John Horgan writes that he thinks physicists are drawn to the multiverse idea (which he dislikes) because they cannot bear to think that our universe will end at some point. He postulates an explanation for why multiverse theories are so popular among physicists despite the lack of any supporting evidence for them.
Here is my guess: physicists are freaked out by the mortality of our little universe. What was born must die, and according to the big bang theory, our cosmos was born 14 billion years ago, and it will die at some unspecified time in the far future. The multiverse, like God, is eternal. It had no beginning; it will have no end.
He also claims that we are scared by the seeming randomness of the universe and by our own mortality.
We desperately want to believe that beneath the apparent randomness, someone or something is in control. God, for many people, is the tough but fair chief executive running this seemingly chaotic cosmic corporation. It is hard for us to see Her/His/Their plan, but She/He/They surely know what She/He/They are doing.
If you find the God hypothesis implausible, then perhaps an extreme form of determinism, called superdeterminism, might serve as a substitute. Superdeterminism attempts to eliminate several puzzling features of quantum mechanics, including the apparent randomness of quantum events and intrusive role of measurement. Two physicists I admire, Sabine Hossenfelder and Gerard ’t Hooft, have promoted the theory.
According to superdeterminism, the universe is not careening wildly into an unknowable future. It is gliding serenely, undeviatingly, along a rigid track laid down at the beginning of time. As a free-will fanatic I do not find this perspective comforting, but I understand why others do. If determinism is true, there is nothing you can do to change things, so sit back and enjoy the ride. Everything is as it should be—or must be.
I find Horgan’s grand speculations about science, life, and the universe (of which he does a lot) generally unpersuasive. I think that scientists explore the multiverse and other theories because that is what they do, explore all possible avenues that might be possible and provide answers to questions of interest. In the absence of a preponderance of evidence in favor of any particular one, which one they tend to personally prefer may depend upon their own predilections but it is not what drives science.
He also claims that we are scared by the seeming randomness of the universe and by our own mortality
Awww. As Nietzsche said, “ubermensch the fuck up.”
My feeble understanding of physics is that the multiverse theory answers or at least tries to some of the quandaries in modern physics and cosmology? I really don’t find his argument that the theories arose out of some metaphysical terror very convincing.
Plus what you said. 🙂
AFAIK, that isn’t what physics says.
Our universe will just continue expanding, getting emptier per unit volume, and colder forever and forever. It won’t die, whatever that means to a universe.
Also, AFAIK, scientists like the Multiverse hypothesis because it explains a whole lot of things. Notably, where did the Big Bang come from?
Why did it happen only once? Or did it only happen once? Can it happen again?
John Horgan? What does the Premier of British Columbia know about this sort of thing?
Oh, wrong John Horgan.
Mano:
Sure, but why even attempt to “provide answers to questions of interest” at all? Why explain or understand anything? Because you have to do something before your life is over. That is one way to console yourself during the process of dying.
I mean, he doesn’t seem to care much about the lack of evidence — no arguments to that effect, nor any emphasis placed on it — although you’d think that would be the way to go if he knew what’s talking about. So even if that weren’t a problem, you’d get the same sort of psychoanalysis. Because you’re human beings, so your motivations can always be interpreted in this manner and (if it’s desirable) attacked. You just can’t win here.
From the article:
This is actually the conjunction of naturalism (the first two sentences) and determinism (the third).
I’ve gotten the impression over the years that John Horgan is very much inclined to reject the former, as is fairly common. But he’s claiming that it’s the latter (which he doesn’t really seem to comprehend). Just a mess.
That’s pretty normal too, I guess: for as long as people have been complaining about “the clockwork universe,” the problem hasn’t usually been that the clock behaves deterministically but that it consists of any physical stuff whatsoever. If it were a deterministic magical clock, they’d be okay with that.
If he were more consistent, he would invoke terror management theory to explain this reaction of his as well.
Silly. That there is no more than a single determinate history of the universe doesn’t imply that “someone or something is in control.” Indeed, if there isn’t anything more, then there isn’t anything else to talk about which could be “controlling” it.
Then, he starts the conflation of determinism and superdeterminism. Also note that the latter also has nothing to do with quantum mechanical many-worlds theories, much less with other types of multiverse theories….
It’s just one damned incoherent thing after another. Pretty ridiculous that this crap is published in Scientific American.
edit: “if he knew what he’s talking about”
The only moments of existential dread I have felt due to physics, were when the Higgs boson was discovered. The observed mass implied that the vacuum underlying our spacetime might be metastable. If at some point there is quantum tunnelling to a stable vacuum, there will be a sphere of new vacuum expanding from that point at the speed of light, destroying everything it encounters.
Very unlikely to happen to us anytime soon, and we probably wouldn’t even know what hit us if it did, but it did cause me a few anxious moments.
Other than that: Horgan is full of it.
So what if physicists are driven by those emotions? I don’t care. What interests me is if the multiverse theory is correct and how we can know this. Interesting is something this John Horgan is not. I did not make it past the introduction.
I personally find the block universe idea more plausible and satisfying than the alternatives. And, in that view, it’s meaningless to talk about the beginning or the end of the universe.
First, why the hell does he think multiverse favoring physicist are any more influenced by bias than he is? Okay, his differing life experiences and preferences make him favor a single universe. So far so good. But I’m not seeing any evidence. Just some vague conception that, surprise -- surprise, his bias is right and their biases are wrong. As if this is the first time anyone has noticed that humans, even physicists, have preferences and preference often effect judgment.
What a fucking world-shattering revelation. It must be very gratifying to have such deeply meaningful and profound ideas and to know that you alone are gifted with special insight and that your preferences are inherently superior. I tell you we are obviously on the cusp of a modern renaissance that is emerging with this ground-breaking concept. The weighty and profound, ivory tower rattling, insights are just bubbling up with this one. Enlightenment for all mankind is clearly just one bean burrito and a warm fart away.
I’ve heard this sort of useless crap from every self-absorbed adolescent who has ever gone through a sulking, psudo-profound, navel gazing phase. I had one young man, belly full of cheap beer and a head full of smoke, tell me that his pain and the special way he was broken gave him profound, nearly God-like, insights. That I just wasn’t deep or smart enough to appreciate his genius. Two minutes later he passed out. I threw a blanket over him. From then on he was known as Genius.
This sort of thing only has value if it leads to testable, falsifiable, conclusions and someone does the work. Otherwise it is right up there with ‘have you ever really looked at your hand … wow … all those lines’.