God and the Multiverse
November 18, 2012. A Universe Finely Tuned for Life
Introduction
Sessions




PowerPoints available on-line at:
www.stjohnadulted.org/multiverse-home.htm
Nov 4: Introduction. A
Universe with a Beginning
Nov 11: A Multiverse with
a Beginning
Nov 18: A Universe Finely
Tuned for Life
Nov 25: An Orderly,
Rational, Comprehensible,
Beautiful Universe.
Conclusions.
Primary References
3. A Universe Finely Tuned For Life




Stephen M Barr, Modern Physics and Ancient Faith.
University of Notre Dame Press, 2006. ISBN-13: 9780268021986.
Robert J Spitzer, New Proofs for the Existence of God:
Contributions of Contemporary Physics and
Philosophy. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2010.
ISBN-13: 978-0802863836
Paul Davies, The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the
Universe Just Right for Life? Mariner Books, 2008.
ISBN-13: 978-0547053585.
Louis J Pojman, Philosophy of Religion, McGraw-Hill,
2001. ISBN-13: 978-0767408196.
Almighty and everlasting God, you made
the universe with all its marvelous order, its
atoms, worlds, and galaxies, and the
infinite complexity of living creatures:
Grant that, as we probe the mysteries of
your creation, we may come to know you
more truly, and more surely fulfill our role
in your eternal purpose; in the name of
Jesus Christ our Lord.
Book of Common Prayer, page 827. For Knowledge of God’s Creation
Introduction
Introduction
Goals

To show how discoveries in modern
astronomy and cosmology are:
compatible with a belief in a creator God,
 can be most rationally explained by a creator God
who deliberately created a universe — or
multiverse — that would be fruitful of life.

Introduction
Week 1: A Universe with a Beginning

Observational
cosmology has
firmly
established, from
multiple lines of
evidence, that
our universe
began 13.7
billion year ago
in an event called
“The Big Bang.”

The past is
finite; there is a
past limit to
physical reality
Introduction
Week 1: A Universe with a Beginning

Cosmology’s discovery that the universe had a
beginning empowers the traditional
Cosmological Argument for the existence of
God (The “second way” of St. Thomas
Aquinas, 1224-1274, based on the idea of
causation):
1. Everything we see in this world is caused.
 2. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
 3. There cannot be an infinite regress of causes
– because the universe has a beginning. The past
is finite.
Therefore:
 4. There must exist an uncaused first cause not
of this world
 5. The word God means “uncaused first cause
not of this world”.
 6. Therefore, God exists.

St. Thomas Aquinas
Introduction
Week 2: A Multiverse with a Beginning


There is not a shred of
observational evidence for any
physical reality beyond the
universe we see, the universe that
began with the Big Bang.
There are however some physical
theories that allow for (although do
not require) “other” universes or
“alternative” universes, not directly
observable from our own – other
universes:


that could have given rise to our own
universe,
whose existence would mean “the
Big Bang” was not truly the
beginning of all of physical reality.
Introduction
Week 2: A Multiverse with a Beginning
Our observable Universe
+
these unobservable “other”
or “alternative universes”
=
The “Multiverse”
Introduction
Week 2: A Multiverse with a Beginning

We considered all the serious Multiverse scenarios:






We found all these multiverses require a beginning because of
considerations of thermodynamics (the buildup of entropy) and
/or the Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem.


Level I Multiverse = “Quilted” Multiverse
Bouncing Multiverse
The Eternal or Chaotic Inflation Multiverse
The String / M-Theory Landscape Multiverse
Braneworld Cyclic Multiverse = Ekpyrotic Multiverse
There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine – including the
giant “machine” we call the “universe” or “multiverse.
This requirement for a beginning means a Multiverse also
empowers the Cosmological Argument for the existence of
God.
Introduction
This Week: A Universe Finely Tuned for Life

Goals this week:

Look at the “Teleological Argument” for the
existence of God, and learn how results from modern
cosmology empower this traditional argument for the
God’s existence.


In particular we will explore how various parameters in the
laws of physics seemed incredibly “fine tuned” or “adjusted”
to give rise to a universe that would be fruitful of life.
We will then look at the explanations for this apparent
“fine-tuning,” and using “Ockham’s razor,” suggest
the most rational, most satisfying explanation is the
existence of an unimaginably powerful and intelligent
designer, consistent with God.
The Teleological
Argument
Teleological Argument
Designed for a Purpose

The Teleological Argument
for the existence of God
starts with the premises that
the world exhibits:




(1) design, order, and
(2) intention, purpose.
That is: the world looks like it
was deliberately designed for
a purpose.
“Teleology” dictionary
definition: purposeful
development towards a final
end (from the Greek telos =
end, result)
Teleological Argument
Psalm 19
The heavens declare the glory of
God; the skies proclaim the work
of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth
speech; night after night they
reveal knowledge.
They have no speech, they use no
words; no sound is heard from
them.
Yet their voice goes out into all the
earth, their words to the ends of the
world. (Psalm 19: 1-4 NIV)
Teleological Argument
William Paley, Natural Theology

William Paley (1743-1805) gave the clearest sustained
treatment of the Teleological Argument in his
Natural Theology: Evidences of the Existence and
Attributes of the Deity Collected from the
Appearances of Nature (1802):


William Paley (1743-1805)
“In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against
a stone, and were asked how the stone came to be there:
I might possibly answer … it had lain there for ever ….
But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, … I
should hardly think of the answer which I had before
given … For … when we come to inspect the watch, we
perceive (what we could not discover in the stone) that
its several parts are framed and put together for a
purpose ... This mechanism being observed, the
inference is inevitable, that the watch must have had a
maker. ...”
“Every indication of contrivance, every manifestation of
design, which existed in the watch, exists in the works
of nature …”
Teleological Argument
William Paley, Natural Theology





1. Human artifacts (the watch) are products of
intelligent design. (Purpose)
2. The universe resembles these human artifacts.
3. Therefore: the universe is (probably) a product
of intelligent design. (Purpose)
4. But the universe is vastly more complex and
gigantic than a human artifact.
5. Therefore: there probably is a powerful and
vastly intelligent designer who designed the
universe.
Teleological Argument
Teleology in Function versus Structure

Two aspects of purposeful
design (= teleology) displayed
by the watch:
Orderliness and regularity in
function.
 Intricacy and complexity in
structure.

Teleological Argument
Teleology in Function versus Structure

In physics, we deal with some of
the most fundamental, simplest
entities in nature.


The Elementary Particles
For example, the “fundamental
particles” = elementary particles in
physics have (quite literally) zero
size: they appear to behave as
perfect geometric points. They have
no “structure.”
However elementary particles do
display a perfect orderliness and
regularity and symmetry in function
– so perfect that we say they obey
fundamental “laws” of physics
from which they never deviate
(specs + / - 0.000000 ….. 0000%!)
Teleological Argument
Teleology in Function versus Structure

On the other extreme, biological
systems display both:
Orderliness and regularity in
function (within certain finite specs)
 Intricacy and complexity in
structure. They are in fact the most
complex, intricate structures we
know of in the universe.

Teleological Argument
A Designer’s Modus Operandi

How might a designer work?

Directly: a designer who:
personally designs and constructs
all the many parts in a watch and,
 Personally fits those parts
together to make a working
watch.


Indirectly: a designer who:
personally designs and constructs
elementary parts in a watch and
 programs those parts so they can:

Victor Brindatch – Watchmaker


independently fit themselves
together to make a watch, or many
different watches;
can self-replicate to make copies
or variations of themselves.
Teleological Argument
A Designer’s Modus Operandi

The designer of the cosmos has
clearly worked largely indirectly,
making it more difficult to find
unambiguous “evidence” for
purposeful design in large and
complex structures,

most especially in the most
complex structures of all,
biological systems, with:


The Evolution of Horses. Figure from Campbell Biology
9th Ed, Reece et al, Benjamin Cummings, p. 531.
Intricate, well-developed methods of
self-repair, of reproduction, and
an ability to change and evolve in
reaction to stressors (“selectors”) in
the environment, via a feedback loop
called “natural selection.”
Teleological Argument
Purposeful Design in Biology Systems

Because of this independence in biological
systems, their ability to reproduce and evolve,
efforts to “prove” intelligent design in biological
systems is:




However, the feedback loop of “natural
selection” as an engine for evolution certainly
does not rule out a designer who:



problematic,
only suggestive at best,
misguided when it attempts to “prove” the
feedback loop of “natural selection” is an
inadequate engine for evolution.
desires to work indirectly,
desires to give biological systems a degree of
independence to “make themselves.”
That is: it cannot prove the watchmaker is
“blind;” it cannot prove the universe is “without
design.”
Teleological Argument
Purposeful Design in Biology Systems

PowerPoints for God After Darwin at:
http://www.stjohnadulted.org/god-darwin.htm
Please see the series
“God after Darwin”
and its references for
further information.
Teleological Argument
Purposeful Design in the Cosmos





The Elementary Particles
Our goal today is much simpler.
We will ask if there is evidence for purposeful
design in the fundamental “laws” of physics, the
laws which govern – which precisely prescribe –
the behavior of the most fundamental, the most
elementary entities in nature.
We now know the universe began as an
unimaginably hot cauldron of nothing but these
elementary entities, these elementary particles.
Yet, this hot brew evolved, grew, matured into a
diverse universe fruitful of life and consciousness,
Somehow the potentiality for this universe of life
and consciousness was built into, was latent in that
unimaginably hot brew of elementary particles,
particles whose behavior is prescribed by the
fundamental law of physics.
Anthropic
Coincidences
Anthropic Coincidences
A “Goldilocks” Universe




Anthropic Coincidences = many features of the laws of
physics seem to coincide exactly with what is required for the
emergence of life.
As we have learned more about how the laws of physics
determines the conditions and structures in the universe, the
presence of these “anthropic coincidences,” the degree of
apparent “fine-tuning” in the laws of physics to produce
conditions and structures necessary for life has become so
obvious, so egregious that many cosmologist now consider it a
scientific problem in need of a solution.
We seem to live in a “Goldilocks” universe, in which the law
of physics seem to be “just right” for life.
We will look at 3 examples to get a “favor” of these anthropic
coincidences. (for others, see Chapter 15 in Barr, Chapter 7 in
Davies references)
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 1: Strength of the Strong Force

As of 2012,
there are five
basic “forces”
in nature, each
force with its
own set of
“force-carrying”
boson
elementary
particle(s).
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 1: Strength of the Strong Force
Protons, neutrons:
composite particles
composed of 3 quarks


The Strong Nuclear
Force is the force that
confines three elementary
particles called quarks to
form the composite
particles called protons
and neutrons.
It is also the force that
binds these composite
particles, the protons and
neutrons, together to
form the nucleus of an
atom.
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 1: Strength of the Strong Force

The number of protons in a
nucleus defines the identity of
the element.
Nitrogen (7)
Oxygen (8)
Sodium (11)
Magnesium (12)
Phosphorus (15)
Chlorine (17)
Potassium (19)
Calcium (20)
Iodine (53)
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 1: Strength of the Strong Force

Only the lightest elements were made in the “fires” of the Big Bang:





Hydrogen (1)
Helium (2)
Lithium (3)
All the heavier elements are “cooked” in the interior of stars and in
the “fires” of supernova explosions, “fusing” lighter elements (=
small number of protons) into heavier elements (= larger number of
protons).
Many “heavier” elements are necessary for life:






Carbon (6 protons)
Nitrogen (7 protons)
Oxygen (8 protons)
Sodium (11 protons)
Potassium (19 protons)
Calcium (20 protons)
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 1: Strength of the Strong Force

The cooking of the
heavier elements in the
interior of stars, “fusing”
lighter elements (= small
number of protons) into
heavier elements (=
larger number of
protons), is what allows a
star to “burn,” producing
light and heat for billions
of years – because the
fusing of elements
lighter than iron into
heavier elements
releases energy.
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 1: Strength of the Strong Force


If the Strong Nuclear Force were 10%
weaker than it actually is, then the Strong
Nuclear Force would not be strong enough to
hold protons together. The universe would
consist only of hydrogen (one proton).
If the Strong Nuclear Force were 4%
stronger than it actually is, then small stars
like the Sun:



instead of burning slowly over billions of
years fusing lighter elements into heaver
elements,
would instead be able to fuse all their lighter
elements into heavier elements in a mere few
million years.
There would never be enough time for planets
to form or life to evolve.
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 2: The Triple Alpha Process

During the “fires” of the Big
Bang:


gets fused into:



lots of hydrogen (1 proton, 0 or 1
neutrons)
helium (2 protons, 1 or 2 neutrons)
especially helium-4 (2 protons, 2
neutrons)
Helium-4 is a very, very stable
nucleus, and has another name:
alpha particle.
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 2: The Triple Alpha Process


Once you have carbon12 (6 protons, 6
neutrons), it is “clear
sailing” to build up
heavier elements by
successively fusing
helium-4 nuclei (=
alpha particles).
But there is a big
problem getting to
carbon-12 from
helium-4.
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 2: The Triple Alpha Process

1.
You might think you
could just:
(1) fuse two Helium-4
nuclei to form
Beryllium-8, then
 (2) fuse another
Helium-4 nuclei to the
Beryllium-8 nucleus
to form Carbon-12.

2.
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 2: The Triple Alpha Process

1.
2.
But helium-4 is so
stable that two of them
will not stick together
to form beryllium-8.
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 2: The Triple Alpha Process

There seemed to
be no reasonable
way to form
carbon-12 – the
atom that is basis
for organic
chemistry and the
processes of life!
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 2: The Triple Alpha Process


This was the problem that Fred Hoyle
was working on in 1957.
We met Fred Hoyle in Session 1:


Fred Hoyle was the atheist who derisively
coined the term “Big Bang” because the
idea smacked of religion.
In 1948 he, along with Hermann Bondi
and Thomas Gold had proposed the
Steady State Theory to avoid a “Big
Bang”:


Fred Hoyle, 1915-2001
the universe had existed for an infinite time
and had always been expanding just as we
now see it.
a “creation field” pervaded the universe, a
field in which matter was being
continuously created to make up for the
thinning out due to the cosmic expansion.
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 2: The Triple Alpha Process

Hoyle was
investigating the
possibility that
maybe you could
get three helium4 nuclei (= alpha
particles) to
come together
simultaneously to
make carbon-12
(the “Triple
Alpha” process)
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 2: The Triple Alpha Process


The research team headed by
Fred Hoyle at Cambridge
University working on
nucleosynthesis
Hoyle calculated that if the
carbon-12 nucleus just happened
to have a particular natural
vibrational frequency with energy
of 7.7 MeV, that would – through
resonance – enhance the
likelihood of the triple alpha
process enough to make it
possible to get the amount of
carbon-12 we see in the universe.
In response to Hoyle’s prediction,
experimental nuclear physicists
measured the vibrational energy
levels of the carbon-12 nucleus
and found it indeed had a level
that was “just right:” 7.7 MeV.
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 2: The Triple Alpha Process
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 2: The Triple Alpha Process


Fred Hoyle, 1915-2001
Hoyle was so deeply struck by this apparent
“fine-tuning” in the vibrational energy level
in carbon-12 that he “lost his atheism.” He
later wrote:
‘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.”’
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 3: The Stability of the Proton

Not all subatomic particles are stable; many of them
“decay” or disintegrate after a while into other types of
particles.


Neutrons have a half-life of about ten minutes.




The “half-life” tells how long a particle will live before it
decays.
they usually disintegrate into a proton, an electron, and an
anti-neutrino.
Protons however are stable particles and do not decay.
This simple fact has profound significance, for the
nucleus of ordinary hydrogen (hydrogen 1) consists of
one proton
If protons did decay, then:


there would be no ordinary hydrogen in the world.
Without hydrogen, there would be no water, no organic
molecules, no hydrogen-burning stars like the Sun — in
short no possibility of life as we know it.
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 3: The Stability of the Proton


Why is the proton stable and the
neutron unstable?
The key is that the neutron is a tiny bit
heavier than the proton:



neutron mass: 939.565 MeV
proton mass: 938.272 MeV
A heavier particle can decay into a
lighter particle, but not the other way
around.

By E=mc2, a “heavier” particle has more
mass-energy than a lighter particle, and so
can “decay” into a lighter particle with a
release of energy.
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 3: The Stability of the Proton


Why is the neutron slightly heavier
than the proton?
Because:




the proton consists of two up quarks
and one down quark
The neutron consists of one up quark
and two down quarks.
up quarks are lighter than down
quarks.
No one knows why the up quark is
lighter than the down quark. And
you might expect it to be otherwise.
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 3: The Stability of the Proton

Charge +2/3
Charge -1/3

In the second and
third families of
quarks, the quark
with charge +2/3
weighs more than
the quark with
charge -1/3.
But in the first
family of quarks
(the up and down
family), it is the
opposite, the up
quark (charge
+2/3) is lighter
than the down
quark (charge 1/3).
Anthropic Coincidences
Example 3: The Stability of the Proton
The Three Quark Families
Charge 1st Family
2nd Family
+2/3
Up quark
Charm quark
(~.003 GeV) (1.3 GeV)
-1/3
Down quark
(.006 GeV)
3rd Family
Top (or Truth)
quark
(171 GeV)
Strange quark Bottom (or
(0.1 GeV)
Beauty) quark
(4.2 GeV)
Heavier quark in each family in red. Lighter quark in each family in green.
Explaining the
Anthropic
Coincidences
Explanations
A “Goldilocks” Universe

There are two primary options to explain why we
seem to live in a “Goldilocks” universe, a
universe in which the laws of physics seem to be
“just right” for life:
1. the laws of physics are “just right” by pure chance.
 2. some “super-calculating intellect” has monkeyed
with the law of physics, fine-tuned them, so they
produce a universe fruitful of life.

Explanations
A “Goldilocks” Universe


The idea that the laws of the physics
are “just right” by pure chance is an
astonishingly bold explanation.
Analogy: you a holding a book
entitled Hamlet in your hands. What
is the origin of this book? Possible
options:


It is book written with a purposeful
design by an author, or
There is an unimaginably enormous
array of books filled with random
letters, one of which (the one in our
hands) contains by random chance the
text of Hamlet.
Explanations
A “Goldilocks” Universe in a Multiverse

The explanation that the law of physics are “just
right” by pure chance invokes the idea of a
multiverse, asserting there must exist a multiverse:



consisting of an unimaginably enormous array of
universes that have “random” laws of physics with
random parameters,
all or nearly all of these universes are dead and sterile,
But we just happen to live in the one universe where all
the parameters, by random chance, are “just right” for
life.
Explanations
A “Goldilocks” Universe in a Multiverse

The Multiverse explanation does “work” as an
explanation, with some caveats:
Some would say it is not a “physics” explanation, but
a “metaphysical” explanation, since none of the other
universes in the multiverse can ever be observed or
detected.
 Some would argue that the “meta-laws” of the
multiverse would still require “fine-tuning” to make
sure it had the potential, the possibility, within its
array of mostly sterile universes, to produce at least
one universe fruitful of life.

Explanations
A Universe Designed to be Fruitful of Life


The alternative explanation is that some “supercalculating intellect” has monkeyed with the
law of physics, fine-tuned them, so they
produce a universe fruitful of life = God.
The advantage of this explanation is that it is
simpler, more in keeping with “Ockham’s
Razor:”




William of Ockham,
~1290-1349
Named after William of Ockham (1290—1349)
Sometimes called the “principle of parsimony.”
States: “entities are not to be multiplied beyond
necessity.”
Razor metaphor connotes that useless or
unnecessary material should be cut away from
any explanation and the simplest hypothesis
accepted.
Next Time:
An Orderly, Rational,
Comprehensible,
Beautiful Universe