Our universe is fine-tuned to allow the existence of ourselves. That is to say, there are many things that have to be just as they are, and we wouldn’t exist otherwise. Citing just one example, the mass ratio of the proton to the electron has to be almost exactly 1836. Were it very much larger or smaller, stable atoms would not exist. Without stable atoms, we would not exist. There are many other similar examples: sizes and charges of particles, strength of basic forces, relative abundance of mass and energy in the universe, and so forth. Each one had to be set at exactly the right value in order for us to start existing.
The most common, and common sense, response to this series of facts is to believe that the universe was created by an intelligent being who intended for intelligent life to live in the universe.
There is an alternate explanation, which in outline goes like this. Suppose we imagine a huge number of universes, each with a slightly different mass ratio of the proton to the electron. One has a ratio of 1835, another 1836, another 1837, and so forth. Now among these universes, the vast majority would be wastelands devoid of life. But life could exist in one of the many universes, specifically the one where the ratio is 1836. Hence a universe with the right ratio could exist without being designed by an intelligent being.
And if someone points out another physical constant that must have a certain value? No worries. Just reach into your rectum and pull out more imaginary universes. Problem solved! True, when the process gets finished, the number of imaginary universes is going to be enormous. In fact, many proponents of this theory give up on capping them at any finite number, and simply decide that there are infinitely many universes.
This theory should convince anybody, with the exception of people who don’t believe in imaginary things.
For them, we must ask what the actually evidence for the theory of many universes (TMU, from now on). In 2003, Scientific American published an article called “Infinite Earths in Parallel Universes Actually Exist”. Now you might expect that an article with such a title in a scientific magazine would offer evidence that infinite earths in parallel universes actually exist. You’d be wrong. The article offers three lines of evidence:
First, observations of the cosmos in some bands of radiation might produce evidence of parallel universes at some point in the future.
Second, the astrophysics community has reached consensus on the issue. (Some astrophysicists were quite surprised to learn this.)
Third, an argument by analogy. A computer program that prints all whole numbers may be easier to write than one that produces a certain number or set of numbers, so why shouldn’t something similar be true for universes?
I find none of these arguments convincing. On the first, proof by future proof is not a valid proof technique. The second is not true. On the third, computers are devices designed to let a programmer give orders, hence different from the scenario of universes.
Richard Dawkins also uses TMU as part of his proof that “God almost certainly does not exist” in The God Delusion. He offers up other scenarios than merely infinite parallel universes. He proposes a single universe giving birth to huge numbers of child universes, or a scheme whereby universes produce offspring and are subject to natural selection, gradually producing new universes that are favorable to intelligent life. Dawkins devotes some effort to showing that these ideas are really clever, but (as with almost every claim that he makes in the book) he apparently feels no need to show that they’re true.
In a rare moment of intellectual honesty, Dawkins admits that there are physicists who reject TMU. He then explains that they are not qualified to have an opinion on this question of physics because they haven’t studied enough evolutionary biology. I doubt I’m the only one who views this argument as completely inane, like saying that people aren’t qualified to discuss the Harry Potter books until they’ve studied organic chemistry.
But suppose I agree to lay aside these issues for a moment. Suppose the science fiction writers are right, the scientists are wrong, and one of these zany scenarios actually exists. Does it adequately remove the need for an intelligent designer?
Nope. If our fine-tuned universe was birthed off of a multiverse, it raises the obvious question, “Who fine-tuned the multiverse?”
A ‘mother universe’ with the capability to produce child universes still needs fine-tuning to produce a universe fit for life. For instance suppose that all the child universes have exactly the same physical laws as the mother. If so, the scheme breaks down. Or suppose that the child universes produce only protons and no electrons. None of them will ever support life. Or suppose that all particles in the child universes are attracted to each other. Once again, no chance for life. Or suppose that the child universes include protons and electrons and a variety of physical laws, but the range of mass ratios doesn’t include 1836. The bottom line is, you still need someone to do the fine-tuning.
The bottom line beneath that bottom line is that TMU is a bogus theory, junk science without the science part. The idea that black holes lead to the birth of other universes ‘somewhere else’ makes excellent science fiction but has nothing to do with reality. I cannot help but agree with Paul Davies when he says that belief in TMU, which flies completely opposite to everything that scientific materialists claim to uphold, is a sign that atheists are getting desperate, and are flailing around for anything that will rescue them from the conclusion that the universe was designed by an intelligent being.
But before I shut the book on that issue, I’ll give the teeming millions a chance to change my mind. Anyone care to comment? Diogenes the Cynic, you’ve asserted that all of Dawkins’ science is “untouchable”. Would you care to justify this part of it?
