, even more likely since we know our set of laws, principles and relationships of physics (and chemistry) actually exist, than postulating without any even theoretical evidence why every universe should have a different set of laws, principles and relationships of physics (and chemistry).