IV. Another approach
A. Introduction
However, while this is all well and good, it does not face the basic problem which engendered the above-mentioned reasoning, and which humans have been trying to answer since they became aware, even dimly aware: we are here, at some time, something has come from nothing; how did that happen?
B. Definitions
(1) Universe
Before proceeding further, it seems proper to define what is meant by the term “universe.” Starting with the definition of “universe” provided by the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms (McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, 1974), the term universe can be defined as “the totality of things, events, relations and energies – both large and small – which are capable of being sensed, understood and described objectively using either present or future sensing abilities.” By future sensing abilities, it is meant any and all possible instruments which can be invented which permit us to sense something. As discussed in other essays, human imagination begins where our senses and ability to comprehend end. By definition, human imagination must have some basis from what has been sensed and understood and human imagination requires some basis from which to build. That is, for example, we can imagine the smell of an orange only if we have, at some time, smelled something similar to an orange. If we have never smelled such a thing, we have no basis for imagining what an orange might smell like. We can only imagine things or events that are based on, extensions of, or variations of things or events which we have already sensed.
Our universe is limited by our ability to sense as well as our ability to comprehend. Thus, our universe is limited by the limits of the technology available to us as well as the ability of our mind to comprehend. As such, our universe will be limited to those sensing and comprehending abilities and will end where it is not possible for humans to sense or understand things or events. The perfect example of this limitation is the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (7-CDM) model of the universe which cosmologists use to describe the history of our universe from the Big Bang[1] to today. This model uses several parameters, including the densities of ordinary matter, dark matter and dark energy along with the amplitude and shape of quantum fluctuations in the early universe. However, we do not understand these parameters, such as dark matter, dark energy[2] and inflatons. Therefore, while the model may be successful in showing us how one known thing is connected to another, it has no use in showing us where our universe came from or what happened prior to our universe. Our universe thus ends where any further possibility of our sensing and understanding things or events ends. As discussed elsewhere, this limits our universe between the Planck length (1.6 x 10-35 meters) and the Cosmic Boundary (1026 meters from Earth). If we have no possible basis for extending what we know, then we cannot exercise our imagination and cannot imagine what occurs beyond this limit. Our universe thus ends at this point. It might be noted that this definition leaves open the possibility that other beings, having different senses than humans, might have different universes. The universes might even overlap to the extent that humans might be able to sense something that the other beings cannot sense, and vice versa. It should also be noted that this definition of “universe” is not solipsistic as it does not assume that our universe was set up around us, but only says that our universe ends where our senses end in a manner which we can no longer imagine things, events, or relations[3].
(2) Infinity
The above definition of “universe” is consistent with the concept of infinity which is that of a value or thing larger or smaller than any value or thing we can sense, understand or imagine. By this definition, something is infinite if it lies beyond our ability, present or future, to sense and understand something which will provide a basis for imagining some related thing. When we reach this point, we have reached the limit of our universe and anything that lies beyond is infinite relative to us. It is unknowable and unimaginable for us. It is infinite and beyond our universe[4].
C. Discussion
All of the errors in the above-reasoning processes seem to be rooted in the same cause[5]: they try to provide one single definition that includes both the transcendence of God and the immanence of God. The transcendent God of all is, to us, infinity. That is, He is undefinable and unknowable by us; we are simply incapable of knowing this God. If this God is anything less than infinity, He is not the infinite God because He will have limits. By definition, infinity cannot be defined because any definition will place limits on the thing defined. Any attempt to define this God will thus fail since it is trying to define the undefinable[6]. By combining this undefinable infinity with other attributes, we reach a paradox no matter what approach is used. Accordingly, if we are to believe that we, as something, are here, and at some time there was nothing, we must accept the God, the transcendent God, that began it all on faith.[7] It is this transcendent God who could create the initial universe out of nothing. However, since we cannot know this transcendent God, we cannot know how or why He did it. We must simply accept it on faith. Both science and religion must make this faith-based acceptance since neither can know this transcendent God[8].
In the June, 2008 issue of Scientific American, Sean M. Carroll discusses the concept of the existence of multiple universes. It is noted that the above definition of “universe” is consistent with the concept of mulitverses being discussed. The broad concept of a multiverse has been posited for many years, maybe as early as 1895 when American philosopher William James coined the term multiverse[9]. The multiverse concept has included models from cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, and the like. In fact, several theories, including “string theory[10],” have predicted the existence of other universes. At the ime this essay is being written, there are as many as nine versions of the multiverse concept, including Quilted, Inflationary, Brane, Cyclic, and Landscape. In fact, quantum mechanics almost requires the existence of multiple universes where all possible outcome happen with each outcome inhabiting its own separate universe. If the universe is infinite and time is infinite, it seems logical to conclude from the multiverse theory that universes will repeat. That is, somewhere there is a universe exactly like ours containing people exactly like us. This duplicate universe may be well beyond our cosmic boundary so we will never know anything about it. But that does not obviate the possibility that such a universe actually does exist. However, it should be noted that to date, there has been no concrete proof of the existence of multiple universes which is accurate enough to satisfy all scientists. There is not even the multistep proof of having a mathematical model that has arisen from a theory that predicts the existence of multiverses that, itself, has been tested and verified to sufficient accuracy to satisfy scientists that the model is correct and hence the multiverse which gave rise to the model must be correct. So, while the existence of multiple universes seems logical, the actuality of multiple universes has not been proven sufficiently to be accepted by all scientists.
The multiverse theory might also be based on the theory that the very early cosmos expanded exponentially[11] and during this period of extreme expansion, some regions of space expanded at different rates from each other, and some even ceased expanding sooner than others. This created a “bubble” effect, so called because the effect resembles the formation of bubbles in a boiling liquid. Our universe was one of those “bubbles,” and there would be many other such “bubble” universes. The curvature of space could be proof of the existence of multiple “bubble” universes because to one existing inside a bubble, space would appear curved[12].
The multiverse concept has been used in the context of universes beyond our observable universe and posits universes within universes. It has been used in quantum mechanics in the context of uncertainty principles; that is, certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely, and the unpredictable observations are visualized as existing in alternate universes[13]. Richard Feynman interpreted the multiuniverse model as multiple possible histories, H. Dieter Zeh interpreted it as many minds. Mathematical structures has been used to explain multiple universes by Max Tegmark as well as Hugh Everett III. Multiple universes have been visualized as a cycling of the universe. String theory[14] and M-theory envision multi-dimensional space which seems to be similar to multi universes[15]. The concept has been used to explain why the particular universe which we inhabit is so receptive to our form of life, this is known as the Anthropic principle; out of all the possible universes, this is the one that is receptive to our life form while others are not.
Probability theory is an important tool in quantum physics. Such a tool is used to “predict” events. For instance, in a macro world, we can say with a certain degree of certainty where a particle will be at any particular time; however, in a quantum world where the probabilistic nature of the quantum particles is intrinsic, this is not possible. Thus, we resort to probability to say only that there is a chance that a quantum particle will be at a particular place at a particular time, and even then, it is only a hazy estimation of the place and time.
It is noted that Yasunori Nomura in “The Quantum Multiverse” published in the June 2017 issue of Scientific American (volume 316, number 6, pages 29-35,notes that the existence of multiple universes creates a problem with prediction and then responds to this problem by using a reinterpretation of the Copenhagen interpretation[16] of quantum mechanics to combine the multiverse theory with quantum physics and quantum mechanics and overcome the predictive problem[17]. The author states, “Just as quantum measurement could spawn many different results distinguished by their probability of occurring, inflation could produce many different universes, each with a different probability of coming into being.” He then states, “The multiple universes in this case do not all exist simultaneously in real space – they coexist only in ‘probability space,’ that is, as possible outcomes of observations made by people living inside each world. Thus, each universe – each possible outcome – retains a specific probability of coming into being….In this new picture, our world is only one of all possible worlds that are allowed by the fundamental principles of quantum physics and that exist simultaneously in probability space.”
In religion, afterlife might be considered occurring in a universe different from ours. As discussed earlier in this essay, some physicists theorize that if the Standard Model is not proven by the positive identification of the Higgs Boson, the Standard Model may have to be abandoned in favor of a multiverse model. In recent years, cosmologists have envisioned two types of multiverse: Level 1 envisions the multiverse as containing many, even infinitely many, domains much like the one we inhabit; and Level 2 which completely different kinds of universes with different physics, different histories and maybe even different numbers of spatial dimensions[18]. There have been numerous proposals for what the additional universes might look like (but it is virtually impossible to prove or disprove any of the proposals since we cannot observe these additional universes). These include universes in various regions of space[19], universes in different times[20], universes in a different branch of the quantum wave function[21] , or universes in a different spacetime[22].
Actually, when one thinks about it, imagining our universe as the only universe is solipsistic, egotistical and self-centered and perhaps the height of hubris.
The Carroll article is another manifestation of the multiverse concept. In the article, Carroll suggests that the overall entropy[23] of the entire universe must remain constant. Therefore, if entropy in one place increases, it will decrease in other places. Thus, Carroll suggests that since entropy in our universe is trending one way, there must be another universe somewhere else where the entropy is trending the other way so the overall entropy in the entire universe will remain constant. Carroll also analogized this to time running one way in our part of the universe and running the opposite way in another part of the universe. Thus, Carroll envisioned the overall universe as comprising a plurality of universes[24]: One (or more) universe contained in another universe which is (along with other universes are) contained in another universe which is (along with other universes are) contained in another universe…..ai; like two perfect plane mirrors oriented perfectly parallel to each other will, theoretically, reflect an infinite number of images.
Carroll’s teaching of multiple universes can be applied to the current discussion in order to cut the Gordian Knot which tied up the above-discussed existence of God reasoning processes which broke down because they tried to define the infinite, or broke down because they defined God in a manner that was less than God must be. Using Carroll’s teaching that there may be multiple universes, we can reason that the universe that we inhabit is but one of many universes. It also allows us to account for the incredibly exacting conditions that are required for our life to exist. That is, for example, if the strength of the nuclear force or the density of cosmic dark matter were very, very slightly different from what they are, life, in any form, would not have arisen in our universe[25]. The concept of the multiverse allows for this by having some universes that do not have the proper constants (and hence do not exist in the manner of ours) while ours is the one universe among many that does have the proper constants[26]. Based on probability theory, given an infinite number of universes and an infinite amount of time, it is a certainty that the constants necessary to give birth to our universe would sometime arise in the proper combination[27]. This reasoning will lead to a conclusion that allows us to visualize God in a manner which overcomes both of the abovementioned shortcomings[28].
The concept of multiple universes seems to correspond to current views of quantum physics. As discussed in The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, “In this view, our universe appeared spontaneously, starting off in every possible way. Most of these correspond to other universes. While some of those universes are similar to ours, most are very different…..In fact, many universes exist with many different sets of physical laws.” These authors then analogized the multiple universe situation to creation of bubbles in boiling liquid situation. Many bubbles are created, but many do not last, but some will survive. Some of the bubbles will be non-uniform. In such non-uniform bubbles, gravitational forces will be different in different regions. As such, it will be higher in some regions than in others. If our universe is such a “bubble,” then the possibility exists for the regions of high gravity to form stars, planets and the like.
The authors then move on to discuss M-Theory which allows for different universes with different laws. They state: “M-theory has solutions that allow for many different internal spaces, perhaps as many as 10500, which means it allows for 10500 different universes, each with its own laws. “ Thus, the concept of multiple universes seems to be confirmed by these two authors using the principles of quantum physics.
Hawking and Mlodinow use the multiverse concept to explain how humans arrived at their present status. The reasoning from their book, The Grand Design uses two principles: the weak anthropic principle and the strong anthropic principle, and might be summarized as follows.
The weak anthropic principle holds that our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. That is, the fact that we breathe oxygen restricts our environment to an atmosphere that contains sufficient oxygen to support us. While we may have adapted to the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere, the fact is we are oxygen-breathing mammals and thus the atmosphere must have contained this amount of oxygen for us to adapt to it. As discussed in “The Grand Design,” this principle can be applied to the age of the universe, the shape of earth’s orbit and the location of earth. By tracing backwards from our present, we can seek the initial parameters that lead to the present state of our world. Without an understanding of science, it is little wonder that the ancients would detect the hand of God, an intelligent designer, in the fact that our universe seems to be designed and tailor-made to support us.
Hawking and Mlodinow argue for an extension of this principle to what they term the “strong anthropic principle” which they summarize states that the fact that we exist in our present form imposes constraints not just on our environment but also on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves. The authors use this principle to explain how the characteristics of our entire universe are conducive to the development of humans in their present form. These authors then apply the assumption of our universe being only one of many to support this conclusion:
But if true, then the strong anthropic principle can be considered effectively equivalent to the weak one, putting the fine-tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat-now the entire observable universe-is only one of many, just as our solar system is one of many. That means that in the same way that the environmental coincidences of our solar system were rendered unremarkable by the realization that billions of such systems exist, the fine-tunings in the laws of nature can be explained by the existence of multiple universes….But just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the apparently miraculous design of living forms could appear without intervention by a supreme being, the mulitiverse concept can explain the fine-tuning of physical law without the need for a benevolent creator who made the universe for our benefit.
However, while this is persuasive for the state of our existence once the universe, or multiverse, began, it does not explain what happened before (even though time on this side of the creation has no meaning at the instant of creation of our universe as explained by quantum theory) the universe or multiverse was initiated and what initiated it. Again, this must be accepted on faith as discussed above. However, for the purposes of this essay, it will be assumed that Hawking and Mlodinow support the multiverse concept.
The multiverse concept has been
applied in another theory by Niayesh Afshordi, Roibert B. Mann and Razieh
Pourhasan in an article published in Scientific American titled “The Black Hole
at the Beginning of Time”[29]
in which it is theorized that our universe came into being during a stellar
implosion in another universe of which our universe is one universe among
others. The article theorizes that our universe came into being during a
stellar implosion in this universe of universes and this implosion created a
three-dimensional shell around a four-dimensional black hole, with our universe
being in that shell. The article admits that the theory propounded does not
explain what happened prior to the Big Bang. Like the Hawking/Mlodinow theory,
this theory attempts to explain how our universe came into being, but falls
short of explaining why or what happened prior to the Big Bang. Thus, this theory,
like the Hawking/ Mlodinow theory, falls short when viewed through this lens[30].
[1] There is substantial evidence that our universe began with a big bang. This is supported by a convergence of evidence from a wide range of phenomena including cosmic microwave background, the abundance of light elements (such as hydrogen and helium), the distribution of galaxies, the large-scale structure of the cosmos, and the redshift of most galaxies.
[2] See “The Puzzle of Dark Energy” by Adam G. Riess and Mario Livio, Scientific American, March 2016, V 314, No. 3, pp 38-43.
[3] As a note, if this definition of our universe is used, the concept of an expanding or contracting universe is meaningless. While the material within our sensory abilities may move toward or away from us, this does not mean that our universe is contracting or expanding, in fact, it may only mean that the material near us is moving in one direction or another. According to the definition of “universe” used here, our universe is fixed. It can extend no further than our present or future ability to sense and understand things, events or energies using whatever instruments are possible now or in the future. If it is not possible to sense or understand things, then we cannot imagine what things or events are which might be based on those things or events. It should also be noted that infinitely sensitive instruments are not possible. There are technological limits to what can be sensed. Examples of these limits are the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and Planck’s length. Atomic physics can probably supply other examples. As stated by Heisenberg: “What we observe is not nature in itself but nature exposed to our method of questioning.” This statement formalizes the basic concept and method of science: scientific methodology requires an interaction with the system under study. Furthermore, the information we obtain is only as good as the instruments we use to obtain it. The instruments used may, in turn, skew our observations. Thus, our conclusions might be influenced by the limitations and flaws of our instruments (for example, compare biological science before and after invention of the microscope, compare astronomy before and after the invention of the telescope).
[4] A full discussion of the concept of “infinity” is well beyond the scope of this essay. The concept of infinity has intrigued thinkers since Anaximander theorized that our world was formed from a substance which was inexhaustible, timeless and boundless. See also, the writings of Plato, Pythagoras, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Zeno of Elea, and many others for further thoughts on infinity both in mathematics and in philosophy.
[5]None of the arguments prove the existence of God, yet because they can be proved in error does not prove the non-existence of this God. They seem only to prove that humans are simply not capable of imagining this entity.
[6] The Zohar and Kabbalah approach this problem of “defining” God by separating Ein Sof, the unknowable, hence infinite, God from the knowable (hence not infinite) God by means of a ten step chain which descends from Keter (in which the Infinite in material form takes the form of a black spark, a colorless color that penetrates but does not penetrate but which we cannot grasp because this process is beyond the scope of human knowledge) and ends with Malkhut but in between moves through a complicated and interconnected chain in which each stage moves closer to perceptible reality. The descriptions are complex and nearly impossible to understand because they are trying to define infinity, which is, by definition, undefinable.
[7] With regard to the God of the Universe of Universes, the Douglas Adams story recounted in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide” (published by Wing Books of New York in 1986) of the Babel fish, while proposed with tongue in cheek, might be more than a simple parody.
According to the Hitchhiker’s Guide, the Babel fish was put forth as an example for the non-existence of God:
According to the Hitchhiker’s Guide, the Babel fish is small, yellow and leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.
At one point, Arthur Dent, the protagonist of the story, finds himself in a Vogon spacecraft. The Vogon voices are not exactly music to the human ear.
“You’ll need to have this fish in your ear.”
“I beg your pardon?” asked Arthur.
Ford was holding up a small glass jar which quite clearly had a small yellow fish wriggling around in it…He gasped in terror at what sounded like a man trying to gargle while fighting off a pack of wolves.
Once he had the Babel Fish in his ear, Arthur understood perfectly. The Babel Fish lives on brainwave radiation from every source but its host. It then excretes enegry in the form of exactly the correct brainwaves needed by its host to understand what was just said.
“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance.
It proves that you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t” Q.E.D.
Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
“Oh, that was easy,” says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”
This is a humorous account, but it can be used to understand that from our vantage point, the belief in God requires faith. However, on a more serious note, in Plato’s Phaedro, Socrates states that certain things such as ultimate truth, the soul and that good and bad actions will have consequences which occur outside of this life, cannot be proved, but must be accepted on faith. Certainly, God must be accepted on faith because the existence of God and the nature of God cannot be proved. The existence of God, or a definition of God cannot be proved by reason, but it requires a leap of faith to believe in God.
[8] In Guide for the Perplexed, Maimonides proposes a transcendent God that is totally unreachable for human beings. See also, the section “First Cause Revisited” in the essay on God.
[9] See A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence M. Krauss, Atria Paperback, (New York, 2012), chapter 8 “A Grand Accident” as well as pages 175-179 for a further discussion of the multiverse concept as a means for answering the fundamental questions regarding our universe and how it came into existence.
[10] String theory is a theory of all the forces of nature. In string theory there are seven extra dimensions of space in addition to the three that we are familiar with. These extra dimensions are curled up into ultra-tiny loops which have an unlimited number of combinations and dimensions with each way corresponding to a different universe each having its own properties.
[11] Another theory, called the “eternal inflation” theory is an extension of the original inflation theory which was limited to our single universe. The eternal inflation theory postulates that the same physics that propels the exponentially rapid expansion of an inflating universe can spawn new universes, which branch off from the original universe.
[12] Curved space is consistent with Einstein’s theory of General Relativity which envisions masses distorting the space and time around them. Einstein used this concept to explain how gravity works across empty space so one mass affects another (like the sun maintaining the earth in orbit around it) – the earth is in the depression of space caused by the sun and, like a marble in a bowl, cannot fly out of the depression and simply moves around the curved surface of the bowl.
[13] In quantum mechanics, themost fundamental objects that make up matter are viewed, not as being in one location at one time, but instead, as having a probability of being anywhere. Therefore, in quantum mechanics, the location of a subatomic particle is viwed as a matter of probability. For example, an electron’s position is given by the probability that it is at a particular position at a particular time, but there is some probability that it could be anywhere. In quantum mechanics, particles do not have well-defined dpositions and speeds. Instead, they are represented by what is called a wave function. The wave function is a number at each point of space. The size of the wave function gives the probability that the particle will be found in that position. The rate at which the wave function varies from point to point give the spedd of the particle. If a wave function is very strongly peaked at a small region, the uncertainty in the position is small. There can be wave functions where the uncertainty in the speed is small but the uncertainty in position is large.If the wave function is known at one time, then its values at other times can be determined using the Schröedinger equation.
[14] String theory posits that elementary particles are made up of more fundamental entities which behave like vibrating strings. The analogy to vibrating strings says that just as the strings on a musical instrument produce different sounds when they vibrate at different frequencies, the fundamental entities produce different particles when they vibrate at different frequencies. String theory allows scientists to identify these fundamental particles mathematically in much the same way the strings of musical instruments can be characterized mathematically. The problem is that four dimensions is not sufficient and it takes many dimensions for string theory to be consistent.
[15] A relative of String Theory, known as the Enormous Theory envisions symmetry in the universe being divided into four categories, see “The Whole Universe Catalog,” by Stephen Ornes, in Scientific American, July 2015, volume 313, Number 1, pages 68-75.
[16] The Copenhagen interpretation is the same thing as the Heisenberg Principle: according to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse. Nomura applies this principle to rationalize the uncertainty in quantum probability with the problem caused by the “bubble” theory.
[17] The Nomura article might be based on the concept of the many world’s interpretation (MWI). The many-worlds interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, and implies that all possible alternate histories and futures are real, each representing an actual “world” (or “universe”). The hypothesis states there is a very large—perhaps infinite—number of universes, and everything that could possibly have happened in our past, but did not, has occurred in the past of some other universe or universes.
[18] The chief proponent of the Level 2 universe is Alexander Vilenkin who envisions an infinite set of universes with an infinite number of galaxies, an infinite number of planets and an infinite number of people.
[19] Alan H. Guth, Andrei Linde.
[20] Paul J. Steinhardt and Neil Turok.
[21] David Deutsch
[22] Max Tegmark and Dennis Sciama.
[23] In Thermodynamics, an isolated system tends towards a state of maximum probability. From a Thermodynamic viewpoint, the equilibrium state of a closed system is the state of maximum entropy. In an equilibrium state, entropy will have a maximum value. Entropy is a measaure of system disorder: a high entropy means high system disorder; low entropy means low disorder (high order). Systems tend to move toward disorder, hence enropy of a system will tend to increase. Thus, Entropy is a measure of the probability that a system is in an equilibrium state. Entropy is proportional to probability (actually entropy is proportional to the logarithm of probability). As a system naturally trends from a less probable state to a more probable state, its entropy increases. Stated another way, the increase in entropy of a system is a measure of how that system trends from a less probable state to a more probable state. See Statistical Thermodynamics by John F. Lee, Francis W. Sears and Donald L. Turcotte, published by Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc, in 1963, see also, The Refrigerator and the Universe by Martin Goldstein and Inge F. Goldstein, published by Harvard University Press in 1995. Stated yet another way, the entropy of a system is a measure of its disorder and increases over time as the system tends toward randomness. Thus, the probability that a system will tend toward randomness is overwhelming (but not totally certain). Another discussion of the Second Law can be found in Cycles of Time by Roger Penrose and published in 2010 by Alfred A. Knopf of New York. A corollary of this is the principle of irreversibility which states that if all processes involved are included in the consideration the total energy of the system goes down.
[24] See also “Looking for Life in the Multiverse” by Alegandro Jenkins and Gilad Perez, published in Scientific American January 10, 2010, Volume 302, Number 1, in which the concept of multiple other universes, each having it own laws of physics, is discussed and where it is suggested that some of such universes may contain structures and laws that may be hospitable to life.
[25] For example, scientists have measured dark energy as having a value of 6 x 10-9 ergs of energy per cubic centimeter of space. If this value were even slightly larger, the universe would have expanded so rapidly that matter could never have coalesced into stars, or if this value were only very slightly smaller then the universe would have collapsed long before stard could form. Without stars, we would not exist.
[26] It should be noted that if the multiverse theory is correct and other universes exist, we cannot confirm their existence because they will be controlled by parameters that differ from the parameters that control our universe in ways that prohibit our sensing them. If they cannot be sensed, then science cannot confirm or deny their existence. As such, the existence of a multiverse must be accepted on faith. Hence, the concept of the multiverse might require an intersection of science and religion.
[27] Note that this same reasoning applies to our earth. We note that it is at exactly the proper distance from exactly the correct star to give rise to and support life as we know it. It is not by some cosmic design that this occurred. It occurred because there are an infinite number of stars and an infinite number of planets, with most of those stars and planets not having the exact conditions for life as we know it…and they do not have such life. However, because there are so many planets and stars and time, the law of probability will support the conclusion that due to the existence of so many chances, it is certain that somewhere, sometime one star/planet combination will exist that will give rise to the conditions which will allow life as we know it to come into existence and then to prosper. Furthermore, as will be later discussed, the same reasoning applies to the creation of our universe itself: probability combined with infinite time will allow a universe to self-create.
[28] With regard to using science as a tool to assist in reasoning the existence of God, it should be remembered that simply because science is very good at understanding and predicting what happened in our universe after creation of the universal universe, does not, per se, mean that science can understand what happened before creation of the universal universe. Creation of the universal universe was such a singularity, it is impossible for our science to understand what happened based on what we our senses tell us now. Science is very good at applying reason to explain or predict events which can be sensed or confirmed using our senses; however, that does not mean that reason can be used to visualize things that cannot be sensed or confirmed by our senses. Even though science can analyze what happened to our universe it simply cannot analyze what happened at the creation of the universal universe which contains many universes, including our universe. However, simply because we do not, and maybe cannot, know what happened before and at the instant the universal universe was created does not mean that we should not try to visualize either scientifically or philosophically what happened and why. We can apply reason to questions to which our answers can be confirmed or denied via our senses.
Even with all the tools available to modern science, and that will be available to scientists in the future, as applied to questions which lie in realms that are not possibly accessible by our senses, we must rely on faith. Thus, while questions such as the existence of dark matter, quantum particles, and the like are within our world and thus can be confirmed or denied using our senses, although some of these entities are presently beyond our senses, someday we will have instruments which can sense them and their existence can be confirmed or denied and thus these quantities can be reached by reason. However, questions such as the existence of God associated with the universe of universes, absolute evil, absolute good, absolute truth, absolute justice, etc are not within the realm or reach of our senses because they lie outside this world, and thus we must rely on faith to accept their existence.
More specifically, with regard to using Carroll’s teaching in this reasoning process, it should be remembered that perhaps, someday, we will be able to inhabit one of the other universes which are included in the overall universe, and from that vantage point observe things about our own universe which will suffice for observation of the beginning of our own universe so that science can then form an observation-based explanation regarding our universe. From that vantage point, we may be able to understand the facts surrounding the beginning of our own universe. However, even from that vantage point, we will not be able to see or sense the beginning of the overall universe. That is simply impossible.
[29] August 2014, Volume 311, Number 2, pages 37-43.
[30] However, as discussed elsewhere, it is possible to envision a way that our universe was created from nothing if one views the question through the lens of quantum physics and probablitiy theory which says that anything, anything, has some probability of occurring, albeit a very minute probability (like the chair upon which the reader is seated spontaneously levitating into another room – possible, but highly improbable). This anything can be the spontaneous explosion we call the Big Bang with no cause. Such an occurrence is highly improbable, but since there is some (albeit minute) possibility of it happening, given sufficient time, such an event might occur. Given that time is infinite, such an event seems to be inevitable.