From: Iain Strachan (iain.strachan.asa@ntlworld.com)
Date: Wed Jul 09 2003 - 18:54:12 EDT
Richard wrote:
> There is another aspect to consider. Atheists use the many-universes
> theory to defeat fine-tuning arguments. If every possible
> configuration is not merely possible but necessary, then there is no
> need to account for the fine-tuning of our universe that allows for
> life to exist. Indeed, there is no need to account for anything at
> all since everything is guaranteed to be found somewhere in one of
> the many universes. It seems to be an atheist philosophers cosmic
> dream that would greatly aid them in their attempt to diminish God to
> absolutely nothing.
>
Jumping late in on this interesting thread (my physics is a bit rusty to
comment in detail), it seems to me that the MWI not only diminishes God, but
also science as well. One should take note how easily it sidesteps the
entire evolution/creation/ID debate. So what if natural selection isn't a
powerful enough process to design us? Mutations are (ultimately) down to
quantum events that have many possible outcomes. If we stick to one
universe, then the theories we have ought to be a model of the most probable
of all possible worlds. But if every single alternative universe exists
that arose from every single possible outcome of every quantum event that
ever occurred, then it doesn't matter if life is vanishingly unlikely to
have occurred. Because the right sequence of mutations must have occurred
in some universe for life to assemble itself without the aid of Natural
Selection. In one of the many sets of outcomes of quantum events, a complex
and highly specific protein for performing some useful function can
accumulate over a vast number of mutation events, without any gradual
advantage until the end. The "irreducibly complex" object can and will
assemble itself because all possible outcomes happen in some universe.
Therefore it might well have happened in ours because (anthropic principle),
we are here asking the question. So we don't need to evoke Natural
Selection as the designer; we could simply appeal to the
Many-Worlds-Interpretation-Of-The-Gaps.
That may be a silly argument to appeal to the MWI to explain the complexity
of life issue, but I think it's no different than evoking multiverses to
explain away the fine tuning. What we are saying is that we are born in one
of the _less_ probable universes; the one in the tails of the distribution
of the parameters, instead of in the middle where nothing interesting
happens. But I think most scientists would prefer an elegant explanation
rather than appealing to a fluke.
But I may be wrong here. What do others think? Maybe you feel it's a great
privilege being in an incredibly unlikely universe? But then you wouldn't
"be" at all in a very likely one.
Iain.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Jul 09 2003 - 18:54:33 EDT