# Multiple universes don't refute intelligent design **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 10, 2008, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100 "2008-11-10T20:45:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Phlosphr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c68b51/32.png) [@Phlosphr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phlosphr)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/61 "2008-11-12T22:24:35Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Yes, that pretty much sums it up. Has nobody around here done any reading about Hinduism or Buddhism? There’s more than two possible solutions here, you know. I was hoping someone would bring it up sooner or later. There is the whole idea of spirituality, and I don’t mean the dead white guy on a cross. I’m talking about a sense that there is something else, something transpersonal about our world. The buddhist idea of bodhicitta or the wish to achieve complete enlightenment. So much could be written. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/62 "2008-11-12T22:32:06Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > So to sum up. You are trying to refute one unprovable half baked hypothesis with another unprovable half baked hypothesis? More like trying to replace an unproven but plausible hypothesis with a wild guess. The existence of many universes doesn’t violate known physical laws in any way - God, as described by the vast majority of believers does. We know for a fact universes are possible; we have no reason to think God is. Multiple universes are an explanation created by highly educated people who have a lot of knowledge of how the world works; God is the assertion of a bunch of primitives who were almost utterly ignorant about the world. Science has a record of success in understanding the world; religion a record of failure. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/63 "2008-11-12T22:59:45Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Look, this argument has been made ad nauseum, but it isn’t a respectable argument for reasons that many people have set forward. We are here, in this universe. We have eyes, ears, and other sense organs to study the universe. We have brains to think with and make conclusions. If we make a reasonable conclusion that the universe has many physical constants, each set exactly where they need to be for us to appear, then that demands an explanation. Simply saying that it had to be that way because we wouldn’t be here asking the question otherwise is not an adequate explanation. As best we can tell, we’re in the only universe. As best we can tell, the universe is fine-tuned for our existence. Your argument is a philosophical dodge, a refusal to tackle the question. And yours is an exceptionally hasty conclusion. We simply do not have enough data points to be able to draw the conclusion you suggest. By the way, I think you’re mischaracterising my point anyway. I’m not saying the universe _had_ to be any particular way. It is what it is, and that happens to make it possible for us to exist. > [@](#): > > Consider this. Suppose one guy buys a single lottery ticket in every state with a lottery, and happens to win them all. A panel of experts is convened to explain why this happened. Ten days later, the experts come back and declare, “We would only have been convened to discuss this question in a universe where conditions were suitable for that guy winning all the lotteries.” Satisfactory? Of course not. > > One guy winning all the lotteries flies against everything we know about probability. So does one universe winning all the necessary physical constants. The first, if it ever happened, would demand a meaningful explanation. The second, which happened, also does. I read this analogy several times and I have no idea what it means in relation to the topic. What is the relevance of the multiple wins? I think a better one would be to marvel at the astonishing coincidence that the person turning up to collect the lottery winnings _just happens_ to be the _very same guy_ who guessed all the numbers correctly - when one is in fact a consequence of the other. ---
**Author:** ![dehacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbe5ce/32.png) [@dehacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dehacker)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/64 "2008-11-12T23:28:22Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > As best we can tell, the universe is fine-tuned for our existence. You keep repeating this as if it were obviously true, yet you have no evidence to back it up. In fact, you base your entire argument on this premise. However, actual astrophysicists like [Fred Adams](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Adams) and [Victor J. Stenger](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_J._Stenger) disagree, having performed the requisite calculations instead of simply taking your word for it. Adams’ results are [due to be published](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926673.900) in the _Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics_. You can review Stenger’s work [here](http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Cosmo/MonkeyGod.pdf), entitled appropriately enough **MonkeyGod**. The data from these scientists show that the known universe could have taken many different values for the universal constants and still support life. Nevertheless, let’s ignore all that, as you assuredly have done. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the universal constants are tightly constrained. What then? How do you address the fact that some 99.999% of the known universe is directly hostile to our existence? Take a stroll on the surface of the moon or the sun for a few minutes, or even take a few steps outside the [International Space Station](http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/index.html) if you think the universe is so benign and comfortable. Even most of our own planet presents difficult living conditions, and we certainly wouldn’t survive in the ocean for long, which comprises a great deal more of planet than the fraction we inhabit. Volcanoes? Tornados? Hurricanes? Earthquakes? Tsunamis? Personally, I could use a little more “fine-tuning” if my existence is a concern. But let’s forget all that too. What of this so-called “intelligent” design? What type of intelligence would design the [Guinea worm](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracunculiasis), [Plasmodium parasites](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaria), [Filarial worms](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephantiasis), [Ascaris worms](http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science//item/top_ten_grim_parasites_ascaris), and [Candiru](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candiru)? Of course, I could go on endlessly with examples such as these, but I hope you get the point. Would you call this type of design “intelligent”, or “fine-tuned for our existence”? Seems more like malevolent design, or at the very least, indifferent to my survival. I won’t even get into any examples of [suboptimal design](http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm), because at this point if you still believe in intelligent design, then I have to conclude it is an article of faith, not science. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/65 "2008-11-12T23:40:43Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > As best we can tell, the universe is fine-tuned for our existence. Let’s think about this for a minute. Most of the universe is a freezing void. Where it’s not a freezing void, it’s a giant ball of fire so hot it can break down atoms. Where it’s not a freezing void or a giant ball of fire, it’s a chunk of rock bathed in toxic gases. Where it’s not a freezing void, or a giant ball of fire, or a chunk of rock bathed in toxic gases, it’s a chunk of rock entirely devoid of any gas at all. Where it’s not a freezing void, or a giant ball of fire, or a chunk of rock with either way too much or not nearly enough gas, you’ve got a place that’s capable of supporting life. So far as we can tell, there’s precisely one such place in the entire universe, and we happen to be standing on it. Seems to me that the universe needs a _lot_ more tuning. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/66 "2008-11-13T00:11:15Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Consider this. Suppose one guy buys a single lottery ticket in every state with a lottery, and happens to win them all. A panel of experts is convened to explain why this happened. Ten days later, the experts come back and declare, “We would only have been convened to discuss this question in a universe where conditions were suitable for that guy winning all the lotteries.” Satisfactory? Of course not. > > One guy winning all the lotteries flies against everything we know about probability. So does one universe winning all the necessary physical constants. The first, if it ever happened, would demand a meaningful explanation. The second, which happened, also does. You have no idea what the probability of a created universe supporting life is.. Perhaps **dehacker** ’s cite (Thanks!) will show the odds are more like getting a free ticket in all 50 states. You also don’t know how many chances there have been to come up with a universe that supports life. The metaverse is timeless, so there might have been an uncountable number of universes formed before we got to ours. It’s like the odds when that guy has been buying 50 tickets a day for a trillion years. The point of the anthropic hypothesis is that no one would ever notice the “failed” universes, since no one is around in them. Life sees a universe suited for itself by definition. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/67 "2008-11-13T00:25:41Z")
I think this argument, boiled down, consists of: -If intelligent design were true, things would be the way they are now -Things _are_ they way they are. -Therefore intelligent design. If multiple universes don’t refute intelligent design (and I agree they don’t, necessarily), _what would_? What, if anything, could we ever hypothetically discover that _would_ refute ID? ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/68 "2008-11-13T00:49:53Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > If multiple universes don’t refute intelligent design (and I agree they don’t, necessarily), _what would_? What, if anything, could we ever hypothetically discover that _would_ refute ID? A hidden message encoded directly into the mathematical structure of the universe that, when discovered and translated, simply says: “Duh.” ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/69 "2008-11-13T00:54:58Z")
> [@Terrifel](#): > > A hidden message encoded directly into the mathematical structure of the universe that, when discovered and translated, simply says: “Duh.” [http://pi.nersc.gov/cgi-bin/pi.cgi?word=duh&format=char](http://pi.nersc.gov/cgi-bin/pi.cgi?word=duh&format=char) ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/70 "2008-11-13T00:56:55Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > [http://pi.nersc.gov/cgi-bin/pi.cgi?word=duh&format=char](http://pi.nersc.gov/cgi-bin/pi.cgi?word=duh&format=char) Well! There we are, then. Explains a lot, doesn’t it? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/71 "2008-11-13T00:56:59Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Look, this argument has been made ad nauseum, but it isn’t a respectable argument for reasons that many people have set forward. We are here, in this universe. We have eyes, ears, and other sense organs to study the universe. We have brains to think with and make conclusions. If we make a reasonable conclusion that the universe has many physical constants, each set exactly where they need to be for us to appear, then that demands an explanation. Simply saying that it had to be that way because we wouldn’t be here asking the question otherwise is not an adequate explanation. As best we can tell, we’re in the only universe. As best we can tell, the universe is fine-tuned for our existence. Your argument is a philosophical dodge, a refusal to tackle the question. You have it completely backwards. We are tuned to the universe. The universe is not tuned to us. This is how Douglas Adams once addressed the fallcy you’re espousing: > [@](#): > > . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for. > [@](#): > > Consider this. Suppose one guy buys a single lottery ticket in every state with a lottery, and happens to win them all. A panel of experts is convened to explain why this happened. Ten days later, the experts come back and declare, “We would only have been convened to discuss this question in a universe where conditions were suitable for that guy winning all the lotteries.” Satisfactory? Of course not. > > One guy winning all the lotteries flies against everything we know about probability. So does one universe winning all the necessary physical constants. The first, if it ever happened, would demand a meaningful explanation. The second, which happened, also does. This is a bogus analogy. The universe didn’t win any lotteries. It is not a staggering coincidence that the universe suits our existence. We followed the universe. It didn’t follow us. The universe is the hole and we are the puddle. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/72 "2008-11-13T00:59:53Z")
I question the assumption that physical constants were set due to luck or probability. The constants are well constant, immutable. There’s only 1 possible value for each. Planck’s constant is what it is because of all the physical, chemical and electrical forces that affect photons, not from a roll of the dice that happened to go our way, and could have just as easily been different. I could come up with a million impossible ways the world could have been destroyed yesterday, but that doesn’t mean that we hit a one in a million shot to live through yesterday. ---
**Author:** ![dehacker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/bbe5ce/32.png) [@dehacker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dehacker)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/73 "2008-11-13T01:11:07Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > What, if anything, could we ever hypothetically discover that _would_ refute ID? I think this is the point, isn’t it? ID cannot be refuted, because it isn’t a scientific theory and therefore doesn’t make predictions that can be falsified. Instead, it is an [ad hoc hypothesis](http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html), where any data is made to fit the hypothesis with statements such as “God’s will”. Oops, I meant “The Intelligent Designer’s will”, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/74 "2008-11-13T01:13:34Z")
> [@Terrifel](#): > > Well! There we are, then. > > Explains a lot, doesn’t it? [http://pi.nersc.gov/cgi-bin/pi.cgi?word=fnord&format=char](http://pi.nersc.gov/cgi-bin/pi.cgi?word=fnord&format=char) ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/75 "2008-11-13T01:27:36Z")
> [@dehacker](#): > > I think this is the point, isn’t it? ID cannot be refuted, because it isn’t a scientific theory and therefore doesn’t make predictions that can be falsified. Instead, it is an [ad hoc hypothesis](http://skepdic.com/adhoc.html), where any data is made to fit the hypothesis with statements such as “God’s will”. > > Oops, I meant “The Intelligent Designer’s will”, of course. Actually, I think the ID hypothesis has migrated from statements that could be falsified (and have been) to claims that are identical to those made when ID isn’t assumed. It’s gone from an actually hypothesis to wishful thinking. The pathetic part is that it got falsified nearly two centuries ago. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/76 "2008-11-13T02:12:52Z")
> [@Taber](#): > > I question the assumption that physical constants were set due to luck or probability. The constants are well constant, immutable. There’s only 1 possible value for each. There’s no reason to believe that, and it does beg the question of why the “sole possible” universe just happens to be a universe with life and not, say, a six dimensional field of plasma that lasts thirty seconds and collapses into a black hole. Many universes, with varying physical laws solves that. And multiple universes seems to me more plausible than one; why would a natural process that could make one universe stop with just the one ? Besides chance and intelligent design by the way, a form of evolution has also been proposed to explain some of any “fine tuning”. According to some theories, new universes bud off from old ones. If one assumes that the new universe’s laws are not completely random, but at least somewhat related to the parent universe, evolution of a sort can occur. Bigger universes would spawn more than small universes, and so on. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/77 "2008-11-13T02:17:48Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > The existence of many universes doesn’t violate known physical laws in any way - God, as described by the vast majority of believers does. We know for a fact universes are possible; we have no reason to think God is. Multiple universes are an explanation created by highly educated people who have a lot of knowledge of how the world works; God is the assertion of a bunch of primitives who were almost utterly ignorant about the world. Science has a record of success in understanding the world; religion a record of failure. Technically we don’t “know” that they are possible. We think they may be possible, however, we aren’t sure if they are just interest artifacts of some complex physics equation. Kind of like inputing negative mass into E=mc^2. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/78 "2008-11-13T02:45:36Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Technically we don’t “know” that they are possible. We think they may be possible, however, we aren’t sure if they are just interest artifacts of some complex physics equation. Kind of like inputing negative mass into E=mc^2. We know universes are possible because we live in one. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/79 "2008-11-13T09:23:30Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Since the universe had a beginning, there must be some cause for its beginning. Nothing begins without a cause for its beginning. This is just not true and has been shown to you to be not true before, with examples. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/80 "2008-11-13T09:33:43Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > If we make a reasonable conclusion that the universe has many physical constants, each set exactly where they need to be for us to appear, then that demands an explanation. Again : This is not a reasonable conclusion. You are arguing by assertion here. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > As best we can tell, the universe is fine-tuned for our existence. Again : Prove it. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Your argument is a philosophical dodge, a refusal to tackle the question. No, it is saying that the question is a stupid one to ask, it is tautological. A circle. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > One guy winning all the lotteries flies against everything we know about probability. No, it doesn’t. It is highly improbable, but no impossible. But anyway, it is not an analagous situation. There are lots of lotteries (so a sum of probabilities). There is only one Universe accessible to us. So only 1 roll of the cosmic dice. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > So does one universe winning all the necessary physical constants. _Only_ if you assume the conclusion (us) is the point. And that constants are all independent variables, rather than tied togeher on some fundamental level. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100.md?page=5)