Module 2—Evidence for God from Contemporary Science (Irish Final)

Intro

There is a long and strong relationship between the natural sciences and the Catholic Church. At least 286 priests and clergy were involved in the development of all branches of the natural sciences,1 and the Catholic Church hosts an Academy of Sciences with 46 Nobel Prize Winners as well as thousands of University and high school science departments, astronomical observatories and scientific institutes throughout the world (see Module III Section V). This should not be surprising, because as we saw in the previous Module most of the greatest scientific minds throughout history were believers (theists), and today, 51% of scientists are declared believers, as well as 88% of physicians. This gives rise to the question, “if scientists and physicians are evidence-based people, why are the majority of scientists and physicians believers?” What is their evidence?

Many scientists, such as Albert Einstein and Eugene Wigner intuited clues of a divine intelligence from the wholly unexpected pervasive mathematical ordering of the .2 Today, the evidence for an intelligent transphysical creator is stronger than ever before despite the proliferation of many hypothetical new models of physical reality which at first seem to suggest the non-necessity of a creator. These new models include a , in the higher dimensional space of string theory, and multidimensional bouncing universes. So, what is this evidence that points to an intelligent creator even of , string universes, and multi- dimensional bouncing universes? There are 3 principal areas of evidence, each of which will be discussed in this Module:

1. Space-time geometry proofs such as the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof (Section II) 2. The universal applicability of entropy to all physical systems (Section III) 3. The pervasiveness of fine-tuning in every known physical system—even the most elementary quantum systems. (Section IV)

Before we can proceed to this evidence, it will prove helpful to briefly examine the history of recent cosmology and the above-mentioned new models of physical reality (Section I).

1 See the list in the Wikipedia entry on Clergy Scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists 2 See Albert Einstein 1954 “Physics and Reality" in Ideas and Opinions, trans. Sonja Bargmann (New York: Bonanza), p. 292. Also, Wigner, Eugene (1960). “The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences. Richard Courant lecture in mathematical sciences delivered at New York University, May 11, 1959.” Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics 13: 1–14.

1

I Recent Cosmology and New Models of Physical Reality

Interestingly, a Catholic priest was the originator of the Big Bang Theory—the foundation of what is called “The New Cosmology.” We will begin with a brief look at his contribution to The New Cosmology (Section I.A.), then describe the current cosmological explanation of our universe (Section I.B.) and then some of the new hypothetical cosmologies like a multiverse (Section I.C.).

I.A. Fr. Georges Lemaître and the Big Bang Theory

As noted above, recent cosmology begins with a Catholic Priest who discovered the Big Bang Theory in 1927—Father Georges Lemaître, who was a noted cosmologist, and colleague of Einstein’s.3 Lemaitre ingeniously solved the problem of how the recessional velocities of distant galaxies could be greater than those of nearer galaxies. The idea was really quite radical – so much so that Einstein, though impressed with Lemaitre’s mathematics, rejected it at first. Lemaitre theorized that galaxies were not moving in fixed space, but rather that the space between the galaxies was stretching and growing, which might be analogized by a balloon being inflated. Think for a moment about a balloon with many dots on it and liken the elastic of the balloon to the spatial field and the dots on the balloon to galaxies. Now circle one of the dots on the balloon and call it the Milky Way (our galaxy), and begin blowing up the balloon. Notice that every time you exhale into the balloon and stretch the elastic more, the farther dots away from us expand more than the nearer dots. Why did the farther dots move farther away from us than the nearer dots? Because there was more space – more balloon -- between them and us (than between the nearer galaxies and us). This explains why farther galaxies will move away from us faster than nearer ones, but it implies that the universe is expanding as a whole (like our balloon).

This indicates that the universe may have had a beginning (a creation), which was a departure from previous scientific assumptions. Why did Lemaitre’s theory have such a consequence? If the universe truly is expanding as a whole it must have been less expanded in the past, and even less expanded as we go further back into the past. Today there is only a finite distance between galaxies, and so we know that the universe could not have been expanding forever in the past. All of the points must have been merged into a single point at some time in the finite past. If the Big Bang4 marks the initial expansion of the universe, then it could be the beginning of the universe. We have very good evidence today that this event occurred about 13.8 billion years ago (plus or minus 100,000,000 years). Lemaitre put it this way:

We can compare space-time to an open, conic cup. The bottom of the cup is the origin of atomic disintegration: it is the first instant at the bottom of space-time, the now

3 Mario Livio 2011. “Comments” Nature (November 10, 2011). 4 Fr. Georges Lemaitre did not use the term “Big Bang,” but rather, “the Theory of the Primeval Atom.” Sir Fred Hoyle (when he was in his atheistic phase) sneeringly dubbed Lemaitre’s theory “the Big Bang” to trivialize and insult it.

2

which has no yesterday because, yesterday, there was no space.5

Lemaitre’s theory was first confirmed two years later by Edwin Hubble’s survey of the heavens (at Mt. Wilson Observatory), in which he showed through a well-known technique called red- shifting that more distant galaxies are indeed moving away from our galaxy faster than those nearer to us according to Lemaitre’s equation. Hubble invited Einstein to Mt. Wilson to check the results which apparently caused him to change his mind about the expanding universe. When Einstein and Lemaitre co-presented at a conference at Mt. Wilson in 1933, Einstein said, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.”6 Since that time, Lemaitre’s theory has been confirmed in a variety of different ways, making it one of the most comprehensive and rigorously established theories in contemporary cosmology.

After Hubble’s confirmation through the redshifts detected in his survey of the heavens, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson made another remarkable confirmation in 1965 through a very different approach. They inadvertently discovered a 2.7-degree Kelvin uniformly distributed radiation throughout the universe which could have occurred only at a very early, cosmic-wide event (the Big Bang and its immediate aftermath).7 They received the Nobel Prize for this discovery in 1978.

The Big Bang was subsequently confirmed by data from the cosmic background explorer satellites (COBE) #1 and #2,8 the Wilkinson Microwave and Isotropy Probe (WMAP),9 and very recently by the Planck satellite.10 These confirmations verify Fr. Lemaitre’s general concept of the Big Bang, and add considerably more data to it – such as quantum gravity, inflationary theory, dark matter, and dark energy.

5 Georges Lemaître, 1943. The Primeval Atom (New York: The University Press). p 133. 6 David Topper. 2013 How Einstein Created Relativity Out of Physics and Astronomy (New York: Springer). p. 175 and also New York Times 2005 “Even Einstein Had His Days Off” in Opinion New York Times (www.nytimes.com/2005/01/02/opinion/02singh.html). 7Arno A. Penzias and Robert W. Wilson 1965. “A Measurement of Excess Antenna Temperature at 4080 Mc/s.” Astrophysical Journal 142, pp. 419-21. Arno Penzias is a religious believer and speaks about his faith as a scientist in the Magis Center’s Documentary Cosmic Origins. See his interviews, along with those of John Polkinghorne (particle physics, Cambridge), Michael Heller (Priest Physicist—Vatican Observatory), Owen Gingerich (Astronomy, Harvard), and Lisa Randall (Physics, Harvard). click on the Faith, Science, and Reason landing page, go to the free resources and click on the Magis Center documentary Cosmic Origins or simply visit the following URL https://magiscenter.com/cosmic-origins-video/.

8 NASA Report on the Findings of the COBE Satellites. (http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/). 9 NASA press conference with NASA Director, Charles Bennett on data from the WMAP Satellite 2008. www.space.com/scienceastronomy/map_discovery_030211. 10 NASA Press conferences on Planck Satellite 2013 (www.nasa.gov/planck) and (www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/planck/news/planck20130321.html).

3

I.B. The Universe According to Modern Cosmology

So, what do physicists think happened 13.8 billion years ago? It seems that our universe took a quantum cosmological form in which all four forces (the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the weak force, and the gravitational force -- in a quantized form) were completely unified, and then exploded. At that moment the space-time field came into existence and energy emerged in it (in a fashion explicable by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity). The strong nuclear force separated from the electroweak force, and then the weak force separated from the electromagnetic force, which then moved through a Higgs field slowing it down to produce the rest mass of particles (such as protons and neutrons), making up the visible constituents of the universe. A plasma era ensued, followed by stellar nucleosynthesis and galactic formation, eventually giving rise to planets – and even some very special planets similar to the Earth.11

The observable universe appears to have approximately 1055 kilograms of visible matter, about five times more dark matter (25% of the universe)12 and considerably more dark energy (about 70% of the universe).13 The visible and dark matter is distributed in 1022 stars (and accompanying planets) within 1011 galaxies. The galaxies maintain their volume because of visible matter, dark matter, and a giant black hole in their centers. However, the space between the galaxies is stretching at an accelerated rate (inflating) because of dark energy. It is highly unlikely that the universe will collapse in the future (in a big crunch followed by a bounce), because it’s probable flat geometry and dark energy will cause it to expand indefinitely. Therefore, the universe will reach a point of either a “big freeze” (in which the gases necessary for star formation will be exhausted, and all formed stars will use up their supply of gases) or “heat death” (in which the universe reaches maximum entropy) a finite time in the future (somewhere between 1 trillion and 100 trillion years from now).

This brings us to three central questions:

1. Was the Big Bang the beginning of our universe?

11 The current estimate of such special planets in the Milky Way is approximately 40 billion according to researchers Erik Petigura and Geoffrey Marcy of the University of California, Berkeley, along with Andrew Howard of the University of Hawaii, using data from the Kepler Satellite (designed to detect planets in our galaxy and beyond) see NPR news report, November 2013 “Just How Many Earth-like Planets are Out There?” (www.npr.org/2013/11/05/242991030/galaxy-quest-just-how-many-earth-like-planets-are-out-there). Does life exist on any of these planets? Nobody knows. There is a possibility that some of these planets may be able to sustain life, and therefore may have life, but current investigations have not found any data to support this (such as the Mars Curiosity Rover). 12 Dark matter does not emit or absorb light or heat, so it is not detectable by traditional methods. It is currently thought to take the form of very fine particles which interact with the space-time field in the same way as visible matter (causing an increased curvature of the field in proportion to its density). It is what keeps the matter and stars within galaxies from flying apart (in the accelerated fashion of the space between the galaxies). 13 Dark energy is quite different from dark matter. Instead of interacting with the space-time field in a way that causes contraction, it causes repulsion. It seems to have a field-like dimensionality that causes the space-time field to stretch and grow at an accelerated rate, causing the phenomenon known as . There is some convincing evidence of inflation from the Planck Satellite and other observations, and the best current explanation for this inflation is dark energy. 4

2. Does our universe exhaust the whole of physical reality (or is there some dimension of physical reality beyond our universe)? 3. If physical reality does extend beyond our universe, must it have a beginning?

I.C New Hypothetical Models of the Cosmos Beyond our Universe

Quantum gravity14 and inflation theory15 allow for the formation of three major speculative theories which might expand our view of physical reality far beyond our observable universe:

1. The multiverse hypothesis – inflationary theory allows for the possibility of a giant inflating universe that can produce a multiplicity of bubble universes indefinitely into the future. One such bubble universe would be our own. 2. The bouncing universe hypothesis – since the time of Albert Einstein, the conventional bouncing universe hypothesis took the general form of a cyclic universe which expanded, and then contracted in a “big crunch,” and then bounced and re-expanded repeatedly. The expansion from the Big Bang until today is theorized to be one such cycle – the last one amidst many others. 3. The higher dimensional space universe hypothesis – string theory (particularly M Theory) allows for the possibility of universes to exist in higher dimensional space (consisting of say, eleven dimensions), permitting unusual complex expanding and bouncing universes.

All of these hypotheses extend our view of physical reality beyond our observable universe, which may allow physical reality to exist prior to our 13.8 billion-year-old history (since the Big Bang) – and even eternally into the past. They are all completely hypothetical and lie beyond our current capacity to observe. They may in principle, be unobservable. As we shall see below, each of these hypothetical scenarios very probably requires a beginning in the finite past, and the eternal inflationary multiverse is highly unlikely (see Section VI). For these reasons, physics is brought to the threshold of creation.

We now turn to space-time geometry proofs, which strongly imply a beginning of all multiverses, bouncing universes, and string universes.

II.

14 Quantum gravity is a hypothetical field of physics that tries to describe the quantum behavior of the force of gravity. The classical description of gravity is explained in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (through a malleable space-time field). Some theories of quantum gravity are used to explain a pre-Big Bang condition (prior to the advent of the space-time field described by the General Theory of Relativity). The two most popular theories are string theory and loop quantum gravity. This field of physics may remain quite hypothetical into the future, because its effects can only be observed near the Planck scale, which is far too small to be currently detected. 15Inflation theory (first described by Dr. to resolve various problems in the standard Big Bang model) describes the extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 1078 in volume. The inflation epoch seems to have taken place in the first part of the electroweak era (when the universe was only 10-36 seconds to 10-33 seconds old). Inflation arises out of dark energy, which causes the space-time field to expand and stretch at an accelerated rate. 5

Evidence of Creation # 1—The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Proof

Father Lemaitre’s discovery of the expansion of space-time in the universe (as a whole) enabled physicists to formulate proofs about the necessity of a beginning. All such proofs are based on various physical (observable) data which must all be true in order for the conclusion (about a beginning of the universe) to be true. They take the following general form: “If condition A, condition B, and condition C are true, then there must be a beginning of the universe (or the beginning of a multiverse or the beginning of physical reality itself).”

Space-time geometry proofs go back to the singularity theorems of Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose, and new spacetime geometry proofs today account for inflationary theory, quantum gravity, and other recent developments. One very probative proof was developed in 2003 by Arvind Borde (University of California Santa Barbara), Alexander Vilenkin (Director of the Institute of Cosmology at in Boston), and Alan Guth (Professor of Cosmology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Father of Inflationary Theory). They proved that a boundary to past time (a beginning) has to exist for any cosmological condition (e.g., a universe, multiverse, string universe etc.) where the average rate of expansion of the universe/multiverse as a whole is greater than zero.16 Alexander Vilenkin (one of the physicist who discovered the proof) describes this vast applicability as follows:

“We made no assumptions about the material content of the universe. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value, no matter how small…The conclusion is that past- without a beginning is impossible.”17

The implications of Vilenkin’s statement should not be underestimated, for he is claiming that the proof is valid almost independently of the physics of any universe (or multiverse) except for the one condition that the average expansion rate of the universe (or multiverse) be greater than zero. He is further claiming that such a universe (or multiverse) without a beginning is impossible.

The five steps of the proof are explained for non-scientific audiences in the Credible Catholic Big Book (Volume I, Chapter 1, Section II).18 This proof is virtually universally applicable and very difficult to disprove (because it has only one condition). In their groundbreaking article, Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth apply the proof to string universes and

16Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin. 2003. “Inflationary Spacetimes are Not Past- complete,” Physical Review Letters, vol.90, no.15, pp. 151301-1—151301-4. https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012.pdf

17 Alexander Vilenkin 2007 Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (Hill and Wang) p 175 18 See CredibleCatholic.com click on the Big Book, go to Volume I and Scroll Down to Chapter 1, Section II, https://www.crediblecatholic.com/pdf/7E-P2/7E-BB1.pdf#P1V1C1T2

6

bouncing universes (in higher dimensions).19 Craig and Sinclair apply the proof to inflationary scenarios spawning bubble universes (like a multiverse). 20

The B-V-G proof applies to all multiverses because a necessary condition for multiverses is inflation (there can be no multiverse without inflation). Since inflation entails an average expansion rate greater than zero, B-V-G must apply. This means every multiverse must have a beginning.21

Bouncing universes—even bouncing universes in the higher dimensional space of string theory—must always have an average rate of expansion greater than zero (for reasons elaborated by B-V-G).22 Finally, string universes and nucleating universes in higher dimensional space also entail expansion rates greater than zero.23 Since B-V-G applies to them, these two scenarios must also have a beginning.

There are only two universal/multiversal scenarios that escape the vast applicability of B- V-G — the Contracting Only Hypothesis and the eternal static hypothesis. The Contracting Only Hypothesis does not explain our universe (which is inflating), and so it is an invalid scientific hypothesis (because it does not explain observable data). The Eternal Static Hypothesis is also invalid because it is subject to quantum instabilities24 and is also intrinsically contradictory. 25 All static hypotheses must, therefore, have a beginning.26

So, what does the B-V-G Proof tell us? There are five significant consequences:

1. It applies to all universes and multiverses (including string universes and bouncing universes in higher dimensions) that have an average rate of expansion greater than zero. 2. It does not matter what the physics of a given universe or multiverse might be, so long as the average Hubble expansion is greater than zero. 3. Since there is only one condition for the proof to work and it functions independently of the physics of any given universe or multiverse, it is very difficult to disprove. 4. There are only two hypotheses that escape B-V-G—the contracting only hypothesis and the eternal static hypothesis. The former disagrees with observable data (and is therefore scientifically invalid) and the latter is not quantum stable and intrinsically contradictory (meaning that any static universe must have a beginning).

19 See Borde, Vilenkin, and Guth “Inflationary Spacetimes…” 20 William L. Craig, and James Sinclair, 2009. “The Kalam Cosmological Argument.” In the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Edited by W.L. Craig and J.P. Moreland. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 169. 21 Ibid. 22 See Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin 2003 “Inflationary Spacetimes…” 23 Ibid 24 An excellent summary of this work can be found in Vilenkin’s lecture to the physics community at Cambridge University on Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday. See Lisa Grossman 2012 “Why Phycisists Can’t Avoid a Creation Event” New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328474.400-why-physicists-cant-avoid-a-creation- event.html). 25 William L. Craig and James Sinclair 2009. “The Kalam Cosmological Argument” P. 158. 26 Ibid

7

5. Therefore, all known universal and multiversal scenarios entail a beginning (according to B-V-G).

Some physicists attempt to elude the consequences of B-V-G by suggesting that something can come from nothing—that is that the universe can spring into existence out of literally nothing. I respond to these intrinsically contradictory hypotheses in The Credible Catholic Big Book (Vol. I, Ch. 1, Section IV).27 In brief, all attempts to make something come out of nothing are either intrinsically contradictory or equivocal (see the summary of this argument below in Section IV).

At this point, it seems as if physics is coming very close to proving an absolute beginning of physical reality– whether physical reality is simply our universe, or perhaps a multiverse, or a universe in the higher dimensional space of string theory, or a static quantum cosmological state. If no physically realistic exception can be found to this proof (and to the problems of an eternally static universe), it would make an absolute beginning of physical reality quite probable.

This takes us to the threshold of a creation. Before moving in that direction, we will want to first consider another vastly applicable datum that also indicates the likelihood of a beginning of physical reality – entropy.

III. Evidence of a Beginning # 2—Entropy

Physical systems need order (e.g., disequilibrium of temperature, pressure, molecular distribution, etc.) in order to do physical work. If a physical system is at complete equilibrium (no differentiation of temperature or pressure within it), it cannot do anything. It is a dead system. Now here is the problem—every time a physical system does some work, it loses a bit of its order (disequilibrium)—its capacity to do work. This loss of order—this tendency toward disorder—is called “entropy.” So entropy refers to every physical system's tendency to “run down,” and is the measure of its disorder.

There is a second problem with entropy—it is irreversible. Physical systems cannot reverse entropy on their own. They need some contribution of order (disequilibrium) from outside the system. For purely probabilistic reasons, systems left to their own devices (“isolated systems”) tend to evolve in a way that keeps the level of disorder (entropy) constant or increases it. Almost never does the entropy of an isolated system decrease. Systems do not spontaneously get more ordered. To make a system more ordered it takes something coming in from outside and expending energy (I can make the coffee in a cup hotter than its surroundings, for instance, by using a heat pump).

The famous Second Law of Thermodynamics says that in isolated systems, entropy always increases or stays the same, and never goes down. That is why some processes are irreversible. If a process changes the entropy, then it can only go one way --- the way that entropy (disorder) increases. That is why dead bodies decompose, but do not recompose! This is a universal

27 See Robert J. Spitzer CredibleCatholic.com https://www.crediblecatholic.com/pdf/7E-P2/7E-BB1.pdf#P1V1C1T4 8

phenomenon. It is why physicists regard “perpetual motion machines” as impossible. And here is the relevance to the question of whether the universe had a beginning. The universe as a whole is a physical system, and if the universe did not have a beginning, then it has been around for an infinite time. In a sense, the universe is then itself a “perpetual motion machine,” a system that never “runs down” or “wears out,” which is a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This argument against an infinite universe can be broken down into five steps:

1. For a physical system to do work, it needs to have order (disequilibrium of temperature, pressure, molecular distribution, etc.). Disequilibrium of temperature, pressure, or molecular distribution within a system enable it to do physically useful work. 2. Every time a physical system does work it loses a small amount of its order (disequilibrium), which means that it is not capable of doing as much work as it could in its previous state. This movement from order to disorder is called “entropy.” 3. For probabilistic reasons alone, entropy (the movement from order to disorder) is irreversible in the long term (though there may be random fluctuations toward lower entropy which do not and cannot last long). 4. If the universe is an isolated28 physical system (the assumption of the standard Big Bang model), then the universe could not have existed for an infinite amount of time, because if it did, it would be at a state of maximum entropy (maximum equilibrium) today (for the reasons stated in 1-3 above). It would be a dead universe incapable of any work. 5. But the universe is not at maximum entropy (maximum equilibrium); there are hot stars and cold space, galactic clusters and empty space, and physical systems are continuously working – stars burning, planets forming, and physicists thinking about it. Our universe is very active – far from a dead system. Therefore, the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time (and therefore has a beginning).

The evidence of entropy has one important quality in common with that of the Borde- Vilenkin-Guth Proof, namely its vast applicability (seemingly to every physical system). It was stated earlier that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy) is valid for probabilistic reasons alone. Therefore, it is applicable to a multiplicity of physical scenarios – and is theoretically applicable to virtually every physical system. Why? Because disequilibrium (order) is so much more improbable than equilibrium (disorder) and every physical system will always follow the course toward greatest probability – that is, toward disorder. Einstein was so certain of this that he declared:

“A law is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. [Entropy] is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the

28 “Isolated” here refers to a system acting on its own. There is no engine or refrigerator or heating element outside of the physical system that can introduce additional order (disequilibrium) within the system.

9

framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.”29

There has been no shortage of attempts to elude this consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (entropy). Several physicists have suggested that entropy might be lowered in a universal collapse (“a big crunch”) or in a bouncing universe scenario. Both of these suggestions have been virtually ruled out by the research of Roger Penrose,30 Sean Carroll,31 and Thomas Banks and Willy Fischler.32 They also show that entropy makes virtually every form of the bouncing universe hypothesis untenable.33 Though physicists are still hypothesizing new scenarios

29 Gerald Holton and Yehuda Elkana, 1997, Albert Einstein: Historical and Cultural Perspectives, (Princeton: Princeton University Press) dp. 227. 30 As will be discussed below (Section V), Roger Penrose shows the virtual impossibility of low entropy at a bounce, because the odds against it are 1010123 to 1 against its occurrence (the odds of a monkey typing Macbeth by random tapping of the keys in one try – this is a virtual impossibility). See Penrose. 1989. pp 343-344. 31 According to Sean Carroll, a well-known cosmologist, the low entropy of our universe at the Big Bang invalidates an eternal bouncing universe hypothesis; it even makes a single bounce to be exceedingly improbable: “Bojowald uses some ideas from Loop Quantum Gravity to try to resolve the initial singularity and follow the quantum state of the universe past the [Big] Bang back into a pre-existing universe. If you try to invent a cosmology in which you straightforwardly replace the singular Big Bang by a smooth Big Bounce continuation into a previous space-time, you have one of two choices: either the entropy continues to decrease as we travel backwards in time through the Bang, or it changes direction and begins to increase. Sadly, neither makes any sense. If you are imagining that the arrow of time is continuous as you travel back through the Bounce, then you are positing a very strange universe indeed on the other side. It’s one in which the infinite past has an extremely tiny entropy, which increases only very slightly as the universe collapses, so that it can come out the other side in our observed low-entropy state. That requires the state at t = minus infinity state of the universe to be infinitely finely tuned, for no apparent reason (the same holds true for the Steinhardt-Turok cyclic universe). On the other hand, if you imagine that the arrow of time reverses direction at the Bounce, you’ve moved your extremely-finely-tuned-for-no-good-reason condition to the Bounce itself. In models where the Big Bang is really the beginning of the universe, one could in principle imagine that some unknown law of physics makes the boundary conditions there very special, and explains the low entropy (a possibility that Roger Penrose, for example, has taken seriously). But if it’s not a boundary, why are the conditions there [at the Bounce] so special? Sean Carroll, 2007. “Against a Bounce.” Discover Magazine. www.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance 2007/07/02/Against-Bounce,” p. 1. 32 Banks and Fischler believe that a universal collapse will lead to a “black crunch” (maximum entropy) from which

a low entropy bounce would be virtually impossible (1010123 to 1 against, according to Roger Penrose. See below Section V). In fact, things are probably even worse for models in which the Big Bang was a bounce preceded by a phase in which the universe was collapsing. It has been argued by the particle physicists, Banks and Fischler, that during such a collapse the rapidly changing space-time would have excited and amplified random “quantum fluctuations” in such a way that entropy would have been driven to very large values, rather than small ones. This makes it even more difficult to account for the fantastically low entropy just after the Big Bang. In Banks’ words, ... “I have a problem with ALL cyclic cosmologies…. The collapsing phase of these models always have a time-dependent Hamiltonian for the quantum field fluctuations around the classical background. Furthermore, the classical backgrounds are becoming singular. This means that the field theories will be excited to higher and higher energy states…. High energy states in field theory have the ergodic property--they thermalize rapidly, in the sense that the system explores all its states. Willy Fischler and I proposed that in this situation you would again tend to maximize the entropy. We called this a black crunch and suggested the equation of state of matter would again tend toward p=ρ. It seems silly to imagine that, even if this is followed by a re- expansion, that one would start that expansion with a low entropy initial state, or that one had any control over the initial state at all.” (Banks 2007 from a private communication to James Sinclair, October 12, 2007 in w.L. Craig and J. Sinclair, 2009 “The Kalam Cosmological Argument” In The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Edited by W.L. Craig and J.P. Moreland. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, p. 156). 33 See the previous three footnotes.

10

to elude a beginning of the universe from entropy, they are becoming more and more fantastic and further and further removed from the domain of observable evidence and the discipline of physics.

Sean Carrolll has suggested a multiverse model that might elude the ultimate catastrophic effect of entropy.34 However, the multiverse theory itself and Carrolll’s view of time (in his eternal multiverse) are highly controversial. The eternal multiverse suffers from severe “unlikeliness problems,” ranging from insurmountable requirements for fine-tuning to an intractable measurement problem and to the vexing problem of Boltzman Brains (see the explanation below in Section VI.B).35 Furthermore, Carrolll’s view of time in this universe and the inability of scientists to falsify it make the entire theory highly dubitable. **

Given the unlikeliness of Carrolll’s eternal multiverse to overcome the universal applicability of entropy, it is reasonable to apply entropy to all physical systems, including multiverses and even string universes. As such, the implications of entropy constitute another probative indication of a beginning of physical reality. When we combine this evidence with that of the B-V-G Proof, we are confronted with significant evidence for a beginning of physical reality from the vantage point of physics.

IV. The Significance of a Beginning of Physical Reality

Alexander Vilenkin (one of the physicists behind the B-V-G Proof) combined the evidence of the B-V-G proof and entropy, coming to the following conclusion:

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof [like the B-V-G Proof and entropy] is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past- eternal universe….There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.36

There are currently no satisfactory alternatives to the above evidence for a beginning.37 Is this evidence sufficient to show the beginning of physical reality itself? This could well be the

34 Sean Carrolll 2010 From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time (Dutton). 35 I have summarized the critical work of several top physicists including , Neil Turok Rodger Penrose, and Thomas Banks who show the unlikelihood of an eternal multiverse and string theory landscape. See Robert Spitzer and James Sinclair 2019 “Fine-Tuning and Indications of Transcendent Intelligence” In Theism and Atheism: Philosophical Arguments in Opposition (New York: Macmillan Reference Library) pp 345-354. For additional critical perspective of the eternal multiverse see Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos “Cambridge University Press” pp182-290. 36 Alexander Vilenkin, 2006. Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill and Wang) p. 176. 37 Since the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth theorem rules out all expanding universes (or multiverses), and the entropy evidence rules out an eternal universe and all bouncing universes, and the static universe hypothesis is intrinsically contradictory and highly improbable in light of quantum instabilities, the only recourse left seems to be that of postulating “backward time” prior to the Big Bang (see Aguirre and Gratton 2002). Most physicists have unhesitatingly declared this hypothesis to be physically unrealistic because it enables physically unrealistic phenomena to occur – such as the sound of the clap coming before the clap.

11

case, because of the universal applicability of the B-V-G proof (for all expanding cosmologies) and entropy (for all physical systems). Might there be an exception? Remember that the physical sciences will always allow for new discoveries until we have observed everything there is to observe and understand it perfectly. Needless to say this will be a long time from now. In the meantime, the universal applicability of the B-V-G proof and entropy give significant evidence for reasonable and responsible belief in the likelihood of a beginning of physical reality itself.

If a beginning of physical reality is a point at which everything physical (including mass- energy, space and time, and physical laws and constants) came into existence, then prior to this beginning, all aspects of physical reality would have been nothing. This means that prior to this beginning, physical reality– physical space and time, physical mass and energy, and the laws and constants as well as any other dimension of physical reality—was nothing.

We now encounter a problem not so much created by philosophers, but some contemporary physicists (such as Stephen Hawking). These physicists have boldly contravened the age-old philosophical dictum that “nothing is nothing, and from nothing, nothing comes.” For example, Hawking has declared:

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.”38

Let us examine this statement more closely. Hawking begins with, “because there is a law such as gravity.” Normally the word “is” means “exists.” Does Hawking mean that gravity exists? If so, then he is not talking about the universe coming from nothing, because he is implying that it comes from an existing “law such as gravity.” So, either he is equivocating (using the term “nothing” with two different meanings in the same argument which is a fallacy) or he really believes that a law such as gravity is literally nothing. However, if the law of gravity were really nothing then it would have only the effect of nothing, which is no effect at all. Whatever way we look at it, Hawking’s assertion here is either equivocal, self-contradictory, or just plain nonsense. Every attempt I have seen by a physicist to make such an assertion is equally nonsensical. It is best, therefore, to stand by the age-old philosophical adage that “nothing is nothing, and from nothing, nothing comes.” If we hold to this, we can now see the significance of reaching the beginning of physical reality (as implied above by the B-V-G proof and entropy).

So what must we do to treat “nothing” as “nothing”? This requires not putting any content into “nothing” such as continuity, dimensionality, or orientability (as might be found in a spatial field). “Nothing” cannot refer to an empty spatial field, because you can’t have more or less of nothing (but you can have more or less of an empty spatial field). Furthermore, “nothing” can’t refer to a zero-energy state of a false vacuum fluctuation because the false vacuum fluctuation, in which the zero-energy state occurs, exists. Any attempt to equate “nothing” with an existing physical (or transphysical) condition argues the most fundamental of contradictions—that

38 Steven Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, 2012 The Grand Design (New York: Bantam) pp180.

12

nothing is really something or that something is really nothing. So let us all agree to let nothing be nothing.

We can know something else about nothing – namely, that it can only do nothing. As metaphysicians since the time of Parmenides have recognized, “From nothing, only nothing can come.” As you may have recognized “nothing” (defined as the absence of absolutely everything) cannot do anything. It has no power, no activity, no characteristics, no quality, no dimensionality, no intelligibility, and no other aspect that can do anything. Any other assertion is either equivocal, self-contradictory, or just plain nonsense.

We may now proceed to our conclusion:

1. There is a reasonable likelihood of a beginning of physical reality prior to which physical reality was literally nothing (evidence from the B-V-G proof and entropy). 2. From nothing, only nothing comes (law of noncontradiction). 3. Conclusion. If at some point in the finite past the whole of physical reality came into existence from nothing, then prior to that beginning the whole of physical reality was nothing. If the whole of physical reality was nothing (prior to the beginning), then the whole of physical reality could not have created itself, because when it was nothing, it could only do nothing. Therefore, something else which is beyond the whole of physical reality would have to have created the whole of physical reality out of its state of nothingness. This “something else” must be beyond physical space and time and capable of creating something out of nothing. Such a reality is generally referred to as a “creator” or “God.” In conclusion, inasmuch as physics points to the reasonable likelihood of a beginning of physical reality, it also points to the reasonable likelihood of a transcendent creator (God).

V. Evidence of a Transcendent Intelligence from the Fine-Tuning of the Universe

There are several conditions of our universe necessary for the emergence of any complex life form. Many of these conditions are so exceedingly improbable that it is not reasonable to expect that they could have occurred by pure chance. For this reason, many physicists attribute their occurrence to supernatural design. Some other physicists prefer to believe instead that the cause of this fine-tuning is trillions upon trillions of “other bubble universes” (in a multiverse which is unobserved and likely unobservable). 39 Before discussing which explanation is more

39 I have written (with James Sinclair) a comprehensive assessment of these instances of fine-tuning for professional physicists. Faculty and students of physics may want to consult this version of the argument for a much deeper scientific explanation. See Robert J Spitzer and James Sinclair 2019 “Fine-Tuning and Indications of Transcendent Intelligence” In Theism and Atheism: Philosophical Arguments in Opposition (New York: Macmillan Reference Library) pp 331-358 See also Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos “Cambridge: Cambridge university press”. PP**

13

probative, we need to explore some specific instances of this highly improbable fine-tuning for life in our universe.

We may break the discussion into two parts:

A. The exceedingly high improbability of our low entropy universe (Section V.A), and B. The exceedingly high improbability of the anthropic values of our universe’s constants (Section V.B).

We will discuss each in turn.

V.A The High Improbability of Our Low-Entropy Universe

A low-entropy universe is necessary for the emergence, evolution, and complexification of life forms (because a high entropy universe would run down before such development could occur). Recall that low entropy means “high order of a physical system,” and that this high order is necessary for our universe to be productively active in the long-term process of the emergence and development of life (see above Section III). Recall also that high order (high complexity) is far more improbable than low order (low complexity) or complete disorder (no complexity). Roger Penrose has calculated the exceedingly small probability of a pure chance occurrence of our low–entropy universe as 1010123to one against occurrence. How can we understand this number? It is like a ten raised to an exponent of:

100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.

This number is so large, that if every zero were 10 point type, our solar system would not be able to hold it! This is about the same odds as a monkey typing Shakespeare’s Macbeth by random tapping of the keys in a single attempt (virtually impossible). Currently, there is no natural explanation for the occurrence of this number, and if none is found, then we are left with the words of Roger Penrose himself:

“In order to produce a universe resembling the one in which we live, the Creator would have to aim for an absurdly tiny volume of the phase space of possible universes—about 1/1010123of the entire volume, for the situation under consideration.”40

Penrose is saying that our low entropy universe cannot be explained by a random (pure chance) occurrence. Therefore, one will have to make recourse either to a multiverse (composed of bubble universes, each having different values of constants and initial conditions) or as Penrose implies, a Creator (with a super intellect).

40 Roger Penrose, 1989. The Emperor’s New Mind (Oxford: Oxford University Press). PP 343-344

14

Remember that low entropy is necessary for the formation and evolution of life and that the odds of our low entropy universe are about the same as a monkey typing the whole of Shakespeare’s Macbeth by random tapping of the keys in a single try. This means that the conditions necessary for the development of life in our universe are virtually impossible without recourse to either a multiverse or an intelligent creator. Indeed, it is fair to say that this one instance of fine-tuning is a prime motivator for naturalistic scientists to “create” the eternal multiverse hypothesis. If the eternal multiverse is shown to be fundamentally untenable, then it will give scientific validation to the likelihood of an intelligent creator (see below Section VI).

V.B The High Improbability of Other Anthropic Conditions (Based on Cosmological Constants)

A is a number which controls the equations of physics and the laws of nature; therefore, their values control whether the universe will be hostile or hospitable to any life form. Some examples of constants are:

• The Speed of Light Constant (c= 300,000 km per second), • Planck’s Constant (ℏ = 6.6 x 10-34 joule seconds), • The Gravitational Attraction Constant (G = 6.67 x 10-11 ) • The Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant (gs = 15) • The Weak Force Constant (gw = 1.43 x 10-62) • The Rest Mass of the Proton (mp = 1.67 x 10-27 kg), The • The Rest Mass of an Electron (me = 9.11 x 10-31 kg) • The Charge of an Electron Proton (e = 1.6 x 10-19 coulombs).

There are several other constants, but the above constants are sufficient to show the fine- tuning of our universe.

Before proceeding to some examples, it should be noted that the constants could have been virtually any value (higher or lower) within a very broad range at the Big Bang. However, the range of values of the constants that will allow for the development of a life form is exceedingly small (given the essential laws of physics and the mass of the universe). This means that any life form is exceedingly improbable (see the examples below).

Notice also that the Big Bang is a boundary condition to natural causation in our universe because what preceded the Big Bang was not causally connected to the post-big-bang universe. This makes it very difficult to appeal to some kind of prior natural causation to account for the values of our constants and the low entropy of our universe, which were present at the Big Bang. If a natural cause of the constants and initial conditions of our universe cannot be found, then there are only two explanations that remain—a multiverse with trillions upon trillions (or even an infinity) of bubble universes or an intelligent creator. We may now proceed to some examples of how the constants’ values are fine-tuned for life.

15

1. If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) -- one part in 1050 (.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form. Paul Davies describes it as follows:

If G, or gw, differed from their actual values by even one part in 1050, the precise balance against bare would be upset, and the structure of the universe would be drastically altered.41…If Λ were several orders of magnitude greater, the expansion of the universe would be explosive, and it is doubtful if galaxies could ever have formed against such a disruptive force. If Λ were negative, the explosion would be replaced by a catastrophic collapse of the universe. It is truly extraordinary that such dramatic effects would result from changes in the strength of either gravity, or the weak force, of less than one part in 1050. 42

This cannot be reasonably explained by a single random occurrence.

Recall that the gravitational constant and the weak force constant do not have to have these precise necessary values (for life) at the big bang. They could have had virtually any value within a very broad range—higher or lower. The improbability of them having values within the very narrow range described above is astronomically high—like a monkey typing the first scene of Shakespeare’s Macbeth perfectly by random tapping of the keys in a single try.

2. If the strong nuclear force constant were higher than its value (15) by only 2%, there would be no hydrogen in the universe (and therefore no nuclear fuel or water, prohibiting the development of any known life form). If, on the other hand, the strong nuclear force constant had been 2% lower than its value then no element heavier than hydrogen could have emerged in the universe (helium, carbon, etc.). This would have prevented the development of a life form from the periodic table (specifically carbon-based life forms). Walter Bradley sums up Brandon Carter’s research on this topic by noting: “Brandon Carter in 1970 showed that a 2 percent reduction in the strong force and its associated constant would preclude the formation of nuclei with larger numbers of protons, making the formation of elements heavier than hydrogen impossible. On the other hand, if the strong force and associated constant were just 2 percent greater than it is, then all hydrogen would be converted to helium and heavier elements from the beginning, leaving the universe no water and no long-term fuel for the stars. The absolute value of the strong force constant, and more importantly, its value relative to the electromagnetic force constant is not “prescribed” by

41 Davies. 1982. p.107. Italics mine. 42 Paul, Davies,----. 1982. The Accidental Universe. (New York: Cambridge University Press).. p.108.

16

any physical theories, but it is certainly a critical requirement for a universe suitable for life.”43

As with the gravitational and weak force constants, the strong nuclear force constant could have had virtually any value within a very broad range at the big bang. Thus the odds against it having the very narrow range needed for life at the big bang are exceedingly high—like a monkey typing half of the first scene of Shakespeare's Macbeth by random tapping of the keys in a single try. . 3. If the gravitational constant, electromagnetism, or the “proton mass relative to the electron mass” varied from their values by only a tiny fraction (higher or lower), then all stars would be either blue giants or red dwarfs. These kinds of stars would not emit the proper kind of heat and light for a long enough period to allow for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms. Paul Davies outlines this coincidence as follows:

“What is remarkable is that this typical mass M* just happens to lie in the narrow range between the blue giants and red dwarfs. This circumstance is, in turn, a consequence of an apparently accidental relation between the relative strengths of gravity and electromagnetism, as will be shown….This remarkable relation compares the strength of gravity (on the left) with the strength of electromagnetism, and the ratio of electron to proton mass…. Putting in the numbers, one obtains 5.9 x 10-39 for the left hand, and 2.0 x 10-39 for the right-hand side. Nature has evidently picked the values of the fundamental constants in such a way that typical stars lie very close indeed to the boundary of convective instability. The fact that the two sides of the inequality are such enormous numbers, and yet lie so close to one another [10-39], is truly astonishing. If gravity were very slightly weaker, or electromagnetism very slightly stronger, (or the electron slightly less massive relative to the proton), all stars would be red dwarfs. A correspondingly tiny change the other way, and they would all be blue giants.”44

Recall again that the electromagnetic constant, the mass of the proton, and the mass of the electron could have had almost any value within a very broad range at the big bang. Thus the improbability of their having the precise values needed for life at the big bang is exceedingly high—like our proverbial monkey typing Macbeth.

4. As noted above, it is virtually impossible for the initial conditions and constants of the universe needed for life to have occurred by pure chance at the Big Bang. Yet, the

43 Walter Bradley, 1998. “Designed or Designoid?” Mere Creation: Science, Faith & Intelligent Design. Ed. by William A. Dembski. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press). p 183. Roger Penrose, 1989. The Emperor’s New Mind. (Oxford: Oxford University Press). PP 343-344 44Paul, Davies. 1982.. The Accidentel Universe : The World You Thought You Knew. (New York : Vintage) p 71-73

17

problem goes much deeper—to the laws of chemistry (the nuclear resonances necessary for carbon atoms) and the laws of biology (the assembling of constituents within a cell). Sir Fred Hoyle (Former Director of Astronomy at Cambridge University and Father of the Theory of Stellar Nucleosynthesis) discovered the exceedingly high improbability of oxygen, carbon, helium and beryllium having the precise resonance levels to allow for both carbon abundance and carbon bonding (necessary for life). He noticed that if either carbon’s nuclear resonance had been 4% lower or oxygen’s nuclear resonance had been one-half percent higher, there would be no carbon (necessary for life) in our universe. Owen Gingerich (Astronomy at ) summed up the discovery as follows:

…here the internal details of the carbon nucleus become interesting: it turns out that there is precisely the right resonance within the carbon to help this process along. …The specific resonances within atomic nuclei are something like [a sound wave which can shatter a glass at a very precise frequency], except in this case the particular energy enables the parts to stick together rather than to fly apart. In the carbon atom, the resonance just happens to match the combined energy of the beryllium atom and a colliding helium nucleus. Without it, there would be relatively few carbon atoms. Similarly, the internal details of the oxygen nucleus play a critical role. Oxygen can be formed by combining helium and carbon nuclei, but the corresponding resonance level in the oxygen nucleus is half a percent too low for the combination to stay together easily. Had the resonance level in the carbon been 4 percent lower, there would be essentially no carbon. Had that level in the oxygen been only half a percent higher, virtually all of the carbon would have been converted to oxygen. Without that carbon abundance, none of us would be here now. ¶ I am told that Fred Hoyle, who together with William Fowler first noticed the remarkable arrangement of carbon and oxygen nuclear resonances, has said that nothing has shaken his atheism as much as this discovery.45

When one considers the possible nuclear resonance levels for carbon and oxygen that would not have produced carbon atoms (compared to the very narrow range that can lead to carbon), the probability of having any carbon-based life forms in our universe is exceedingly low.

The problem with carbon-based life forms does not stop there. As Hoyle later noted, the assembling of carbon-atoms and compounds in the precise way to obtain amino acids, and the assembling of those amino acids to obtain a single celled orgarnism are also exceedingly, exceedingly low. He analogized this to a Boeing 747 being constructed in a junkyard:

45 Owen Gingerich, 2000. “Do the Heavens Declare.” In The Book of the Cosmos. Ed by Dennis Richard Danielson. (Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing). pp. 524-25.

18

A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing 747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? So small as to be negligible, even if a tornado were to blow through enough junkyards to fill the whole Universe.46

As can be seen, it is not just the laws and constants of physics and the laws of chemistry (nuclear resonances) needed for life that give probative evidence of fine-tuning, but also the laws of biology (underlying cellular metabolism and replication). The exceedingly low probability of the occurrence of carbon atoms, amino acids, and metabolizing cells calls for an explanation beyond pure chance. Hoyle did not consider the multiverse option (discussed below in Section VI), and made direct recourse to an intelligent creator. As Gingerich implied above, Hoyle was an adamant atheist for decades—indeed, an atheistic gadfly in the physics community—but the fine-tuning for life overwhelmed him and caused him to declare his faith in a super-calculating super-intellect (Intelligent Creator):

Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.47

VI. Is the multiverse a Likely Explanation for Fine-Tuning for Life

The vast majority of physicists do not attribute the above (and other) anthropic coincidences48 or the low entropy of the universe at the Big Bang to random occurrence. Neither do they appeal to a prior natural cause (since the low entropy and constant values occur at the Big Bang). This virtually compels physicists to select one of two transuniversal explanations:

46 Fred Hoyle 1983, "The Intelligent Universe," (London: Michael Joseph Pub), pp.18-19

47 Fred Hoyle. 1981. “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science. (Pasadena, CA: California Institute of Technology, November), 1981. P.12. 48 For other anthropic coincidences see Spitzer and Sinclair fine-tuning and indications of transcendent intelligence” PP 333-340 19

(a) A multiverse in which every bubble universe has its own set of constant values, ultimately allowing trillions upon trillions (and even an infinity) of bubble universes with different values of constants to naturalistically produce one highly improbable anthropic universe like our own. (b) Supernatural design in which a highly intelligent trans physical Creator selects the values of the constants and produces the low entropy of the universe at the Big Bang (similar to Sir Fred Hoyle’s “super intellect”).

Is the multiverse hypothesis more reasonable and responsible than supernatural intelligence? Three factors mitigate the explanatory power of the multiverse, making it a poor explanation for fine-tuning. Additionally, there are four significant problems with the multiverse itself which make it exceedingly unlikely. We will first examine the Three factors mitigating the explanatory power of the multiverse (Section VI.A.) and then the four problems militating against the multiverse itself (Section VI.B).

VI.A Three Factors Mitigating the Explanatory Power of the Multiverse

In brief, the three factors mitigating the explanatory power of the multivere are as follows:

1. Multiverses are unobserved and very likely unobservable, meaning that it fails a requirement of the scientific method. 2. Multiverses violate the law of parsimony (Ockham’s Razor). 3. The eternal multiverse (of eternal inflation) cannot be tested, because it makes no valid predictions (the measurement problem).

First, all hypothetical bubble universes and the multiverse itself are in principle, unobservable because they are beyond our event horizon. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that they will be able to qualify as a scientific explanation. Recall that all scientific explanations must be validated by observable data, but the multiverse cannot be so validated.

Secondly, the multiverse hypothesis violates the principle of parsimony (Ockham’s Razor) – the explanation with the least number of assumptions, conditions, and requirements is to be preferred (because nature favors elegance over needless complexity). As Paul Davies notes:

Another weakness of the anthropic argument is that it seems the very antithesis of Ockham’s Razor, according to which the most plausible of a possible set of explanations is that which contains the simplest ideas and least number of assumptions. To invoke an infinity of other universes just to explain one is surely carrying excess baggage to cosmic extremes … It is hard to see how such a purely theoretical construct can ever be used as an explanation, in the scientific sense, of a feature of nature. Of course, one might find it easier to believe

20

in an infinite array of universes than in an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation.49

As noted above, the problems of the multiverse go beyond the above three factors. There is very credible and substantial evidence for the unlikeliness of the multiverse itself.

The third factor mitigating the explanatory power of the multiverse is the so-called measurement problem. It pertains more to an infinite multiverse (conjectured in recent theories of eternal inflation) than in other more modest hypotheses. Eternal inflation entails an infinity of bubble universes. If one postulates an infinite number of universes, then there will also be an infinite number of groups or subsets in that infinite multiverse all of which have an infinite number of members. This postulation of infinities of infinities of universes eliminates the possibility of probabilistic predictions because all occurrences are equally probable—they will all occur the same number of times—an infinite number.

Now here’s the problem with applying this postulate to science. We know that our universe must be exceedingly rare in a population of universes within a multiverse, because ours is so large and so cool, that there should be 101056 other universes for every universe like ours. However, this prediction is untestable because according to the eternal inflation model, there are an infinite number of universes like ours as well as an infinite number of universes not like ours within the multiverse. Though we know that our universe should be rare, the presence of an infinity of them makes the hypothesis fundamentally untestable. As Steinhardt vehemently notes, this fails a key requirement of scientific theories.50

VI.B Three Problems Militating Against The Multiverse

Significant problems with the multiverse have been delineated by top physicists throughout the last decade. Three major problems make the multiverse highly unlikely as an adequate explanation of fine-tuning and show it to be a highly implausible reality:

1. The disagreement between the multiverse theory and observational data. 2. The need for greater fine-tuning of the multiverse than our universe. 3. The vexing problem of Boltzmann Brains

The first major problem, disagreement with observational data, was summarized in an article in Scientific American by one of the architects of the multiverse (Princeton’s Paul Steinhardt) and two younger colleagues (Anna Ijjas and Abraham Loeb). To understand this, it is important to see the relationship between the eternal multiverse and eternal inflation—the theory that the universe underwent a huge exponential expansion in a split second very shortly after the

49Paul Davies 1983. God and the New Physics. (New York: Simon and Schuster) pp. 173-174. 50 Paul Steinhardt J. 2011. “Inflation Debate: Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed?” Scientific American V. 304: April 2011, p. 36–43.

21

big bang.51 Inflationary theory is the condition necessary for the multiverse: so if inflationary theory falls, so does the multiverse. After viewing observational data from the Planck Satelite in 2017, Steinhardt, Ijjas, and Loeb noted two disturbing disagreements with observational data:

• The gravitational waves that would have been generated by the inflationary era were simply absent • The estimates of variation in hot and cold spots in the cosmic microwave background was almost negligible in comparison to what would have been expected from an inflationary era (the CMB has near scale invariance from place to place).

These data diverge significantly from what is predicted by the most general models of inflation, and so they call inflationary theory itself into question, and along with it, the multiverse. The three above researchers expressed this problem as follows:

The Planck satellite results—a combination of an unexpectedly small (few percent) deviation from perfect scale invariance in the pattern of hot and cold spots in the CMB and the failure to detect cosmic gravitational waves—are stunning. For the first time in more than 30 years, the simplest inflationary models, including those described in standard textbooks, are strongly disfavored by observations.52

Leonard Susskind attempted to refine inflationary theory by making recourse to string theory— the string theory landscape. Unfortunately, it has also run into significant problems with observational verification. The noted physicist, Thomas Banks (Princeton originator of M Theory), stated it as follows:

The string landscape is a fantasy… Theories of Eternal Inflation (EI) have to rely too heavily on the anthropic principle to be consistent with experiment. Given the vast array of effective low energy field theories that could be produced by the conventional picture of the string landscape, one is forced to conclude that the most numerous anthropically allowed theories will disagree with experiment violently.53

As the above physicists have implied current conceptions of eternal inflation, the eternal multiverse, and the string theory landscape are unlikely. Many other physicists are in agreement

51 See the note explaining inflationary theory in Section I.C above. 52 Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb, 2017 “Cosmology Pop Goes The Universe: The Latest Astrophysical Measurements, Combined With Theoretical Problems, Cast Doubt On The Long-Cherished Inflationary Theory Of The Early Cosmos And Suggest We Need New Ideas” in Scientific American (Jan 2017) p. 36 https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf 53 Tom Banks, 2012, “The Top 10500 Reasons Not to Believe in the Landscape” High Energy Physics-Theory, Vol. 1 https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.5715

22

with Steinhardt, Ijjas, Loeb, and Banks, such as Oxford University’s Roger Penrose,54 Luke Barnes,55 George Ellis,56 and Neil Turok57 to mention but a few.58 What does this mean? As Steinhardt, Ijjas, and Loeb note, the unlikeliness problems of both eternal inflation and the multiverse, are so pronounced that they will be hardpressed to survive observational data in the long-run. The multiverse’s problems do not end here.

The second major problem with inflationary theory and the multiverse is its need for considerable fine-tuning—more fine-tuning than the low entropy universe it is trying to explain. There are four specific problems requiring considerable fine-tuning in inflationary theory:

• Prior to inflation, there must be almost no curvature of space (entailing very low entropy) which is exceedingly improbable.59 • A patch of space where the quantum fluctuations of spacetime have died down and the space is well described by Einstein’s classical equation of general relativity (which is also highly improbable) • The timing for the initiation of inflation must be very precise which requires considerable fine-tuning. • The point at which inflation turns off must also be exceedingly fine-tuned to give rise to a cool, virtually scale-invariant universe like ours.

These fine-tuning requirements do not solve the fine-tuning problem of low entropy mentioned above.60 They actually complicate and exacerbate it. Inflation (especially eternal inflation) can only move the fine-tuning problem back one-step, without solving it. We now are faced with the question about the origin of the fine-tuning of inflation that produces the hypothetical multiverse and our specific patch of it.

54 See Roger Penrose, 2016, Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press). P. 120 ff 55 Luke Barnes, 2012, “The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life” in History and Philosophy of Physics, June 2012, pp. 64-77 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf 56 George Ellis, 2011 "Does the Multiverse Really Exist?". Scientific American. Vol. 305 no. 2. Nature Publishing Group. August 1, 2011, pp. 38–43. 57 Neil Turok, 2002, A Critical Review of Inflation. Classical and Quantum Gravity, Vol. 19, Number 13, June 2002, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/19/13/305/meta 58 I have summarized many of these arguments in Spitzer and Sinclair 2019 “Fine-Tuning and Indication of Transcendent Intelligence” pp. 345-354 59 The improbability of its occurrence approaches Penrose’s calculation for the improbability of the low entropy of our universe without inflation--1010123 to one against occurrence. 60 Recall from above that Roger Penrose calculated that the odds against our low entropy universe are 1010123 to one!

23

This problem was elucidated by Neil Turok in 200261 and has been further elucidated by several other studies.62 Steinhardt, Ijjas, and Loeb have also raised this problem somewhat humorously:

First, shortly after the big bang, there has to be a patch of space where the quantum fluctuations of spacetime have died down and the space is well described by Einstein’s classical equations of general relativity; second, the patch of space must be flat enough and have a smooth enough distribution of energy that the inflationary energy can grow to dominate all other forms of energy. Several theoretical estimates of the probability of finding a patch with these characteristics just after the big bang suggest that it is more difficult than finding a snowy mountain equipped with a ski lift and well-maintained ski slopes in the middle of a desert.63

It seems that the inflationary scenario used to explain our incredibly fine-tuned universe is just as improbable, if not more improbable than what it attempts to explain.

The third problem of the multiverse is vexing and calls into question the eternal multiverse as well as other mega-multiverses—Boltzmann Brains. Essentially the problem is that a carbon-based life form like ours in a universe like ours is so exceedingly, exceedingly improbable, that it is vastly more probable that randomly generated brains, fully loaded with memories like ours fluctuate into existence indeed, in any such universe there should be vastly more Boltzmann brains than carbon-based life forms like ourselves. This means that we are very probably Boltzmann Brains (with memories of ourselves being carbon-based life forms) that fluctuated into existence (rather than carbon-based life forms). Luke Barnes puts it this way:

We should be wary of any multiverse which allows for single brains, imprinted with memories, to fluctuate into existence. The worry is that, for every observer who really is a carbon-based life form who evolved on a planet orbiting a star in a galaxy, there are vastly more for whom this is all a passing dream, the few, fleeting fancies of a phantom fluctuation [of a randomly generated Boltzmann Brain].64

We might sum up by noting that eternal inflation (and it’s progeny, the eternal multiverse) are highly unlikely. It is not confirmed by observable data (and even runs contrary to the data), requires as much fine-tuning as the low entropy universe it attempts to explain, and will give rise to so many more Boltzmann Brains than carbon-based life forms, that we would have to infer that we are all likely to be Boltzmann Brains. Under the circumstances, Steinhardt, Ijjas, and Loeb are very likely correct—we should be looking for another explanation of fine-

61 Neil Turok, 2002, A Critical Review of Inflation. Classical and Quantum Gravity, Vol. 19, Number 13, June 62 Lewis Geraint and Luke A. Barnes give a popular explanation and several studies concerned with this problem. see Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos “Cambridge university press”. PP171-205 63 Ijjas, Steinhardt, and Loeb 2017 “Pop Goes the Universe” P. 38 64 Luke Barnes, 2012, “The Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Intelligent Life” in History and Philosophy of Physics, June 2012, pp. 68-69 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf

24

tuning besides inflation and the multiverse—particularly eternal inflation and an eternal multiverse.

VII Conclusion

In section II-IV above we presented the evidence for a creation of physical reality as well as the fine-tuning of our universe. We noted that a multiverse does not escape the need for a creation, because it must be inflationary, and therefore has an average rate of expansion greater than zero (subjecting it to the B-V-G Proof—Section II above). When discussing fine-tuning, we noted that the low entropy of our universe and other cosmic “coincidences” are so exceedingly improbable that it is less likely than a monkey typing the whole of Shakespeares Macbeth perfectly by random tapping of the keys in a single try. Inasmuch as this fine-tuning occurs at the Big Bang (and is causally disconnected from any previous manifestation of the universe), we are left with only two plausible explanations—a multiverse with at least 1010123 bubble universes or a highly intelligent creator that has fashioned the initial conditions of our universe toward low entropy and the initial constants of our universe towards life.

After considering the three factors limiting the explanatory power of the multiverse and the three reasons for considering it to be highly unlikely, it seems that the cosmic creator hypothesis is most probative and plausible. Recall that science must be open to new discoveries, and so no scientific explanation can be definitive. Nevertheless, science can achieve reasonable and responsible belief in the likelihood of an intelligent creator given the preponderance of evidence for it (outlined above). In view of this, we can conclude that an intelligent creator of our finely-tuned universe (transcending physical reality and space-time) is reasonable and responsible and, in light of current evidence, more likely than alternative naturalistic explanations. When this is combined with the philosophical proofs of God (in the next Module) as well as other evidence from medical studies of near-death experiences (Module I) and miracles (appendix to Module V) we can come to a sound informal inference that a transcendent, intelligent creator of our universe and our transphysical souls exists and is active in the world.

We began this Module by asking why the majority of scientists and physicians believe in God. We may now gain an insight into why most physicists believe in God--though we have not looked at the evidence from biology and the life sciences.65 If you would like to see an interview of eight top physicists—including Arno Penzias (Nobel Prize for discovery of Uniform Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation of the Big Bang), John Pokinghorne (particle physics, Cambridge), Michael Heller (Priest Physicist—Vatican Observatory), Owen Geingrich (Astronomy, Harvard), Lisa Randall (Physics, Harvard), and Jennifer Wiseman (NASA Goddard Institute)—about their reasons for belief, go to the Magis Center website, click on the Faith,

65 Readers interested in indications of mind-like design evidenced in biology may want to begin with a technical, but generally accessible volume by Dr. Marcos Eberlin—Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose (2019). Eberlin is the winner of the Thomson prize and the founder of the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory. This book sets out several paradoxes that point to mind-like foresight. For example, the need for cells to manufacture amino acids, and the need for amino acids to constitute cells. Without simultaneous, mutually causal action, neither can occur—so how did it start? 25

Science, and Reason landing page, go to the free resources and click on the Magis Center documentary Cosmic Origins or simply visit the following URL https://magiscenter.com/cosmic- origins-video/.

We conclude with the words of Dr. Robert Jastrow (founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) who concluded his book God and the Astronomers with the following words:

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.66

Jastrow’s contention applies more today than ever before.

66 Robert Jastrow, 1978 God and the Astronomers, (Norton) p. 116; (p. 107 in 1992 edition).

26