# 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:** 5
**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, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/81 "2008-11-13T10:50:32Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Hey, it’s an improvement. At least in this thread he isn’t accusing Darwin of being a pedophile or whatever. Link? ---
**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, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/82 "2008-11-13T13:09:05Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Link? Probably a reference to [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=479449) thread, where he calls Darwin a racist and eugenicist. Typical of the creationists; they can’t make themselves believe that other people really base their beliefs on facts instead of dogma from self appointed prophets and messiahs, so they try to disparage Darwin as if the truth of evolution depended on his character. They do the same with Dawkins too, I’ve noticed; as if he was some sort of religious prophet; they argue against him, not what he’s saying more often than not. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/83 "2008-11-13T14:58:34Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > We know universes are possible because we live in one. No. We only know that this one is possible. TMU is no less an imaginary construct than the concept of a personal godhead. Just as religionists attribute the qualities of natural beings to supernatural beings, albeit in greatly exaggerated form, your imaginary universes either have some of the qualities of our universe greatly exaggerated, or they are more or less like ours. There is, however, no reason to propose their existence except to rationalize materialism. TMU is no less metaphysically extravagant than the concept of a creator god. It may make an amusing premise for a science fiction novel, but I am unable to take it seriously as either philosophy or science. ---
**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, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/84 "2008-11-13T15:14:11Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > No. We only know that this one is possible. TMU is no less an imaginary construct than the concept of a personal godhead. Just as religionists attribute the qualities of natural beings to supernatural beings, albeit in greatly exaggerated form, your imaginary universes either have some of the qualities of our universe greatly exaggerated, or they are more or less like ours. There is, however, no reason to propose their existence except to rationalize materialism. TMU is no less metaphysically extravagant than the concept of a creator god. It may make an amusing premise for a science fiction novel, but I am unable to take it seriously as either philosophy or science. Oh, garbage; God and other universe aren’t even close. Physical law allows for other universes; not gods. We know that at least one exists; we have no evidence for God. We know that universes are possible; we don’t know that about God. Multiple universes are a rational extrapolation of what we know, and a rational explanation for the world we see; God is pulled out of humanity’s collective ass and explains nothing. And so on. You are, as believers often like to do, trying to drag science down to the level of religion; to pretend that it’s no better than the pile of utter nonsense called religion. Well, like it or not, they aren’t remotely equal. Science is the best method ever created for understanding the world; religion the worst. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/85 "2008-11-13T15:28:03Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Oh, garbage; God and other universe aren’t even close. Physical law allows for other universes; not gods. We know that at least one exists; we have no evidence for God. We know that universes are possible; we don’t know that about God. Multiple universes are a rational extrapolation of what we know, and a rational explanation for the world we see; God is pulled out of humanity’s collective ass and explains nothing. And so on. > > You are, as believers often like to do, trying to drag science down to the level of religion; to pretend that it’s no better than the pile of utter nonsense called religion. Well, like it or not, they aren’t remotely equal. Science is the best method ever created for understanding the world; religion the worst. Ptooey. TMU isn’t science, it’s metaphysics, and I’m not trying to “drag science down the level of religion.” I’m merely pointing out that your theory is metaphysical, not scientific, and isn’t inherently more plausible than the concept of a creator god. TMU _isn’t science_. Try to keep that in mind the next time you post. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/86 "2008-11-13T15:32:01Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Probably a reference to [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=479449) thread, where he calls Darwin a racist and eugenicist. \<…\> They do the same with Dawkins too, I’ve noticed; as if he was some sort of religious prophet; they argue against him, not what he’s saying more often than not. Yes, that thread, along with [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=488228), where he makes a laughable argument intimating that Dawkins is some sort of racist liar (with the clear intent of using that foundation to reach for some larger conclusion, except that he can’t get any traction on the initial assertion), in which I said [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10327272&postcount=23): > [@me](#): > > I am regularly amused by the efforts of religious people to engage in attempts at character assassination against scientific figures. The qualities of one’s individual character have no meaningful connection to the objective merits of one’s arguments, and the persistent attempts to link the two betray a total failure to grasp the basis of the scientific method. Rather, the mindset here appears to be a desire to destroy the prophet, in order that his prophecies will be similarly destroyed. This thread is merely an improved form of nonsense. ---
**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, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/87 "2008-11-13T15:43:00Z")
The Multiple Universe hypothesis is physics, not metaphysics, and it’s quite a bit more plausible than a magical creator (a hypothesis which only regresses the question anyway). ---
**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, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/88 "2008-11-13T15:50:30Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Yes, that thread, along with [this one](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=488228), where he makes a laughable argument intimating that Dawkins is some sort of racist liar (with the clear intent of using that foundation to reach for some larger conclusion, except that he can’t get any traction on the initial assertion), in which I said [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10327272&postcount=23):This thread is merely an improved form of nonsense. I think it’s because they can only think in terms of authority. All religious doctrine stems from authority (from sacred writings, from prophets, from clerical institutions), and so they think science is the same way. An astonishing percentage of people think that evolution is accepted only on Darwin’s say-so, therefore they think if they can turn Darwin into a racist, they will have disproven evolution. Usually these people have never had the slightest introduction to scientific method and honestly don’t understand what it is or how it works. They think it’s all about taking people’s word for things, because that’s how religion works and judging the authority of the speaker is the only way they’ve ever been taught to process information. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/89 "2008-11-13T15:53:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The Multiple Universe hypothesis is physics, not metaphysics, and it’s quite a bit more plausible than a magical creator (a hypothesis which only regresses the question anyway). Oh, well, we can all stop thinking now. Diogenes has spoken _ex cathedra_. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/90 "2008-11-13T15:57:09Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > This thread is merely an improved form of nonsense. I’m afraid that I do not see the improvement. This argument is a fancier and more complex version of the story of a puddle gaining sentience and deciding that it had to have been deliberately created because the ground on which it sits is perfectly formed to support it in all the various shapes of its bottom. It may be possible in some contorted fashion to assert that TMU does not “refute” Intelligent Design, but the whole point is irrelevant to anything. TMU is a philosophical speculation regarding cosmology based on games (in the good sense) played with a knowledge of physics. Intelligent Design is simply non-science spoken in pseudoscientific terms that makes an attempt to ignore the reality of biological evolution. It is rather like pointing to the concept of Faster Than Light travel and claiming that it proves we cannot dismiss Static Gravity\* over aerodynamics as an explanation of flight. - Static Gravity as used in an article in _Omni Magazine_ in the early 1980s. ---
**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, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/91 "2008-11-13T16:12:59Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Ptooey. TMU isn’t science, it’s metaphysics, and I’m not trying to “drag science down the level of religion.” I’m merely pointing out that your theory is metaphysical, not scientific, and isn’t inherently more plausible than the concept of a creator god. > > TMU _isn’t science_. Try to keep that in mind the next time you post. As **Diogenes the Cynic** said, yes it’s science, and yes it’s far superior to superstitious myths. Metaphysics has nothing to do with it. And just about anything is more plausible than God; God is the bottom of the intellectual barrel. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/92 "2008-11-13T16:19:09Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As **Diogenes the Cynic** said, yes it’s science, and yes it’s far superior to superstitious myths. Metaphysics has nothing to do with it. > > And just about anything is more plausible than God; God is the bottom of the intellectual barrel. Say what you please, Der, TMU is the atheist’s equivalent of “turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down.” ---
**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, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/93 "2008-11-13T16:29:02Z")
No it isn’t. It’s not even necessarily atheist. It’s also not a dogmatic belief. It’s a hypothesis. Nobody is married to it. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/94 "2008-11-13T16:31:00Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I’m afraid that I do not see the improvement. > > This argument is a fancier and more complex version of the story of a puddle gaining sentience and deciding that it had to have been deliberately created because the ground on which it sits is perfectly formed to support it in all the various shapes of its bottom. It is an improvement in that he is not accusing the puddle of being a sex-offending jaywalker, or something. Not an improvement in terms of thoughtful argumentation, I grant, but an improvement in terms of civility. ---
**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, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/95 "2008-11-13T16:37:15Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Say what you please, Der, TMU is the atheist’s equivalent of “turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down.” Since the Flat Earther in question couldn’t provide any evidence that there was even ONE world supporting turtle, no it’s not. Nor was there any rational or factual reasons to believe there was, or that one was possible, or that anything about the Flat Earth idea was true. In fact, there aren’t any similarities at all. ---
**Author:** ![Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/half_man_half_wit/32/21766_2.png) [@Half\_Man\_Half\_Wit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Half_Man_Half_Wit)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/96 "2008-11-13T16:44:21Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > Ptooey. TMU isn’t science, it’s metaphysics, and I’m not trying to “drag science down the level of religion.” I’m merely pointing out that your theory is metaphysical, not scientific, and isn’t inherently more plausible than the concept of a creator god. > > TMU _isn’t science_. Try to keep that in mind the next time you post. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is very much a scientific hypothesis – as I’ve pointed out earlier, the probabilistic structure of quantum physics is evidence for it, as it is what would be naturally expected if there indeed were parallel universes, which is quite a feat as it reconciles the non-deterministic collapse of the wave function with the determinism of physical laws, and solves the observer problem; and while it seems a bit wasteful to have all those universes, in theoretical terms, it is more frugal than for instance the Copenhagen interpretation, since the latter contains the probabilistic collapse of the wave-function as an axiom, which is of course unnecessary in a many-worlds approach. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/97 "2008-11-13T16:51:28Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Since the Flat Earther in question couldn’t provide any evidence that there was even ONE world supporting turtle, no it’s not. Nor was there any rational or factual reasons to believe there was, or that one was possible, or that anything about the Flat Earth idea was true. > > In fact, there aren’t any similarities at all. On the contrary, they are quite similar. You propose one fantastic claim as a refutation of another fantastic claim. ---
**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, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/98 "2008-11-13T21:18:03Z")
There’s nothing fantastic about it. It’s a theory, with at least some proof for some of its claims, unlike the opposing one. Just because _you_ don’t understand it, doesn’t make it fantastic. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/99 "2008-11-13T21:55:10Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Yeah, i’d tend to agree with the idea that we are fine-tuned in order to exist. The universe’s physicality means that we can exist; in a different physicality, we might not. But that does not mean there could be nothing in existence, nor indeed intelligent life; it just wouldn’t be like us in form and composition. The life forms that would exist in a different physicality are, at this moment, just as purely hypothetical as all but one of the supposedly infinite universes. Obviously we cannot make absolutely conclusive statements about life being impossible in _all_ different physicalities, but we can investigate the question to a certain extent. [Here is one article that attempts to do so](http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/finetuning.pdf), and there are also many books that have plunged into the issue at length. We can reasonably surmise that for a life form, there need to be atoms that are quite stable. Of all atoms radioactively decayed back to hydrogen at a rapid rate, there would be no chance for life. We can reasonably surmise that some amount of heavy elements are necessary for life. We can reasonably surmise that a certain temperature range is necessary for life, since stable, solid structures are only possible below the melting points of the substances involved. We can reasonably surmise that it takes a decently long time for complex life to evolve. If stars burned up their fuel too fast, it would never happen. And if stars never even started to burn, life would not happen. And if clouds of hydrogen never pulled together under gravity to form stars it would never happen. In fact, there are other issues never even mentioned in Bai’s article that are relevant as well. Consider the very nature of the big bang and the “inflationary period”. A slight tweaking of the variables in one direction would have meant that the early universe collapses inward on itself within a fraction of a second. In the other direction, it would have made matter spread out too much, and galaxies would never have formed. etc… The bottom line is that waving your hand and saying that _some_ life would pop up in any other set of physical rules is simply not an adequate response answer. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2008, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/100 "2008-11-13T21:59:31Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Hey, it’s an improvement. At least in this thread he isn’t accusing Darwin of being a pedophile or whatever. I have not done such a thing in any thread, so you’re obviously confusing we with somebody else. But don’t worry; I’m not offended, and I’ll wait patiently for you to apologize. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100.md?page=6)