Some
of our modern physicists and cosmologists are infatuated with the
idea of the multiverse, that there may be many other universes beyond
our own. There is no sound scientific basis for such an infatuation.
For one thing, the multiverse is typically imagined as a group of
universes that are completely isolated from each other, without
agents from one of these universes entering into or influencing
another universe. Given such an arrangement, there is no possibility
of someone in one universe being able to verify the existence of some
other universe or to make observations of it or to verify that some
effect in his universe was produced by some other universe or some
agent in that other universe.
Another
reason why the concept of a multiverse is not scientifically solid is
that it has no explanatory value. If the other universes in a
multiverse are isolated from our own, the idea of a multiverse is
worthless for explaining any of the phenomena in our universe. We
also cannot explain the fine-tuning of our universe by imagining the
existence of many other universes. This is mainly because of the
simple fact that the probability of success on any one random trial
is not increased by increasing the number of trials (for example, you
don't increase your chance of winning the lottery with any particular
lottery ticket if you buy lots of tickets). So a multiverse would
not make it more likely that our particular universe would have been
so fine-tuned by chance. The chance of our universe having suitable
characteristics by pure chance does not increase by even 1 percent if
there are an infinite number of universes. See here for a fuller
explanation of why the multiverse idea is not suitable for explaining
cosmic fine-tuning.
The
idea of a multiverse (as typically imagined) is therefore
metaphysical and useless. But is there some leaner and more
parsimonious concept we might formulate involving some other universe
– perhaps some concept that might be of some explanatory value? It
seems there is. Let us imagine what I may call the paraverse.
The
term paraverse is formed from the end of the word “universe” and
from the prefix “para,” which means “beside” or “to the
side of.” We can define a paraverse as some hypothetical realm of
existence that is in some sense connected to our universe in a way that
allows information and causes to flow between our universe and this
other realm of existence.
The
two main differences between the multiverse concept and the paraverse
concept are as follows:
- The multiverse concept postulates many other universes, while the paraverse concept postulates only a single other realm of existence.
- The multiverse idea typically postulates universes that are completely isolated from each other, without communication or interaction between any two of the universes; but conversely the paraverse concept says there may indeed be interaction or communication between our universe and some other realm of existence, with perhaps causes and effects sometimes flowing between the two.
The
visual below illustrates the difference between the two ideas. The
arrows represent interaction or communication.
In
imagining a paraverse we should be as flexible and open-minded as
possible. A paraverse might be a very physical place such as we know.
Or it might be some very different ethereal existence very different
from our existence. Beings living in a paraverse might be biological
beings, or they might be beings of energy or purely spiritual beings.
There
are various possibilities regarding interaction between a paraverse
and our universe. Such interaction could flow purely from the
paraverse to our universe, without anyone in our universe being able
to influence or visit anyone in the paraverse. Or there could be
two-way interaction between our universe and the paraverse.
Conceivably a mind in our universe could somehow be able to
visit or even migrate to the paraverse.
Given
such possibilities, you might ask: why even use such a term as
“paraverse,” when we might use older terms such as Heaven or the
Other Side? One reason might be to be more general and open-minded in
your consideration, and to avoid previously established religious
associations. The term “Heaven” has all kinds of associations
with Christian theology, while the term “the Other Side” has
various associations with spiritualist thinking. Without excluding
either, someone might prefer to use the word “paraverse” to be
more general, without locking into some particular set of
assumptions. The term “paraverse” does not specifically imply
some belief in life-after-death, although the concept may be quite
compatible with such a belief (as life-after-death might possibly
occur in some type of paraverse being considered).
The
fact that we do not observe such a paraverse with our eyes or our
telescopes is no basis for excluding the possibility of such a
paraverse. Our eyes can see only a small fraction of the
electromagnetic spectrum, and we can't see much of the substance in
our universe. Scientists tell us most of the universe is made of the
dark energy or dark matter we can't see. There could be many types of
substance or mass-energy, each of which is visible only to beings
made of that type of mass-energy. For example, if we are made of the
seventh type of mass-energy, we might be able to see only the
seventh type of mass-energy, and no other type. Standing right next
to you, unobserved, might be beings made out of the other six types
of mass-energy, which might be able to pass through you like neutrino
particles are constantly passing through our bodies, unnoticed.
Can
we consider this paraverse concept as a scientific hypothesis?
Absolutely. Arguments against such a claim do not stand up to
scrutiny. One rather ridiculous argument goes along these lines: we
must reject the idea of some other world or unseen powers that
influence our own world, because once we accept such an idea we would
have to throw away our science textbooks and start over. This
type of statement is just absurd. I think that 98% of the text in our
current science textbooks could be preserved unchanged even if we
were to find that some external influence outside our world was
influencing our world. Topics such as geology, chemistry, anatomy,
physiology, zoology, and many others would need no revision, nor
would there be much change in topics such as physics or astronomy.
Another
weak argument against the paraverse possibility goes along these
lines: in order for scientists to do science, they must make the
assumption that the causes of physical phenomena are solely in our
own universe. This argument is invalid, and is really just what
we may call an argument from inconvenience. The argument refers to a
situation of maximum convenience for the scientist (one in which all
causes come only from within our universe), and we are kind of nudged
to think that because some other situation would be inconvenient for
the scientist, it would make science impossible. But that it is not
persuasive. A pharmacist could make a similar argument, arguing
fallaciously: in order for pharmaceutical scientists to do
science, they must make the assumption that bodily conditions are
determined purely by the pills patients take. But such an
argument would not be valid. The fact that it is inconvenient for a
scientist to have to consider a very wide spectrum of causes for
things does nothing to exclude the possibility that there may
actually be such a very wide spectrum of causes for things, including
some causes from some realm of existence outside of our own. The
truth or falsity of a hypothesis should not be judged by whether such
a hypothesis is inconvenient for a scientist or anyone else.
Could
the hypothesis of a paraverse be of any explanatory value? Indeed, it
might be. There are a great number of anomalous observations and
experiences that we might help to explain through a concept of a
paraverse: certain types of UFO experiences, near-death experiences,
mystical experiences, photographs of anomalous visual phenomena such
as orbs, and perhaps also certain types of mediumistic phenomena. There is
significant evidence that people in our universe have encounters with
phenomena that are very hard or impossible to explain. Swept under
the rug by our reality-filtering skeptics, such evidence may point to
the existence of some unseen paraverse that may causally influence
our own universe.
No comments:
Post a Comment