Today
some theorists speculate that there are many other universes in addition to our own. The multiverse is the name used for some hypothetical
set of a vast number of universes. But the idea of some other realm
outside of our universe (or “parallel” to our universe) was
advanced way before anyone started using the term “multiverse.”
For over 150 years it has been maintained that there exists some
realm of existence we can't see with our eyes, a plane of existence
where souls go to after death. Such a realm of existence is often
called the Other Side.
An
interesting question to consider is: which of these ideas is more
scientific – the Other Side or the multiverse?
Some
would argue that we should judge whether an idea is scientific based
on how much attention it gets among mainstream scientists. But such
reasoning is not valid. Reviewing definitions of “scientific,” I
see none that say anything like “popular among scientists.” I do
see some definitions that
say, “based on or characterized by the
methods and principles of science.”
Science is based on the
idea of empirical verification through observations and experiments.
So perhaps we should judge whether an idea is scientific based on
whether we can hope to empirically verify the idea, or at least
gather empirical evidence that substantially supports the idea,
making us think it is likely. Let's compare the multiverse and
the Other Side based on their prospects of empirical verification.
Looking at the multiverse
idea, we see a concept that has no real prospects of empirical
verification. We cannot imagine any observations we might make that
would lead us to say that we had substantial evidence of another
physical universe. The main reason why is that we can only observe things in
our universe.
Multiverse enthusiasts
have suggested otherwise, but their arguments are unpersuasive. It is
sometimes argued that if the cosmic inflation theory was verified,
that would give evidence for a multiverse. But this idea is not
correct. The cosmic inflation theory (at least in some of its many
forms) involves both the idea that the universe underwent an
exponential phase of expansion during its first second, and the idea
that our universe is only one of many “bubble universes.” The
only one of these claims that we could hope to verify is the first of
these claims. Verifying the first of these claims would not verify
the second claim, the idea that our universe is only one of many
“bubble universes.” If a theory involves an assertion of X and Y,
you do not prove Y merely by proving X.
Verifying something about
the first second of our universe would only tell us something about
our universe, and would not tell us anything about the existence of
any other universes.
Multiverse enthusiasts
have also suggested that we might find evidence for some other
universe by studying the cosmic background radiation, and seeing some
unusual spot, bump, or ring indicating a “collision with another
universe” early in time. Such an idea is fallacious. For one
thing, the cosmic background radiation has already been exhaustively
analyzed to an extreme degree, and no such thing has been found.
Secondly, even if some unusual spot, bump, or ring was found in the
cosmic background radiation, there would always be many ways to
plausibly explain it without the extravagant assumption of another
universe.
We also do not provide
evidence for a multiverse by providing evidence that our universe
seems to be fine-tuned or exquisitely well balanced. Evidence that
some particular thing looks like a designed thing can never be
properly argued as evidence for other universes. For example, it would be quite
absurd to argue along these lines:
Walking in the country,
I passed an arrangement of flowers that consisted of a grid of 30 evenly spaced rows
and 30 evenly spaced columns. Realizing that the plants were most
unlikely to achieve this arrangement by chance, I recognized that
this was evidence there must be many universes, because under such a
hypothesis we would expect such an arrangement to occur by chance at
least once.
It seems, therefore, that
the multiverse is on extremely weak ground in regard to empirical
verification. Not only is there no evidence for such a concept, but
the prospects of ever getting evidence are incredibly slim. It is
hard to imagine any plausible set of future observations that we
might have that would justify someone saying, “Aha, now there
is good evidence for another universe.”
Let's compare this
situation in regard to the idea of the Other Side. There we find a
very different situation. Many people think that there is very
substantial evidence for the Other Side, which has been steadily
accumulating for more than 150 years.
One of the main items of
evidence comes from mediums, people who claim to have contacted souls
on the Other Side. Some mediums have been exposed as frauds, but
some have had remarkably successful careers, and have stood up well to
scientific investigations. Three of the most famous examples are
Daniel Dunglas Home, Leonora Piper, and Gladys Osborne Leonard. In
more recent times scientists such as Gary Schwartz PhD and Julie
Beischel PhD have done controlled scientific studies of mediums in
which they scored far better than non-mediums when trying to gather information about the deceased relatives of unidentified individuals.
Another line of evidence
for the Other Side comes from near-death experiences. Those who have
such experiences frequently report briefly entering some kind of
mysterious other realm where they encounter deceased relatives.
So there is a substantial
body of observational evidence supporting the idea of the Other Side.
We may contrast this with the evidence situation in regard to the
multiverse. There are simply no corresponding observations – real
or alleged – in which people claim to have observed or experienced
any other universe that is part of a multiverse.
There is, to the best of
my knowledge, simply no one out there who is making any claims such
as the following:
I had this weird
experience. Suddenly I found myself drifting out to some strange
place where the laws of physics were very different from ours. All
the matter was arranged in some totally weird way unlike anything I
have ever seen. It must have been one of the alternate universes of
the multiverse.
To the best of my
knowledge, there is no one claiming to have experienced some other
physical universe of the multiverse, nor is there anyone claiming to
have made contact with some other inhabitants of another physical
universe of the multiverse. In terms of evidence, the idea of the
multiverse is on ridiculously weak empirical ground. But the idea of
the Other Side seems to have substantial observations to support it.
So which idea is more
scientific, the Other Side or the multiverse? If we judge the
question based on what is more fashionable in the halls of scientific
academia, the answer might be the multiverse. But if we judge the
matter based on the basis of which idea has more evidentiary support,
it seems we would conclude that the Other Side is more scientific
than the multiverse.
No comments:
Post a Comment