The inherent logic in the idea of the multiverse

As time goes on, evidential reasons in support of the multiverse may yet be found. This empirically and/or mathematically focused research is a highly specialized field of expertise which is outside the scope of this article. Perhaps there is evidence of a multiverse in the notion of vacuum pressure within Dark Matter, a vibrant topic among current researchers. At the time of his death, Stephen Hawking was working on mathematical and other paradigmatic arguments in favor of the multiverse. His biographer explains that “Fundamental numbers in our universe, such as the masses and charges of particles and the value of the cosmological constant, might be the result of the shape, the geometry of a labyrinth of interconnected universes” [Ferguson, 2017, p. 156]. Furthermore, the new technique of measuring gravitational waves might eventually have an impact on evidence for the multiverse theory. Investigating these gravitational waves includes, for some, the search for trace evidence of collisions between our universe and some other one, the prospect of some consequent multiversal bruising or perhaps a detectable impact on the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation [Bucklin, 2017].

Scientists generally agree, as does the writer of this article, that testability and experimentation are important to the process of genuine sci - ence. Karl Popper devised the critical notion of “falsifiability”; if a theory can in principle never be falsified, then it is not a genuinely scientific theory [Popper, 2002]. One is therefore in murky territory if proposing a multiverse theory that can ipso facto never be contravened. George Ellis has therefore warned that “The very nature of the scientific enterprise is at stake in the multiverse debate” [Ellis, 2008, pp. 2.33]. On the other hand, however, some of the greatest developments in the history of science included an historical hiatus between the hypothesis and the confirming evidence. Einstein's theory of general relativity, for example, proposed in 1915, became headline news only after May 29, 1919 when Eddington observed the bending of the sun's light around Mercury during a total eclipse of the sun. Other predictions of Einstein, such as the very recently discovered gravitational waves, were not finally confirmed until more than 100 years after his theory. Similarly, black holes were imagined long before they were imaged; today, black holes are almost common knowledge.

People knew there were atoms more than 2,500 years before they were observed. As Barnes and Lewis say, “Unobservable entities aren't necessarily out-of-bounds for science. For example, protons and neutrons are made of subatomic particles called quarks. While they cannot be observed directly, their existence and properties are inferred from the way particles behave when smashed together” [Barnes, Lewis, 2014]. Theories about cosmic inflation, and varying speeds of inflation in diverse regions of the cosmos, were not instantly demonstrable [Siegal, 2019]. Perhaps the most famous example of the overall interrelationship between evidence and theory is Darwinism. Charles Darwin could demonstrate that there had been massive changes within speciation, but he could not actually prove the exact means by which that happened until the advent of Mendelian genetics and the later discovery of RNA/DNA would verify “his very clever hunch” [Susskind, 2006, p. 375]. The above paragraph simply reinforces that logic would say: Never say never. It could end up becoming presumptuous to declare: “No signals from other universes have or will ever bother our telescopes” [Barnes, Lewis, 2014]. George Ellis might also go too far when he says: “.. .one can motivate multiverse hypotheses as plausible, but they are not observationally or experimentally testable - and never will be” [Ellis, 2011, p. 294-295.

My emphasis]. Empirical proofs for a multiverse may yet emerge. Scholars also continue searching for evidence of wormhole connections between possible other universes and our own. Much may eventually depend on how compelling one finds the notions of mathematical consistency within fields like String Theory. As Susskind says, “ .giving up on the possibility of more direct tests is certainly premature. It is true that theory and experiment usually proceed `hand in hand', but it's not always the case” [Susskind, 2006, p. 375].

One can certainly agree that, logically, a multiverse theory might not strictly be necessary for cosmology, astronomy and physics to thrive; however, that is not the same as saying the notion is illogical. In terms of the larger history of science, investigators may be in uncharted territory; the scientific enterprise as such may never have been required to think so comprehensively about a potentiality that remains currently invisible to itself. As Heller puts it, “the standard philosophy of science has never previously encountered postulated entities in physics which are so distant from any empirical control” [Heller, 2019]. Given these kinds of necessary limitations, “the study of possibilities is essential for the study of the actual universe” [Ibid.]. The problem therefore might include the necessity of making “inferences beyond data” and using avant-garde mathematics, including Bayesian Probabilistic methods” [Ibid., 2019]. All these empirical research questions are outside the scope of this article.

But: As Siegfried says, “.history shows that [contemplating the multiverse] is a scientific question. It is not a metaphysical question or a meaningless question. It is a legitimate scientific question that warrants further investigation - and scientific research might someday provide the answer” [Temming, Siegfried, 2019]. The contention of logic, in other words, is not that everything has been resolved or can be resolved, but that the trajectory of multiverse research might be on a fertile course. Explorers may be getting closer, even if they have definitely not arrived. As Alonso-Serrano and Jannes say: “The key argument in string theory and some multiverse-related approaches is that the theoretical `gap' to be bridged is shallow, in other words: that the multiverse is a natural continuation of our best theories, general relativity and quantum field theory; that we are indeed close to finding such a `final theory', and that consistency, elegance and uniqueness should therefore be sufficient arguments to solve the remaining problems (until the solution is eventually confirmed empirically)” [Alonso-Serrano, Jannes, 2019].

Concluding Comment on the Logic of Multiplicity and the Post-Copernican World View

Does our universe appear to be so incredibly special because it is unique, or does it only appear to be so incredibly special because it is one of many billions of options?

Nothing might logically necessitate the theory of multiple universes (at present), but perhaps logic does not necessitate a Designer either. And yet these two alternatives are perhaps not equally hefty; thus the problem cannot be reduced to a simple need for blind faith in either direction.

Perhaps due to the present lack of empirical evidence, researchers must resort to logic.

As Heller puts it, “From the point of view of the philosophy of science, the question is: Could the explanatory power of a multiverse ideology compensate for the relaxation of empirical control over so many directly unobservable entities?.. With no strict empirical control at our disposal, it is logic that must be our guide” [Heller, 2019].

For this reason, this essay has concentrated on two arguments from logic. It is helpful to conclude this article on the logic of the multiverse conceptualization with these observations from Daniel Goldsmith: In the space of less than 500 years, the study of the universe and its parts has taken humanity from a geocentric, planet-bound consciousness to a knowledge of our place in the solar system, to the revelation that our entire galaxy is but the equivalent of a grain of sand on a vast beach of galaxies that fills the universe.

It has opened us to the concept of infinity, and given us an appreciation of the scale that encompasses all that is.

Could it be that, on some level, quantum cosmology is right? Could trillions of worlds not unlike our own co-exist with ours in the space-time continuum alongside trillions of probable worlds, each safely couched within its own universe?

Could the theory of inflation be a true reflection of the way nature weaves ever-evolving universes together, like pearls on a string, each one part of the greater whole but also unique unto itself?

Could there truly be a theory of everything so simple and so elegant that its basic concepts could be understood by a child? [Goldsmith, 2002, p. 133].

References / Список литературы

1. Aharanov, Cohen, Shushi, 2018 - Aharanov, Y; E. Cohen and T. Shushi. “Is the Quilted Multiverse Consistent with a Thermodynamic Arrow of Time?”, Frontiers in Physics, Feb. 6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphy.2018.00004

2. Alonso-Serrano; Jannes, 2019 - Alonso-Serrano, Ana, and Gil Jannes. “Conceptual Challenges on the Road to the Multiverse”, Universe, 2019, vol. 5, no. 10, p. 212. DOI: 10.3390/universe5100212.

3. Alonso-Serrano, 2020 - Alonso-Serrano, A., Mariusz P. D^browski and T. Nau- mann. “Post-Editorial”, The Multiverse: Special Volume. 2020. Universe, 2020. DOI: 10.3390/universe6010017.

4. Barnes; Lewis, 2014 - Barnes, L., Lewis, G. “Have Cosmologists Lost Their Mind in the Multiverse?”, The Conversation, May 12, 2014. [https://theconversation. com/have-cosmologists-lost-their-minds-in-the-multiverse-25430, accessed on 15.07.2020]

5. Bryson, 2003 - Bryson, B. A Short History of Nearly Everything. Toronto: Random House, 2003, 544 pp.

6. Bucklin, 2017 - Bucklin, S.M. “Is the Multiverse Physics, Philosophy, or Something ELse Entirely?”, Astronomy, Jan. 18, 2017. [https://astronomy.com/news/2017/01/ what-is-the-multiverse, accessed on 16.07.2020]

7. Burtt, 1932 - Burtt, E.A. The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science. New York: Doubleday, 1932, 352 pp.

8. Butterfield, 1957 - Butterfield, H. The Origins of Modern Science. New York: Macmillan, 1957, 250 pp.

9. Caputo, 2013 - Caputo, J. The Insistence of God: A Theology of Perhaps. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013, 321 pp.

10. Conway, 2012 - Conway, M.D. “The Pre-Darwinite and Post-Darwinite World”, in: Idols and Ideals, with an Essay on Christianity. San Bernardino: Ulan Press, 2012, 360 pp.

11. D^browski, 2020 - D^browski, Mariusz P., Ana Alonso-Serrano, Thomas Nau- mann. The Multiverse. 2020.

12. D^browski, 2019 - D^browski, M. “Anthropic Selection of Physical Constants, Quantum Entanglement, and the Multiverse Falsifiability”, Universe, 2019, no. 5. DOI: 10.3390/universe5070172.

13. Danielson, 2001 - Danielson, R.D., Editor. The Book of the Cosmos: Imagining the Universe from Heraclitus to Hawking. A Helix Anthology. Cambridge: Perseus, 2001, 556 pp.

14. Davies, 1986 - Davies, P. God and the New Physics. New York: Penguin, 1986, 255 pp.

15. Dawkins, 2008 - Dawkins, R. The God Delusion. Boston: Mariner, 2008, 463 pp.

16. Douglas, 2019 - Douglas, M. “The String Theory Landscape”, Universe, 2019. DOI:10.3390/universe5070176.

17. Dowe, 2005 - Dowe, P. Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking: The Interplay of Science, Reason, and Religion. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005, 205 pp.

18. Ellis, 2011 - Ellis, G. “Cosmology: The Untestable Multiverse”, Nature, 2011, Jan. 19, vol. 469, pp. 294-295.

19. Ellis, 2008 - Ellis, G. “Opposing the Multiverse”, Astronomy and Geophysics, vol. 49, no. 2, April 2008, pp. 2.33-2.35. https;//doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-40042008. 49229_1.x

20. Ferguson, 2017 - Ferguson, K. Stephen Hawking: An Unfettered Mind. New York; St. Martin's Press, 2017, 340 pp.

21. Ferris, 1988 - Ferris, T. Coming of Age in the Milky Way. New York; William Morrow & Co., 1988, 495 pp.

22. Goldsmith, 2002 - Goldsmith, D. Editor. Understanding Cosmology: Science Made Accessible. New York; AOL Time Warner, 2002, 140 pp.

23. Goldstein, 2011 - Goldstein, R.N. Thirty-Six Arguments for the Existence of God. New York; Random, 2011, 530 pp.

24. Greene, 2004 - Greene, B. The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality. New York; Random House, 2004, 569 pp.

25. Gregory, 2018 - Gregory, R. “How to Understand One of Stephen Hawking's Final Papers”, The Conversation, May 9, 2018. [https;//theconversation.com/how- to-understand-one-of-stephen-hawkings-final-papers-according-to-an-expert-96132, accessed on 10.07.2020]

26. Hawking, 1988 - Hawking, S. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes. New York; Bantam, 1988, 198 pp.

27. Heller, 2019 - Heller, M. “Multiverse - Too Much or Not Enough?”, Universe 5 (2019), 113. DOI; 10.3390/universe5050113.

28. Holt, 2012 - Holt, J. Why Does the World Exist? An Existential Detective Story. New York; Liveright, 2012, 307 pp.

29. Hossenfelder, 2018 - Hossenfelder, S. “Scientific Theory and the Multiverse Madness”, Cosmos and Culture, January 22, 2018. [https;//www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2018/ 01/22/579666359/scientific-theory-and-the-multiverse-madness, accessed on 10.07.2020]

30. Howell, 2018 - Howell, E. “Parallel Universes; Theories and Evidence”, Space.com, May 10, 2018.

31. Krauss, 2012 - Krauss, L. A Universe From Nothing: Why There is Something Rather than Nothing. New York; Atria, a division of Simon & Schuster, 2012, 202 pp.

32. Polkinghorne, 2006 - Polkinghorne, J. Science and Creation: The Search for Understanding. Philadelphia; Templeton, 2006, 131 pp.

33. Popper, 2002 - Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York; Rout- ledge, 2002, 544 pp.

34. Rebhan, 2019 - Rebhan, E. “Possible Origins and Properties of an Expanding, Dark Energy Providing Dark Multiverse”, Universe, 2019, vol. 5, no. 8. DOI; 10.3390/universe5080178.

35. Rees, 2000 - Rees, M. Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe. New York; Basic Books, 2000, 195 pp.

36. Robles-Perez, 2019 - Robles-Perez, S. “Time Reversal Symmetry in Cosmology and the Creation of a Universe - Antiuniverse Pair”, Universe, 2019, vol. 5, no. 6, p. 150. DOI; 10.3390/universe5060150.

37. Ruse, 2000 - Ruse, M. Can A Darwinian be a Christian? Cambridge; Cambridge University Press, 2000, 242 pp.

38. Scoles, 2016 - Scoles, S. “Can Physicists Ever Prove the Multiverse Is Real?”, Smithsonian Magazine, April 19, 2016. [https;//www.smithsonianmag.com/science- nature/can-physicists-ever-prove-multiverse-real-180958813/, accessed on 09.07.2020]

39. Siegal, 2019 - Siegal, E. “How Well Has Cosmic Inflation Been Verified?”, Forbes Magazine, May 11, 2019. [https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/05/n/ ask-ethan-how-well-has-cosmic-inflation-been-verified/#25e35b331d07, accessed on 09.07.2020]

40. Susskind, 2006 - Susskind, L. The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2006, 377 pp.

41. Taylor, 2007 - Taylor, M. After God. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007, 464 pp.

42. Tegmark, 2014 - Tegmark, M. Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2014, 399 pp.

43. Tegmark, 2011 - Tegmark, M. “The Universe Strikes Back”, Scientific American, July 19, 2011. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/artide/multiverse-the-case-for- parallel-universe/, accessed on 01.07.2020]

44. Temming; Siegfried, 2019 - Temming, M., Siegfried, T. “Interview with Tom Siegfried about his new book The Number of the Heavens”, Science News, 2019, vol. 196, no. 7. [https://www.sciencenews.org/article/new-book-explores-how-concept- multiverse-evolved, accessed on 01.07.2020]

45. Tyson, 2016 - Tyson, N. De Grasse. Welcome to the Universe: An Astrophysical Tour. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016, 463 pp. (I listened to this book on Audible)

46. Vilenkin, 2011 - Vilenkin, A. “Welcome to the Multiverse”, Scientific American, 2011, July 19, 2011. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-the-case- for-parallel-universe/, accessed on 03.07.2020]

47. Young, 2012 - Young, D. Good News for Science: Why Scientific Minds Need God. Oxford, Mississippi: Malus, 2012, 362 pp.

48. Weiner, 1995 - Weiner, B. The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time. New York: Vintage, 1995, 352 pp.

Размещено на Allbest.ru