Behe's response to Many Universes Hypothesis
by BilboWell, darn. Nobody's posted anything new for two days, so this would be a good time for a new post, but I don't have Behe's book with me. So I'll have to wing this one from memory, and give the references later.
Near the end of his book, The Edge of Evolution, Michael Behe responds to both the Many Universes Hypothesis, and the Infinite Universes Hypothesis. We should keep them separate, since his response to each is different. In this post, let's focus on the Many (but finite) Universes Hypothesis.
In this scenario, there are a large number of universes, so even if the probability of a non-teleological cause for the origin of life and of intelligent life is very small, the fact that there are many universes makes it probable that it has happened at least once, and of course we are in that universe.
Behe's response is that even if there are many universes, we should expect to be in one of the universes where only those biological features necessary for intelligence to arise have occurred. Given his argument that complex biological features of more than two-binding sites is too improbable to occur by non-teleological means, finding ourselves in a universe where there are many such features that do not appear necessay for intelligent life should still be surprising, even if there are many universes.
In other words, say there are 10<1,000> universes. Let's say that there are a billion "winners," or universes with intelligent life. Most of those, argues Behe, should be universes where only the bare minimum number of complex biological features were necessary for intelligence to arise. And we should expect to be in one of those. Finding that we aren't in one of those — and he argues that we aren't — should make us wonder why we didn't just win, but why we won the grand prize.
I'm not sure I buy the argument, but it's interesting. I'll try to have the page references and passages next time.
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Hi Bilbo,
Here is something I think might help inform this discussion that I think is close to being unbiased.
I think there are two concepts that have similar names. Multiverse and Many Worlds.
Here is what I think of as "Multiverse" from a Stephen Hawking speech…
This is different from the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics which has more universes (infinities of infinities) and are constantly being produced (not just at the Big Bang). From Wikipedia…
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 2, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
Here's where the Thomist Cosmological argument carries more punch than the Kalam.
In this scenario - a huge finite number of universes or an infinite number of universes - you still could focus on the contingency of these universes. It doesn't appear that any of them are necessary. Factors or supreme laws (that governs the random formation of all of these universes) could have yielded other products. So the products (the vast array of universes) are ultimately contigent - in need of something necessary to explain their existence (regardless of how far removed in a chain of contigencies).
Comment by Doug — August 2, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Doug, I think a cosmological argument can be re-cast as an abductive inference to a best explanation.
If some impersonal universe-creating thing"”"”—something that doesn't possess a free and rational will"”"”—has always existed, or exists eternally or timlessly (like a timeless computer program, or timeless mathematical structure, or some universal quantum law or field ,or simply some universe-generating mechanism"”"“—we don't know what), then either universes should have always existed, or this universe should have always existed. But there is no scientific evidence for either proposition. Au contraire, as they say in the cafes of Paris. So that's one problem.
It would not be 'up to' any impersonal, non-mindlike universe-generating thing whether to generate universes. Its generation of universes follows impersonally from its nature as a universe-generator. It necessarily generates a universe, or multiple universes. And it always does what its nature dictates because it always has the nature that it has (whatever that nature is). And the universe-generator has always"“"”-for an infinite past duration–"“"”had its nature.
By contrast, if some free rational mind capable of universe-creation has always existed, then there's no necessity that there be a universe at all, since whether there is or not depends on that mind's free choice. And if that mind does choose to create a universe at all, there'd be no reason that such a universe would have to have (though it could have) an infinite past. Such a created universe could easily have a beginning along with time itself. And this is what, in fact, we actually observe to be the case scientifically with regard to our universe. (We know of no others, though there could be others.)
Now, an alternative might be that either this universe, or a universe-generator, simply popped into existence, with its laws and constants and initial conditions, all of which are fine-tuned for life at least in this universe, out of absolute nothingness, or what I sometimes refer to as the Acme of Ontological Zilchness. But how plausible and how probable is that?
Even if one asserted such a thing, there would no possible scientific evidence for it, since there logically cannot be a science that's about absolute nothingness. And one shouldn't not confuse quantum vacua or other fields with absolute nothingness. Such vacua and/or fields are not 'nothings' but very much 'somethings'"“"“namely, fields or structures that are governed either by quantum mechanical laws, or whatever laws the ultimate physical theory or ToE may specify.
And it's evident that we can quickly go from one universe-generator to a universe-generator-Generator to a universe-generator-Generator-GENERATOR et cetera ad infinitum ad nauseamque. But it won't matter. If there's always been such a thing, or such a series, it should always have been GENERATING universe-generator-Generators… etc.
I suggest, then, that theism is a better cosmological explanation than naturalism for the following reasons:
1) It fits better with the observational data pointing to a finite past for this universe.
2) It fits better with observational data pointing to the universe's uniqueness. We know of no others.
3) It fits better with the appearance of the universe's logical/metaphysical contingency, which is your Thomist point.
4) It terminates the explanatory regress with the fewest number of universes and/or universe-generating mechanisms, so it's relatively parsimonious ontologically speaking.
5) It doesn't postulate an implausible transition from an Acme of Ontological Zilchness to a universe, since there never is any such Acme, given God's eternal and necessary existence.
This alone makes the theistic hypothesis more probable, but when you add the fine-tuning data and the existence of rationally, morally, aesthetically and religiously aware minds in this universe, theism seems obviously superior as a cosmological explanation. I may comment on Behe's take more directly later. Or I may not.
Comment by stunney — August 2, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Personally, I've always viewed the multiverse theory the same as I would view someone telling me "˜it's turtles all the way down'.
Comment by Good ID — August 2, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Stunny:
This is a point that many non theists often gloss over, as if there is no need to explain the apparent impossibility of infinite regresses. That this argument is the most parsimonious begs for attention from those who think that multiverse or infinite universe explanations help us out any with the "big question."
Why is it that the idea of a creator is something that people run from as if it is some monster in a Monty Python flick - "theism - hmmm…….RUN AWAY!!!!" Why, when it is the simplest explanation? It boggles the mind what alternatives their desperations invent.
Doug stated that the Thomist cosmological argument carries more punch than the Kalam. Not certain why. Any elaboration?
Doug:
It's that infinite regress problem again. The Kalam (KCA) explains this as well.
William L. Craig explains it as the impossibility to traverse an actual infinite. This argument sets the limits for even a multiverse explanation. If there are an infinite number of universes, or even a multiverse, the one universe we now live in would not itself have come into being. Time dictates that universes - no matter how many, are finite.
Stunny could go much further in his argument for a designer from a metaphysical / philosophical standpoint. But we are not going to persuade non theists. Philosophy and metaphysics take a back seat to "raw science."
Regarding Behe's book, which I have not yet read; all of these questions from metaphysics relate to his idea of an edge to evolution. In the same way there is an edge to materialistic explanations for just about anything.
Comment by Randy — August 2, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Hi all,
Ok, let's say you manage to defy the Oracle of Delphi and you know the Truth (capital "T"). Multiverse is wrong, an omnicient, omnipresent God created everything.
Now what?
Of course Gould's NOMA goes out the window which means God is subject to scientific inquiry.
How did God do it?
Did God work via quantum effects?
Does God continue to work via quantum effects?
Believing in something that happens to be true isn't knowledge.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 2, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Hi TP,
If God exists, and I believe that he does, He is transcendent. What can be known about Him can only be through revelation: what He desires us to know. How He did it is not as important as that He did do it. Can we know that He did it? Not by science alone, but metaphysically, scientifically, philosophically, etc.. if we exhaust all of the questions, we keep coming back to the logic of His existence, without really knowing the details of how and why. Stunny has some excellent arguments in this regard.
God is not really subject to scientific inquiry, since He is not material, so any scientific inquiry into God is meaningless. However, perhaps our science does not go far enough into God's existence. It is His creation that is subject to scientific inquiry. The creation as evidence for design is an area of God's revelation. God Himself, however, transcends the creation; since He is the uncaused cause of everything that exists.
Once we get beyond the idea that our scientific curiosity is going to answer all of these questions, we have to throw NOMA out the window. You are right about that. If God dunnit, then we will find out the details along the fringes of our own curiosity. Faith is another area that we have to be willing to invest our time. Faith has reasons of its own as well. But many people view faith as a science-rejecting leap in the dark. It's really not that way. Faith is believing that which is not seen, but has evidences that transcend our materialistic modes of inquiry. It does so because God transcends everything. Such a God is as the scriptures state, "past finding out." This does not mean that there is not a logical mode of inquiry that leads to knowledge of and belief in God. It's just that materialistic modes are not enough, because such a God is not of a material substance. However, If such a God exists, He has revealed Himself somewhere and somehow, within His material creation. This is why NOMA doesn't really work if such a God exists. NOMA is simply to say, "God doesn't exist, and if some want to believe that He does, His existence cannot have any scientific significance." It's really a materialistic cop-out.
Did God work via quantum effects? I don't know that for certain. It seems plausible.
Comment by Randy — August 2, 2007 @ 9:39 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Start Twilight Zone Music: Picture if you will what some believe to be a mindless universe - or even a "˜multiverse"˜. Within one universe "˜consciousness' forms and somehow realizes the amount of time it would take for this consciousness to ultimately form from mindlessness. Some believe it is not possible for consciousness to ultimately come from mindlessness while others use a recent scientific method they obtained via consciousness to prove their consciousness "˜must' ultimately come from mindlessness and the fortuitous law of "˜nature' they have discovered.
We now enter the debate"¦ Start Twilight Zone Music fade out
Comment by Good ID — August 2, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:48 pm
Stunny:
Chuckle
Comment by Randy — August 2, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
Good ID:
Exactly. Consciousness has to be a part of what is eternally existent in the mind of God.
Comment by Randy — August 2, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Hi Randy,
This is the part I have trouble with.
Believing in something that happens to be true isn't knowledge.
I think for myself. Truth can't be an external "revelation", I need to understand it. I need to know it myself.
Why? So we can strengthen a presumed Truth? So we will quit questioning it?
I mean this Yeshua Ben Yosef fellow seems like he was a nice guy and all. And I am impressed by how Shaul (Paul) combined the teachings of the Greek philosophers with Jewish tradition to launch a rather long-lasting social meme. However, neither are so impressive that I feel compelled to worship them.
If the Ultimate Engineer wishes me to know he or she exists, I will know it. Even then my reaction would be more of a "that's interesting" as opposed to groveling in humility.
Until such time, I will focus on being impressed by, and increase my knowledge of, the Ultimate Invention though scientific inquiry.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 2, 2007 @ 10:25 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
TP,
So what you are saying is that even if such a God exists, you will not believe in Him, because you cannot allow anything to transcend your idea of truth? That seems irrational to me. If such a God reveals Himself as His chosen mode of having us know Him, then why would you have such an objection? Simply because you want to know Him by your own inquiry? What if such a God is not really interested in your inquiry of Him, because He sees it as a rejection of what He has already revealed in the exquisite design of His creation?
Just curious.
Comment by Randy — August 2, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Interesting"¦ How will "˜you' know "˜it'"¦ What would make 'you know it'"¦ Furthermore, I find it interesting how you already know what your reaction would be to the "˜Ultimate Engineer"˜ after discovering "˜it"˜. Even as an atheist, I was never so bold.
Comment by Good ID — August 2, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Hi Randy,
If God exists it doesn't matter whether or not I believe in him or her. There is no reason to make a commitment one way or the other. I believe in many philosophical Truths, including the existence of an Ultimate Engineer. But since I also embrace NOMA, my beliefs are separate from my scientific inquiries.
I don't object.
I focus on the creation using scientific methods. I like science.
Do you think it is wrong to question faith? If so, why?
Just curious.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 2, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
August 2nd, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Hi Good ID,
You wrote…
I am not exactly a spring chicken. I have learned quite a bit about myself over the years. You may not have kept up with all of my posts on Telic Thoughts. I have learned a few things here that have challenged some of my preconceived notions. I liked being challenged. My reaction is to go into obsessive mode and figure it out to the best of my ability. Joy dropped hint about Penrose-Hameroff. I took it from there. I may not be an expert on it yet, but it wasn't for a lack of trying.
As for knowing that I know. This get's into the philosophical loop of knowing what you don't know. I don't know the Truth but I can't even know that because that would be knowing the Truth. So I accept multiple Truths, including the existence of an Ultimate Engineer.
What is so "bold" about knowing yourself? Do you know how you would react if you won the lottery? If President Bush called you?
It would be ironic if someone like me was less surprised by direct proof of God's existence than someone like you.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 2, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:17 am
TP:
Absolutely not. To question faith is to come to faith in my view. In the same way as to question truth is to know truth. Doubts are what build faith. That is how I came to faith. I didn't take a blind leap in the dark.
Comment by Randy — August 3, 2007 @ 12:17 am
August 3rd, 2007 at 12:21 am
TP,
Incidentally, I think that faith is not the same as simple belief. Simple belief is acceptance of what is real based on the evidence. Faith requires belief in a person who has the ability to be trusted. Withouth that dynamic, it is not really faith, just belief.
Comment by Randy — August 3, 2007 @ 12:21 am
August 3rd, 2007 at 1:11 am
TP:
So philosophy or metaphysics doesn't come into play? Is all you gain knowledge and truth from raw science? Or do you come to truth by considering questions of the metaphysical? What if the God we are talking about is beyond science; which I think he is. Certainly NOMA is not adequate, because then you would simply not know of such a God. I don't think that Gould ever benefited from any such fruit.
I like to focus on the creation through science too, but the science is not enough in and of itself to answer the tough questions. Science - the raw investigation into the material universe implies something beyond itself - something that transcends science. The material universe itself does not answer how the material universe got here in the first place. However, through philosophy and metaphysical inquiry I can come to some understanding of what must have dunnit.
Comment by Randy — August 3, 2007 @ 1:11 am
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:40 am
Hello,
Is it accurate to say that the whole thrust of the multiverse or many worlds hypothesis is a reaction to the neatness of the Big Bang?
After all the Big Bang explains the origin of Hydrogen and the CMBR and the redshift we currently see.
In order to avoid the metaphysical implications of Hoyle's hated 'Big Bang' and the just right characteristics of the universe ; many /multi verses suddenly sprung up ?
If this is so, then even nonscientific 'revelation' has informed the direction science is going ?How much of Science is as a reaction to 'revelation' ?
Sorry its ramshackle, but thats what I do best.
Comment by Mike Godfrey — August 3, 2007 @ 6:40 am
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:09 am
WHAT GENERATED THE GENERATOR?!?!
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 3, 2007 @ 9:09 am
August 3rd, 2007 at 9:20 am
Here are some relevant passages from The Edge of Evolution….
Behe talking about the multiverse on pages 222, 223, 224:
Comment by samsen — August 3, 2007 @ 9:20 am
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:01 am
Thank you, Samsen. That was the relevant passage. I forgot to bring EoE with me (D'oh!), but I'm glad to see you already took care of it. Maybe now we can get the discussion back on topic. Though based on past experience, somehow I doubt it.
Comment by Bilbo — August 3, 2007 @ 10:01 am
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
stunney:
I like your post, and others here. They are decent manifestations of human reason. The topic is interesting and fun to think about. However, when we start to talk about timeless things, infinite things, I can't help thinking that humans are playing intellectual games within a limited reason, trying to deal with something outside of their limits.
Humans don't seem to like limits, but we have them and it's easy to demonstrate. In short, this kind of talk is at best non-scientific fantasy. And I suppose it must be engaged since the naturalists insist on hitching their intellectual stars to such ideas. The way I see, the cause of spacetime is necessary so "other" as to be completely meaningless to our sensory (and therefore intellectual) processes. It's kind of like a logical description of a process vs the actual experience of the color "blue." There is no bridge from one to the other.
I would that all would be mere empiricists such as I, but it is not to be.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 3, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Thought Provoker:
Maybe none of the above. This whole spacetime system, including your memories of the "past", could have been setup one minute ago, or two seconds ago. How would you know? You cannot. You merely pragmatically assume that it didn't and go along your merry away.
We all have to make pragmatic assumptions in order to simply get out of bed. The difference between people on these Big Questions seems to lie squarely on what we variously accept as our operating assumptions. It is these differences that are fuel to endless (and largely fruitless) debate. But hey, it's fun, so why not.
If there is a God, we'll probably all know eventually, if there isn't then we won't, and we won't care anyway. Maybe we're all supercosmic beings connected to this wild ass virtual reality amusement park just for the fun of it.
Nature may offer clues. But maybe the clues are illusions. Maybe the clues are *meant* to deceive. Maybe we are deceiving ourselves for the hell of it. Maybe all rational thought is effectively insanity when we go outside of pragmatic application. Nobody knows.
Just trying to provoke a little thought of my own, for the hell of it.
Comment by kornbelt888 — August 3, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
August 3rd, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Behe was on the Colbert Report tonight, here's the video
Comment by todd — August 3, 2007 @ 10:34 pm