Perspectives on the Multiverse Theory: an excerpt from The Wonder of the World: A Journey From Modern Science to the Mind of God, pages 252-254

The recurrence of the cyclic model in cosmology is matched by the appearance under different guises of the multiverse theory, the notion that there are an infinite number of universes. One variant of it was the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum physics. Every quantum event in the cosmos, like the collapse of the wavefunction of a particle, creates multiple new universes. A new universe is created for every possible outcome of the quantum event. These new universes themselves split into other universes and all the universes evolve in parallel. There's no way to prove the theory since no physical evidence is possible in principle; no contact is possible between any of the universes. Another evidence-less multiverse idea is the theory that black holes create baby universes because of their enormous energies, and these also evolve in parallel. Again, we cannot reach out and touch these universes since it's impossible to make it in and out of a black hole. The latest multiverse idea, we have seen, is the bubble universe model of the inflationary theorists. In Linde's model, universes spring out of quantum energy-fields at random everywhere and all the time. Astronomers like Martin Rees have speculated that the apparent fine-tuning in the universe exists because at least one of the infinitely many universes will have the particular constants and conditions that made life possible. He admits, however, that the scientific case for a multitude of universes lies on the speculative fringe of cosmology; the idea is built on guesses not laws or evidence.

Certainly there's no prohibition on theorists concocting theories that can't be scientifically verified immediately. At that point the theories become metaphysical and should be judged as philosophies. But if a theory is to qualify as scientific it can't wander too far from the experimental data. The great astrophysicist Robert Jastrow, an experimentalist of the highest order, once said that theoretical physicists sometimes let their mathematics run wild while anchoring it to very little in the way of observation. Another experimentalist, Saul Perlmutter, notes that theorists tend to go overboard for whatever is the latest new idea, whereas experimenters like him tend to assume the universe is very complicated and each new item of information shows how much we don't know.

There is one thing all multiverse theories share in common: there's no physical/empirical evidence available to prove them. Neither are there any established laws of physics that indicate their existence. It's a purely speculative play. It's less science than it's science fiction. The scientist James Trefil notes, "The reason that the notion of parallel universes seems to go in and out of fashion is that cosmologists never construct theories to deal solely with this phenomenon. They are always trying to adjust a theory to produce the right mass density for the universe, for example, or the right proportion of dark matter. In each case, the question of whether or not the theory also predicts parallel universes is something of an afterthought." In a sense, he concludes, "whether or not we are thinking about parallel universes at a given time is an accidental consequence of the prevailing cosmological theories."

Even if we grant the existence of parallel universes, we're still no closer to answering the question we started with: why is there something and not sheer nothingness? Where did this ensemble of universes come from? If it is from fundamental laws and processes that incarnate themselves in a primordial field, how did those laws or the field with its potentialities originate? The Princeton cosmologist J. Richard Gott, who talks of a mother universe from which other universes emerge, says the mother universe, which is sustained by energy from the quantum world, creates itself and makes the first matter in some way we will never be able to know. We're back to square one. Alan Guth is well known for his comment that the universe is the ultimate free lunch. Inflation shows that everything can be created from nothing, he says, and then adds "or at least from very little;" on other occasions he has said, "well, almost nothing."

The common thread in all the theories we have surveyed is a tendency to substitute physical facts with metaphysical conjectures. There is nothing inherently wrong with metaphysics. But metaphysics that contradicts self-evident truths is as wrong-headed as a scientific theory that contradicts hard facts. Clearly, what's self-evident to one person may not seem so to another. But what we call self-evident truths are the principles that are pre-supposed by science. These can't be verified by science but we can't do science without assuming their truth. For instance, we assume that there's an explanation for every phenomenon without claiming that we can discover the explanation. If a metaphysical theory rejects this assumption, it must first justify its rejection before it can be taken seriously.

In the final analysis, any hypothesis about the ultimate origin and/or nature of the universe, or multiverse if you prefer, that goes beyond experimental evidence, has to address the issue of whether or not it has an ultimate explanation, an explanation that tells us why there is something instead of nothing. If you say the universe always existed, then you still need to explain the phenomenon of an eternally existing universe. How did it come to be that there is a universe with this property of endless existence? The only viable explanation, in my view, is a source of existence that has no limitation.

For more about the multiverse theory, the origins of the universe, and the dialogue between science and religion, read the book The Wonder of the World: A Journey From Modern Science to the Mind of God.

Read the message from the author: For Theists (believers in God/Theos) of Every Creed and Color